The Metaphysics of the Tragic - g · PDF filecrucial values. I believe that the ... tragedy,...

GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.1 No.2, March 2015

©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF

86

The Metaphysics of the Tragic Towards a Socio-Philosophical Analysis of Bonapartism

Abstract—The author analyzes the concept of “the tragic”

in socio-philosophical aspect. The tragic is conceived not only as a property of the individual, but also as a property of social consciousness. The methodology of study rests on the necessity of studying the problem at the level of society as a whole, at the level of an ordinary person and at the level of a leader. The state of society during conditions of system crisis is analyzed with the use of the concepts of the “personification of power,”

and the “depersonalization of the common man.” In a

“Bonaparte” situation, the leader personalizes public self-consciousness. The special attention is given thin distinctions of concepts personification and personalization. The author emphasizes the paradoxical salutary nature of the Bonaparte dictatorship for society against the background of the unsatisfactory performance of failed politicians.

Keywords—Bonapartism; system crisis; power; authority; leadership; the tragic; myth; personification; depersonalization; public self-consciousness.

I. INTRODUCTION

The study of the tragic has a long history and is based on rich research traditions. There is a great variety of interpretations of this notion in terms of different ways of thinking and experience — religious, philosophical, political, psychoanalytic and historical. Traditionally, “the

tragic” has been considered a category of aesthetics.

The purpose of this article is to consider the tragic as a phenomenon of social philosophy and the philosophy of history and to analyze Bonapartism within the context of the semantics of the tragic. Social philosophy helps to discover relationships and dependencies between the structure of society, its functioning, and thinking. The concept of the tragic cannot be included either in the realm of sociology or political science. It is social philosophy and philosophy of history that allow us to use the category of “the tragic” as a

tool for studying the problems of humankind and society.

I believe that the interpretation of the tragic in the socio-philosophical analysis of Bonapartism will make it possible to understand not only the phenomenon of modern Bonapartism, but also see how the meaning and significance of tragedy and the tragic in the social consciousness of contemporary society has been changed. Bonapartism is a complex social phenomenon whose genesis is

predetermined by a whole system of factors. The necessary condition for the genesis of Bonapartism is system crisis as – the cumulative effect of economic, social, political, ideological and psychological crises. Bonapartism can emerge as the consequence of recent and present-day revolutions or become manifested without any revolution as a consequence of globalization or war.

The methodology of my study rests on the necessity of studying the problem at the level of society as a whole, at the level of an ordinary person and at the level of a leader. As we know, the tragic is a philosophical and aesthetic concept that characterizes the intractable social and historical conflict that emerges in the context of free human action and is accompanied by human suffering and a loss of crucial values. I believe that the semantics of the tragic in the analysis of Bonapartism will make it possible to actualize the problem of society as a whole, the problem of the common good. This problem has been well understood by citizens of the ancient era, and is not always realized, is not understood by our contemporaries who prioritize their welfare, consumption and human rights.

The tragic in any era meant people being aware of and experiencing conflict with forces that threatened their existence and resulted in the loss of important spiritual values. But it is obvious that our perception of the tragic is being transformed, it is significantly different from what it once meant in Greek tragedies or in 18th century drama. But we still reach out to the idea of the tragic when confronted by horror or catastrophe noted Rebecca Bushnell. She believes that tragedy can shape experience and history into meaning, and the shock of significance may have the power to transform us. The distinction between tragedy and the merely horrific accident or catastrophe lies in our expectation that knowledge might emerge out of the chaos of human suffering [1]. The tragic is something that both discovers and develops the human element of human beings. The tragic becomes, or appears, as something tragic, accepted as something tragic only when it is understood and contemplated (perceived) as something tragic. The human mind recognizes the eternal value of something that has been lost, misplaced, or destroyed. What is essential is the realization that a person understands and appreciates the significance and value of something that has been lost irreparably.

Irina N. Protasenko

DOI: 10.5176/2345-7856_1.2.22

Received 3 Feb 2015 Accepted 10 Mar 2015

DOI 10.7603/s40873-014-0009-x



87

The phenomenon of the tragic cannot be comprehended through artistic images alone. On the contrary, the tragic is an essential element of the universe. Very often we discuss tragic events and tragic fates in life and history, without being under the influence of any aesthetic proposition, – as precisely noted by Max Scheler [2]. The tragic is an attribute of consciousness, a kind of focus for the consciousness — its intentionality. It is natural, and self-evident, that individual consciousness seeks to view the world in the tragic light. We know of the tragic consciousness of such greats as A. Schopenhauer and F. Nietzsche, Vs. Ivanov and Franz Kafka, F. Hölderlin and S. Kierkegaard, Anna Akhmatova and Joseph Brodsky, and numerous others. I, however, would like to draw your attention not only to the personal, but also to the social manifestation of the tragic. Usually, in this case, the discourse would turn to the tragic eras. Here, the era is characterized not only by extraordinary hardships endured by the society, but also by its definite reflection in the public consciousness. Thus, for example, why did the country of Goethe and Hegel lose its mind in the 1930s? Or, another example: the ever-lasting unifying effect of the Great Patriotic War in the Russian social consciousness. But take the collapse of the Soviet Union: is this a tragedy or not? What are other forms of existence and sense making of the tragic are there in society in addition to art? I would argue that the tragic is as a self-consciousness of a society, which can be personalized in a leader, a luminary, a potentate. What is the meaning behind the President’s statement on the collapse of the USSR? On the one hand, it is a simple statement of fact; on the other hand, such statements are not just mere words. This is a reflection of policy. A leader who seeks to grow must not only be aware of his personal loneliness in the tenuous air of summits of power. He also must match the level of understanding of deep thoughts with his nation and bear the almost unbearable responsibility for his decisions for he has a complete knowledge and his awareness of that which is given in his position.

II. FROM LITERATURE AND THEATRE TO CONCEPTUAL

PRINCIPLES OF THE TRAGIC

The tragic as an aesthetic category (in the process of understanding the world) in art functions as a means of affecting the public consciousness by means of influencing people’s feelings through theatrical and other artistic means. Usually this measure works well in a stable society (for socialization of the personality, the ability to relate the individual and the public, for educating about feelings).

Summarizing the practice of Attic tragedies that were staged during the annual festivities celebrating Dionysus, Aristotle makes the following comments on the essence of the tragic: “a change by which the action veers round to its

opposite” (peripeteia), a Discovery (anagnorisis) – as “the

very word implies, a change from ignorance to knowledge”,

experience extreme misfortunes and sufferings (pathos), and the purification and purgation of emotions (katharsis). A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious and

also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form ; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions [3]. Aristotle goes on to say that the theatre can perform a great service for the public, especially for ordinary people who lack refinement [4].

Moreover, writes Walter Kaufmann, when suffering is voiced in magnificent poetry, we feel a sense of liberation as our own hopelessly tangled and mute grief is given words and takes on wings. If the metaphor of being purged suggests that prior to that we were constipated, that is an unattractive way of putting it but not at all devoid of truth. Plato spoke of poetry more poetically; Aristotle — at least in this clause — more like a doctor. Aristotle may have been struck by the paradoxical phenomenon that tragedy gives pleasure. To explain this, he did not invoke man’s cruelty

but — more perceptively — the conception of catharsis: tragedy affords us a pleasurable relief [5].

The purpose of ancient tragedy is catharsis, the purification or purgation of the emotions (especially compassion and fear) primarily through art. Catharsis occurs when we return from what we can call meta-space to ourselves, into our world, into our everyday bodies. Cleansing is a way of finding yourself in yourself, identifying yourself with yourself, whole and undamaged, i.e. as if immortal, while in some other space (on the stage) the opposite occurs as characters lose themselves and die. It is in that space that suffering and fear remain as attributes of the dying world with which the viewer had just been fully identified. Therefore, catharsis is an experience of living through one’s own death in a different reality with subsequent resurrection to find oneself in the true reality of one’s being [6].

Tragedy as a literary and theatrical genre is a “simulator”

(“training apparatus” as a “space simulator”)/(as a “flight

simulator” for pilot) that nurtures people’s feelings, and

encourages the “vestibular system” of being in the Spirit and

Conscience. What is the catharsis in theatre? It is a communion of lofty meanings and beauty. It recalls A. Pushkin’s words: “I shed tears over fantasy” [7]. F.M.

Dostoevsky seemingly talks about much of the same thing in his Diaries. It is quite strange and surprising that Leo Shestov does not understand these tears [8]. He believes that there is dark in the human nature of Dostoyevsky, as this is why he as a writer was better at describing gloom and suffering. Dostoyevsky shows compassion to his characters, and this is why he weeps.

III. THE POWER AND THE TRAGIC

And what is about catharsis in power? Is it possible? I think, by and large, it is not possible. Rulers lack it. Here it would be fitting to recall what Winston Churchill had once said: “Power is a narcotic. Anyone who has tasted it at least



88

once will be poisoned forever.” Or quoting Henry A. Kissinger: “Power is the great aphrodisiac” [9]. The

catharsis of the ruler is apportioned not in accordance with the amount of authority he has, but by the measure of understanding between the man in power and the people he rules. Catharsis is provided for by a myth. The ruler is outside the mythical. The myth for him is an imperative, a necessary set of actions and the Sword of Damocles in the case of failure. This myth burdens the ruler with responsibility. For the ruled, however, a myth provides therapy which guarantees that when a certain algorithm is followed, an order in space is guaranteed. Rulers are deprived of catharsis because they have too many reasons for anxiety, unease, and are really concerned about possible failure, loss, or destruction. What motivates the leader in these situations? I think, it is his inability to defer the consequences, to absolve himself of responsibility.

It could be at most, perhaps, the form of some satisfaction when some of his ideas are implemented in practice—the results perceived, understood, and accepted by his contemporaries. However, this is shown to be highly unusual in history. After all, there is a saying that there is no prophet in his own country. Rulers are more likely to experience another formula of awareness and eager anticipation of success, as said: “Ah yes, Pushkin! Ah yes,

you son of a bitch!” [10]

There is a symmetry between the concepts of “power”

and “the tragic”. The phenomenon of power reveals the essence of the tragic and, conversely, the tragic reveals the essence of power. The essence of tragedy, according to F.W.J. von Schelling, “is … an actual and objective conflict

between freedom in the subject on the one hand, and necessity on the other, a conflict that does not end such that one or the other succumbs, but rather such that both are manifested in perfect indifference as simultaneously victorious and vanquished” [11]. The tragedy of being a ruler has an ontological basis and, generally speaking, can be expressed (formulated) rationally. The ruler has to bear the responsibility for processes that he cannot control. Nevertheless, anyone who is being recruited as a ruler takes on responsibility, and puts on a mask of calm confidence before his followers, therefore committing a necessary lie. Indeed, why should he share with people his fears and uncertainty, which are naturally present in the depths of his soul!? This is what the tragic Theater of the Ruler is like, endlessly removed from the rational.

IV. THE TRAGIC: THE HERO AND THE SACRED

The tragic is an intersection between the powerful forces of the sacred and personal. A tragedy always has a hero. According to Hegel in his Aesthetics, the proper theme of the original type of tragedy is the Divine; not, however, the Divine as the object of the religious consciousness as such, but as it enters the world and individual action. Yet in this actual appearance it does not lose its substantive character,

nor does it see itself there as inverted into the opposite of itself [12].

Hegel in his Lectures on the philosophy of religion wrote: “Necessity has its own sphere; it has reference only to the particular element of individuality in so far as a collision of spiritual powers is possible, and the individuals are affected by necessity and are brought into subjection to it. Those individuals are in a special way in subjection to necessity and have a tragic interest attaching to them, who raise themselves above the ordinary moral conditions, and who seek to accomplish something special for themselves. This is the case with the heroes who through their own acts of will are separated from others; they have interests which go beyond the ordinary peaceful circumstances in which the government and action of God proceed. They are those who will and act in a special way of their own; they stand above the Chorus, above the calm, steady, harmonious, ordinary moral course of life. This last is exempt from the influence of destiny, restricts itself to the ordinary sphere of life, and rouses none of the moral powers against it” [13]. Hegel underlined capability of tragedy to explore a state of world. Thus for example, In “Hamlet” it is defined so: «The time is

out of joint» [14], «Denmark's a prison. / Then is the world one. / Denmark being one o' the worst» [15].

The tragic is an insight and a lucid moment, when something mysterious becomes obvious to such a degree that shadows and half-tones disappear, and accusations of conspiracy theories become irrelevant. A tragedy forces people to take off their masks. People who cling to conspiracy theories resort to them not because they do not want to see the obvious, but because they still hope that everything can sort itself out.

The tragic is a vertical line of maturation of the human spirit that reflects the growth of the spiritual in human beings. A tragedy is a vertical ascent to what is human, to incarnation. The tragic exposes an insignificance of things selfish and individualistic. “Is the world to go to pot, or am I to go without my tea? I say that the world may go to pot for me so long as I always get my tea”. These are words of the protagonist from Dostoyevsky’s “Notes from the

Underground” [16]. This, of course, could be interpreted as

an emotional reaction; but it can also be viewed as a worldview set which could be further enhanced by a modern formula of: “That is your problem.” “But you need

something more than just die: you need to live in order to fulfill the will of the father...” says a Russian philosopher L.

Shestov [17] about Shakespeare’s Hamlet. At this point

another testament comes to mind. The last will and testament of Alexander III left to his son Nicholas II: “Do

not wage warfare and do not abdicate (the throne).” So how

did his son, the 14th and last emperor of Russia, he, who wrote in the first Russian census “Master of all Russia’s

lands” as his profession, how did he do when it came to the will of his father? This is, of course, a rhetorical question.



89

V. PERSONIFICATION OF POWER AND DEPERSONALIZATION

OF THE COMMON MAN

It seems to us that in Bonapartism we observe a definite personification of power against a background of the lost and transforming elite, and depersonalization of the ordinary person as a social subject, which explains the related processes of the atomization and massification of society. Personification of authority takes place when the image of authority, the needs of the people and the personal mission of the leader come together, when the social is concentrated in the individual. Personification of authority is a long-standing concept that has evolved over time. It is common knowledge that in early society, human tended to see himself as the subjugated rather than the subjugator. People felt subjugated to the gods, the elements, their fate, their destiny, their One and Only God, etc. The point of personification is the embodiment, association, identification, representation, replacement and formation of the ruler’s image. Meanwhile, the development of society,

the process of its emancipation, the process of its becoming aware of the world and itself – all of this required that society create a more complex power structure on the one hand, and the inevitable de-sanctification (desacralization) of power on the other hand. Cromwell, for instance, according to M.A. Barg [18], became a historic figure precisely because in terms of his confession, he was more consistent and radical than an ordinary puritan, and had politically thought of things on a broader scale than the average landlord; therefore, in the name of their respective interests, he was at times capable of rising to a level of popular, national interests.

The notions of “personification” and “personalization”

are different from one another yet interrelated in some way. The notion of personalization, to our understanding, is revealed through the process of personal individualization, the development of personal characteristics, independence and freedom coupled with responsibility; yet, it also means that the individual becomes gradually removed from the problems of society. The complexity of personification lies in the fact that personification takes place in different contexts of meaning that belong to different cultural layers, different generations and classes. Power, the state, institutions and positions can be personified in this or the other image. Tradition, fear, elements, hopes and wishes can all become objects of personification. In the recent past, it was the Communist Party that was branded “the mind, the

honor and the conscience” of the time; today’s generation

views Russia’s greatest national poet Pushkin as “our everything”. The personified image can embody a wealth of social diversity. The personified image generalizes and embodies, yet is, in a way, somewhat “above” everyday life,

and to a certain degree distinct from “we-being.” It is always

a generalized image. In personalization, responsibility, success, victories and failures acquire their own face, the concrete carrier of personalization, a specific subject. Personification is the embodiment, the generalization of individual in common, and personalization is the tendency

of individualization, leaning towards individuality. This personification is the embodiment of dreams and hopes, it represents and protects the weak against the horrors of radical upheaval. This is a kind of psycho-emotional energy concentration in one person. This is a concentration of love, fears, and hopes of the society. The leader not only enchants and attracts his people; he also persuades and seduces, inspires and prophesies, creates heroic stories, and includes in his myth the myth of his followers.

In general, Myth-generation can be linked, on А.М. Piatigorsky opinion, simultaneously with some objective situation in the social context or in communication, and with some psychic state in the individual [19]. Depersonalization is a disorder of self-consciousness when the sense of the Ego changes. It is a symptom of certain mental illnesses manifested with the loss of unity in the Ego, emergence of a split personality, the alienation of one’s own thoughts and actions. Society goes

through a similar state in a social cataclysm.

Psychologically, depersonalization is such an altered state of consciousness where the emotional element of consciousness is interfered with, and, in some more serious cases, the intellectual element as well. The person ceases to feel what he or she had normally felt in such circumstances previously, and begins to feel something different. This is why depersonalization is also called disorientation. From a physiological point of view, depersonalization (more often than not) is a response of the brain to an acute emotional shock — when the body increases its secretion of endorphins that anesthetize consciousness. From the standpoint of the behavioral strategies of human consciousness, depersonalization functions as a powerful protection mechanism against stress. A classic case of depersonalization occurs when after the sudden loss of a loved one, someone, metaphorically speaking, “turns to

stone,” and loses all feeling. In Russian, it could be said that

someone had their “soul is taken out”. A depersonalized

human being as if wears “the shell” [20] of painful indifference (a concept introduced by Wilhelm Reich). Along with this effect, the person also loses all their desires. In the language of Lacan, with depersonalization, the voice of the Other [21] is silenced: What do you want? I want nothing. It’s all the same to me. What does “all the same”

mean? The person no longer distinguishes between what is pleasant or unpleasant, joyful or sad, good or bad, life or death — what happens is a total removal of all life’s most significant oppositions. Such is the phenomenological substantiation of depersonalization, which had been defined by Pyatigorsky [22]. This definition highlights the fact that the state when “it’s all the same” to someone is a

mythological state, as a myth, according to Levi-Strauss [23], is a mechanism of removing all opposition, first and foremost, the most important of all of them — invariant to the rest — the opposition between life and death. This makes it clear why depersonalization is not only a painful symptom, but also a powerful mechanism of protection from reality, a sort of anesthesia, albeit sad in effect. Someone who is depersonalized finds themselves in a special



90

mythological world, which prominently lacks logical binary thinking. Society goes through a similar state in a social cataclysm.

VI. THE BONAPARTISTIC SITUATION WITHOUT A

BONAPARTE

The tragic is, above all, a sign of certain events, destinies, characters, etc., which we perceive, see and place inside these things. All tragic failures in history reveal one simple truth, one related to management and administration and the role of personality in history that has been a center of many a discussion. It’s easy to analyze victories: the

nation has done well and the leader is fortunate with his people. Inversely, catastrophic losses reveal the problem of poor governmental control, the lack of a real leader, a chief, a competent manager.

Whenever a society finds itself in a system crisis and finds itself guessing whether there is a real leader there or not, this becomes a sign of a Bonapartistic situation. This means that the current social and political conditions require the appearance of such a figure. This is then a moment of historical necessity, when they say that “the time demands”

the appearance of such a personality on the socio-political horizon. This means that along with the historical conditions, a group of followers has appeared — interested reference groups, while the rest of society (the thick of the people) is anxiously anticipating a savior. What is significant, is that the emergence of such a historical necessity testifies to the presence of a contingent of social problems, the strength (impact) of which could be handled by not every historic personality.

In history, it is not uncommon to see that “time

demands”, however there is no one up to the task of holding

up a noble sword; Rulers come one after another, but history proves them all incapable of taking their place in history. Such were General Cavaignac, Alexander Kerensky, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and many others. They were all exceptionally nice in their private lives; some of them were even brilliant at their work. Some were honest to the smallest detail, and some were people of honor. Every reference book and encyclopedia lists them as great statesmen. But, however, history judges statesmen as individuals who adopt decisions that affect many people and the society overall, whose failures are not only personal; their mistakes affect the life of the entire society — tragedies in history. At each stage of making key decisions, a “good person” chooses the worst from all possible options.

The society inevitably follows a path to its demise due to factors of personal failure.

We know from the history of the French revolution of 1848 that General Cavaignac could compete with Napoleon III in presidential elections. Moreover, he had an army under his command which had been created by order of the government. But he never resorted to the army as an instrument of influence, although he knew well how

powerful this tool was. While history has no subjunctive mood, studying history can still reveal some meaningful things. If we analyze the factors that led to the shooting of the June Days Uprising of 1848, it becomes obvious that the personal weakness of politicians who were capable of influencing events and avoiding the tragedy certainly played its role when they ultimately failed to do so due to some subjective factors.

Let me give you some examples from the period of the Soviet Union’s collapse requiring no additional

commentary. Experts say that one of the reasons why the USSR fell apart was the antagonism between Gorbachev and Yeltsin. A secondary role was played by the U.S. and their NATO allies. If, back at the time, Yeltsin had been elected General Secretary, the party would have retained its place and significance in society. Allow me to recount a conversation between the Russian foreign minister and the former U.S. president, and the comments made by the latter. The conversation was retold by the American political analyst Dmitri Simes, President of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom. “Nixon had asked him to delineate the

main interests of the new Russia for him. Here is what Kozyrev told him: You know, Mr. President, one of the problems of the Soviet Union was that we were too focused on national interests. Now we are more focused on universal human values. But if you do have any ideas and are able to give us a clue on how to define our national interests, I would be very grateful”. Nixon felt quite uncomfortable

upon hearing that. In his car, when he was alone with Simes, the president asked him about what they had just heard. “The Russian minister is a friend of the United States,” Mr.

Simes replied. “But I am not sure how well he understands the character and interests of the great country he represents, and at some point, this may lead to mutual problems.”

“When I was vice president and then president,” Nixon said,

“I wanted everyone to know that I was a son of a bitch, and that in the name of American interests, I would fight like hell. Kissinger himself was such a son of a bitch that I could learn from him. Now you take this man,” Nixon continued.

“The USSR has just fallen apart, his new Russia must be

defended and protected, and he wants to show to everyone what a nice and pleasant person he is” [24]. In other words, “leadership is more than technical virtuosity; it is moral

activity as well”, – noted Robert J. Starratt [25]. Or as one Hero said:

“The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,

That ever I was born to set it right!” [26].

Napoléon Bonaparte, Sir Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, general Charles de Gaulle and Lee Kuan Yew are the personalities who succeeded in it.

VII. CONCLUSIONS

A philosophical study of hot buttons of contemporary society opens up a vision of the general picture of



91

development of contemporary humankind. Comprehending this vision can at times be shocking.

Tragic events take place only in situations when the high and the low, the noble and the villainous come together. “Tragic”, according to Max Scheler [27], is not a value in

itself like beautiful and ugly, good and bad. The tragic is revealed, however, in things, people and artifacts only in the context of their values. The tragic is the “heavy artillery” of embodying human nature in a dehumanized world. The tragic, indeed, awakens the “supernatural internal impact”.

The tragic governs the intentionality of consciousness — outlining the contour of the objectivity of public consciousness. Where does the tragic come from? How does it appear? The tragic appears in individual consciousness due to acute distress after discovering and understanding the gap between what is and what should be, the real and the ideal, the real and the sublime. I believe that the tragic emerges in the process of world-wide dehumanization, as each individual and the civilization as a whole fail in the process of humanizing themselves. As Yevgeny Zamyatin, the author of the famous dystopia “Us” said, “the Apocalypse today is printed on front pages of daily newspapers” [28]. Now the contemporary space of communicative rave is transformed into the space of the rationally managed noise, in which volleys of automatic gunfire are heard.

The tragic shines an infernal light on everything worthless, selfish, deceitful, and treacherous. Compliance always turns into complacency (always of someone else's will), irresponsibility (turns) — into cynicism, the despair of those marginalized — into cruelty.

The value behind meanings of words such as “goodness”, “dignity”, “justice”, “freedom”, and

“responsibility” gets revealed as if anew, from different

perspective. An apparent lack of foundation in the human being turns into a necessity to appreciate the ongoing effort in the process of discovering human nature.

The salutary nature of the Bonaparte dictatorship may seem absurd to some, and a curious paradox to others. To me it seems that the role of Bonaparte is that only he could make the tragic not only meaningful, but also invert it into action that served his purpose. Not every dictator is like Bonaparte. This truism is quite a significant. Organizing chaos into the cosmos, no less. This is a task that only a few can handle; as not everyone is able even to perceive its meaning.

The tragic gathers meanings into a holistic picture of what is proper, ideal, and opens to everyone the existential nature of his or her true destiny. The human nature of eternal confusion inverts itself into a bright star of someone’s true

fate or into the nameless dust. It gives to each according to their faith and ability to sacrifice.

REFERENCES

[1] A Companion to Tragedy. Edited by Rebecca Bushnell. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005. — 556 р. P.1.

[2] Max Scheler, Zum Phänomen des Tragischen. Abhandlungen und aufsätze von erster Band I9I5 Verlag der Weissen Bücher, Leipzig. S. 275-315. - S. 277-278.

[3] Aristotle. Poetics. The works of Aristotle. Translated into English under the editorship of W. D. Ross, M.A. Oxford. At the Clarendon Press, 1924. 1449 b 25-27.

[4] Walter Kaufmann, Tragedy and Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1968. P. 50.

[5] Ibid. P. 51.

[6] S. Makurenkova, Catharsis: to the first principle of the concept. In: Catharsis: metamorphoses of tragical consciousness – Ed. V.P. Shestakova – Katarsis: metamorfozi tragicheskogo soznaniya, St.Petersburg, Aletheia, 2007. P. 46-47.

[7] Alexander S. Pushkin, An Elegy (1821); free translation... by Francis P. Marchant. (The Anglo-Russian Literary Society. Proceedings. London, 1905. 8. № 43, p. 119.

[8] Leo Shestow, Dostojewsky und Nietzsche. Philosophie der Tragödie, trans. Reinhold von Walter, Köln : Marcan – Verlag, 1924, 389 p. Russian edition: Shestow L. Works in two Volumes. Sochineniya v dvuh tomah, Tomsk, Vodolej, 1996. Vol. 1. P. 334.

[9] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/power

[10] Alexander S. Pushkin, Complete works in 16 vol. Pushkin to P.A. Viazemsky. About 7 November 1825. Vol. 13. P. 239-240 – Russian edition – Polnoe sobranie sochineniy, T. 13. C. 239-240.

[11] F. W. J. von Schelling, The Philosophy of Art (1804-5), ed. and trans. Douglas W. Stott (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1989). P. 247.

[12] G.W.F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art. Translated by T. M. Knox. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, I975. P. 1195.

[13] G.W.F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Translated from the second German edition by the Rev. E. B. Speirs, B.D., and J. Burdon Sanderson. The translation edited by the Rev. E. B. Speirs, B.D. In three volumes. Vol. II. London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Paternoster House, 1895. P. 262.

[14] William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Act I, Scene 5. / Shakespeare's Hamlet Edited by John Livingston Lowes Professor of English literature in Washington University. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1914. P. 36.

[15] Ibid. Act II, Scene II. P. 51.

[16] F.M. Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground. Published in English. Part II, Chapter 9. Russian edition: Zapiski iz podpol'ya. Reprint edition 1864.

[17] Leo Shestov, Shakespeare and his critique Brandes. Russian edition: Shekspir i ego kritik Brandes, Works in two Volumes. Sochineniya v dvuh tomah, Tomsk, Vodolej, 1996. Vol. 1. P.53.

[18] M.A. Barg, The Great English revolution in portraits of her figures – Russian edition: M.A. Barg, Velikaya angliyskaya revolyutsiya v portretah ee deyateley. M.: Myisl, 1991. P. 160.

[19] A.M. Piatigorsky, “Some General Remarks on Mythology from a Psychologist's Point of View” in Semiotica. Volume 10. Issue 3.

Pages 221–232. P. 228.

[20] Wilhelm Reich, Character Analysis, translated by Theodore P. Wolfe. 1945.

[21] Jacques Lacan, D’une question préliminaire à tout traitement

possible de la psychose (1958). In : Écrits. Paris: Seuil; 1966. On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis. In: Jacques Lacan, Écrits: the first complete edition in English / Jacques Lacan;

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/power



92

translated by Bruce Fink in collaboration with Heloi'se Fink and Russell Grigg. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2006.

[22] A.M. Piatigorsky, “Some General Remarks on Mythology from a

Psychologist's Point of View” in Semiotica, Volume 10. Issue 3.

Pages 221–232.

[23] Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural anthropology (Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf, Trans.). New York: Basic Books, 1963.

[24] Yevgeny M. Primakov, Minefield of the policy. – Russian edition – E.M. Primakov, Minnoe pole politiki – M.: Molodaya gvardiya, 2007. – P. 157-158.

[25] Robert J. Starratt, The Drama of Leadership. Foreword by Professor James MacGregor Burns. The Falmer Press, London, 2003. P. 138-139.

[26] William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Act I, Scene 5. / Shakespeare's Hamlet Edited by John Livingston Lowes Professor of English literature in Washington university. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1914. P. 36.

[27] Max Scheler, Zum Phänomen des Tragischen. Abhandlungen und aufsätze von erster Band I9I5 Verlag der Weissen Bücher, Leipzig. S. 283.

[28] Y. Zamyatin, About Synthetism / Yevgeny Zamyatin. Sochineniya, М., “Kniga”, 1988.

AUTHOR’S PROFILE

Dr. Irina N. Protasenko, is a Member of the Coordination Council of the St. Petersburg Union of Scientists, Russia. She was also an Associate Professor at the St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University (1999-2009), and a Leader Researcher in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Institute for Cultural Research Russian Federation Ministry of Culture & Russian Academy of Sciences (2000-2005). She earned the Ph. D. in Philosophy from St. Petersburg State University, Russia, in 1999 and the M. A. in Philosophy from St. Petersburg State University, Russia, in 1985. Her scientific interests are focused on different aspects of the Social Philosophy & Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Politics especially on the problems concerning societies in system crises. The author’s current research project is the Socio-Philosophical Analysis of Bonapartism.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

The Metaphysics of the Tragic - g · PDF filecrucial values. I believe that the ... tragedy,...

Documents

Transcript of The Metaphysics of the Tragic - g · PDF filecrucial values. I believe that the ... tragedy,...