Philosophy and Literature: the wey towards the dialogue
Keywords:
history of philosophy, text, cultural assimilation, philosophical discourse, literary discourse, dialogue
Abstract
The author analyzes the relebans issue of interaction between philosophical and literary discourses. The main attention in the material focuses on the spheres of mutual influence between philosophy and artistic literature. It has been indicated that the possibilities of interaction are dictated not only by cultural landmarks, but also by socio-historical preconditions.The author tries to prove that literature can be a source of philosophizing, but at the same time philosophy comprehends literature. This leads to the formation of special disciplinary formations that have the ability to rethink and redefine the very practice of writing and practice of philosophizing. But at the same time, we understand that modernity does not give us reason to deduce a common denominator under literature and philosophy. After all, there are such literary practices that are very close to philosophy, as if being assimilated with it, but there is also a large number of philosophical practices that are as close to literature as possible. The author proves that the interaction of philosophy and fiction occurs in all historical periods, and only the format and mechanisms of such interaction change.References
1. Avtonomova, N.G. (2001). Filosofiya i filologiya (o rossiyskich diskussiyach 90-h) [Philosophy and philology (about Russian discussions 90-h)]. Logos, 4, 91-105 [in Russian].
2. Avtonomova, N.G. (2011). Filisofskiy yazyk Zhaka Derrida [Philosophical language of Jacques Derrida]. Moscow: ROSSPEN [in Russian].
3. Azhymov, F.E. (2010). Metafizicheskie problemy vzaimootnoshenia filosofii I literatury [Metaphysical problems of the relationship between philosophy and literature]. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya v Vostochnoy Sibiri s na Dalnem Vostoke, 3, 56-62 [in Russian].
4. Gol’dman, L. (1987). Strukturno-geneticheskiy metod v istorii literatury [Structural-genetic method in the history of literature]. Moscow: MGU [in Russian].
5. Ermolenko, V. (2011). Opovidach i filosof Valter Beniamin i yogo chas [The narrator and philosopher Walter Benjamin and his time]. Kyiv: Krytyka [in Ukrainian].
6. Ermolenko, V. (2015). Daleki blyzki. Esse z filosofii ta literatury [Far close ones. Essays on Philosophy and Literature]. Lviv: Vydavnyztvo Starogo Leva [in Ukrainian].
7. Kolesnikov, A. (2000). Filosofiya i literatura: sovremennyi diskurs [Philosophy and Literature: modern discourse]. Seria Mysliteli. Istoria filosofii, kultura i mirovozzrenie [in Russian].
8. Korchynskiy, A.V. (2015). Formanty mysli: literatura i filosofskiy diskurs [Formants of thought: literature and philosophical discourse]. Moskow: Yazyki slovianskoy kultury [in Russian].
9. Frank, S. (1992). Duchovnye osnovy obszestva [Spiritual foundations of society]. Moskow: Respublika
[in Russian].
10. Habermas, Y. (2003). Filosofskiy diskurs o moderne [Philosophical Discourse on Modernity]. Moscow: Wes’ mir [in Russian].
11. Adorno, T. (1973). Negative dialectics. London and New York: Routledge.
2. Avtonomova, N.G. (2011). Filisofskiy yazyk Zhaka Derrida [Philosophical language of Jacques Derrida]. Moscow: ROSSPEN [in Russian].
3. Azhymov, F.E. (2010). Metafizicheskie problemy vzaimootnoshenia filosofii I literatury [Metaphysical problems of the relationship between philosophy and literature]. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya v Vostochnoy Sibiri s na Dalnem Vostoke, 3, 56-62 [in Russian].
4. Gol’dman, L. (1987). Strukturno-geneticheskiy metod v istorii literatury [Structural-genetic method in the history of literature]. Moscow: MGU [in Russian].
5. Ermolenko, V. (2011). Opovidach i filosof Valter Beniamin i yogo chas [The narrator and philosopher Walter Benjamin and his time]. Kyiv: Krytyka [in Ukrainian].
6. Ermolenko, V. (2015). Daleki blyzki. Esse z filosofii ta literatury [Far close ones. Essays on Philosophy and Literature]. Lviv: Vydavnyztvo Starogo Leva [in Ukrainian].
7. Kolesnikov, A. (2000). Filosofiya i literatura: sovremennyi diskurs [Philosophy and Literature: modern discourse]. Seria Mysliteli. Istoria filosofii, kultura i mirovozzrenie [in Russian].
8. Korchynskiy, A.V. (2015). Formanty mysli: literatura i filosofskiy diskurs [Formants of thought: literature and philosophical discourse]. Moskow: Yazyki slovianskoy kultury [in Russian].
9. Frank, S. (1992). Duchovnye osnovy obszestva [Spiritual foundations of society]. Moskow: Respublika
[in Russian].
10. Habermas, Y. (2003). Filosofskiy diskurs o moderne [Philosophical Discourse on Modernity]. Moscow: Wes’ mir [in Russian].
11. Adorno, T. (1973). Negative dialectics. London and New York: Routledge.
Published
2018-07-05
How to Cite
Salii, A. (2018). Philosophy and Literature: the wey towards the dialogue. Grani, 21(6), 46-50. https://doi.org/10.15421/171883
Issue
Section
Статті
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
