Annett Jubara

The subject of this paper is Alexandre Kojève’s relationship to Russian Religious Philosophy, which is characterized by a paradoxical contrast between Kojève’s openly critical judgment of it, on the one hand, and the hidden, implicit influence of this philosophical tradition on his own atheistic philosophizing on the other. The hidden influence of Russian Religious Philosophy, Kojève’s engagement with the philosophical ideas of Vladimir Solovyov and Fyodor Dostoevsky, will be shown by two case studies. The first case is about Kojève’s “reshaping” and reevaluation of Solovyov’s principle of evil. The second case is about Kojève’s defense of Dostoevsky’s Man-God ideologues against their creator by critically rethinking Man-Godhood. The connection between these two cases is the question, if Kojève, while opposing Solovyov’s difference of Man-God and God-Man with something third, has actually moved beyond the Man-God ideology, or did he develop his own Man-God ideology. The essay concludes, with the assertion that Kojève remains with a revised Man-Godhood. This defense-revision is an important philosophical contribution to the polemics with Russian Religious Philosophy, but it is, at the same time, intimately connected with Kojève’s ideological agenda.

InhaltStichworte zur Dialektik der Freiheit oder Durchaus untaugliche Ausfuhrungen zur Philosophie Milan PruchasJ. Kosta, Das interdisziplinare Forschungsprojekt des Prager Fruhlings von 1968J. Kotik, Der LandvermesserKonzepte der DialektikM. Theunissen, Dialektik der Endlichkeit - Hegel von Heraklit bis DerridaC. Iber, Begriff und Kategorien negativer Dialektik bei AdornoA. Arndt, Figuren der Endlichkeit - Zur Dialektik nach KantB. Scholze, Die dialektische Aufwertung der Rhetorik: Zu Adornos Theorie der DarstellungMotive der Philosophie Hegels und ihre WirkungM. Sobotka, Hegels Spruch: Gott ist totM. Rolli, Zum Vergangenheitscharakter der Hegelschen AsthetikA. Jubara, Vom Reich des Antichristen zum Homogenen Weltstaat. Das "Ende der Geschichte" bei Vladimir Solov'ev und Alexandre KojeveDie Differenz denkenC. Friedrich, Differenz und Wiederholung in der Sprache. Fur eine Konzeption der Sprache ohne TelosR. Krause, Verkehrte Welt - Dialektisch denken mit DeleuzeD. Benseler, Den Krieg finden. Bemerkungen zu Lyotards skeptischer Konzeption der PraxisMilan Prucha - Auswahlbibliographie.

In his essay “Das literarische Erbe Hegels” Lifshits addressed the fate of Hegelianism in the first third of the 20th century. He observed a struggle surrounding Hegel’s heritage between Marxism on the one hand, and Neo-Hegelianism or „the Hegel renaissance“ on the other hand and came to the conclusion that the only legitimate Hegel heir is—Marxism. According to Lifshits, Neo-Hegelianism exploits the “Hegelian state” to justify the modern power state by illegitimately shifting the meaning of the Hegelian concept of the state. Thanks to Kojève’s philosophy, a diffuse yet profound Neo-Hegelian influence continues to have an impact on modern thinking, which gives cause in this essay to examine Lifshits’ verdict on the illegitimacy of the Neo-Hegelian Hegel heritage by confronting his argumentation with Kojève’s Neo-Hegelian concept. So, this essay will update Lifshits’ perspective on the fate of Hegelianism and broaden it beyond the horizon that was available to Lifshits.

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.

Die Philosophie des Mythos, imwesentlichen eine Aktualisierung deraltrussisch-byzantinischen Seinsauffassung undeines Verständnisses von Philosophie alsTheologie, spielt im Kontext sowjetischerKultur die Rolle eines sowohlmodernekritischen, als auch antimodernenDenkansatzes. Durch ihn wird kulturkritischnicht bloß die sowjetische Moderne, sonderndie gesamte europäisch-neuzeitlicheEntwicklung, als deren Quintessenz diesowjetische Moderne aufgefaßt und als derenAusgangspunkt die Renaissance angenommen wird,prinzipiell in Frage gestellt.