UDC

111

DOI

10.137482/2227-6564-V009

Authors

Nikolay N. Kozhevnikov
M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University; ul. Kulakovskogo 42, Yakutsk, 677000, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5823-8896 e-mail: nnkozhev@mail.ru
Vera S. Danilova
M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University; ul. Kulakovskogo 42, Yakutsk, 677000, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3201-0687 e-mail: nikkozh@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper considers the interaction between the concepts of logos and eidos and the possibility of their use in contemporary philosophy. Logos is a true word or thought exactly corresponding to the truth and identified with its object. Eidos is the living being of an object, permeated with semantic energies coming from its depth and developing into a complete living picture of the revealed image of the object’s essence. Many of the imbalances existing in philosophy are caused by the fact that as early as in Late Antiquity and then in the Middle Ages, there began a process of moving the concept of eidos and other closely related concepts to the background. In this process, many achievements of the ancient Greeks were lost: their understanding of the cosmos as equilibrium and humans as an intrinsic part of nature on an equal level with other natural processes and phenomena. The science of the modern times, including philosophy, shifted resolutely from the study of entities to the study of phenomena, from “what” to “how”. In addition, the philosophy and science in the modern era turned their spotlight on personality, consciousness, and the self. Meanwhile, the view in which the eidos is revealed in its entirety (eidetic view) can be formed from the point of view of three interrelated limits of dynamic equilibria: identification, communication, and rhythmization. Identification of an object under study can be described as a transition from phenomenon to phenomenon; communication as a transition from horizon to horizon; and rhythmization as identifying the fundamental time interval between the transition from one level of the “phenomenon, horizon, rhythm” to another level of similar nature. As a result, a cell is formed consisting of three fundamental limits of dynamic equilibria, which can serve as the basis for the object’s development.
For citation: Kozhevnikov N.N., Danilova V.S. The Interaction of Eidos and Logos in the History of Philosophy and Science. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2020, no. 2, pp. 83–91. DOI: 10.137482/2227-6564-V009

Keywords

dynamic equilibrium, limit of dynamic equilibria, identification, communication, rhythmization, eidos, logos

References

1. Trubetskoy S.N. Uchenie o Logose v ego istorii: Filosofsko-istoricheskoe issledovanie [The Doctrine of Logos in Its History: A Philosophical and Historical Research]. Moscow, 2000. 651 p.
2. Losev A.F. Muzyka kak predmet logiki [Music as a Subject of Logic]. Moscow, 1927. 388 p.
3. Losev A.F. Filosofiya imeni [The Philosophy of Name]. Moscow, 2009. 300 p.
4. Kozhevnikov N.N., Danilova V.S. The World Coordinate System on the Basis of Limit Dynamic Equilibriums. Eur. J. Philos. Res., 2016, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 18–26.
5. Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. T. 4. Aristotel’ i pozdnyaya klassika [The History of Ancient Aesthetics. Vol. 4. Aristotle and Late Antiquity]. Moscow, 1975. 776 p.
6. Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy filosofii v konspektivnom izlozhenii [A Summary of the History of Ancient Philosophy]. Moscow, 1989. 204 p.
7. Kubitskiy A.V. Primechaniya k perevodu “Metafiziki” [Notes on the Translation of Metaphysics]. Aristotle. Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Moscow, 1934.
8. Lukanin R.K. “Organon” Aristotelya [Aristotle’s Organon]. Moscow, 1984. 304 p.
9. Lebedev A.V. Eidos. Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya. T. 4. T-Ya [New Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4. T-Ya]. Moscow, 2001, p. 415.
10. Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Itogi tysyacheletnego razvitiya [The History of Ancient Aesthetics. The Results of a Thousand-Year-Old Development]. Kharkov, 2000. Book 1. 832 p.
11. Kozhevnikov N.N. Metafizicheskiy, ontologicheskiy, fenomenologicheskiy, germenevticheskiy aspekty sistemy koordinat mira na osnove predel’nykh dinamicheskikh i setevykh ravnovesiy [Metaphysical, Ontological, Phenomenological, and Hermeneutic Aspects of the World Coordinate System Based on the Limit Dynamic and Network Equilibria]. Yakutsk, 2018. 170 p. 1 electronic optical disc.
12. Aristotle. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Works in Four Volumes]. Moscow, 1976. Vol. 1. 550 p.
13. Sextus Empiricus. Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh [Works in Two Volumes]. Moscow, 1975. Vol. 1. 399 p.
14. Pifagoreyskaya shkola [The Pythagorean School]. Antologiya mirovoy filosofii [An Anthology of World Philosophy]. Moscow, 1969. Vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 280–290.
15. Plato. Timey [Timaeus]. Sobranie sochineniy [Collected Works]. Moscow, 1994. Vol. 3. 657 p.
16. Coreth E. Grundriss der Metaphysik. Innsbruck, 1994. 231 p. (Russ. ed.: Koret E. Osnovy metafiziki. Kiev, 1998. 248 p.).
17. Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya [Being and Time]. Kharkov, 2003. 509 p.
18. von Herrmann F.-W. Der Begriff der Phänomenologie bei Heidegger und Husserl. Frankfurt am Main, 1985 (Russ. ed.: fon Kherrmann F.-V. Ponyatie fenomenologii u Khaydeggera i Gusserlya. Tomsk, 1997. 96 p.).

Received: 15 August 2019
Accepted: 20 December 2019