The present thesis intends the reconstruction of Nietzsche’s dialogue with the history of scepticism through the identification of his main sources. Such dialogue is constantly mediated by texts from authors contemporary to Nietzsche, therefore the reconstruction of the sources could not remain exclusively inside the sceptical tradition, but included frequently some post-Kantian authors. The fundamental claims of the present thesis are: Nietzsche was deeply acquainted with the history of scepticism; his work assumes this tradition in a very innovative manner; Nietzsche (...) not only associated himself instrumentally to scepticism, but tried to incorporate some of the essential commitments of the sceptical life to his understanding of philosophical life. (shrink)

This is a translation from the Russian of Nikolai Lossky’s review of Henri Bergson, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (1932). The review was published in the Parisian émigré journal Новый Град (Cité nouvelle) in 1932. In this review, Lossky criticizes Bergson for leaving some key problems of the philosophy of religion unresolved, namely that of God’s relation to the world (theism vs. pantheism), that of immortality, as well as that of evil. He also criticizes Bergson’s (...) “extreme biologism” in his explanation of morality, which, in his view, subjectivizes the objects of religion. For Lossky, the symbolic images of the Christian religion are not subjective “fabulations,” but real symbols through which God reveals himself to us. Likewise, according to Lossky, true morality cannot be explained in terms of biological adaptation, but must rely on the foundation of an objective, i.e., Platonic, axiological sphere. (Frédéric Tremblay). (shrink)

This article argues that from a territorial perspective a certain coherence and continuity can be identified in the Estonian cultural-theoretical tradition – a discursive body based on common sources of influence and similar fundamental attitudes. We understand Estonian theory as a local episteme – a territorialized web of epistemological associations and rules for making sense of the world, which favours some premises while discouraging others. The article focuses on the older layers of Estonian theory, discussing the work of Karl Ernst (...) von Baer, Victor Hehn, Gustav Teichmüller, Jakob von Uexküll, Hermann Keyserling, Johannes Gabriel Granö, Juri Lotman a.o. We examine the philosophical foundations of Estonian theory as well as its main epistemic facets. The article concludes that the conceptualization of Estonian theory could contribute to a general transformation of contemporary (cultural) theory, a redefining of the relations between the centre and the peripheries. (shrink)

The twentieth century Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky was one of the earliest and most important proponents—but also critics—of Bergson’s philosophy in Russia at a time when many Russian philosophers were preoccupied with the same complex of philosophical questions and answers that Bergson was addressing. Thus, if only from the standpoint of intellectual history, Lossky is central to the study of the reception of Bergson in Russia. In this article, I present the principal historical links, points of agreement between Bergson and (...) Lossky, such as their respective anti-Kantianism, intuitivism, ontological realism, vitalism, organicism, Neo-Platonism, as well as their points of disagreement, including some of Lossky’s key criticisms of Bergson, with special emphasis on the issues of intuition, ideal being, substance and change, time, and sensible qualities. This paper is meant as an introduction to the translations of Lossky’s “Heдocтaтки гнoceoлoгiи Бepгcoнa и влiянie иxъ нa eгo мeтaфизикy” (The Defects of Bergson’s Epistemology and Their Consequences on His Metaphysics) (1913) and his review of Bergson’s, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (1932), which are published in the present issue of Studies in East European Thought. (shrink)

Este texto contrasta o entendimento comum do "perspectivismo de Nietzsche" com o seu uso da palavra "Perspektive" e termos semelhantes. As primeiras seções proporcionam uma breve pesquisa do desenvolvimento dos diversos significados através da carreira de Nietzsche e a influência de Gustav Teichmüller. As seções subsequentes revelam alguns problemas de leituras comuns do perspectivismo, como a teoria do conhecimento de Nietzsche. Discutindo os assuntos de falsificação, objetividade e autorreferência, as seções remanescentes levam à conclusão que o perspectivismo não deve ser (...) entendido como a doutrina epistemológica de Nietzsche, mas como algo que não o deixa criar tal doutrina.This paper contrasts common understandings of "Nietzsche's perspectivism" with his use of the word "Perspektive" and related wordforms. The first sections provide a brief survey of the development of different meanings throughout Nietzsche's career and the influence of Gustav Teichmüller. The next sections unfold some problems of common readings of perspectivism as Nietzsche's theory of knowledge. Discussing the issues of falsification, objectivity and self-reference, the remaining sections lead to the conclusion that perspectivsm should not be understood as Nietzsche's doctrine of epistemology but rather as what keeps him from providing such a doctrine. (shrink)