This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
‘Cartesian foundations’ refers not only to the philosophy of Descartes, but to the classical metaphysics of the subject as essence more generally, a metaphysics which, as Khoružij shows in a series of essays on European anthropology, runs through modern philosophy from Scholasticism all the way to Kant. See also: Khoružij (2004); Khoružij (2005a): 52–63; Khoružij (2005b): 72–102.
The phrase ‘crisis of the European subject’ refers not only to the book by Julia Kristeva that carries this title (Kristeva 2000) but to a more general topic in contemporary philosophy, namely the deconstruction of the human subject in philosophy. ‘Who comes after the subject?’ is a question posed in an edited volume of French philosophy (Cadava et al. 1991) and Khoružij’s text, which makes reference to this work, can be read as one attempt to answer that very question.
Khoružij (2005c), 13–14, 146–147.
Khoružij is referring to the late Roman philosopher and statesman Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480–524) whose translations of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy into Latin had a decisive influence on scholasticism and Western philosophy. Especially the translation of Aristotelian terminology in logics is of relevance here, for example the Greek ousia into Latin substance.
Dolgoe vremja v evropejskoj mysli gospodstvovala model’, v kotoroj [...] identičnost’ čeloveka traktovalas’ [...] na osnove substancial’nosti. [...] V klassičeskoj evropejskoj antropologičeskoj modeli priroda čeloveka nosila imenno kharakter substancii: doveršaja antropologiju Aristotelja, predstavljavšuju čeloveka opredelennoj sistemoj suščnostej, Boecij v načale VI v. vydvinul znamenituju definiciju, soglasno kotoroj čelovek—‘individual’naja substancija razumnoj prirody’. Pozdnee sjuda ešče pribavilas’ koncepcija sub’ekta (mysleščego sub’ekta, sub’ekta poznanija), i voznikla zakončennaja konstrukcija čeloveka v nepronicaemoj filosofkoj brone: klassičeskij evropejskij čelovek Aristotelja-Boecija-Dekarta est’ suščnost’, substancija i sub’ekt. I samoidentičnost’—pri nem polnost’ju.” Khoružij, Očerki, 78–9. (All translations from Russian by KSt)
The problem of language in the critique of classical metaphysics emerges clearly in Heidegger, who writes about the limitations of his work Sein und Zeit: “Der fragliche Abschnitt wurde zurückgehalten, weil das Denken im zureichenden Sagen dieser Kehre versagte und so mit Hilfe der Sprache der Metaphysik nicht durchkam. ” Heidegger (1976), 327.
Khoružij, Očerki, 13–5.
“Esli čeloveka nel’zja bolee kharakterizirovat’‚ ‘centrom’—ego ostaetsja kharakterizirovat’ ‘periferiej’, a točnee—granicej.” Ibid., 15.
Ibid., 23.
Khoružij’s philosophical work takes inspiration from the theological tradition of Neo-Palamism, a point I have made in: Stöckl (2006), 243–269.
“[...] pri podobnom opisanii fenomenov Granicy voznikaet javnaja parallel’ antropologii Granicy s teoriej fizičeskikh otkrytykh sistem. Dlja takikh sistem glavnuju rol’ v ikh povedenii igraet vzaimodejstvie ikh vnutrennikh energij s vnešnimi, kotorye mogut prokhodit’ čerez dannuju sistemu s silu ego otkrytosti. [...] Dlja fizičeskikh otkrytykh sistem suščestvujut različnye mekhanizmy vzaimodejstvija ikh energij s vnešnej energiej, prinadležaščej nekotoromu vnepoložnomy istočniku, i sredi takikh mekhanizmov igraet osobuju rol’ sinergetičeskij mekhanizm, ili sinergetičeskaja paradigma. (The phenomenon of the border can be adequately described as a parallel between the anthropology of the border and open-system theory in physics. [...] Open systems in physics have different mechanisms how their energy interacts with an other energy that derives from some outlying source; among these mechanisms the synergetic mechanism, or the synergetic paradigm, occupies a special place.)” Khoružij, Očerki, 20.
The Russian language allows for a clear distinction between synergetic processes in physics (sinergetičeskij) and synergetic processes in an anthropological and spiritual sense (sinergijnij). Unless clearly specified, Khoružij always refers to synergy in the latter sense.
Khoružij, Očerki, 24–35. For a comparative analysis of spiritual practices see also Khoružij (2000), 353–420.
Khoružij, Očerki, 35–40.
Khoružij, O starom i novom; 311–52, Khoružij, Očerki, 40–4.
“Analiz [...]—naibolee sistematičnyj put’ poiska al’ternativy davno kritikuemoj dekartovoj koncepcii sub’ekta, put’ k otvetu na ostro stojaščij v sovremennoj mysli vopros: Kto prikhodit posle sub’ekta? (This analysis [...] is the most systematic approach to a search for alternatives to the long criticized Cartesian concept of the subject, a road towards an answer to the question which contemporary thought is confronted with: Who comes after the subject?)” Khoružij, Očerki, 23.
Foucault (1986), 39–68.
A task formulated most clearly by Jean-Luc Nancy. See: Nancy (2000).
References
Cadava, E., Connor, P., & Nancy, J.-L. (Eds.) (1991). Who comes after the subject? New York, London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1986). The history of sexuality. Vol. 3. The care of the self. New York: Random House.
Heidegger, M. (1976). Brief über den Humanismus (1946). In Gesamtausgabe. Wegmarken, 9, 313–364. Frankfurt/M.: Vittorio Klostermann.
Kristeva, J. (2000). Crisis of the European subject. New York: Other Press.
Khoružij, S. S. (2000). O starom i novom. Sankt Peterburg: Aleteija.
Khoružij, S. S. (2004). Čelovek Kartezija. Točki-Puncta, 1–2(4), 61–121.
Khoružij, S. S. (2005a). Neotmenimyj antropokontur. 1. Kontury do-Kantova čeloveka. Voprocy Filosofii, 1, 52–63.
Khoružij, S. S. (2005b). Neotmenimyj antropokontur. 2. Kantovy antropotopiki. Voprocy Filosofii, 2, 72–102.
Khoružij, S. S. (2005c). Očerki sinergiinoj antropologii. Moskva: Institut filosofii, teologii i istorii Sv. Fomy.
Nancy, J.-L. (2000). Being singular plural. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Neamtu, M. (2006). Between the Gospel and the Nation: Dumitru Staniloae’s ethno-theology. Archaeus, 10(3), 9–46.
Stöckl, K. (2006). Modernity and its critique in twentieth century Russian Orthodox thought. Studies in East European Thought, 58(4), 243–269.
Yannaras, C. (2007). Orthodoxy and the west: Hellenic self-identity in the modern age. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodoxy Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stöckl, K. A new anthropology: Sergej S. Khoružij’s search for an alternative to the Cartesian subject in Očerki sinergijnoj antropologii . Stud East Eur Thought 59, 237–245 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9029-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9029-4