Меню Содержимое
Главная arrow Публикации arrow Dorofeev D. Interrelations between philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler and Michael Bachtin
Dorofeev D. Interrelations between philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler and Michael Bachtin Печать

Daniil Dorofeev.

St. Petersburg State University of Telecommunications.

Interrelations between philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler and Michael Bachtin.

Part 1. Introduction.

Let’s me to begin with one private memory. In 2005 Max-Scheler-Gesellschaft held the meetings in Trier, Germany where I was too. Then I have got acquainted with Manfred Frings who the authority, depth of the works and sensitive attentiveness in dialogue united itself all who faced it, all who was engaged in Scheler and modern philosophy. Our conversations were short enough: I told to it about studying of Scheler in Russia and features of modern Russian philosophy, asked his opinion on some sharp fundamental questions, he kindly answered me. Aspiring, probably, to encourage my employment by Scheler and modern philosophical anthropology, he has presented to me the well-known book about Shelere «The mind of Max Scheler» with a donative inscription. Being a link in studying of Shelera between Europe and America, Frings advised to me to develop theme researches ”Max Scheler and Russia”. I have tried to carry out this council.

In this time I had been created Max Shelera's Russian society at the St.-Petersburg state university and its site «Max Scheler and Russia» (www.max-scheler.spb.ru); were spent annual schelerian sections on «Days of the Petersburg philosophy»; at last, the book «Philosophy and philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler» with participation of known Russian and West European authors is prepared; Manfred Frings has allowed to insert and translate to me two parts from his book. Unfortunately, because of financial problems this book is not published till now, though is completely prepared. I would like to devote this book to Manfred Fringsu, having included in it work and the American colleagues. Perhaps, Max Schelera's North American society and the American Philosophical Association can help to publish this book which becomes one more certificate of our memory and our respect to Manfred Frings.

So, I will divide the performance into three basic parts. In the first part I will stop on problems and prospects of development of modern philosophical anthropology, in the second I will discuss themes of crossings of philosophy and Max Scheler's philosophical anthropology and Russian philosophy and in the third I will tell about perception Michael Bakhtin of philosophical and philosophical-anthropological positions of Scheler.

Part 2. About concept of philosophical anthropology.

You know that last «anthropological turn» was in the end 19-nach. 20 centuries. Previous anthropological revolutions in culture were in second half 5 B.C.. In the Ancient Greece and in 15-16 centuries in Italy Renaissance. In this time was a coming splash in interest to anthropological researches. Expression of this interest was occurrence and active development in 20 century of such disciplines, as historical anthropology, social anthropology, religious anthropology, cultural, psychological, biological, linguistic, political.

In philosophy the similar tendency was expressed in the ambitious project to "philosophical anthropology» as to the first philosophy (prima philosophia) by Max Scheler was which initiator. About this project he wrote in the late works much: The collection of articles «Philosophical worldview », the report in Darmstadt « Men’s Special Place», his last published work «Man’s Place in Nature\ Space», and fragments from a hand-written heritage (stored in the Bavarian state library), his posthumous materials. So, for example, he marked crisis of self-understanding by the person of the life and absence of uniform idea of the person uniting all anthropological knowledge to which creation he wished to devote the project of philosophical anthropology. I think, presently it became already clear all utopianism and unproductiveness of creation of such general idea so, it is necessary to reconsider the status, possibilities and definition most «philosophical anthropology». Claims of philosophical anthropology were huge, but it is necessary to recognize that it was not carried out, and only declared and declared.

The philosophical anthropology could not prove convincingly the status of "the first philosophy». But it, for example, could make «fundamental ontology» of Heidegger – on many bases the opponent of philosophical anthropology. Popularity splash, even a fashion of philosophical anthropology has not allowed to see insufficiency of its self-substantiation and has made it frequently powerless before its criticism from outside, for example, the French philosophers of second half of 20 centuries (the structuralist concept of "death of the person» of Foucault, Bart means, etc.) . As a result we have a large quantity of the published books both in Europe, and in Russia under the uniform name «Philosophical anthropology» which are devoted mainly or to the historical-philosophical and historical and cultural analysis of development of ideas of the person during the different periods and at different thinkers; or to consideration of philosophical anthropology in a context of other forms of anthropological knowledge (historical, social, religious, biological anthropology) as it’s for example in famous M. Landmann's book; or to the analysis of German school of philosophical anthropology (Scheler-Plessner-Gelen) that is carried out in the big latest fundamental book of professor Fisher. I think such approach is not perspective for productive development of modern philosophical anthropology if it does not wish to lose the philosophical urgency and the validity. The philosophical anthropology should understand particularly and definitely specificity of the researches, their borders, principles, foundations – we need in critique of philosophical anthropology in Kant’s sense.

In my opinion, it is necessary to make the following. First, to refuse philosophical anthropology as uniform complete and finished discipline of which dreamt and in which possibility of realisation Scheler trusted. The name «philosophical anthropology» approaches for textbooks, but not for independent original researches. The philosophical anthropology cannot be creation of the separate thinker, but it can be regulating idea (as transcendental idea in Kant sense) for realisation of philosophical researches of the person in different prospects. Therefore it is necessary to recognise non-uniform (heterogeneous) plurality of philosophical-anthropological researches. Secondly, on the sample «the ontologic differentiation» (Ontologische Differenz) Heidegger we need to spend a number philosophical-anthropological differentiations for finding disciplinary, thematic, methodological and substantial definiteness. It means that it is necessary to distinguish of philosophical-anthropological researches from anthropological philosophy. After all in the history of philosophy the problem of the person rises constantly, and basically anthropological it is possible to name philosophies of dialogue of Platon’s Alkiviad and «Sein und Zeit» of Heidegger. Also philosophical-anthropological researches need to be separated from researches biological, historical, religious anthropologies though, of course, they can enter dialogue among themselves. At last but not least, it is necessary to define "subject" of philosophical-anthropological researches clearly. The concept of the person and human life requires a limiting philosophical -anthropological concrete definition. First of all for this purpose it is necessary to show distinctions between such concepts of the human self-relation, as subjectivity, individuality, Dasein and the person. Personally my philosophical -anthropological researches are under construction on the basis of development of concepts of the sovereignty and spontaneity of the person, and also an openness, heterogeneity, plurality of its life to that my latest book has been devoted.

We, however, should be very grateful to Max Scheler for that actualisations, problematisations and serious attempt of realisation of the project of philosophical anthropology as “prima philosophia” which it has undertaken, but could not finish. The life of Scheler was devoted to many projects, passing from one to another, – phenomenology, axiology, sociology of knowledge, everywhere planning productive and deep prospects, expressing uniqie discernments and intuitions, but without having time to develop any of them systematically, fundamentally and in detail. I think that the project of philosophical anthropology and remains till now to the most perspective, despite all difficulties.

Part 3: Max Scheler und Russian Philosophy.

I will speak about mutual relations of Shelera and Russian philosophy more short. After political departation by the Soviet power of cultural elite of Russia in 1922 many Russian philosophers have appeared in Germany, first of all in Berlin. In Berlin N. Berdjaev who mentioned the impressions of meetings with to Scheler in his the philosophical autobiography "Self-knowledge" has got acquainted with Scheler. Berdjaev named Scheler «the most interesting German philosopher of last epoch». Also Scheler known personally such Russian philosophers, as S.Frank and F.Stepun and, probably, I.Ilyin.

Between principles of philosophy of Scheler and principles of Russian philosophy there is in some aspects a relationship. Both there and there we meet serious religious conditionality – as it is known, in 10th years of 20 centuries Scheler was under strong influence of Catholicism, and Russian philosophy is mainly defined by the orthodox bases. This moment explains, for example, the critical relation in both cases to a Kant formalism in ethics. Pulls together Schelera with Russian philosophical tradition philosophical actualisation and a substantiation of a fundamental principle of heart as bases of the human person even more. In the West European philosophical tradition to heart paid attention only occasionally – for example, Avgustin, Paskal, Russo. Advantage was given to mind and reason, and heart connected to chaotic emotions and passions. Therefore in the western philosophy the concept of heart, and concept of conscience which contacted to reason activity as in medieval scholasticism, and especially in German classical philosophy was exposed to a fundamental but heart had not enough philosophical reflexion. Scheler has changed this situation, having overcome dualism of the rational and emotional courses of human being. In Russian tradition of such dualism it was not primary, since Orthodox by means of doctrine\theory of isihasm (from greec “isihija” – silence) of great vyzantian theologer and philosopher saint Gr. Palama who lived in 14 c. learns about unity mind and heart, about departure of mind to heart, namely, about a heart order. Scheler as we know, has philosophically rehabilitated value of human emotions, speaking about «culture of heart» which higher expression is the love, but not as chaotic feeling, and as having the order, ordo amoris.

In this connection becomes quite clear why Scheler was the first who began to develop philosophically well-founded theory of the human person. The new European philosophy learnt about transcendental and rational subject, Scheler has addressed to the live self-valuable complete human person, opening in its late metaphysics interconnections with philosophically understood transcendental Divine. It is one more important point which unites Scheler with Russian philosophical tradition which has initially been penetrated by spirit personality. And for an institutionalization of the person intentions the certificates of love going from heart, much more important, than rational activity transcendental subject who is artificial formation.

Part 4: Mikhail Bakhtin’s reception of philosophical anthropological of Max Scheler.

Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) is one of the most famous among European thinkers Russian philosopher; during last 20 years his international bibliography included more two thousand works. But I can not find among these articles and monographs separately investigations about intercommunications of philosophical views of Bakhtin and Scheler who is founder German school philosophical anthropology (Plessner, Gehlen). But philosophical anthropology of Scheler was very significant for development of Bachtin.

Bakhtin was very narrowly connected to German philosophical traditions. According to his late confession he had read in German “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” in 13 years, fascinated by Nietzsche, analysed of newkantian school of Marburg, especially H. Cohen (by the way, Cohen and Marburg school in general was very popular in Russian philosophical life of 10 years XX c.). But seriously made more active this interest from 1918 when was formed “Nevel philosophical school”(Bachtin, Volochinov, Cohan, Pumpjnskij, Judina) had been investigated classical and actually philosophical problems of Kant, Husserl, Cohen – and, as I may prefer, Scheler. In his early works Bakhtin used phenomenological method in personality perspective, underlining such conceptions as life, responsibility, love, Other, person, emotions, action, selfwilling ets. I consider foundations Bakhtin’s phenomenological axiology was partly determined by Scheler, his understanding of conception values.

In 1924 Bakhtin went to Leningrad and he began to develop sociological attempt, criticizing European vitalism, conception “Einfuhlung”, biological understanding life – for example Bergson, James, Driesch, Freud. About Freud he wrote in 1927 separate book in which he noted of Scheler as basic, most influenced modern German philosopher, main representative of phenomenological direction. Scheler had significance in this time not only for Michail Bachtin – for example, first separately seriously article in Russia, fully devoting to Scheler, was wrote and printed in 1926 year by G.Bammel in magazine “Under banner of Marxism” with title “ Max Scheler, catholicism and working-class movement”. And older brother of M.Bachtin, Nicolas Bachtin, wrote review “Five Ideas” devoting to Scheler’s article “A man and history” . And M. Bakhtin noted such Scheler’s works as “Phenomenologie und Theorie der sympathiegefuhl” and “Vom Ewigen im Menschen”; he wrote (it’s important for us ) that he want to write book “Philosophical thought in modern Europe” and it must include separately part about Scheler. Unfortunately this book was not wrote by Bakhtin.

In 1925-1928 years Bakhtin turned one’s attention to philosophical anthropology of Scheler. I’ve found in archive information that after his arrest in 1928, in process of interrogation Bakhtin admitted in inquest that he had some lectures specially devoted to Scheler and main topics of these lectures was connected to problem of confession, self-open of human person to Other, life and it resuscitation, love. In according Bachtin, Scheler’s understanding of confession consist in selfopening in front of Other and main value of life can reveal only by love. Scheler was collegue for Bakhtin in his critic of “theoretical consciousness” and “gnosiological subject” and in investigations of Person, concrete “I”, emotional and sympathetic thought (Erlebnis). Bachtin wrote about these problems in his unending work “To philosophy of action”. We have to remember bakhtian contribution in philosophical development problem intersubjectivity, dialog, interrelations “I” and “Other”. For Scheler these questions were central too, as we can understand reading his works about “sympathiegefuhl” and “ die materiale Wertethik”. Deep analyze of central significance of intersubjectivity of Scheler was presented first of all by Manfred Frinfs in Ch.2 of his famous book “The mind of Max Scheler” and classical article of A. Schutz . And absolutely logistic than in his originally and world-famous book about Dostojewskij Bakhtin (who had opening here investigations of multiply forms of persons co-existence) indicated to this works of Scheler as overcoming monological principles of German idealism.

And in later works, thinking about project of philosophical anthropology, Bakhtin based on perception and experience of Scheler’s lessons. And we must it remember and account for development of modern philosophical anthropology.

« Пред.   След. »