Vlasov Dmitry Anatolyevich. Vlasov Vlasov a d

Annotation.

The subject of the article is the original interpretation of Hegelian philosophy proposed by A.D. Vlasov two decades ago, however, it still remains unclaimed in Russian historical and philosophical science. The author characterizes the features of the form and content of A.D.’s work. Vlasov and highlights those aspects of it that are most capable of intensifying the research of Hegel’s heritage by Russian historians of philosophy. In particular, the representations of A.D. are specifically considered. Vlasov about the boundaries of Hegel’s system of philosophy, its composition, the features of the structure of the objectivity of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” and its method. The article has been prepared based on the use of a set of traditional historical and philosophical methods that make it possible to describe and analyze the key features of one of the unusual works of Russian historical and philosophical science of the last century. The article is the first to analyze the Hegelian concept, which differs significantly both from the Marxist approach to the study of Hegel’s philosophy, which dominated in Soviet times, and from the “scientific Hegelian studies” of recent decades, within the framework of which the possibility of raising the question of “synchronous” connections in the Hegelian system of philosophy is denied. The author seeks to prove that the use of the proposed A.D. Vlasov’s ideas can contribute to a rethinking of the theoretical content of Hegelian philosophy and its place in the history of philosophy and culture.

10.7256/2409-8728.2017.2.21803

Date sent to the editor:

26-01-2017

Keywords:

Method of Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel's philosophical system, Science of logic, Phenomenology of Spirit, elements of Hegel's philosophy, Hegel, The Hegel Dictionary, observing consciousness, consciousness as a subject, dialogical character of philosophy

Preliminary remarks

If it is true that the books should have been published fifteen years after they were written, then in this case too, the dilogy of A.D. Vlasov about Hegel’s philosophy should not only be published today, but also read. However, even a cursory acquaintance with Hegelian publications of recent years shows that this unusual work is unusual not only for Soviet philosophy, outside of which it was conceived and created, but also for modern Russian historical and philosophical science, in which, it seems, it should to be met with interest - continues to lie in the dust of libraries and sites where “nobody took it and no one takes it.” How can we explain that this clearly extraordinary work, which contains many “tips” for anyone who decides to seriously take up the study of Hegel, has received absolutely no attention in Russian philosophy? Apparently, the search for an answer to this question may be useful both for identifying the originality of A.D.’s work. Vlasov, and to clarify the prospects for the formation of a new understanding of Hegelian philosophy in the domestic historical and philosophical (and indeed philosophical) community.

It would seem that a real revolution was about to begin in the study of Hegelian philosophy in Russia after the disappearance of ideological clichés of the Soviet era - none of the philosophers of the classical era were associated with so many prohibitions as with Hegel. Meanwhile, today the situation in Russian Hegelian studies is perhaps even more sad than at the end of the Soviet era: young researchers, captivated by certain fragments of Hegel’s works, write more or less competent articles and even dissertations, but at the same time have a general idea of ​​nature and the boundaries of the Hegelian system among historians of philosophy have not changed at all over the past three decades, and almost no voices are heard that would raise the question of the need for a fundamental rethinking of the place of Hegelian philosophy in the world historical and philosophical process. Isn’t this the real reason for the indifference to the work of A.D., which was ahead of its (and our?) time? Vlasov from young readers, for whom, it seems, he should have become a real guide to the world of Hegelian thought? Perhaps the obscurity of the Dictionary in our academic community is only a reflection of the obscurity of Hegel, as A.D. saw him. Vlasov, doesn’t the “partisan” origin of the book itself matter? What kind of “Hegel” is this then? Or, on the contrary, some external features of A.D.’s work. Vlasov, for example, do the peculiarities of his presentation of the material still turn out to be an insurmountable obstacle on the way of the book to the reader?

Table of speculative elements

Let's first talk about the features of the book that really should be taken into account. First of all, the author of the “Dictionary” is not a “philosopher”, but a representative of a completely different field of science - chemistry. Turning to philosophy is a consequence, as far as one can judge, not only of scientific, but also of the “existential” needs of a scientist. And for the chemist, after the amazing systematizing discovery of D.I. Mendeleev, apparently, the most natural “explanatory scheme” of the processes described is the “table of elements”. Since in this case the “elements” are the “primary content” of the basic concepts of Hegelian philosophy, then, I think, the “Dictionary” can be spoken of as a “table of speculative elements.” Just as the structure and characteristics of chemical elements explain all phenomena observed in the field of interaction of substances, so the “primary content” of the concepts of Hegelian philosophy presented in the “Dictionary”, according to A.D. Vlasov, can act as an explanatory model of the main vicissitudes of the movement of the Hegelian system of philosophy.

From the point of view of scientific consciousness, says A.D. Vlasov, the need to use dictionaries in the process of studying Hegelian philosophy and, in particular, “Phenomenology of Spirit” is due to the fact that Hegel “did not give definitions of new terms introduced during the exposition. These terms seemed to appear naturally... This “naturalness” consisted in the fact that the very dialectics and development of content, the complication and differentiation of the latter, led to the emergence of new concepts and corresponding terminology. Apparently, Hegel considered the definition of introduced terms unnecessary because by the time they were introduced, the content or concepts they denoted were already available, and therefore there was no need to retell what had already been said in sufficient detail and with the proper emphasis. For the reader, however, this method of presentation must often present additional difficulties, since this method does not allow frivolous leafing through the book, but, on the contrary, requires careful monitoring of the development of the material being presented, which becomes completely incomprehensible immediately after the reader has not mastered or simply missed a certain place or section." The point, of course, is not only the tendency of many readers to “frivolously leaf through books,” but the fact that the “ideal reader” of “Phenomenology” or “Logic” would have already had an intellectual experience similar to the experience of the author, so that in the first while reading, to objectively perceive the content of Hegel’s works - it is clear how narrow the circle of such readers must have been! The dictionary - albeit in a rational form - allows the reader to compensate for the lack of skill in conceptual (dialectical) thinking and thereby bring him closer to a level of perception sufficient to understand Hegel's works.

So, the form of the “dictionary” chosen by the author not only cannot be considered as a fundamental barrier to the perception of the main ideas of A.D.’s work. Vlasov, but also serves as a “bridge” to the most difficult content of Hegel’s main works. But in addition to the indicated “applied” meaning of the “Dictionary”, it can be noted that the proposed A.D. Vlasov’s “rational” method of getting to know the Hegelian system turns out to be somewhat akin to the formal-structural methods that became so widespread in the science of the last century. In fact, according to the author’s intention, judgments relating to the “internal content” of the “elements” should be perceived by the reader “in parallel” with the connections in which the “elements”, that is, the original concepts, are involved in Hegelian philosophy as a whole. The reader can advance in the study of Hegelian philosophy both “synthetically”, combining the content of individual “elements”, and “analytically”, determining the content of the elements through isolating the necessary connections between them. Since the internal content of each concept in a specific way reflects the entire system (in relation to which the totality of connections between the supposed “empty” elements acts as its “structure”), then “analysis” and “synthesis” must lead to the same result - a vision of Hegel’s systems of philosophy as a complex organized whole.

In accordance with this, A.D. Vlasov notes that “real criticism of Hegelian philosophy” should act as “his understanding”: “This understanding, in turn, is the reduction into one of various definitions (rationally identified “elements” - V.K.) and their mediation by each other . In this way, the unity of the content is achieved, which was previously a disparate set of different thoughts... through understanding, the content is elevated to the rank concepts » .

Hegel's system of philosophy and its degradation

Another feature of A.D.’s “Dictionary” Vlasov is that it is an attempt to reflect the content not of Hegelian philosophy in general (many similar dictionaries have been published in recent decades, especially in English), but the conceptual content of two works - “Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Science of Logic”. What is the reason for this self-restraint of the author, and why specifically “Phenomenology” and “Logic”? This question could be answered this way: only “Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Science of Logic” were created by Hegel as philosophical (scientific) treatises expressing the deep intuitions of the thinker; all other texts that we consider today as manifestations of his philosophical position are either textbooks, or polemical publications, or notes of lectures made by listeners, as well as sketches and manuscripts that were not intended for publication at all. In any case, about each of these groups of texts it is permissible to raise the question to what extent they reflect the core of his philosophical worldview, which is usually called “Hegel’s system,” since, obviously, the appearance of some of them was initiated by needs external to philosophical creativity, while others the philosopher himself deliberately did not reveal it to readers. Of course, we are not talking about abandoning the analysis of all these documents; it is only necessary to take into account their origin and the associated substantive and stylistic features before making judgments about the degree of correspondence of the ideas reflected in them to the central intuitions of the Hegelian system.

But the point, of course, is not only the “impeccable origin” of “Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Science of Logic”. Choice of A.D. Vlasov is due to a clear understanding that only in these works, created within the framework of the Jena project “Systems of Science,” was the Hegelian concept of a system of philosophy adequately realized. Accordingly, the “encyclopedic system”, which since the time of the Collected Works prepared by Hegel’s students and friends has been perceived (already by inertia) as a model of his system, is presented by A.D. Vlasov as a consequence of a “gap” in the philosopher’s systemic thinking and even as evidence of its degradation. In preliminary remarks to the second volume of the Dictionary, which deals with the Science of Logic, that is, the work in which the projects of the System of Science and the Encyclopedia intersect, A.D. Vlasov succinctly and very dramatically presents the “gap” that has taken place in the philosopher’s systemic constructions. “Those who stopped near this majestic building called “Hegel’s system” and observed it from the outside,” writes A.D. Vlasov, - one gets the impression of the greatest harmony, beauty and thoughtfulness of the entire structure as a whole. Hegel's system, when viewed superficially from the outside, appears to be a complete system in which nothing can be changed and which can only be discarded entirely as a passed stage in philosophical development. This system looks different for those who dare to look inside, enter this grandiose building and look around. Even the first inspection shows that during the construction of the building its layout changed several times. Individual rooms of the building, conceived as the main elements of the structure, were then refurbished and relegated to the background. The passages to other halls, striking in their size, were made too narrow and only later, since these halls were not initially provided for in the plan at all. Some structural elements hang without support. There are a number of rooms that are identical in their functional purpose, but scattered across different parts of the building. Traces of alterations and rearrangements made later are visible everywhere... And it was at this stage that Hegel’s sudden death interrupted this difficult and almost impossible work for one person.” Giving a general assessment of the two main periods of the “mature” Hegel’s work, A.D. Vlasov comes to an “even more radical conclusion”: “What Hegel created with such enthusiasm and enthusiasm in the first half of his life (“Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Science of Logic”), in the second period of his life he equally energetically destroyed (in "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences")...".

The “destruction” that A.D. talks about Vlasov, was manifested in the fact that “immediately after the completion of this first “system” of philosophy (that is, consisting of “Phenomenology” and “Logic” of the “System of Science” - V.K.), the process of its redevelopment and restructuring began, in our opinion , poorly thought out and justified. Already on the last page of his Logic, Hegel proposed a definition of nature as the “immediate being” of the idea.” “This unexpected turn, outlined on the last page of Logic, did not lead anywhere, or led into the abyss of confusion and confusion. But it was precisely this path that Hegel took when creating his “Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences”; “The consequences of this redevelopment of the system of philosophy ... were disastrous”; “The principles of the arrangement of material (adopted by Hegel in the Encyclopedia - V.K.) did not correspond at all to the deepest ideas of the Phenomenology of Spirit or the Science of Logic.” A completely different principle of constructing the system was applied, which, in our opinion, was unsuccessful and based on an unjustified identification or simple confusion of a concept with an idea.” As a result, “the great and mysterious “Phenomenology of Spirit” turned into a pitiful and scanty section of “Philosophy of Spirit” in the late Hegel, and “The Science of Logic,” in which the content of the level of speculative objectivity achieved by “Phenomenology”—the logical idea—was explicated with the utmost depth. identified with Lesser Logic as the first part formed mainly in the process of Hegel’s pedagogical activity by the “Encyclopedia”. “Hopeless confusion” - this is the result of the transition from the “Systems of Science” project to the “Encyclopedia” that was not comprehended with due clarity by the philosopher himself. Hegel's wanderings in search of an adequate image of the system of philosophy of A.D. Vlasov presents it as the path of a “sliding philosopher”: “Hegel slid, fell and, getting up, moved in a different direction.”

And, in contrast to the author’s chosen form of presenting views on Hegelian philosophy (“dictionary”), his fundamentally new understanding of the main plot of Hegel’s systemic searches, radically different from the “school image” of the Hegelian system, apparently could not find an easy way to to the reader inexperienced in the subtleties of Hegel’s intellectual biography, no matter how thorough the arguments in his defense are given. Moreover, the understanding of the philosopher’s systemic searches developed in the Dictionary is fundamentally different from most judgments about the Hegelian system that have so far been presented in the specialized historical and philosophical literature. The image of the encyclopedic sequence of Logic, Philosophy of Nature and Philosophy of Spirit as the core of the system proposed by Hegel’s students in recent decades has been supplemented by the promotion of the “evolutionary-historical method”, which focuses on the need to analyze chronological and thematic fragments as the only - essentially endless - task " scientific Hegelian studies". The opportunity that opens up in this case to present contradictions in the philosopher’s systemic constructions as a consequence of the evolution of his views relieves the historian of philosophy from the need to analyze synchronous connections between the elements of the system, and therefore the problem of the structure of Hegel’s system, which was actively discussed in the 30s and 40s. XIX century, when using such an approach, it simply does not arise.

Thus, taking into account the approach to understanding the problems of the systematic structure of the Hegelian system of philosophy proposed in the Dictionary, we have to state that in today’s situation it would be difficult to expect the emergence of a desire for a critical assimilation of the content of A.D.’s work. Vlasov not only among the “general reader”, but also among “professionals” already involved in “scientific Hegelian studies”. Unfortunately, the latter is increasingly looking like a kind of “industry” for the production of “reliable information” about Hegelian philosophy, excluding, however, raising the question of its essence, about that “synchronous integrity” around which this information could be in the field of historical and philosophical thought would be located.

“The Great and Mysterious “Phenomenology of Spirit””

Proposed by A.D. Vlasov’s understanding of Hegel’s systemic searches is only one component of that original construction, which still remains beyond the attention of domestic researchers of Hegel’s philosophy. An even more original - and therefore difficult to perceive - element of this structure is his proposed interpretation of the “Phenomenology of Spirit”. True, A.D. Vlasov shares the extremely widespread opinion that the composition of the Phenomenology is imperfect, the presentation in it is overloaded with particulars, and the style of the book does not always ideally correspond to the content of thought. Can he be judged for this, given that this opinion goes back to Hegel himself, who, it seems, overly self-critically recognized the shortcomings of his first major creation (for example, in the famous letter to Schelling dated May 1, 1807. Against the background of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” only “The Science of Logic” is characterized by A.D. Vlasov as the only perfect and complete work of the thinker: “While “Phenomenology of Spirit” - Hegel’s first major philosophical work - bears traces of incompleteness and insufficient thoughtfulness of the plan of the book as a whole, “The Science of Logic” is ", perhaps, the only fully thought-out work of Hegel, both as a whole and in individual parts. Perhaps only to this work is the epithet “completeness” applicable." And yet it is “Phenomenology of Spirit,” “great and mysterious,” despite its shortcomings - imaginary or, at a minimum, exaggerated due to their extreme complexity - turned out to be the area of ​​Hegel's creativity in which A.D. Vlasov was especially lucky in his discoveries. Let us pay attention to just one expressive example of such finds.

In one of the above quotes, a fragment was deliberately omitted; let us now restore this gap and try to understand the meaning of A.D.’s statement. Vlasova: Hegel “did not give definitions of the new terms introduced in the course of the exposition. These terms seemed to appear naturally and often several earlier than those sections that were entirely devoted to the consideration of relevant concepts (emphasis added by me - V.K.)." What does “previously” mean, what is our author talking about here? HELL. Vlasov is one of the few readers of “Phenomenology of Spirit” whose attentive glance reveals “two layers” in Hegel’s text - the text of “our consciousness,” that is, the consciousness of the author and reader, and the text of “consciousness itself,” or consciousness as the subject of consideration. The experience of “consciousness itself,” more “difficult” and verbose, occupies the main part of the narrative in “Phenomenology,” but, as a rule, these extensive fragments are preceded by brief, sketchy sketches of the path ahead, offered by “our consciousness.” The latter, having the opportunity to see the path of “consciousness itself” and not repeat its mistakes, goes through the same stages of structural complexity “earlier” than “consciousness itself,” and “sections” that are “entirely devoted to the consideration of relevant concepts,” or fragments, those describing the experience of “consciousness itself” follow them.

In accordance with this, in the appendix to the first volume, which reproduces in brief form the main content of “Phenomenology of Spirit”, A.D. Vlasov writes: “When considering the content of this work, one must always remember two fundamentally different types of consciousness. The first consciousness is item phenomenology of the spirit or the consciousness that we are actually talking about. The second consciousness is subject phenomenology of spirit, absolute spirit or the consciousness that speaks. Both consciousnesses arise naturally and are products of development. But the emergence and development of the first consciousness is described in the phenomenology of the spirit as the subject of the latter, and the second consciousness, or subject, is the final result of this development and, at the same time, as a subject, makes this science as such possible. According to the two types of consciousness, in the phenomenology of spirit there are two types truth - truth for the first type of consciousness or for natural consciousness and truth for the subject of phenomenology of spirit or absolute spirit. Hegel denoted the last type of truth with the words “ for us or in ourselves »» . The last expression is fundamentally important for understanding the “Phenomenology of Spirit”, however, unfortunately, many of those who decide to write about “Phenomenology” do not clearly understand the role it plays in organizing the narrative space of Hegel’s work. Actually, in the extremely abundant foreign literature on Hegel studies, an understanding of the noted features of the presentation of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” is not often found, although, for example, V. Marx several decades ago left quite accurate explanations on this topic, in domestic literature there is an adequate description of the interaction of the “observing consciousness ” and “consciousness as a subject of consideration” remains extremely rare. On the contrary, A.D. Vlasov consistently distinguishes between the two indicated “types of consciousness” in the space of the entire book (for example, the articles “Knowledge as a Subject”, “History”, “Self-Awareness”), in connection with which it, representing in form only a set of individual articles, acquires real unity.

Conclusion

The reconstruction in “Phenomenology of Spirit” of the entire sequence of images of consciousness (closed in on themselves, relatively independent “points of view” on an object) allows us to specifically describe the process of formation of the most complex types of objectivity (life, self-consciousness, mind, spirit), gradually bringing them closer to the level of structural complexity the actual spirit that generates them - “our consciousness”. This process can be likened to how the flat surface of the earth, which opens from one point of view, through the addition of pictures reproduced from other points of view, makes available the contemplation of the sphericity of the Earth: distortions of reality, inevitable on a geographical map, become increasingly noticeable, as well as the inevitability of the transition to the globe as a fundamentally more accurate model of the earth's surface. The multiplicity of images of consciousness, ordered in the “Phenomenology of Spirit” according to the “parallels” of structural complexity and “meridians” that determine the connection of images of consciousness with “our consciousness” or “consciousness itself,” allows us to reproduce and comprehend the complexity, richness of content, and the concreteness of the spirit as the ultimate objectivity speculative philosophy. Accordingly, “Logic” in the “System of Science” will carry out a conceptual explication of this objectivity, and thereby Hegel’s “system of philosophy” will find its completion. The reader can only hear the “voices” of that “universal dialogue of consciousnesses”, which, spilling out into the space of a white sheet of paper, took the form of “Phenomenology of Spirit” and made their harmony inevitable in the ordered and technically impeccable organism of the “Science of Logic”.

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.

]
(Moscow: Zarya Publishing House, 2000)
Scan, OCR, processing, Djv format: mor, 2015

• SUMMARY:
  Preface. 1. Hegel and modern world philosophy. 2. Hegel's system - historical fact or illusion? 3. Hegel and Schelling. 4. Russian philosophers about Hegel. 5. Karl Marx. 6. Scientific philosophy. 7. Subject “Science of Logic”. 8. N.G. Debolsky is a translator of “The Science of Logic” into Russian. 9. Hegelian style of presentation. 10. “Difficult” words and phrases. 11. Page-specific and general terms. 12. Expression of gratitude (5).
  Dictionary (48).
  Appendix I. Summary of “The Science of Logic” (595).
  Appendix II. Schemes for the development of thinking in the “Science of Logic”
  A. Brief diagram (628).
  b. Expanded diagram (630).
  Appendix III. List of Russian terms in alphabetical order (636).
  Appendix IV. List of German terms in alphabetical order (652).
  Appendix V. My life as a philosopher (663).

Publisher's abstract: The Hegelian logical categories discussed in the Dictionary have a threefold meaning. Firstly, they express the corresponding operations of thinking. Secondly, categories represent stages of development of thinking. Thirdly, they are the substances or essentialities of which all existence, both the spiritual and the external world, consists. The first meaning of the categories makes the “Science of Logic” a theory of thinking. The second meaning is a kind of history of thinking. The third meaning is metaphysics. These categories are discussed in the Dictionary from the point of view of scientific concepts and ideas introduced in the outgoing 20th century. In addition to Hegelian categories, the Dictionary includes a number of the most important concepts put forward by Immanuel Kant.
The dictionary contains about 420 words and phrases. Appendices I-V contain a brief summary of the main ideas of the “Science of Logic”, a brief and detailed diagram of the genesis of categories, a list of Russian terms included in the Dictionary and corresponding German terms, as well as the author’s autobiography.
By calling the proposed dictionary “Dictionary of Hegel’s Philosophy,” we seem to have limited the topic to one of the many philosophical teachings of the past. However, it should be stated with all decisiveness that the last truly original teaching is the philosophy of Hegel, created about two hundred years ago. Everything that happened after Hegel is, for the most part, insignificant developments of individual fragments of both Hegelian philosophy and the new things that were introduced into philosophy by Kant, Hume, Fichte and Schelling.
Unfortunately, the concepts discussed in the Dictionary contradict the principles accepted in Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy and for this reason the readership cannot be clearly defined. Most likely these are young people, free from the prejudices of the communist past.