Ilya D Kolesnikov

The article deals with the philosophical possibilities of laughter in the Hellenistic age. At first, we specify the role of laughter in various genres of philosophical speech, and then we divide different types of laughter. Further, we analyze the use of laughter for liberation, however, we notice not the general anthropological aspect of "Culture of popular laughter", but the specific philosophical possibilities of this liberation. If the whole world is a comedy, then philosophical laughter overcomes the private perspective-not to the "Collective body", but to the perspective of the divine view. Finally, we explore the relation between laughter and the concept of godlikeness (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ).

The article deals with the logical structure of action in Stoicism. Both Early and Imperial Stoics looked up to the same sequence: impression — assent — judgment — action. However, Socratic identity of virtue and knowledge developed in two different ways. Early Stoics supposed that the right judgment follows to ethics, which follows to physics and logic; therefore, good action is consistent with a long chain of premises and conclusions. The advantage of this approach is a strict logical necessity of the way of life, but there is deficiency too: if some philosophical opponents will criticize the intermediate premises of the logical consistency, the whole reasoning will be ruined. Imperial Stoics changed this situation: each action is a consequence of principles (τὰ δόγματα, decreta); then action passes same intermediate premises and goes back to the first principles. However, the formal structure remains the same: we recognize a thing by the general concepts, which directly sends us to the first principles, not to the ethical precepts. Although Early Stoics mention dogma in a similar sense three times, we have to admit: this structure was inherent in Late Stoa par excellence. At the same time, we cannot assert some key difference between two approaches, because both of them provide consistency of theory and practice.

The article is concerned to Werner Jaeger’s Harvard Lecture (1958) on a few Greek conceptions of human immortality. This lecture is unique, because it shows not only difference between ideas of immortality, but also their synthesis in Plato’s philosophy and in following philosophical tradition. Jaeger reveals a historical development of idea of immortality, and also development of conception of soul – for example, ψυχη in Homeric epos has not any common sides with orphic or Christian conception of the soul. The first type of immortality was presented in orphic doctrine of soul’s migration (which was inherited into philosophical tradition by Empedocles). The second type of immortality is polis’ memory of fallen warriors: this idea was first announced in Tyrtaeus’ elegies and since him was inherited by ancient culture for it’s own decline. The third type of immortality is immortality in mind creations. According to Jaeger, all these types were united by Plato, and in this form were saved until Paul and Early Christian philosophy.
The accompanying article briefly expounds a prehistory of the Werner Jaeger’s text origin (including information about the reasons of his emigration into United States and how he toke a chair in the Harvard University), as well at history of it’s creation; moreover, we are discover there a connection of Harvard lecture with other works of the scholar. The article focuses on Werner Jaeger’s methodological approach, as well as some aspects of his theory of culture and philosophy of history. The article particularly shows a contrast between Jaeger’s interpretation of the ancient history and historical conceptions of Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler and Martin Heidegger.

В статье рассматривается возникновение классицизма в античную эпоху. Сначала даётся краткий ретроспективный обзор понятия «классики» до эпохи Возрождения, затем история возникновения этого понятия у Авла Геллия и Цицерона. Далее мы представляем ретроспективную историю классической тенденции на примере споров азианистов и аттицистов, неотериков и любителей старой поэзии, и в античном отношении к пластическим искусствам. Затем следует обращение к эллинистическим поэтам и филологам и, наконец, мы прослеживаем происхождение классической тенденции в классическую эпоху — в частности, создание списков «избранных авторов», развитие художественных канонов и отношения между классицизмом в искусстве и стремлением к старым и «добрым» нравам.

The article discusses the genesis of classicism in the Antiquity. At first, we give a brief retrospective review of the concept of "classic" until to the Renaissance, then the emergence on this concept in Aulus Gellius and Cicero. Further, we present a retrospective history of the classical tendency on the example of the disputes between Asians and Atticists, neoterics and lovers of old poetry, and in the ancient attitude towards the plastic arts. Hereafter the article focuses on the Hellenistic poets and philologists and, finally, we trace the origin of the classical tendency in the classical age-particularly, the creation of lists of «selected writers», the development of artistic canons and the relationship between classicism in arts and the pursuit of the old and «good» mores.

В книге рассмотрена рецепция античности у Ницше и в немецкой культуре XVIII–XX вв. Открыл ли Ницше дионисийское начало? Считал ли он греческую культуру пессимистичной? Оказала ли на него влияние античная мысль? Был ли немецкий философ врагом классицизма? Как изменился образ античности от Винкельмана и Гёте до круга Штефана Георге и Хайдеггера? — эти и другие вопросы образуют проблемное поле исследования.
Книга предназначена для ницшеведов, философов, историков, а также для всех, интересующихся историей европейской культуры.

The article is the hermeneutical commentary on theatrum mundi metaphor in the Antiquity. Concept of “life as theater” in the Antiquity differs from meaning of this metaphor since Renaissance and Barocco. The article clarifes the main aspects of the use of metaphor in the Antiquity: whether an actor or a spectator, comedy or tragedy are understood in the firrst place. In the ancient use of theatrical metaphor not a person chooses his role; the role is given by fate, and the task of man is to perform it well. Theatrical mask (τό πρόσωπον) is not subject to change and does not imply the true essence, opposing visibility. There is mimesis is reversed in the theatrical metaphor: firrst, tragedy imitates the most worthy in life, then, life imitates the tragedy, that is, the most worthy in itself.

Статья представляет герменевтический комментарий к метафоре theatrum mundi в античности. Понимание жизни через театр у древних отличалось от того, как эта метафора фигурирует с эпохи Возрождения и барокко. Уточнены основные стороны употребления метафоры в античности: понимается ли в первую очередь актер или зритель, комедия или трагедия. Для античного употребления театральной метафоры характерно, что не человек выбирает свою роль; роль дана судьбой, и задача человека заключается в том, чтобы хорошо исполнить ее, какой бы она ни была. Театральная личина (τό πρόσωπον) не подлежит смене и не предполагает истинную сущность, противостоящую видимости. В театральной метафоре происходит обращение мимесиса: сначала трагедия подражает наиболее достойному в жизни, затем жизнь подражает трагедии, то есть, наиболее достойному в себе самой.

The subject under research in this paper is relation between Nietzsche’s idea of the «Eternal Recurrence of the same» and Ancient Greek culture. «Eternal Recurrence» has
two forms in the philosophical heritage of Friedrich Nietzsche: the form of thought about the way of life and the form of a cosmological doctrine like the ancient Greek philosophy of nature. The first form is paramount, because the doctrine is just a form of a thought. Some of the previous researches in this area were focused on the cosmological aspect of Nietzsche’s idea. This approach caused misinterpretation. In fact, Ancient Greek philosophical doxography related to the problem of cyclic time and eternal recurrence has no adequate analogy. Nevertheless, it should not become the basis for negation of the relation between «Eternal Recurrence of the same» and the antiquity, because this approach takes Nietzsche’s idea and ancient culture separately from each other, as if there is no correlation between them. To avoid this mistake, the author used philosophical hermeneutics as a research method. The main idea of this paper is based on Nietzsche’s affirmation of the essential link between «Eternal Recurrence of the same» and the antiquity. According to Nietzsche, philosophy is an exception from antiquity, and not its focus. The purpose of the current research is to discover the connection of ethical consequences from the concept of Eternal Recurrence with ancient culture in general and with the ancient concept of time particularly. The main attention is focused on the separation of the «mysterious phenomena of antiquity» and the «Apollonian» life of the polis, «Olympus of Illusion». Eternal Recurrence implies a return of the political and artistic antiquity, but not Dionysian sides of the Ancient Greek culture. The «Eternal Recurrence» is a repetition of typical phenomena: agonism, polis, war, art. With regard to the ancient concept of the time’s nature, Nietzsche’s theory stated not return to the same, but the present moment as the most important. All human forces must be given to the present moment. Through the example of Hellenic understanding of time (mythical «great» past, present moment and glory in the future), it is traced that «the past» and «future» were of decisive significance for the «present» in antiquity.

This work is devoted to the problem of scholarship in antiquity. In the era of Hellenism, philosophy was defined through adherence to philosophical schools and was limited to active life (ethics). The scholarship of the late Hellenistic times and that of the Roman Empire inherited the vita contemplativa, a contemplative life: it presupposed leisure, education and literature. This phenomenon is subject to reproach in the absence of action, but this form of contemplative life gave a unique phenomenon of free thinking.

The article considers the development of classical humanistic tradition in the German thought of the XX century, and the main figure of this tradition – Werner Jaeger. His “Third Humanism” (der Dritte Humanismus) represents the spiritual movement of 1920–1930 yrs in Europe. The main principle of the “Third Humanism” is the conviction that the ancient culture influenced the peoples of the following ages greatly. Humanism is a tradition, with which the antiquity can give us impulseto preserve the “abiding values”, embodied in the Greek “areté”.

The article deals with the connection of the Stoic doctrine of the sign with the Stoic ethics ideals. The introduction of a division into a thing, a sign and a meaning constitute grounds for treating things as what is meaningless in itself. The agreement on representation (syncatathesis) fully reveals the ethical grounding of the Stoics logic. Therefore, logic is not only a foundation for ethics, but follows it and gives it a rationale.

The article seeks to research one of Heraclitus’ ideas, namely the «unity of all» (ἓν το πάν). This idea is usually regarded as obvious, and therefore not demanding detailed research. In place of this idea’s content researchers frequently consider its ethical effects, namely stoicism. Even if researchers keep the metaphysical level of the «unity of all» idea, they connect it with pantheism of German Romanticists, namely, Schelling’s «identity philosophy». The aim of the article is to clarify the idea of the «unity of all» in connection with Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy. The main method of studying Heraclitus’s poem «Περί Φύσεως» is hermeneutics, which, unlike other methods, considers integrity of Heraclitus’ idea. As a result of the research, stoicism and pantheism are recognized as not sufficient ways to understand Heraclitus’ idea of the «unity of all». Therefore, it is necessary to refer to Nietzsche’s philosophical heritage. For this purpose the seventy-fifth fragment of Heraclitus’ poem was taken as a basis for consideration («Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world»), and after that the fifty-second fragment was considered («Time is a child at play, moving pieces in a board game; the kingly power is a child’s»). From the author’s point of view, the «unity of all» is not an optimistic teleology but a result of aesthetic contemplation.

Содержание:
I. Трагичность эллинов;
II. Оправдание бытия;
III. Пустыня растёт;
IV. Трагическая эстетика;
V. Эстетика Аполлона;
VI. Грядущий (эстетика Диониса).

Выходные данные: Колесников, И.Д. Incipit Tragoedia // Судьба творческого наследия: теоретический альманах “Res Cogitans #8” – СПб.: Алетейя, 2015. – С. 141-166.