Исследуя философские и мировоззренческие основы художественной прозы А.Ф. Лосева, Джорджия Римонди приходит к выводу о том, что эстетическое (символическое и музыкальное) познание является у А.Ф. Лосева средством постижения глубины человеческого бытия не менее значительным, чем познание рассудочное, а музыка, философия и литература различаются между собой лишь способом передачи смысла. Всвоей работе автор предпринимает попытку эксплицировать эстетическую концепцию А.Ф. Лосева через реконструкцию выраженных в прозе музыкально-философских воззрений, представляющих собой проекцию всей его философской системы.Творческое наследие А.Ф. Лосева представлено в данном исследовании как (...) сложное и многослойное явление, основанное на строгой понятийной системе. Внутреннюю цельность всего его творчества подтверждают и многочисленные ссылки в рассказах, повестях и романах на его собственные философские работы, благодаря чему изучение выразительных средств художественной прозы А.Ф. Лосева приводит к неизбежному выводу об общих корнях философии и литературы. (shrink)

The researcher scrutinizes one peculiar historical and philosophical fact which has been generally overlooked when studying Dostoevsky. The analysis of the writer's works was carried out by the outstanding Russian philosopher Aleksei Losev at the Russian Academy of Artistic Sciences. The article also provides further information on Losev's work at the Academy in the 1920s. Special regard is paid to the Russian philosopher's activities in the Literary Section in 1927-1929. The author provides ample evidence of the special treatment Losev paid (...) to Dostoevsky, including numerous discussions of reports on the Russian writer's oeuvre. The article draws attention to the fact that the main focus of Losev's analysis of Dostoevsky was the writer's symbolism. It is noted that Losev turned to the study of such as early as in the 1920s. However, the philosopher managed to publish his findings much later. According to Losev, symbolic images pervade all of Dostoevsky's works. Based on the comprehensive evaluation of archival sources and their comparison, the article unveils a picture of the Russian philosopher's activity and agenda. That helps us better grasp the range of his scholarly interests, significantly expands the opportunities for further research into this period of Losev's life and provides new data for the GAKhN history. (shrink)

The paper analyses Aleksei F. Losev’s position in respect to the notion of time, which he considers in a dialectical perspective. The Russian philosopher proceeds from the Platonic interpretation of the relationship between the one and the many, according to which each plurality carries in itself a unifying principle, as its ontological grounding. This anti-modern perspective represents a rejection of the positivist “objectification” of the world, which introduced the “metaphysical” notions of absolute space and time. According to Losev, time as (...) an indefinite continued progress of events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession does not exist as such and cannot be considered other than within the framework of the overall unity of temporal fragments, so that they acquire a common background. By placing the interpretation of time on the ontological plan, in its dialectical connection with its opposite, Losev manages to overcome the problem of the measurability of time, raised in Aristotle’s definition of time as a “measure of motion.” Losev also rejects modern subjectivist ideas about time as an experience of the present or as pure duration, both conceptions inevitably leading to the problem of identifying in the continuous flow of time a stable ground that serves as the basis for any temporal change. Besides that, Losev’s approach to the interpretation of time leads to criticism of the modern idea of progress, understood as an endless striving for the future, which always remains unattainable. The main task then is to find “mobile rest,” a unifying principle that can give meaning to human existence through the combination of past, present and future. (shrink)