Vladimir Bibler

Picture of Vladimir Bibler

Date of Birth: 07/04/1918

Age: 81

Place of birth: Moscow

Citizenship: Russia


Born July 4, 1918 in Moscow. He graduated from the History Faculty of Moscow State University, graduate of the Institute of Philosophy Academy of Sciences of the USSR, member of the Great Patriotic War. In 1951 he defended his thesis. In connection with the company against cosmopolitanism sent to Stalinabad, where he worked at the department of philosophy at the Tajik State University. In 1959 he returned to Moscow. He worked at the Department of Philosophy of the Moscow Mining Institute (1959-1963), the Institute of History of Science and Technology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1963-1968), the Institute of World History of the USSR (1968-1982), the Institute of Pedagogy and General Psychology APN USSR (1982-1989) , since 1992 - at the Russian state University for the Humanities.

Since 1965, he headed the unofficial home theoretical seminar on the philosophy of culture (workshop in 1991 called "Arche"). The participants of the seminar were philosophers, cultural historians and psychologists: A.V.Ahutin, L.M.Batkin, I.E.Berlyand, M.S.Glazman, T.B.Dlugach, R.R.Kondratov, YA.A .Lyatker, N.V.Malahova, L.A.Markova, S.S.Neretina, V.L.Rabinovich, L.B.Tumanova and others. Since the early 90-ies of developing a concept of education "School of dialogue of cultures." Author of many articles and editor of the yearbook "Arche" (Issues 1-3, 1993, 1996, 1998).

Friends and colleagues were G.S.Batischev VS Bibler, Davydov, EV Ilyenkov, Mamardashvili, F.T.Mihaylov, M.B.Turovsky, GPSchedrovitsky and other creative and independent-minded philosophers, psychologists and historians.

The objective of the initial phase of the revival of philosophy in the Soviet Union was to recall the genuine Marx, buried and forgotten prevailing official "Marxism". It was necessary to understand the logic of living capital, and therefore, to rethink that on which it is based - system of Hegelian philosophy. Therefore, the theme of "dialectical logic" has become the focus of creative philosophical discussions of the time. Discussion of this issue is devoted to the first book Bibler On the system of categories of dialectical logic (Stalinabad, 1957). Throughout creativity Marx remained for VS Bibler basic dialogic partner and opponent. The book samostoyaniya person. Subject activity in Marx`s concept and Self-determination of the individual (Kemerovo, 1993) Bibler wrote: "All of my basic ideas - ideas of" cultural logic of philosophy "- is genetically linked with a logical" bringing to the limit "is Marx`s approach to organic criticism of Marx ...".

The most characteristic feature is the method of philosophy VS Bibler "bringing to the limit." He referred to his "philosophical culture logic" or "logic of the beginning of logic", which is directly reflected in the logical paradoxes. For example, Zeno of Elea, bringing to the extreme logical statement about the infinite divisibility of space, convincingly argued that Achilles did not overtake the tortoise. But the converse is not possible and that there are indivisible pieces of space. This is evidenced by Aporia Arrow (Aporia - from the Greek apor & iacute;. A - frustration; difficult or intractable problem that occurs when there is an argument against the obvious, conventional). Above solution puzzle that Zeno put forth more than two thousand years ago, is still struggling logic, offering more and more new solutions.

Such puzzles (or "Enigma" in Bibler terminology) are in the "beginning" of any logical reasoning. They encouraged the idea to work, it is oriented in a certain direction, but does not prejudge the results. The fundamental mystery of being as paradoxical beginning contains opportunities for almost boundless variety of logical decisions.

According Bibler, every culture has its own special type of mystery (enigmatic) and its particular way of solving a (a type of reason). For example, the ancient culture thinks of itself in the form of the aforementioned paradoxes - such as Zeno or aporiynyh determinations of being and nothingness, life and movement, single and more Platonic dialogue Parmenides. Unravel the mystery of existence is for Greek thought literally determine conclude chaos becoming the world within the beautiful form of eidos.

The mystery of the medieval mind on Bibler presented in the form of antithesis of the divine "nothing" and the created "all" of the idea of ??generating and involvement. Something there for his involvement in an absolute subject in comparison with "all" the created appears as the creative, but not a created "nothing". God - it is nothing that creates all. Communication is something and nothing mysterious. Moreover, this mystery is the basis of understanding of being any thing. At the heart of human existence, the mystery is recognized as a matter of predestination of human destiny. If God is good and all-powerful, then the person can not itself define its own actions. And, therefore, it is not for no reward nor punishment after death - because everything is predetermined will of God. But then it becomes meaningless central ethical challenge of Christianity - the salvation of his soul. If a person is free to sin, then either God is not all-good because forcing a person to do evil, or (if the all-good), it is not omnipotent (ie desires the good of man, but can not be this good on their own to carry out). This conclusion is also not acceptable. As a result, the ratio of the created world and the Creator takes the form of a fundamental problem - the beginning of the widest variety of proposals in the Middle Ages options philosophical and theological reflection.

In the culture of New time limit the mystery is presented in the form of antinomian definition of thinking and being (like Kant`s antinomy). The world thought and simultaneously as a natural mechanism, determined by physical laws, and as an object against which man realizes his freedom. How is it possible to reconcile these inconsistent definitions of the world? Modern European mind identifies with the scientific understanding of the knowledge of the essence of things, to the discovery of some random manifestations of internal law, which determines the possibility of the existence of real-world events. For example, the laws of motion for the physical world or the moral law to the world of human freedom.

According Bibler its ways enigmatic characteristic of life as well, and for the cultures of the East. For the modern European culture in which we live is characterized by the installation of openness with regard to both the diversity of cultures past and present other cultures. But perhaps philosophically comprehend their unity? For each of the types of cultural understanding of reality forms a relatively closed world with its own logic of his thinking. In answering this question, as the VS Bibler rejects the logic of induction (the transition from the particular to the general), the same logic deduction - elimination of diverse definitions of the mind of some assumptions holistic definitions (of the total private). In other words, it is wrong to try to eclectically put something whole out of parts borrowed from different cultures. These parts can not be joined mechanically. It is equally wrong to attempt to deductively infer the characteristics of other cultures of the characteristics of European culture, considered as a whole. In this approach, culture of the past and other cultures of the modern world are considered as "underdeveloped" versions of European culture. Paradigmatic example of philosophy, were able to deduce all the manifold prior to her historical types, it is Hegel`s logic.

In contrast, induction and deduction philosophical culture Bibler logic suggests the logic of "transduction" is not a generalization, and communication (dialogue) minds of different cultures. The common basis of all cultures in which they can co-communicate with each other and not to lose the specificity is specific to each culture, the hidden "possibilistic infinite being." That is why the philosophical logic of the late twentieth, early XXI century appears Bibler logic paradox, special communication capabilities of different types of cultural logic, different cultures, minds and regulatory ideas identity without their "generalization". The one and only updating the fundamental mystery of being (whether it be philosophical, artistic, religious or other cultural works) arise Bibler in "retaliatory interrogative event" with the other, as unique and inimitable actualization. Their communication is a dialogue, make out endlessly possibilistic being as if it were a product of culture. As such, it can be considered as a separate product (eg, philosophical) and marginal cultures ideas (especially antique, medieval and new European minds).

Biblerovskaya idea of ??philosophical logic of culture is a creative reinterpretation of ideas Bakhtin poetics of culture. The principal difference is that in the Poetics Bakhtin`s concept appears as an aesthetic category that determines the integrity of cultural works. On Bakhtin`s point of view, any logic has a private, abstract. The philosophy of VS Bibler poetics conceptualized as a philosophical logic, which is as complete a form (the product of culture) is in a dialogical relation to at least the holistic culture of work in the form of art (eg, poetry). Thus, there is no relationship between "part" and "whole", as in Bakhtin`s concept.

Dialogue "poetry" and "philosophy" in which every voice in his appeals to the principles of being, thinking and determined the drama of life VS Bibler. The scientist was, among other things, is also a poet. only a small selection of his poems was published During his lifetime - from the verse (which is remembered), Moscow, 1994.

Thinking man in the modern culture captured specific mystery that determines (no matter how different approaches) the most characteristic features of modern philosophy as such. Noting that they (the devil) can be quite a lot, VS Bibler focuses on three main. Firstly, in modern philosophy somehow interpreted the crisis of scientific reason, the idea of ??the object of knowledge through its essence, the idea of ??"science of knowledge". There is a realization that understand and know the essence of things - not the same thing. Mass response to this crisis is the spread of irrationalism and mysticism, which somehow involve the rejection of reason in general. The answer of modern philosophy because it preserves itself precisely as a philosopher, and therefore, not just going through a crisis situation (captured their fundamental mystery of existence), should be an attempt to override launched their own intelligence (opening a particular reason).

Secondly, as a consequence of the first, it is addressed to a different reason as the position from which the understanding of scientific reason in modern philosophy, ie, reasonable grasp its ultimate, historically limited nature. Thus, not only is detected (such as an unfortunate circumstance), but its importance as a fundamental assumption irreducible multiplicity of minds, understanding type. The previous culture not begin to be perceived as "immature" forms of modernity, but as an equal, and sometimes superior to its original cultural worlds.

Third, being illogical (what Descartes appeared in the idea of ??extension, in Kant - the idea of ??the thing in itself) is found within the logic of thinking. The question is not only in the way of thinking relates to something outside of it, but the fact that the appearance of "pinpoint" one way or another within the thoughts. In biblerovskkoy philosophy thought is always considered on the verge of being, in the beginning of the paradox. In other philosophical systems, discusses the dependence of thought on the socio-economic formations, or class struggle (partisanship of philosophy thesis in Marxism), the language of the body (the unconscious), etc. Thought thus loses its transparency, revealing in itself (and not only outside itself), the density (the flesh) otherwise.

Creative communication (dialogue), modern types of philosophizing (for all their differences) in VS Bibler is possible in a situation when they are addressed to the general top - expressed in paradoxes of thought fundamental mystery of existence.

VS Bibler philosophy - is a paradigmatic example of a modern "high-rationalism." Bibler belongs to a generation of Soviet philosophers of the late 50`s - early 60-ies, in the works and independent civil position that after Stalin`s repressions was revived spirit of genuine philosophizing. The spirit of radical doubt, ready, despite the political lack of freedom, intellectual fashion or the pressure of financial circumstances, to preserve the independence of thought, put the radical philosophical questions and give answers, not caring about the popularity nor the power to hold, nor the "reading masses."

Bibler Died June 3, 2000 in Moscow.

Works (other than those mentioned in the article):

Analysis of developing concepts (. Co-author), Moscow, 1967; Thinking as creativity. M., 1975; Culture. Dialogue of Cultures (some experience). - Problems of Philosophy, 1989,