Ideas and Ideals

A notion central to the original Freudian formulation consists of the claim that psychic drives, faced with the need to meet all the exigencies of life, are forced away from their desire for immediate gratification, and into subordination to the reality principle, which limits libidinal development. That is to say, civilization necessarily implies sublimation and repression- i.e. Das Unbehagen. In response, H. Marcuse argues that such a deadlock represents in actuality a historical fact, supported by the discovery that within the very Freudian text itself, psychic phylogenesis is already defined only insofar as it is related to the central role played by social factors. H. Marcuse goes on to argue that such historical Unbehagen today, in late-industrial society, takes the form of surplus, unnecessary repression, as laborers must work under conditions of wage-labor, even though capital “presses to reduce labor time to a minimum.” The current paper seeks to mobilize this Marcusian framework as a valid hermeneutic method for the reading of contemporary late-industrial cultures, exploring specifically in what ways the recent liberalization of sexual norms known as hookup culture could be considered as an example of “repressive desublimation”. It also examines how such systems of libidinal economy in late capitalism functions to further mystify and hide away authentic modes of libidinal cathexis behind the horizon of the possible.

The idea for this article originated from the O. A. Donskikh book “The Will to Dignity. The National Ideal in the History of Russia.” After perestroika the social situation in Russia is persistently raising the question of the principles of social construction, cultural and historical self-identification which determines the attitude of society to the past and to the future. The main question discussed by the author of this article relates to the compatibility of traditional Russian mentality with the construction of capitalism in Russia. Nowadays there is no clear idea of the Russian identity. Currently, the society lacks the apparent theoretically designed view of itself and its past, and this situation creates unhappiness and spiritual breakdown. The internal reflection is needed in order to overcome this state of affairs, and this is impossible without critical reference to the history. In the process of gaining self-identity the history of the formation of civil consciousness and the history of emergence of the intellectual layer of the Russian society, pretending for the role of its carrier, are of crucial importance. The continuity of the history of people is based on its cultural type, on the systemic structure of values, reproduced by culture. For this reason, a researcher has to raise the question of the fundamental values of Russian consciousness and the forms of its manifestation at different stages of social development. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the question of which mental attitude has been dominating in the society during the Soviet period of its history. The issue is the relationship between an individual and society, the relationship between solidaristic and egoistically individualistic attitudes in the culture. Social construction and cultural archetypes mutually determine each other, and the author believes that the mental basis of Russian society is poorly compatible with the capitalist ethics of the organization of society, focused on the success of an individual in the sphere of consumption. The traditional communal archetype is more in line with the non-capitalist form of development, which implies its own mechanisms of synthesis of the public and personal interests. Social science, reflecting the ethics of a solidary society, should play an important role in their implementation.

On August 6, 2017, Boris Grigoryevich Yudin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, member of the editorial board of our journal, died. Exactly one year he did not live up to his 75th birthday. The contribution of B.G. Yudin in the formation of the Russian philosophy of the post-Soviet period has yet to be truly appreciated. He started studying the newest trends of ethical problems of the development of modern science and technology in our country. Thanks to his works, authority, great personal charisma in Russia, bioethics was created as an educational discipline and practice of ethical examination of scientifi c projects with human participation. B.G. Yudin had high authority in international scientifi c associations, represented Russia in the Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) in the Council of Europe. Therefore, he tried to ensure that the level and subject of research of Russian scientists corresponded to the challenges of the latest scientifi c and technological innovations that induce philosophical refl ection to search for permissible limits of the human nature transformation and life and death manipulation. Boris Grigoryevich was always aware of current ideas in the fi eld of ethics of scientifi c research, actively introduced these ideas and a new thesaurus in communication of Russian scientists. He traveled a lot around the country, was the organizer and participant of a large number of various scientifi c events. He not only studied the scientist’s responsibility theoretically, but also implemented it into practice. B.G. Yudin initiated an interest in a new fi eld for us - the principles of bona fi de science, having devoted several articles and reports to this. In recent years, Boris Grigoryevich developed the concept of technology as a modern mode of combining science and technology, the main target of which is human nature. The problem of human improvement has become an ethical-philosophical theme of human transformation within the framework of technoscience. B.G. Yudin’s standpoint in the interdisciplinary assessment of the effects of the technology development is determined by the requirements of a strictly scientifi c analysis of ethical issues arising in the context of new technologies and the consistent protection of humanistic values, so it was far from the extremes and technological optimism and alarmism. Today, on this theoretical basis, it is necessary to develop the practice of humanitarian expertise, to integrate scientifi c achievements into our life through the creation of reliable institutions for the protection of an individual and thereby promote the development of sciences and technologies

The present work develops the traditions of intellectual history associated with the re-creation of «hyperreality» of the theatrical and cinema space through scenic biographies. Continuing to adhere to the right-conservative positions, the author made an attempt to touch upon a special facet of this space. He seeks to draw attention to the career of female actresses, who because of their sincere and dedicated service to the high art of the cinema and for the ideological and aesthetic sophistication of their images can be considered genuine «queens of the screen» not only of the Fifth Republic, but also of the world cinematography. Of all the numerous pleiad of French cultural figures of the investigated gender category, the author singles out three large-scale, legendary figures – Annie Girardot, Simone Signoret and Michel Morgan.

The study focuses on the most important stages of the cinema career of these actresses and the concrete results of their activities that make up the contribution to the cinema art, which is considered in direct correlation with the main tendencies of France's social and political development in the newest period of time.

Because of this, a historical and cultural comparative analysis of «being-in-the-art» based on the use of various kinds of sources is carried out in the work.

They, except for sources of personal origin, are of paramount importance media materials in the form of film productions, films, the conceptual evaluation of which is based on both the personal impressions of the author and the research reserve that exists in historiography and cinematography

The article examines the process of comprehension of the Old Russian church music heritage by medievalists, church and professional composers and the significance of this heritage for the national culture. The article shows the process of the Old Russian chants tradition revival that took place at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. Russian composers and church leaders understood the key thing: the secularization of Russian religious music and the use of European musical means of expressiveness would lead to depersonalization, the loss of the “core” which had always been the foundation of the Russian church music. Therefore, the turn to the Old Russian chants based on a special echoes chant was obvious at that period. Composers developed special methods of writing music that corresponded to the spirit and character of the Old Russian chants and embodied them in practice.

A bright figure of this revival was S.V. Smolensky, who had the courage to contradict the prevailing views, to prove and to support the necessity of restoring the Old Russian chants taking into consideration the most essential part of those chants. He was lucky to see the first results of implementing his ideas into practice by his colleagues and pupils.

The revival of the tradition of the Old Russian chants was discontinued by the revolution of 1917 in Russia and the official Soviet policy, which enforced the state atheism.

The interrupted tradition of the Russian church musical culture was revived abroad among the emigrants: in the legendary Don Cossacks choir under the direction of Sergey Zharov (Serge Jaroff). Thus, one can speak not only of the continuity of the Russian church musical culture, but also of transferring it to other cultures. Russian emigrants carefully preserved their national traditions and among them the tradition of Russian church singing. The author describes the characteristic features of these processes and highlights their importance for the Russian culture

The article describes the New Year celebration in a historical context. In the 19th century, Armenians for the first time witnessed the celebration of the New Year (1827) by the Russian army under the command of General Krasovsky at Yerevan Fortress. In the 19th century, there was a common for both countries (Armenia and Russia) typological tradition of singing Christmas carols by children going from one house to another. The empirical analysis showed that all the New Year's attributes of the Soviet era were the same in both countries (Christmas trees, Ded Moroz, Snegurochka[1], New Year decorations, etc.). The same trend remains in the post-Soviet era but this time in the context of global trade. Alongside with the other consumer goods in Armenia, there appeared the New Year decorations reflecting the national and religious consciousness and symbols of Armenians. The channel of the Armenian Apostolic Church "Shoghakat" played an important role in the transformation of the New Year's festive atmosphere and the attributes of post-Soviet Armenia. The commonality of the New Year celebrations in the post-Soviet era can be seen in the following facts: almost the same number of non-working days in both Armenia and Russia, the New Year's speeches of the presidents of both countries in the post-Soviet era, participation of the Russian and Armenian presidents at the Christmas Liturgy. But there is one significant difference. The Catholicos of All Armenians continues congratulating the nation before the New Year's congratulation of the RA President, while the Patriarch of all Russia no longer congratulates Russian people together with the President on the New Year (since 2009), in order not to hurt the feelings of multi-religious citizens of Russia

[1] Snegurochka, a character of Russian folklore, the beautiful granddaughter to the equally mythical Ded Moroz (Russian, “Grandfather Frost”). Snow Maiden assists Grandfather Frost in delivering gifts to children at New Year's in those countries that were formerly constituent states of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

The article considers functioning of emblem books in the culture of the late Renaissance and the beginning of Modern times. The Italian humanist Giovanni Andrea Alciato, who published in 1531 the first book of emblems, became the originator of this genre of literature which had mainly didactic character. Emblemata by Alciato consisted of a set of images, each of which was followed by a short inscription-motto and also by commentary, revealing the meaning of the emblem. This extremely popular edition was republished many times and translated into different languages. Interest in the Alciato book and other similar works was largely caused by the enhanced attention toward antiquity and by the transition from mainly religious discourse to its more secular character. Authors of emblem books were mostly humanists, who tried to influence their audience appealing not only to the reason but also to the imagination and senses of their readers. Attractive and sometimes mysterious images promoted curiosity in the beholders, which resulted in the fact that a moral lesson or useful information contained in the commentary became easily remembered. In this regard, the books of emblems could be used with success as peculiar reference books, similar to the contemporary “commonplace books”, which contained distinctive quotes of antique authors, proverbs and sayings, which were thematically systematized. Educated people of this time remembered and used examples from these books in oral communication and also referred to these "reference books", enhancing their writing. Emblem books, written mostly in Latin and referring often to the antique literature and mythology, contributed to the development of secular culture, which united the countries of Western Europe separated religiously after the Reformation. Also, the ambiguity of an emblem’s visual image expanded the scope of its possible meanings, which resulted in the growth of the individuality of perception and interpretation of the subject touched by the emblem

The article describes the world of images in Czerny’s etudes, op. 740. This is the first work on this theme in Russian music literature. Nowadays etudes are considered to be only instructive. It is a mistake. Carl Czerny is an outstanding composer, a great piano teacher, «the King of Etudes», the first editor of «The Well-Tempered Clavier», a pupil of Beethoven, a teacher of Liszt and Leshetitsky. Czerny was a teacher of the transitional period - from positional classic technic principles to romantic free physiology principles. The etudes (op. 740) are the obligatory part of piano studies of every pianist in the whole world from the second part of the XIX century. At least 16 etudes (op. 740 includes 50 etudes) are not only instructive, but must be considered as artistic, creating images - like the etudes by Chopin, Liszt... The author of the article proves, that the world of etudes’ images contains the next ideas: images of Vienna, where Czerny lived (№ 9, 20, 29); «salon» images (№ 9, 33); images of dancing (№ 23, 42); imitation of timbres (№ 4, 18, 24); heroic images (№ 14, 46, 50); landscape lyricism (№ 6, 22, 36); nocturne images (№ 45). The article is based on M. G. Karpychev’s monography «Carl Czerny. Opus 740» (Novosibirsk, 2014) [5], in which every etude is separately analyzed in many aspects of performance

The article compares the views of the Orthodox patristics with the philosophy of Marxism. (The author considers the content of the Marxist philosophical theory, but not its ideology). This comparison takes place in three key aspects: general philosophical (the basic question of philosophy, theory of evolution), socio-philosophical (the basic question of social philosophy, private and public property, exploitation of labor) and ethical (freedom of moral choice, moral progress). Patristics is less known if compared with Marxism, that’s why the author focuses his attention on the presentation of its ideas in the given article. He shows that in patristics and Marxism there are many common (or at least compatible) philosophical theses. The article preferably considers these "points of intersection". The author comes to the conclusion that Orthodox theology, not being a philosophical ontology, goes beyond philosophical partisanship. It is also shown that the patristic heritage contains provisions incompatible with the class character of society, and above all with private property and exploitation of labor. The conclusion is that the general philosophy of Marxism (dialectical materialism), Marxist social philosophy (historical materialism) and Marxist ethics are compatible with the authentic Orthodox world view (not as a special religious-philosophical "hybrid", but in the format of an intellectual dialogue) in a single cultural space. This conclusion is of great theoretical and practical significance in the theory and practice of real humanism, it allows to establish a constructive ideological dialogue between different parts of Russian society

The concept of liberalism is extremely unpopular in modern Russia. Modern hopes about the solution of Russian problems cling to conservatism based on traditional values which are defined by Orthodoxy to a great extent. In other words, Orthodoxy and liberalism in modern Russian political discourse are treated as contradictory to each other. It is noteworthy that historical liberalism in its conservative variant was rooted in Russian ground and closely connected to Orthodox tradition. But with generally Christian sources of liberalism being widely accepted, the liberal potential of Eastern Christianity is being questioned. It is universally believed that Orthodoxy seemingly “belittles” personality and discourages the development of independence and freedom. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such views. Drawing from patristic heritage and the methodology developed by the classical Orthodox theologian V. Lossky and modern Orthodox philosophers (Ch. Yannaras, S. Khoruzhiy) the author elucidates the Orthodox understanding of personality (hypostasis) encoded in the Doctrine of Trinity. It was Orthodoxy that preserved and developed the concept of a human personality absolute value and uniqueness introduced by Christianity, this concept being later undermined by Western Christianity with “amending” the Trinity Doctrine by double procession of the Holy Spirit. Analyzing patristic attitude to a human the author comes to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the religion of freedom. Its philosophy is pervaded with the pathos of freedom and hymn to the elevated predestination of a human who is able of becoming a co-Creator. The proposition is supported by the Orthodox ideal of deification and the theory of synergism, i.e. concordant action of Divine and human energies suggesting free and conscious efforts of a person. Of course, we are talking about inner freedom: the freedom "to" and not freedom "from", without which the realization of external freedom is problematic