|
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0625.2020.5.32811
Дата направления статьи в редакцию:
29-04-2020
Дата публикации:
06-05-2020
Аннотация:
В условиях глобализации с характерными для данной эпохи социокультурными трансформациями актуализируется антропологическая проблематика, где важное место занимает творчество во взаимосвязи с индивидуальным бытием. Объект исследования – творчество в философско-культурологической концепции М. Хайдеггера. Предмет исследования – феномен творения в экзистенциализме М. Хайдеггера. Глобализация и характерные для нее социокультурные трансформации обозначили необходимость исследования творчества, в особенности, проблему творчество во взаимосвязи с индивидуальным бытием. Обращение к концепции М. Хайдеггера не случайно, так как проблема человека и творчества является центральной в его философской концепции. М. Хайдеггер в работе «Исток художественного творения» задает онтологический вектор исследования творчества в искусстве, закрепляющий за бытием как таковым центральную позицию. В статье исследуется понимание М. Хайдеггером творения, который для раскрытия сущности данного феномена использует понятия «бытие», «время», «пространство», «несокрытость», «истина», «вещность», «прекрасное», «красота». Теоретико-методологическую основу исследования составил культурно-исторический метод. Обращение к экзистенциально-феноменологической методологии сделало возможным выявление особенностей понимания творчества в концепции М. Хайдеггера. Системный подход послужил основанием рассмотрения феномена творчества как системы. Выявлено, что М. Хайдеггер творчество объясняет, как способ самореализации художника. Анализ работ М. Хайдеггера позволил заключить, что в понимании философа далеко не каждое произведение может быть отнесено к творению, а лишь то, где отражена система взглядов художника и особенности времени. Для Хайдеггера искусство есть пространство бытия и творения, сущность искусства составляет истина в творении творящаяся.
Ключевые слова:
искусство, творчество, творение, бытие творения, вещность вещи, творение как несокрытость, творение бытия, истина бытия, Da-sein, вот-бытие
Abstract: In the conditions of globalization with characteristic for this era sociocultural transformations, the anthropological problematic, which emphasizes the role of interrelation between creativity and personal being, comes to the forefront. The object of this study is creativity in the philosophical-cultural concept of M. Heidegger. The subject is the phenomenon of creation in M. Heidegger's existentialism. Reference to the concept of M. Heidegger is not accidental, since the problem of human and creativity is focal in his philosophical writings. In his work “The Origin of the Work of Art”, Heidegger sets an ontological vector of studying creativity in art, assigning to being as such the core position. The article explores M. Heidegger's understanding of creation, which he describes using the terms of "being", "time", "space", "unconcealment", "truth", "thingness", "beautiful", and "beauty".The theoretical and methodological basis of the study was the cultural and historical method. The appeal to the existential-phenomenological methodology allows identifying the peculiarities of comprehension of creativity in the concept of M. Heidegger. The systemic approach serves as the foundation for examining the phenomenon of creativity as a system. It is determines that Heidegger explains creativity as the artist’s way to personal fulfillment. The conclusion is made that according to the philosopher not every work can be attributed to creation, but only those that reflect the system of views of the artist and specificity of time. For Heidegger, art is the space of existence and creation; the essence of art consists in the truth being created in creation.
Keywords: art, creativity, creation, the being of creation, thingness of a thing, creation as unconcealment, the creation of being, the truth of being, Dasein, being there
Introduction.
At the present stage of human development, a new future-oriented culture is being created as a response to the challenges of the time. U. Beck believes that all processes occurring in the modern world are united by the concept of "globalization" [2]. In a globalizing world, taking into account sociocultural transformations, the issue of creativity has come to the fore. The need to study the role and essence of creativity in conditions of variability and uncertainty has also intensified.
K. Razlogov, Russian art historian, draws attention to the fact that in the situation of sociocultural transformation, the main thing is to preserve the priority of creativity and spirituality [21]. Culturologist N. Kirillova draws attention to changes in culture caused by globalization, and the significance of studies of cultural phenomena in the context of ongoing transformations [17].
Understanding the features of the creativity’s manifestation in the modern world becomes possible on the basis of a rethinking of philosophical-cultural concepts. In the context of globalization, when the reality and habitual forms of human life are changing, anthropological issues are being updated, where creativity plays an important role in conjunction with individual being. Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), the greatest thinker of the 20th century, a representative of the philosophy of existentialism, put the problem of man and creativity at the center of his philosophical concept. "Man is a thinking being, this is proved by the reality of those rare breakthroughs, thought feats that we have in the face of great thinkers," writes M. Heidegger [11, p. 22].
Problem Statement.
Creativity and its understanding as a cultural phenomenon are reflected in many philosophical and cultural concepts. It should be noted that the modernizing global world with new socio-cultural practices actualizes research and philosophical developments on the understanding of creativity in the context of the challenges of the modern era. This raises interest in M. Heidegger's concept of creativity, where the reinterpreted "being, time and existence" are the underlying principles of creativity.
Research methods.
The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is the cultural and historical method. It allows the presentation of the space of socio-cultural values that are most significant for understanding creativity. The appeal to the existential-phenomenological methodology made it possible to identify the features of understanding of creativity in the M. Heidegger’ concept. The systematic approach was the basis for considering the phenomenon of creativity as a system.
Findings.
The work of M. Heidegger is of great interest to researchers. Approaches and ideas of M. Heidegger in the aspect of the problems of creativity and art are studied by V. Podoroga [19], M. Poltrum [20], B. Hübner [15], V. Bibikhin [4], E. Falev [8], P. Gaidenko [10], A. Stepin [25], K. Dolgov [5], et al. Currently, interest in the work of M. Heidegger has intensified, as evidenced by the research of N. Ishchenko [16], T. Vasileva [26], et al.
In the concept of creativity of M. Heidegger, the focus is on the man, one of the ways of self-realization of which is creation. Heidegger, considering the work of art as a phenomenon of being, as well as "presence" (Dasein – «being there»), the study of works of art in the context of being brings to the ontological plane. A. V. Shutaleva notes that the essential feature of Dasein is related to the ontological outcome, such as "ecstasy" in M. Heidegger [23].
Language, including the language of art, according to Heidegger, – "is a house of being. In its home human beings dwell. Thinkers and poets are the guardians of this home. Their sphere is to ensure the openness of being, as far as they give it a word in speech, thereby preserving it in language" [14, p. 220].
M. Heidegger in the work "The Origin of the Work of Art" sets an ontological vector for the study of creativity in art, establishing the central position of being: "Being reveals itself to us in a variety of opposites, which, on the other hand, cannot be accidental, because the mere enumeration of these opposites indicates their internal connection. Being at the same time the most empty and richest, at the same time the most universal and unique, at the same time the most understandable and opposing to any concept, simultaneously erased from application and still only coming for the first time, together the most reliable and bottomless, together the most forgotten and most memorable, together the most expressed and the most silent" [14, p. 174].
Being is conceptualized through the basic categories of its concept – "creation" and "work". Creation for M. Heidegger is a hidden possibility of the appearance of being from non-being: "The artwork opens up, in its own way, the being of beings. This opening up, i.e., unconcealing, i.e., the truth of beings, happens in the work" [13, p. 131]. If the essence of being, its inconsistency, is comprehended by the artist, then a person when meeting with an artistic creation comes into contact with the truth of being, the essence is revealed to him.
M. Heidegger develops the idea that any work of art, in addition to being a creation, is also a thing: "every creation has such thingness" [13, p. 85]. Creation as an ontological premise has "the thingness of a thing". G. -G. Gadamer draws attention to this: "He [M. Heidegger] distinguishes three methods of comprehending things in tradition: a thing is a carrier of properties, a thing is the unity of diverse sensations, a thing is a formed substance. The third method of comprehension of all seems to be the most self-evident, of course, because it follows the model of making a thing that should serve our purposes. Heidegger calls such things the word "Zeug" (that is, a tool, a matter, a certain "equipmentality")" [9, p. 247]. In relation to "substance-form", M. Heidegger highlights another feature of any essential – "serviceability", on which "equipmentality", the choice of material, forms in relation to its suitability for specifically something are based. Let's consider the examples given by M. Heidegger to illustrate his position. So, for example, a temple, a jug, shoes, an ax, where the contour, substance and purpose are interconnected and determine each other. In this case the work as "equipmentality", being made, "production" is similar to the creation, because "… in this signification, the artwork counts as a thing, assuming it to be some kind of a being" [13, p. 89]. An artistic creation and a work in this sense are one as a whole.
M. Heidegger, referring to the teachings of ancient philosophers, points out that in ancient Greece works of craft and art were designated identically, and artists and artisans were called the same, using the same word τέχνη. What the artist produces is different from what the artisan does, although in both cases the verb "produce" can be applied, only in the artisan "produce," means "manufacture", and in the artist it will be understood as "create".
However, the approach to a work of art only as a thing does not explain how "being which have the being of things" differs from "being which have the being of works" [13, p. 89]. The creation in M. Heidegger's concept is not explained metaphysically, but as "unconcealment". M. Heidegger raises the question: "What is happening in creation?", otherwise, what is creation? Using the example of the Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh's painting "Shoes", the philosopher tries to reveal the meaning and purpose of creation in all its immediacy and completeness. The philosopher from the painting, which depicts seemingly just peasant shoes, reads "the toil", "tenacity of the slow trudge", "hard-stepping feet", "loneliness", "loneliness of the field-path", "silent call of the earth", "uncomplaining worry as to the certainty of bread" [13, p. 117, 119]. "This equipment belongs to the earth and finds protection in the world of the peasant woman. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within-itself." [13, p. 119], – the philosopher writes. Thus, the shoes, not just a work, but a creation, acquire "standing" in all its fullness and luminosity, "in the light of its being" [13, p. 123]. Van Gogh's painting is «the disclosure of what the equipment, the pair of peasant shoes, in truth is. This being steps forward into the unconcealment of its being» [13, p. 123], – writes M. Heidegger.
The phenomenon of space in relation to creation is elaborated in detail by M. Heidegger in the work "Art and space" [12]. Penetration into the being of art makes it possible to feel and understand a different space, to acquire an experience of being that has not previously existed. K. Dolgov writes that for M. Heidegger "space is like the world of man where there are no gaps, empty places, something alien and external, on the contrary, everything is connected here, everything is united, everything is homogeneous, everything is internal, everything is holistic. The space flows from itself and is determined by itself. There is no space as such, there is only a space existentially experienced by a person, a space "traversed" by a person, a space within the life process" [5, p. 34].
The "unconcealment "of being for M. Heidegger, just as in ancient philosophy truth is designated as αλήθεια, is connected with the disclosure of essential for being a creation, which means the commission of truth. The being of existence is revealed in the ways inherent in an artistic work. "Creation in the concept of M. Heidegger shows the truth. In order to understand artistic work, the philosopher assumes the need to enter the space of creation, due to which this "unconcealing, i.e., the truth of beings is performed. In the artwork, the truth of beings has set itself to the work", – notes A. Mikhailov [13, p. 131]. The essence of the work can be understood if the creation is "grasped by the looking eye" [22].
M. Heidegger sets a new context for the problem of creativity by introducing the concept of "truth" into the study. The philosopher notes that traditionally works of art were explained through the concepts of "beauty", "beautiful", which made it difficult to understand the difference between the produced artisan and the created artist, because in the description of both, "beautiful" and "beauteous" may be appropriate. M. Heidegger considers "the essential nature of art would then be this: the setting-itself-to-work of the truth of beings" [13, p. 123], that is, creation is "unconcealment", the achievement of the truth of being. "Unconcealment" as a manifestation of the earth and the world, the original being relations. The philosopher writes: "Earth is that in which the arising of everything that arises is brought back - as, indeed, the very thing that it is - and sheltered. In the things that arise the earth presences as the protecting one" [13, p. 139], and the world "worlds, and is more fully in being than all those tangible and perceptible things in the midst of which we take ourselves to be at home. World is never an object that stands before us and can be looked at" [13, p. 143]. Creation is revealed in its entirety due to its integration into the originally being space.
The earth and the world are different, but they are not separable. The philosopher sees in the relations of the earth and the world more than the unity of two opposites: "In its resting upon earth the world strives to surmount it. As the self-opening it will tolerate nothing closed. As the sheltering and concealing, however, earth tends always to draw the world into itself and to keep it there" [13, p. 153]. The dispute loses its sharpness and relevance in the creation, which establishes harmony in the system of relations "earth-world".
G.-G. Gadamer notes that M. Heidegger introduces the concepts of the earth and the world in order to "to understand the ontological structure of a work of art regardless of the subjectivity of its Creator or contemplator" [9]. Concepts in meaning are opposite to each other, if "the earth hides and closes in itself, - the world opens and unfolds. Both are obviously done in artistic creation – both opening and closing" [9]. V. Bibikhin, a philosopher, notes that M. Heidegger's "unconcealment" is a confrontation, a dispute between two principles within the truth of being – the earth (the beginning hiding) and the world (the beginning revealing) [4]. It is the unity of the opposition of earth and sky that is contained in creation. The truth, existence is in unconcealment inseparable from concealment.
Returning to creation as an "unconcealment", we analyze the relationship between creation and truth in the aspect of how the truth is fulfilled. M. Heidegger believes that the main way in which the truth is fulfilled is "the work-being of the work" [13, p. 167]. Using the example of an ancient temple or Van Gogh's shoes, M. Heidegger shows how truth is fulfilled, how it is created in creation: "world and earth in their counterplay - achieves unconcealment" [13, p. 169]. M. Heidegger correlates creation with the concepts of "beautiful" and "beauty". The philosopher explains the beautiful through the concept of "shining", understood as "that is set into the work" [13, p. 169]. Beauty is "one way in which truth as unconcealment comes to presence" [13, p. 169].
Creation is considered as something that is created, that is, characterized by being-created, the essence of which is revealed in relation to truth: "If anything distinguishes the work as a work it is the fact that it has been created. Since the work is created, and since creation requires a medium out of and in which the work is created, thingliness, too, must be part of the work" [13, p. 169]. A. Nikulina considers that the "creation of being-created" in creation fixes the "being-truth character", as well as "extra-subjectivity, (unconditioned by the will of the subject) and extra-objectiveness (independence from the external for the subject, actual causality)" [18, p. 117].
In any work of art, creative cannot be understood without appeal to the Creator, artist. Any creation is the result of the artist’s activity. M. Heidegger, following Plato, speaks about the madness of the Creator (poet, artist), seeing the connection of madness with divine forces. However, he understands insanity as the achievement and comprehension of what is impossible to comprehend in a situation of rational thinking [1]. M. Heidegger writes: "The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither is without the other. Nonetheless neither is the sole support of the other. Artist and work are each, in themselves and in their reciprocal relation, on account of a third thing, which is prior to both; on account, that is, of that from which both artist and artwork take their names, on account of art" [13, p. 89]. The ability to justify and interpret is characteristic of the Creator. O. Shved draws attention to this: "Creating something new, a person seeks to justify his immanent identity with being, at the same time puts a subjective interpretation of truth in his creation through all possible mechanisms of artistic embodiment, seeks to transform the vision of his mind into an object projection" [24, p. 158]. We can also agree with the opinion of A. Durnev that every work of art contains a complete story, which reflects the artist’s vision, his system of views and time features. When the creation is freed from all that is not inherent in it, then its essence becomes available. Unconcealment becomes possible thanks to the creator, the artist extracts being [6]. M. Dyachkova believes that spiritual and moral values act as a guideline of human social activity [7]. True creation therefore has an attractive power because it reflects the Creator's system of views and spiritual power.
The concept of M. Heidegger recognizes the new as a criterion characteristic of creativity. G. -G. Gadamer points to this in the introduction to "The Origin of the Work of Art": "Everyone should consider that in the artistic creation in which the world "rises", not only does a meaning that was not previously known become available to experience, but something new comes into being, together with the appearance of a work of art" [9, p. 251]. We find confirmation of this in M. Heidegger’s work: "From out of the poeticizing essence of truth it happens that an open place is thrown open, a place in which everything is other than it was" [13, p. 205].
Conclusion.
Thus, Martin Heidegger considers art as a space of being and creation, and its essence explains through the truth in creation that is being created. Only through the way of thinking ("preconception"), when the thought "…about thing, tool, and work in particular, but rather all beings in general" [13, p. 111], the truth and understanding of the essence of being can be available.
Библиография
1. Apaeva A. U. Platon i Hajdegger o sushchnosti bozhestvennogo bezumstva poetov // Filosofiya. YAzyk. Kul'tura. / Otv. red. V. V. Gorbatov. SPb.: Aletejya, 2012. Vyp. 3. S. 6–15.
2. Beсk U. CHto takoe globalizaciya? Oshibki globalizma – otvety na globalizaciyu / Per. s nem. A. Grigor'eva i V. Sedel'nika. M.: Progress-tradiciya, 2001. 303 s. [Elektronnyj resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://gendocs.ru/v16505/ (data obrashcheniya: 02.03.2019).
3. Bibikhin V. V. Delo Hajdeggera // Hajdegger M. Vremya i bytie... M., 1993. S. 3–14.
4. Bibikhin V. V. Hajdegger: ot «Bytiya i vremeni» k «Beiträge» // Voprosy filosofii. 2005. № 4. C. 114–129.
5. Dolgov K. M. Fenomenologicheskaya ontologiya Martina Hajdeggera i iskusstvo // Fenomenologiya iskusstva. M.: IF RAN, 1996. S. 22–53.
6. Durnev A. D. Ot veshchi k bytiyu: opyt esteticheskoj ontologii // Vestnik Permskogo nacional'nogo issledovatel'skogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Kul'tura, istoriya, filosofiya, pravo. 2017. № 4. S. 48–55.
7. Dyachkova M. A. Ponyatiya cennost' i duhovno-nravstvennye cennosti v pedagogike // Sibirskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal. 2007. № 12. S. 142–150.
8. Falev E. V. Germenevticheskij metod M. Hajdeggera v primenenii k stihotvoreniyu Stefana George «Slovo» // Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Ser. 7. Filosofiya. M.: 1997. № 1. S. 94–105.
9. Gadamer G.-G. Vvedenie k «Istoku hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya» // Hajdegger M. Istok hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya. Izbrannye raboty raznyh let. / Per. s nem. A. V. Mihajlova. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2008. S. 248–249.
10. Gaidenko P. P. Iskusstvo i bytie. M. Hajdegger o sushchnosti hudozhestvennogo proizvedeniya // Filosofiya. Religiya. Kul'tura: Kriticheskij analiz sovremennoj burzhuaznoj filosofii. M.: Nauka, 1982. S. 188–212.
11. Heidegger M. CHto zovetsya myshleniem? / Per. s nem. Predisl. O. Matejcheva. 2-e izd. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2010. S. 22.
12. Heidegger M. Iskusstvo i prostranstvo // Samosoznanie evropejskoj kul'tury HKH v. Mysliteli i pisateli Zapada o meste kul'tury v sovremennom obshchestve. M.: Politizdat, 1991. S. 95–102.
13. Heidegger M. Istok hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya. Izbrannye raboty raznyh let / Per. s nem. A. V. Mihajlova. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2008. S. 205.
14. Heidegger M. Vremya i bytie / Per. V. V. Bibihina. M.: Respublika, 1993. S. 220.
15. Hübner B. Martin Heidegger – oderzhimyj bytiem / Per. s nem. SPb.: Akademiya issledovaniya kul'tury, 2011. 172 s.
16. Ishchenko N. I. Martin Hajdegger: k voprosu o transcendencii // Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural. otdeleniya Ros. akad. nauk. 2018. T. 18. Vyp. 3. S. 27–46.
17. Kirillova N. B. Mnogoobrazie kul'tur v global'nom mediaprostranstve // Izvestiya Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Gumanitarnye nauki. 2006. Vypusk 12. № 47. S. 58–68.
18. Nikulina A. S. Nesokrytost' i priroda tvoreniya. K svyazi tekhniki i prirody v filosofii M. Hajdeggera // Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: filosofiya. 2018. № 1. T. 22. S. 117.
19. Podoroga V. A. Metafizika landshafta. Kommunikativnye strategii v filosofskoj kul'ture XIX–XX vv. M.: Nauka, 1993.
20. Poltrum M. Schönheit und Sein bei Heidegger. Passagen Verlag Ges. M. B. H., Wien, 2005.
21. Razlogov K. E. Duhovnoe vozrozhdenie – mif ili real'nost'? // Kul'turologicheskij zhurnal [Elektronnyj resurs]. 2012. № 1 (7). URL: http://cr-journal.ru/rus/journals/121.html&j_id%3D9 (data obrashcheniya: 15.02.2020 g.).
22. Shutaleva A. V. Problema videniya v kontekste konstitutivnoj ontologii soznaniya: avtoref. dis. ... kand. filos. nauk: 09.00.01. Ekaterinburg: [b. i.], 2007. 24 s.
23. Shutaleva A. V. Transcendenciya kak ontologicheskaya vozmozhnost' soznaniya // Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 2009. № 8 (42). S. 38–42.
24. Shved O. A. Hudozhestvennoe tvorenie kak osnova estetiki M. Hajdeggera // Novaya nauka: Sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti razvitiya. 2016. № 9. S. 158.
25. Stepin A. V. Metafizika bomby: M. Hajdegger, G. Anders, P. Sloterdajk // V mire nauchnyh otkrytij. 2012. № 11. S. 62–71.
26. Vasileva T. V. Sem' vstrech s M. Hajdeggerom. M.: Izdatel' Savin S. A., 2004. 336 s. Hajdegger M. Vremya i bytie: stat'i i vystuplenii / Per. s nem. M.: Respublika, 1993. S. 220
References
1. Apaeva A. U. Platon i Hajdegger o sushchnosti bozhestvennogo bezumstva poetov // Filosofiya. YAzyk. Kul'tura. / Otv. red. V. V. Gorbatov. SPb.: Aletejya, 2012. Vyp. 3. S. 6–15.
2. Besk U. CHto takoe globalizaciya? Oshibki globalizma – otvety na globalizaciyu / Per. s nem. A. Grigor'eva i V. Sedel'nika. M.: Progress-tradiciya, 2001. 303 s. [Elektronnyj resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://gendocs.ru/v16505/ (data obrashcheniya: 02.03.2019).
3. Bibikhin V. V. Delo Hajdeggera // Hajdegger M. Vremya i bytie... M., 1993. S. 3–14.
4. Bibikhin V. V. Hajdegger: ot «Bytiya i vremeni» k «Beiträge» // Voprosy filosofii. 2005. № 4. C. 114–129.
5. Dolgov K. M. Fenomenologicheskaya ontologiya Martina Hajdeggera i iskusstvo // Fenomenologiya iskusstva. M.: IF RAN, 1996. S. 22–53.
6. Durnev A. D. Ot veshchi k bytiyu: opyt esteticheskoj ontologii // Vestnik Permskogo nacional'nogo issledovatel'skogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Kul'tura, istoriya, filosofiya, pravo. 2017. № 4. S. 48–55.
7. Dyachkova M. A. Ponyatiya cennost' i duhovno-nravstvennye cennosti v pedagogike // Sibirskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal. 2007. № 12. S. 142–150.
8. Falev E. V. Germenevticheskij metod M. Hajdeggera v primenenii k stihotvoreniyu Stefana George «Slovo» // Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Ser. 7. Filosofiya. M.: 1997. № 1. S. 94–105.
9. Gadamer G.-G. Vvedenie k «Istoku hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya» // Hajdegger M. Istok hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya. Izbrannye raboty raznyh let. / Per. s nem. A. V. Mihajlova. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2008. S. 248–249.
10. Gaidenko P. P. Iskusstvo i bytie. M. Hajdegger o sushchnosti hudozhestvennogo proizvedeniya // Filosofiya. Religiya. Kul'tura: Kriticheskij analiz sovremennoj burzhuaznoj filosofii. M.: Nauka, 1982. S. 188–212.
11. Heidegger M. CHto zovetsya myshleniem? / Per. s nem. Predisl. O. Matejcheva. 2-e izd. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2010. S. 22.
12. Heidegger M. Iskusstvo i prostranstvo // Samosoznanie evropejskoj kul'tury HKH v. Mysliteli i pisateli Zapada o meste kul'tury v sovremennom obshchestve. M.: Politizdat, 1991. S. 95–102.
13. Heidegger M. Istok hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya. Izbrannye raboty raznyh let / Per. s nem. A. V. Mihajlova. M.: Akademicheskij proekt, 2008. S. 205.
14. Heidegger M. Vremya i bytie / Per. V. V. Bibihina. M.: Respublika, 1993. S. 220.
15. Hübner B. Martin Heidegger – oderzhimyj bytiem / Per. s nem. SPb.: Akademiya issledovaniya kul'tury, 2011. 172 s.
16. Ishchenko N. I. Martin Hajdegger: k voprosu o transcendencii // Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural. otdeleniya Ros. akad. nauk. 2018. T. 18. Vyp. 3. S. 27–46.
17. Kirillova N. B. Mnogoobrazie kul'tur v global'nom mediaprostranstve // Izvestiya Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Gumanitarnye nauki. 2006. Vypusk 12. № 47. S. 58–68.
18. Nikulina A. S. Nesokrytost' i priroda tvoreniya. K svyazi tekhniki i prirody v filosofii M. Hajdeggera // Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: filosofiya. 2018. № 1. T. 22. S. 117.
19. Podoroga V. A. Metafizika landshafta. Kommunikativnye strategii v filosofskoj kul'ture XIX–XX vv. M.: Nauka, 1993.
20. Poltrum M. Schönheit und Sein bei Heidegger. Passagen Verlag Ges. M. B. H., Wien, 2005.
21. Razlogov K. E. Duhovnoe vozrozhdenie – mif ili real'nost'? // Kul'turologicheskij zhurnal [Elektronnyj resurs]. 2012. № 1 (7). URL: http://cr-journal.ru/rus/journals/121.html&j_id%3D9 (data obrashcheniya: 15.02.2020 g.).
22. Shutaleva A. V. Problema videniya v kontekste konstitutivnoj ontologii soznaniya: avtoref. dis. ... kand. filos. nauk: 09.00.01. Ekaterinburg: [b. i.], 2007. 24 s.
23. Shutaleva A. V. Transcendenciya kak ontologicheskaya vozmozhnost' soznaniya // Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 2009. № 8 (42). S. 38–42.
24. Shved O. A. Hudozhestvennoe tvorenie kak osnova estetiki M. Hajdeggera // Novaya nauka: Sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti razvitiya. 2016. № 9. S. 158.
25. Stepin A. V. Metafizika bomby: M. Hajdegger, G. Anders, P. Sloterdajk // V mire nauchnyh otkrytij. 2012. № 11. S. 62–71.
26. Vasileva T. V. Sem' vstrech s M. Hajdeggerom. M.: Izdatel' Savin S. A., 2004. 336 s. Hajdegger M. Vremya i bytie: stat'i i vystuplenii / Per. s nem. M.: Respublika, 1993. S. 220
Результаты процедуры рецензирования статьи
В связи с политикой двойного слепого рецензирования личность рецензента не раскрывается.
Со списком рецензентов издательства можно ознакомиться здесь.
Предметом исследования статьи «Творчество в экцистенциализме (так в тексте) Мартина Хайдеггера» выступает концепция творчества немецкого философа. Автор статьи обращается к онтологическим корням произведения искусства, связывает его появление с обнаружением параметров, сокрытых в мире. Автор совершенно справедливо указывает на исследователей, схожим образом интерпретирующим хайдеггеровское осмысление творчества. Однако непонятным в этой связи остается название статьи, в которой практически не затрагивается экзистенциализм (если мы правильно поняли авторский термин экцистенциализм) Хайдеггера, его идеи связанные с потерей укорененности и роли искусства в преодолении этого процесса. В это связи представляется уместным уточнить название статьи с тем, чтобы в нем был верно отражен предмет исследования, например, «Онтологический аспект творчества в философии Мартина Хайдеггера».
Методология исследования. Автор заявляет использование в своем исследовании трех методов – культурно-исторического, экзистенциально-феноменологического и системного. По факту мы встречаем в статье также системный и контекстуальный анализ текстов Хайдеггера (к сожалению, их переводов на русский язык), компилирование наиболее серьезных исследований, посвященных обозначенной проблеме, систематизацию полученных результатов.
Актуальность своего исследования автор связывает с социокультурными преобразованиями, происходящими в глобалзирующимся мире и необходимостью изучением роли и сущности творчества в условиях неопределенности и том вкладе, который может внести концепция творчества Хайдеггера в этот процесс. Нам видится актуальность подобных исследований несколько иначе, и в первую очередь в том, что сам процесс творчества не является некой константой, и соответственно, требует переосмысления в рамках различных культур и времен. Изучение концепции творчества Хайдеггера позволяет понять не только и не столько сам акт творчества, но творчество в определенной социокультурной среде, то, чем было творчество именно для Хайдеггера, но и то, чем оно являюсь в первой половине и середине 20 века.
Научная новизна заключается в системном репродуцировании отдельного аспекта философского наследия Хайдеггера – его концепции творчества, использование при этом опыта изучения отечественной философской традицией.
Стиль, структура, содержание. Статья написана на английском языке, что вызывает некоторые недоумения. Во-первых, Хайдеггер немецкий философ и посвящая статью его творчеству, логично было бы писать ее на немецком. Тем более странно выглядит цитирование работ философа по русскоязычным изданиям, правильнее было бы воспользоваться англоязычными изданиями Хайдеггера или же осуществлять (при необходимости) собственный перевод с немецкого языка. Едва ли двойной перевод достаточно сложных идей Хайдеггера, сперва с немецкого на русский, потом с русского на английский, увеличивает аутентичность понимания авторской мысли. Во-вторых, исследование автора статьи очевидно располагается в русскоязычном научном контексте. Из 26 авторов, упоминаемых в списке литературы только два, не являются нашими соотечественниками (при том, что одна из работ переведена на русский и по этому изданию и цитируется). То есть, автор не знаком с исследованиями творчества Хайдеггера в других странах, не соотносит свое исследование с английской или немецкой традицией. Поэтому выбор английского языка для статьи непонятен. Тем более, что конструкция английских предложений не всегда правильна, а используемые термины – уместны. Например, в начале статьи автор пишет «Culturologist N. Kirillova draws attention to changes…» видимо имея в виду то, что Кириллова Н.Б. является специалистом в области исследования культуры. Но термин «культурология» имеет очень ограниченное употребление в английском языке, и для обозначения специализации Кирилловой в англоязычной традиции больше подошло бы «Cultural Studies». В английском тексте статьи обращает на себя внимание отсутствие заглавных букв в ключевых терминах. Так, передавая название работы Хайдеггера "The Origin of the Work of Art" автор использует заглавные буквы, а указывая на его концепт «язык, как дом бытия» – нет «is a house of being», также как и во многих других случаях, требующих выделения терминов заглавными буквами - "presence", "creation", "work", "unconcealment " и др .
В статье выделены такие элементы структуры как: введение, постановка задачи, методы исследования, полученные данные и выводы.
Важным элементом для понимания концепции творчества Мартина Хайдеггера являются его феноменологические изыскания. Цитируемый автором текста фрагмент размышлений немецкого философа о картине Ван Гога «Башмаки», с очевидность указывает на феноменологическую трактовку этого произведения Хайдеггером. Ван Гог по его мысли обнаруживает саму «башмаковаость башмаков», показывает их историю, дает высказаться башмакам. Важным моментом здесь выступает художник, как посредник, проговаривающий бытие, а не только само бытие, выражающее себя в творчестве. Творчество, по Хайдеггеру, это особая интенция к миру, способность «узрения несокрытого», этот аспект, к сожалению, не отражен в статье.
Библиография включает 26 наименований источников, вполне репрезентативных с точки зрения отражения традиции исследования творчества Хайдеггера в отечественной философской традиции. Однако, автору следует уделить больше внимания оформлению списка литературы с использованием транслитерации. Например, привести к единообразию транслитерацию фамилии Хайдеггер (в источниках №11-14 встречаем одно написание, под №24 и 26 – другое), наличие точек и сокращений (см.напр. №17). Необходимо привести список литературы в соответствие с алфавитным порядком (в настоящий момент он не следует ни русскому, ни латинскому алфавиту).
Апелляция к оппонентам осуществляется в виде ссылок и прямых цитат русскоязычных авторов.
Выводы, интерес читательской аудитории. В качестве вывода автор констатирует, что Хайдеггер рассматривает искусство как пространство бытия и творения, и его сущность объясняется через истину в творении, которое создается. Этот вывод, конечно, не вызывает возражений, однако и не отличается оригинальностью. Круг читателей, на который рассчитана данная статья неясен. Англоязычным читателям подобное исследование будет едва ли интересно, поскольку располагается вне контекста их обращений к творчеству Хайдеггера, желание русскоязычных читателей знакомится с текстом о Хайдеггере на английском языке вызывает сомнения.
|
Статья опубликована с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) – Лицензия «С указанием авторства – Некоммерческая».
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
Рус
