Vol 21, No 1 (2017)

Christian Wolff, a one of the most well-known philosophers of the first half of the 18th century, is the figure quite ambiguous. In spite of the fact, that he is usually ranged chronologically among the thinkers of Enlightenment, there are researchers which find in his philosophical views some features inherent more to the scholastic tradition. But there are also the features which demonstrate Wolff as the thinker of Enlightenment. At the first it is Wolff’s striving to praise the human reason and its capacities, that comes together with the fight for its liberation and independence, among all from God. We can show it with the greatest evidence in his practical philosophy, in which he tries to deduce the natural law, which he hold for the first principle of the morality, from the human nature and to give it the justification independent from God and His will.

Bhartṛhari, the famous Indian linguistic philosopher (V CE) in his ‘Vākyapadīya’ discussed different doctrines on the nature of language, tending to demonstrate, that each of the doctrines is justified in a certain context and represents a certain aspect of reality. Modern scholars usually designate Bhartṛhari’s philosophy as perspectivism, though there are also disagreements with this interpretation. E.g. G. Cardona claims that Bhartṛhari’s perspectivism is generally exaggerated, and the true teaching expressed in VP is the monistic theory of the “Pāṇini-darśana”. So, the concept of Bhartṛhari's perspectivism needs to be further eleborated. In this paper two characteristic features of Bhartṛhari’s perspectivism are discussed, in order to clarify the essence of his philosophical strategy: (1) Functional attitude; (2) Relative incompleteness of every single doctrine. These features elucidate the essence of Bhartṛhari's philosophical method and provide us with the key to the problem of the balance between monistic and pluralistic tendencies in the ‘Vākyapadīya’.

The Ideas of Leo Tolstoy are one of the key catalyzers for the emergence of the “new religious consciousness” and religious philosophy at the beginning of the XX century in Russia. Many religious philosophers who, unlike Leo Tolstoy, believed in the possibility of reforming the Russian Orthodox Church, developed detailed arguments both for and against Tolstoy’s moral doctrine. As for faith in Christ resurrection, art of understanding, attitude to “this world”, progress and culture, many of them followed the ideas of Vladimir Solovyov, who had sharply criticized the views of Leo Tolstoy. In 1912 the publishing house called “The Way” released a book “About Leo Tolstoy’s religion”, it was dedicated to the memory of the deceased Count in 1910, which would serve as “his own great task” - “religious awakening of modern society” - and at the same time to deal with the errors of Tolstoy. The results of debate with the Tolstoy’s religion had given a good basis for the projections of the key issues of Russian philosophy: first, the relationship between faith and reason, and secondly, the relationship between spirit and nature, and thirdly, the conflict between the individual and society, fourthly, purpose and meaning of human creativity and culture. In view of the different interpretations of the ideas of Leo Tolstoy Russian religious philosophy revealed itself not as a homogenous unity, but they demonstrated diversity of personal aspirations of its members. What they have in common are the appreciation of the literary work of Russian writer and his lofty moral claims, but at the same time, they separated themself from him, in order to remain faithful to Church dogmas.

Note de Jean-Luc Nancy:

Je remercie beaucoup Svetlana Kostina qui avait assuré la traduction orale de la conférence et en a par la suite réalisé la transcription. Une transcription est toujours un exercice presque impossible car les hésitations, les accidents et même les inflexions de la parole vive improvisée restent impossibles à transcrire — et gênent en revanche le travail de restitution. Réécrire serait une tout autre entreprise, qui produirait un autre texte. Svetlana a fait ici un travail très remarquable de fidélité, que je ne veux pas modifier. Si tel ou tel passage paraît moins clair, c’est qu’il lui manque la parole ou bien c’est qu’il était moins clair sur le moment! La clarté n’est pas le seul fruit de la parole.

In the present work is a translation of the short introductory work of Turin’s Professor Roberto Salizzoni dedicated to the analysis of art of M.M. Bakhtin and some reflections of the author of the translation, which led him to assess creativity Russian thinker, present in this book of the Italian scientist. First of all, the author of the translation does not agree with the disparaging assessment of creativity of Bakhtin how unoriginal and more abounding plagiarism. The author of the translation argues injustice exaggerated influence on the concept of Bakhtin from literary trends and ideas, including by the media those of the so-called “circle of Bakhtin”. The necessity of considering of creativity of Russian thinker as philosophical, creativity independent and original. Such a conclusion can fail and approval of Neokantian origin of “philosophical roots” of Bakhtin’s concept of philosophy of culture.