- Finland
- New York University, Russian & Slavic Studies, Department Memberadd
- Post-doctoral researcher of Russian philosophy; recipient of a Fulbright Visiting scholar fellowship, in affiliation with the Department of Russian and Slavic Studies at NYU (2022-2023).edit
Book Review on: Methodology and practices of Russian formalism: papers of the 2nd Osip Brik International Colloquium – a linguistic and interdisciplinary conference held at the Ivan Fedorov Moscow State University of Printing Arts March... more
Book Review on: Methodology and practices of Russian formalism: papers of the 2nd Osip Brik International Colloquium – a linguistic and interdisciplinary conference held at the Ivan Fedorov Moscow
State University of Printing Arts March 20–23, 2013 [Методология и практика русского формализма: Материалы международной научной конференции “II Бриковские чтения: Методология и практика русского формализма”Московский государственный университет печати имени Ивана Федорова Москва, 20–23 марта 2013 года], edited by G. V. Vekshin, Moscow, Azbukovnik, 2014, 679 pp., 1100 rubles (pbk), ISBN 978-5-91172-101-5
This collection of articles, presented at the second Osip Brik International Colloquium (Ivan Fedorov Moscow State University of Printing Arts, 20–23 March 2013), introduces a wide variety of topics pertaining to questions of Russian Formalism. Although the conference wasdedicated to the memory of Osip Maksimovich Brik (1888–1945), this by no means restricted its scope. Instead, departing from Brik’s own research on poetic language, the volume touches upon a wide variety of topics, focusing particularly on the ‘articulated’ or ‘pronounced’ word.
State University of Printing Arts March 20–23, 2013 [Методология и практика русского формализма: Материалы международной научной конференции “II Бриковские чтения: Методология и практика русского формализма”Московский государственный университет печати имени Ивана Федорова Москва, 20–23 марта 2013 года], edited by G. V. Vekshin, Moscow, Azbukovnik, 2014, 679 pp., 1100 rubles (pbk), ISBN 978-5-91172-101-5
This collection of articles, presented at the second Osip Brik International Colloquium (Ivan Fedorov Moscow State University of Printing Arts, 20–23 March 2013), introduces a wide variety of topics pertaining to questions of Russian Formalism. Although the conference wasdedicated to the memory of Osip Maksimovich Brik (1888–1945), this by no means restricted its scope. Instead, departing from Brik’s own research on poetic language, the volume touches upon a wide variety of topics, focusing particularly on the ‘articulated’ or ‘pronounced’ word.
Research Interests:
Shpet's interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology has caused puzzlement because of the lack of clarity with which he treats the transcendental turn in Appearance and Sense (1914). I suggest that we find a more comprehensive discussion on... more
Shpet's interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology has caused puzzlement because of the lack of clarity with which he treats the transcendental turn in Appearance and Sense (1914). I suggest that we find a more comprehensive discussion on the topic in Shpet's 1917 article, "Wisdom or Reason?" There, Shpet reacts to Husserl's treatment of a cluster of problems related to the latter's transition to transcenden-tal idealism. I read "Wisdom or Reason?" not only in relation to Husserl's Logos article of 1911, but also to his 1907 lecture series "The Idea of Phenomenology." My analysis of Shpet's phenomenology reveals that he followed through with the transcendental turn, although his philosophy developed in a direction different from Husserl's transcendental idealism. Shpet postulates a collective consciousness, in which meaning-constitution takes place, and discovers the "word" as the foundation for any cognition. Shpet's phenomenology remains ontological, as he considers language or culture as the "form of being" in which human beings live. In "Wisdom or Reason?," Shpet argues that we can have direct knowledge of this meaningful reality: being is not "represented" but "presented" in a word. A certain compatibility thus exists between Shpet's phenomenology of cultural reality and Husserl's search for the absolute validity of knowledge.
Research Interests:
Gustav Shpet (1879-1937) is one of the most noteworthy thinkers in the history of Russian philosophy. Yet he was executed in Stalin’s Great Terror and removed from philosophy books for nearly half a century. Shpet was rediscovered in the... more
Gustav Shpet (1879-1937) is one of the most noteworthy thinkers in the history of Russian philosophy. Yet he was executed in Stalin’s Great Terror and removed from philosophy books for nearly half a century. Shpet was rediscovered in the late 1980s, and the scholarship around him has since grown, both in Russia and abroad.
Especially strong interest has been directed towards his reading of Husserl’s phenomenology. Shpet was Husserl’s student in Göttingen in 1912–14 and published his own considerations about transcendental phenomenology on his return to Moscow. But while he has come to be seen as a pioneer in Russian phenomenology, Shpet’s unconventional interpretation has also raised concerns.
According to many, Shpet’s reading of Husserl was founded on a misinterpretation; he is seen as either unwilling to follow the latter’s idea or incapable of doing so. It is also frequently proposed that Shpet’s unorthodox approach may be explained by a certain Russianness at the foundation of his system. The traditional philosophical standpoint in Russia emphasized ontological questions and the collectiveness of experience. It is suggested that Shpet thereby ‘Russianized’ Husserl by replacing his transcendental subjectivity with a collective consciousness.
The dissertation proposes a new reading of Shpet’s interpretation of Husserl. It first discusses the Russian roots of Shpet’s thinking and then presents a novel analysis of his "Iavlenie i smysl" (1914), comparing it not only to Husserl’s "Ideen I" (1913) but also "Logische Untersuchungen" (1900–01) and "Formale und Transzendentale Logik" (1929). The study maintains that Shpet not only followed through the transcendental turn but proposed themes and ideas which Husserl himself arrived at in the 1920s. It is suggested that the similarity between Shpet’s and Husserl’s approaches might be traced back to their discussions in Göttingen.
The study’s second principal topic is Shpet’s theory of the inner form of the word. After the October Revolution, his phenomenology evolved into a philosophy of language and art. While his theory was known among the Moscow formalists, it was also deemed archaic and unscientific. The concept of the inner form seemed to carry echoes of Aleksandr Potebnia, against whose romantic theory of the formalists fought. In contrast to this reading, the dissertation suggests that Shpet’s theory was in fact closely related to his earlier phenomenological ideas. It is maintained that especially in his 1922–23 "Esteticheskie fragmenty", the content of Shpet’s concept was in a strict sense phenomenological.
Especially strong interest has been directed towards his reading of Husserl’s phenomenology. Shpet was Husserl’s student in Göttingen in 1912–14 and published his own considerations about transcendental phenomenology on his return to Moscow. But while he has come to be seen as a pioneer in Russian phenomenology, Shpet’s unconventional interpretation has also raised concerns.
According to many, Shpet’s reading of Husserl was founded on a misinterpretation; he is seen as either unwilling to follow the latter’s idea or incapable of doing so. It is also frequently proposed that Shpet’s unorthodox approach may be explained by a certain Russianness at the foundation of his system. The traditional philosophical standpoint in Russia emphasized ontological questions and the collectiveness of experience. It is suggested that Shpet thereby ‘Russianized’ Husserl by replacing his transcendental subjectivity with a collective consciousness.
The dissertation proposes a new reading of Shpet’s interpretation of Husserl. It first discusses the Russian roots of Shpet’s thinking and then presents a novel analysis of his "Iavlenie i smysl" (1914), comparing it not only to Husserl’s "Ideen I" (1913) but also "Logische Untersuchungen" (1900–01) and "Formale und Transzendentale Logik" (1929). The study maintains that Shpet not only followed through the transcendental turn but proposed themes and ideas which Husserl himself arrived at in the 1920s. It is suggested that the similarity between Shpet’s and Husserl’s approaches might be traced back to their discussions in Göttingen.
The study’s second principal topic is Shpet’s theory of the inner form of the word. After the October Revolution, his phenomenology evolved into a philosophy of language and art. While his theory was known among the Moscow formalists, it was also deemed archaic and unscientific. The concept of the inner form seemed to carry echoes of Aleksandr Potebnia, against whose romantic theory of the formalists fought. In contrast to this reading, the dissertation suggests that Shpet’s theory was in fact closely related to his earlier phenomenological ideas. It is maintained that especially in his 1922–23 "Esteticheskie fragmenty", the content of Shpet’s concept was in a strict sense phenomenological.