UDC

[1(091)+101.8]:004.451.55

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V092

Authors

Aleksandr A. L’vov
Saint Petersburg State University; Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7375-3327 e-mail: a.lvov@spbu.ru

Abstract

This paper turns to contemporary discussions on the methodology in the history of philosophy and their general context of the humanities. A comparative analysis of the epistemological stances of the history of ideas (using the works by A.O. Lovejoy and I. Berlin, as well as H. Bloom’s studies on the Western canon) and conceptual history (from the pioneer in this area G. Teichmüller to R. Koselleck, Q. Skinner and J. Pocock) allows us to identify the peculiarities of both approaches as well as to reveal any points of converging and differences between them. Moreover, the article dwells on the main consequences of their use by the historians of philosophy as independent areas of research, such as cultural anthropology, study of literature, and linguistics. In addition, the paper discusses the canonization of forms of thinking as an efficient way of making a person identify him/her with a certain “imaginary community”, which simultaneously determines the subject’s way of thinking and is supported by him/her. The analysis performed allows us to infer the following: inquiries of historians of philosophy support the elaboration of paradigms and ideological forms of their representation; their methodological success consists in a specific character of their heuristic strategies that enables them to deal with the genuine genealogy of the present, in which contemporaneity finds its foundations. Thus, historians of philosophy are faced with the situation of hypertext as the research area is formed by the methodology of historical-philosophical inquiry. Such a heuristics brings contemporary historians of philosophy together with theorists of structuralism, which had previously dominated the studies of language and social sciences.
For citation: L’vov A.A. Historians of Philosophy in the Situation of Hypertext. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2021, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 99–109. DOI: 10.37482/2687-1505-V092

Keywords

historians of philosophy, history of ideas, conceptual history, Western canon, hypertext

References

1. Lovejoy A.O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, 1936 (Russ. ed.: Lavdzhoy A. Velikaya tsep’ bytiya. Moscow, 2001. 376 p.).
2. Vlasova O.A. Intellektual’naya istoriya kak pole metodologicheskogo samosoznaniya istorikov filosofii [Intellectual History as a Field of Methodological Self-Consciousness of Historians of Philosophy]. Vestnik
Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya, 2020, no. 54, pp. 105–114. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/54/11
3. L’vov A.A. Istoriki filosofii v poiske osnovaniy svoey distsipliny: status istorii filosofii i istoriko-filosofskaya rabota [How Historians of Philosophy Substantiate Their Discipline: The Status of History of Philosophy and Historical and Philosophical Research]. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta im. V.I. Vernadskogo. Filosofiya. Politologiya. Kul’turologiya, 2017, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 84–94.
4. Etkind A. Predislovie [Foreword]. Berlin I. Filosofiya svobody. Evropa [The Philosophy of Freedom. Europe]. Moscow, 2001, pp. 5–6.
5. Berlin I. Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder. London, 2000. 382 p.
6. Kolesnikov A.S. Sovremennaya sravnitel’naya istoriya filosofii v antropologicheskoy perspektive [Contemporary Comparative History of Philosophy in Anthropological Prospect]. Gumanitarnyy vektor, 2020, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 156–165. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2020-15-4-156-165
7. Lèvi-Strauss C. Strukturnaya antropologiya [Structural Anthropology]. Moscow, 2011. 541 p.
8. Anderson B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, 2006. 351 p.
9. Ban’kovskaya S.P., Kil’dyushov O.V. Svoy, Drugoy, Chuzhoy: Benedikt Anderson i sotsiologicheskoe izmerenie natsionalizma [The Friend, the Other, the Alien: A Conversation on Benedict Anderson and the Sociological Dimension of Nationalism]. Voprosy natsionalizma, 2019, no. 1, pp. 143–161.
10. Bloom H. The Western Canon. The Books and School of the Ages. New York, 1994. 578 p. (Russ. ed.: Blum G. Zapadnyy kanon. Knigi i shkola vsekh vremen. Moscow, 2017. 672 p.).
11. Holderness G. ‘An Arabian in My Room’: Shakespeare and the Canon. Crit. Surv., 2014, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 73–89.
12. Musolff A. Metaphor, Nation and the Holocaust: The Concept of the Body Politic. New York, 2010. 210 p.
13. Naumova E.I. Kul’tur-filosofskoe obosnovanie razvitiya ponyatiya “kapitalizm” [Cultural and Philosophic Substantiation of the Development of the Concept of Capitalism]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 7: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya i sotsial’nye tekhnologii, 2014, no. 5, pp. 29–33.
14. Ezri G.K. Filosofiya Lottse i Teykhmyullera i russkaya religioznaya filosofiya “vseedinstva”: obshchnost’ podkhodov v ontologii i antropologii [Philosophy of Lotze and Teichmüller and Russian Religious Philosophy of “All-Unity”: Common Approaches in Ontology and Anthropology]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk, 2018, no. 11-2, pp. 122–126. DOI: 10.24411/2500-1000-2018-10209
15. Ivleva M.I. Formirovanie spiritualisticheskoy filosofskoy sistemy v trudakh G. Teykhmyullera [The Formation of Spiritualist Philosophical System in the Works of G. Teichmüller]. Pravo i praktika, 2019, no. 1, pp. 325–328.
16. Berdnikova A.Yu. “Nazad k Kantu” ili “nazad k Leybnitsu”? Kriticheskiy vzglyad iz istorii russkogo metafizicheskogo personalizma [‘Back to Kant’ or ‘Back to Leibnitz’? A Critical View from the History of Russian Metaphysical Personalism]. Kantovskiy sbornik, 2017, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 33–45. DOI: 10.5922/0207-6918-2017-2-3
17. Teichmüller G. Neuen Studien zur Geschichte der Begriffe. Vol. 1: Herakleitos. Gotha, 1876, pp. V–VI.
18. Kozlov A. Gustav Teykhmyuller (Okonchanie) [Gustav Teichmüller (Ending)]. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 1894, book 25, pp. 661–681.
19. White H. Foreword. Koselleck R. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford, 2002, pp. IX–XIV.
20. Koselleck R. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford, 2002. 363 p.
21. Atnashev T., Velizhev M. Kembridzhskaya shkola: istoriya i metod [The Cambridge School: History and Method]. Kembridzhskaya shkola: teoriya i praktika intellektual’noy istorii [The Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of
Intellectual History]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 7–50.
22. Skinner Q. Znachenie i ponimanie v istorii idey [Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas]. Kembridzhskaya shkola: teoriya i praktika intellektual’noy istorii [The Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of Intellectual History]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 53–122.
23. Pocock J.G.A. The State of the Art. Kembridzhskaya shkola: teoriya i praktika intellektual’noy istorii [The Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of Intellectual History]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 142–188.