FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4210568076> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4210568076 endingPage "612" @default.
• W4210568076 startingPage "610" @default.
• W4210568076 abstract "6io Reviews many commentators. In this interesting book Edith W. Clowes traces the emergence ofRussian philosophical discourse inand through literarydiscourse and discourse on literature,centring on the 'birth' ofRussian philosophy between the I87os and I920S. The central focus of the study falls on thework ofVladimir Solov'ev, Lev Shestov, Vasilii Rozanov, and Nikolai Berdiaev, with reflectionson a prehistory in theworks of Vissarion Belinskii and Nikolai Chernyshevskii and 'survival' in theworks ofAleksei Losev, Andrei Platonov, and Boris Pasternak. Clowes's thesis is that although Western, especially German, philosophical ideas were widely received inRussia, theydid not initially lead to thedevelopment of aRus sian philosophy since philosophical language found resistance among literaryscholars and activistswho sought toovercome thedivision between abstract philosophical and socio-ethical concerns. Itwas not until the laterpart of thenineteenth century that a trulyphilosophical discourse began to emerge, but itdid so in the formof a peculiar variety of literarygenres rather than systematic philosophical exposition. Appeals to non-rational, mystical, and personalist motifs opposed the abstract system-building ofGerman idealists, and theywere articulated in texts thatmaintained a profoundly ambivalent relationship with theirGerman sources. These textsbegin to flourish in the period before theRevolution, when the spiritual roots of thisway of thinking and opportunities topublish such material came under pressure. Nevertheless, such philosophizing survived in theworks of both philosophers such as Losev and writers such as Platonov and Pasternak, the latterofwhom has eschewed a promising philo sophical career as amember of the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism in favour of a career as a philosophical novelist. This study has much to recommend it,not least the attention given to the generic features of Russian philosophical discourse and theway inwhich this never quite made the transition to systematic philosophy. The close scrutiny of particular texts will also greatly assist students of Russian philosophical and literary culture who follow.However, one constantly has the impression that counter-examples could be given. Gustav Shpet's attempts topopularize and develop phenomenology inRussia represent important strivings towards clarity and systematicity, although his work constantly fell victim to the combined effects of theGerman idealist penchant for abstraction and the tendency for mystical fuzziness among Russian 'philosophizers' that he tried, unsuccessfully, to overcome. Similarly, the reception of Lebensphiloso phie, Volkerpsychologie, and, ultimately, of social theory in the periods discussed here remains largely unexplored. Thus, the new types of philosophical discourse that emerged in thework of the populists and, especially, in figures such as Georgii Plekhanov are not subjected to any serious examination, nor are grounds for their exclusion offered. This is especially curious given the proletarian commitments of Platonov. Furthermore, the emergence ofmainstream philosophical journals such as Novye ideiv filosofii andVoprosy filosofili ipsikhologii isnotdiscussed. Althoughthe book's focus falls outside these areas, they nevertheless provide significant features of the environment inwhich the philosophical works discussed emerged and against which, to a significant extent, they defined themselves. This text, therefore, can be warmly welcomed and recommended, but it requires much supplementation. UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD CRAIGBRANDIST The Ethics of thePoet: Marina Tsvetaeva's Art in theLight of Conscience. By UTE STOCK. (MHRA Texts and Dissertations, 62) Leeds: Maney. 2005. xii + I77 PP. ?35. ISBN 978-1-904350-4I-5. Marina Tsvetaeva's ethical thought is an aspect of her work which has been largely overlooked. Indeed, widespread views of thepoet as being either immoral or amoral, MLR, I02.2, 2007 6ii devoted toher art at theexpense of all other concerns, seem to suggest thatan attempt to set out an account of the development and practical application of Tsvetaeva's ethical thought isunlikely toprove illuminating.Ute Stock sets outwith the intention to rehabilitate Tsvetaeva as 'an ethically committed author' (p. 2), and in thecourse of thisbook she does just that,providing a convincing and lucid exploration of how the poet established and applied her own ethics,which emerged fromher own particular position as a poet. Stock argues that the view of Tsvetaeva as a poet who lived her life for art's sake alone ismistaken, and that her approach to art,which has been seen as highly idiosyncratic and excessively subjective, actually amounts to an ethical strategydevised todefend artistic freedom against theoverriding literaryand political attitudes ofher time.Tsvetaeva's suicide is interpreted in thecontext ofher..." @default.
• W4210568076 created "2022-02-08" @default.
• W4210568076 creator A5069358960 @default.
• W4210568076 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W4210568076 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4210568076 title "The Ethics of the Poet: Marina Tsvetaeva's Art in the Light of Conscience by Ute Stock" @default.
• W4210568076 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mlr.2007.0127" @default.
• W4210568076 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W4210568076 type Work @default.
• W4210568076 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4210568076 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4210568076 hasAuthorship W4210568076A5069358960 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C10180917 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C162127614 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C169081014 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C10180917 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C111472728 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C11171543 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C124952713 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C138885662 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C142362112 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C154775046 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C15744967 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C162127614 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C169081014 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C27206212 @default.
• W4210568076 hasConceptScore W4210568076C41895202 @default.
• W4210568076 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4210568076 hasLocation W42105680761 @default.
• W4210568076 hasOpenAccess W4210568076 @default.
• W4210568076 hasPrimaryLocation W42105680761 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2034487357 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2051951843 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2093064784 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2325306803 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2591663895 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2626421266 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W2791305681 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W3113894834 @default.
• W4210568076 hasRelatedWork W4293119175 @default.
• W4210568076 hasVolume "102" @default.
• W4210568076 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4210568076 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4210568076 workType "article" @default.