The paper treats the character and significance of J.W. Goethes personality in Simon L. Franks interpretation. The study is based upon principles of historicism and development; it uses the methods ...of the unity of historical and logical, comparative-typological and textual methods. The paper demonstrates why the Russian philosopher turns to examine the works of the German thinker and the role of Goethes ideas in becoming of Franks philosophical system. It clarifies Georg Simmels influence on methodological approach to the definition of spiritual personality with respect to the conceptual distinction of objective and subjective culture. The paper also analyses Franks distinction between two types of genii - pure genii of life and purely objective genii, - and applying that method with respect to understand Goethes spiritual personality. Frank was very far from idealising the Goethes particular personality, but he had rather found in what he called the Goethes type an aspiration for the harmonious unity of personal and sobornoye (catholic, universal, communal - Russ.) being. Accomplishing of such a type - as far as he had been capable - was considered by the Russian thinker not only the life purpose of any spiritual personality, but as well as a peculiar prescription against the crisis of the contemporary culture. The paper also reflects on Franks participation (publications and lectures) on occasion to 100 years anniversary, since Goethes death. In appendix, there are lecture notes of Franks lecture 1932, dedicated to Goethes spiritual personality that are published for the first time. The conclusion is made that considering Goethes impact on Simon Frank - as well as any influence, caused by not a systematic philosopher, but an artist-thinker in general - one should take into consideration not only the reception of separate ideas and concepts, but significance of the personality as a whole. It is said about the unique synthesis of living personal development and the objective creative work results.
The translation of Jacob Taubes’ “Occidental Eschatology” into Russian is a worthy occasion to clarify for Russian-speaking readers the origins and significance of this book. Among the philosophical ...roots and foundations of Taubes’ text, there is the “pantheistic-immanent representation” of Baader and Schelling about time as the time of “salvation”, which is directed both towards the eschaton, towards future eternity, and the past, towards creation. Time turns out to be that which connects two eternities, and God unites time and eternity. On the other hand, Taubes develops Hans Jonas’ research on Gnosticism and discovers the Gnostic character of modernity. Three contextual moments allow the reader to understand the deeper meaning of “Occidental Eschatology”: 1) the rethinking and synthesis of Jonas’ and Karl Löwith’s ideas in Taubes’ work, 2) the discussions between Taubes, Hans Blumenberg, and Odo Marquard on the role of Gnosticism in modernity, and 3) the connection of Taubes’ ideas with the understanding of secularization as a continuation of religion “by other means”, which was characteristic of C. Schmitt and K. Löwith. These narratives are enhanced by the readers’ grasp of the fact that Taubes perceives himself as living in a Gnostic world of total alienation, which must disappear. “No spiritual investments” can be made in this world. This position is considered opposite to Schmitt, who asserted the necessity of delaying the apocalypse. In addition, it is necessary to understand the complexities of the wonderful translation, which has long been necessary for the Russian-speaking reader of “Occidental Eschatology”, who permanently resides in a gnostically interpreted world.
PDF
