Mikhail Lifsic is one of the most contradictory and to this date poorly understood authors of the Soviet era. He represented an independent Marxist position, but one internally characterized by the tense relationship between Marxism and the philosophy of Hegel. This relationship, concerning historical philosophical questions, is the subject of this essay. In the 1930s, as "historical materialism" was canonized in the USSR, a development that Soviet civilization understood as the "beginning of the end of history ", Lifsic drafted a (...) different, skeptical summary of the revolutionary era. However, he remained loyal to both the concept of universal history and the examination of Russian -Soviet cultural history within the framework of this concept. With the help of a text from Lifsic from the 1930s as well as his later reflection and remembrance of the ideological debates of the 1930s, this essay will show that Lifsic' reconstruction of idealism in Marxism was no accident, but rather a necessary movement in thought. This, in turn, enabled him to give a new account of the historical experience of the October Revolution. (shrink)

This paper aims to examine Hegel’s formulation of aesthetics during the years between the Gymnasium in Stuttgart and the sojourn in Frankfurt. In this period Hegel’s thought was primarily focused on moral, political and religious problems. By following a particular route through the juvenile texts, it is possible how- ever to examine a group of meditations concerning the theme of beauty, the status of ancient Greece and the role of sensibility in the process of aesthetic education of man.

Dentro de la hermenéutica filosófica, no es fácil encontrar un trabajo que se acerque con tanto respeto al pensamiento del poeta, dramaturgo y filósofo Friedrich Schiller como el de Laura Anna Macor. Si su trabajo destaca dentro de lo que Valerio Rocco ha denominado una auténtica revolución historiográfica, es porque es uno de los pocos acercamientos a la obra schilleriana que hace un deliberado esfuerzo por tomarse su relevancia filosófica en serio, con independencia de la adherencia de Schiller a la (...) filosofía transcendental kantiana. Frente a obras como la de Frederick Beiser que, por otra parte, merece un gran reconocimiento por su riguroso estudio y defensa de la filosofía schilleriana, Macor bucea en la producción médica, poética y dramática del joven Schiller para dar allí con contenidos de carácter legítimamente filosófico, con la intención de demostrar no sólo la íntima coherencia de su pensamiento, sino también su calidad filosófica antes, después y más allá de Kant. Lo interesante de este planteamiento es que, al contrario que la mayoría de los intérpretes, Macor no se acerca condescendientemente al carácter híbrido del pensamiento de Schiller, sino asumiendo que el mismo es, de hecho, una fuente de riqueza multidisciplinar que no jerarquiza los saberes. Una riqueza que, además, es una clara señal de la relevancia actual del planteamiento schilleriano. (shrink)