Tekste nagrinėjama vėlyvojo Schellingo Berlyno paskaitose formuluojama patyrimo samprata ir jos reikšmė svarstant mąstymo ir tikrovės santykį. Keliamas klausimas, kokiu mastu jo siūloma moderniosios patyrimo sampratos transformacija gali būti reikšminga užklausiant nūdienos filosofinio diskurso ateities perspektyvą Benjamino ir Agambeno įvardyto „patirties neprieinamumo“ kontekste. Mėginama parodyti, jog, užuot ieškojus patyrimo galimybės pagrindo imanentinėse ar transcendentalinėse subjekto apibrėžtyse, šelingiškoji alternatyva leidžia permąstyti patyrimą iš radikalios ateities perspektyvos. Atskleidžiant ontologinį patyrimo matmenį, jo sąsajas su laisvės klausimu ir paties mąstymo faktiškumo problema, atsiveria galimybė (...) ieškoti patyrimo vietos anapus subjekto–objekto perskyros, anapus betarpiškumo ar juslinio ir objektiško pažinimo. Tai leidžia persvarstyti patyrimo reikšmę metafizikai tiek pokantinės, tiek postidealistinės savimonės perspektyvoje. (shrink)

Vladimir Solovyov was a philosopher of culture who sought to understand the essence of the most central and deep cultural crisis, as he spoke of Russia in the twentieth century. He has often been interpreted as a close follower of Schelling, someone who just took the basic methodology and concepts from Schelling without any deep contemplation of his own. The goal of this article is to reconsider one of the most widespread misconceptions, according to which Solovyov is a Russian Schellingian. (...) Despite a certain resemblance in style and occasionally similarly sounding arguments, Solovyov was not just a rewriter of Schelling or his ardent follower. The second aim of the paper is to reconstruct the concepts of culture in Solovyov and Schelling. The two aims are strongly connected. In this respect, this paper is less an attempt to summarize Solovyov and Schelling and compare their ideas, than a speculative attempt to speak about the philosophy of culture and to represent the philosophy of Solovyov and Schelling. On my reading, despite many terminological and argumentative parallels, Solovyov and Schelling were pursuing fundamentally different tasks. Their systems cannot be viewed as identical, as it is often the case; rather, Solovyov’s philosophy begins where Schelling’s ends. The fundamental difference between the two systems will be demonstrated based on the analysis of two writings: Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom and Solovyov’s Lectures on Divine Humanity. (shrink)