- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There are no serious reasons to consider MSU Professor Alexander Dugin a philosopher or a scientist in general. This is a person who specializes in speech performances of a certain type, in theatrical improvisations based on mystical texts. In this genre of conservative stand-up Dugin is good and he should not be denied talent, even despite the meager repertoire that has not changed for many decades: Heidegger, Guenon, geopolitics.
Dugin, unlike the philosopher (a typical figure of the latter is Socrates), is not responsible for what was said. He will never be exiled or convicted – it simply doesn't occur to anyone to take him seriously. Dugin is useful to any political regime, because he can blurt out real problems: instead of unemployment and education, you can endlessly discuss the lunar and solar Putin and the challenges of Atlanticism. Dugin can give lectures on bravado, cats, write books about how reading Heidegger will save Russia, because it is a Russian Dasein, or, finally, call “like a professor” for the murder of Ukrainians. Outside of a theatrical gesture that is important to Dugin and his audience, this doesn't make the slightest sense. Of course – until there's an idiot who takes it all seriously – and goes out to kill.
Of course, there is no commission that gives the status of a philosopher, and there can not be. Theoretically, anyone can be a philosopher after making certain mental efforts. But you need to understand that calling Alexander Gelyevich a philosopher, we are moving towards an absurd generalization. If Dugin is a philosopher, then the birds, stones, and producers of the NTV channel can be considered philosophers with no less reason.
At the same time, Dugin desperately wants to have official recognition and “crusts” – which is why he defended his dissertation on philosophy in Rostov in 2000, and now flaunts professorial shoulder straps.
During our studies, we had a course in geopolitics in our final year, and we had Dugin's book in the list of recommended literature there. The historiographical review in the first half of the book seemed quite adequate and academic (a story about various thinkers and their ideas), but Dugin's own passages caused some concern… bewilderment.
I am not a bit of a “Duginite”, but a more extensive and comprehensive course than his lectures “Philosophy and Sociology of postmodernism” on this topic has not yet been invented.
One of his lectures to students at Moscow State University (all of which are displayed on YouTube) begins with the statement that it is possible to understand the correctness of Putin's ideas only on the territory of Russia, because foreign countries distort the ability to understand. Dugin explained this “distortion” by the laws of quantum physics. So Putin is, in his version, an enchanted quark of some sort.
If we draw an analogy with poets (the poet is not the one who writes poetry, but the one who earns a living from poetry), then Dugin is an absolute philosopher, since he actually writes philosophical books and they are sold and translated in large quantities.
For a long time, I was very biased against Dugin, having heard about his radical views, that he was a terry conservative, an ideologue, shocking Maine, but not a philosopher. Then I came across his lecture on postmodernism on Youtube (I was delving into this topic at the time), I reluctantly began to watch it and was surprised, because I expected some kind of biased view, one-sided criticism – and I saw a very interesting point of view, with which you can agree or disagree, but which is both reasoned and original.
It seems to me that “philosopher” and “ideologist” do not cancel each other out. And if you really need a philosopher, then let it be Dugin, with his brightness and odiousness, than the many people stuck in Leninism who still tell students about the “ancient materialist Democritus”,” atheism of Epicurus ” and piously honor Lenin's definition of matter. Here, in some answers, people write that he refers only to 2-3 philosophers. So what? You can add a lot of philosophers, shine with erudition and not give out a single thought. And Dugin has such thoughts, for example, the idea of layering premodern, modern and postmodern.
However, I will make a reservation once again that his ultra-conservatism is absolutely disgusting to me. But in the lecture I'm talking about (delivered, apparently, at the social faculty of Moscow State University), he did not allow himself a single statement that could be called biased – and this should not be forgotten when talking about Dugin as a thinker.
I read the previous answers to this question and came to the conclusion that, in general, people are not ready to consider Dugin a philosopher for the following reasons::
They do not agree with Dugin's ideological position and political views, so they feel a strong desire to somehow belittle the bearer of such unpleasant views. But is a philosopher only someone who shares the same ideology as we do, and an intelligent person only someone who agrees with us? In my opinion, this view is naive.
They heard some of Dugin's speeches or statements and found them inconsistent with their own ideas, which led them to conclude that the author was incompetent. But there are a number of other possible conclusions that may turn out to be more correct: it is probably you who are incompetent or biased, maybe you misunderstood something or did not notice the irony, maybe the statement you did not like is generally peripheral and cannot serve as a basis for forming far-reaching conclusions.
They are not satisfied with the circle of authors on whose ideas Dugin relies (well, what can you do, they are not fond of Guenon and Heidegger). But, firstly, the circle of Dugin's “favorite” authors is much wider (this is also Corben, Eliade, Junger, Evola, and in some aspects even Baudrillard, and many others), and secondly, any philosopher is selective in choosing those who are considered his “predecessors”, and there is nothing wrong with this.
In their opinion, Dugin is doing something wrong: sometimes he doesn't have any work in the field of ontology, then he is noticed in the field of stand-up, and so on. But is it possible to say unequivocally which area of knowledge a philosopher should be engaged in and which one should not? Marcus Aurelius and Ludwig Wittgenstein are both philosophers, but it is extremely difficult to find something in common between their areas of interest. Philosophical sciences are generally a conglomerate of very diverse knowledge and ideas.
They believe that Dugin will not suffer for his views, and therefore he is not a philosopher, but a talker. But, first of all, how do you know that he will not suffer until Dugin's life is over, and secondly, did Kant suffer for his views, or is that also why he is not a philosopher?
In general, all the answers to “why Dugin is not a philosopher” do not seem to me to stand up to the slightest criticism. In conclusion, it is necessary to explain why he is a philosopher. Here are a few obvious arguments.
First, they have an academic degree in the relevant field, which indicates the recognition of the professional community.
Secondly, he is currently writing the fundamental (12 weighty volumes, of which 8 are already ready) work “Noomachia”, which is an examination of the history of religious, philosophical, political and artistic ideas in geographical terms through the prism of the logos of Apollo, Dionysus and Cybele. Dugin shows how concepts formed in different regions of the world and in different epochs follow a limited set of patterns associated with basic ideas about the structure of the universe. One can argue about the validity of the approach and the correctness of individual conclusions, but the scale of the work and the author's deep point of view on the subject of research indicate that we are dealing with a philosopher, and an outstanding one at that. That is, a discussion here is possible not about whether this work is relevant to philosophy, but within the philosophical community regarding specific details.
Third, Dugin has certain achievements in the field of political philosophy (in particular, developments related to the”fourth political theory”).
Fourth, Dugin, as mentioned above, has several author's training courses dedicated to certain areas of philosophical knowledge. These courses are not a simple compilation, but are built in accordance with a certain author's logic.
Thus, it is still difficult to say how fundamental Dugin's achievements in the field of philosophy are, how stable his contribution will be over time. This question is debatable and largely subjective (for example, Kant considered Fichte's philosophy untenable, but because of this, historians of philosophy do not stop calling Fichte a philosopher). But the fact that Dugin is engaged in philosophy and philosophical sciences, shows significant results in this area and has a certain authority, is beyond doubt.
I am not a supporter of A. Dugin and his philosophy, but, in fairness, I will only say that emotionalization, in anyone's address, indicates, first of all, its author. This is especially true for Maria Terentyeva, who (by her own admission) did not even bother to watch the lecture to the end, and, nevertheless, comment on it.
For example, I will focus your attention on her attempt to explain the most important concept of ontological difference for understanding the whole of Heidegger's philosophy – “being is not existing/existing” – Das Sein ist also nicht selbst ein Seiendes (keine Entität), which is reduced to the understanding that, allegedly, according to Heidegger, being is not equal to existing on the sole ground that this is a necessary condition for the possibility of existing. Terentyeva can only add that being determines consciousness.
Heidegger has only hinted at us, having witnessed much more than the consumer philosophizing mind, which has grown up on phrases and conclusions, without any experience of penetrating the essence of its own awareness, can see, but is absolutely sure that it understands what the genius is hinting at.
So Martin Heidegger said that “Being is not being”, and Arthur Schopenhauer: “We must try to understand nature from ourselves, and not ourselves from nature”. But these words will remain just phrases if you don't understand what it means to “understand nature from ourselves, not ourselves from nature.” By the way, it is not possible to understand your true nature from nature, that is, from the mind.
So, to understand our true nature, as being ourselves out of ourselves, and not ourselves out of nature, we need to experience ourselves not in the mind, but deep inside, in the very core of our existence, that there is a consciousness in us, the connecting thread with which is the soul (not man). Such an experience is possible, but directly, directly without the mind (space and time), by its presence in the heart, by the soul, by igniting in us the spark of God, the essence of which is awareness of oneself by awareness. That is, phenomenologically, authentically, and existentially by self-awareness out of ignorance.
From nature, you can only recognize yourself as the mind, since a person is not the body, but the mind (your identity with its contents), that is, the consciousness of yourself realized and formed by the mind in the form of an entity from knowledge. Therefore, nature in the consciousness of man is something external to him, as existing, detached from being, namely, the fulfilled present, as the past.
The reason that a person knows himself objectively, that is, using knowledge, is that he does not realize the difference between being and being. What exists for a person is his being, which is perceived by him as a given. As that which is present, present for us, as that which is (is, is felt, is to be, is remembered, is thought of) before us in the form of the totality of things, including ourselves.
In other words, everything we see is an entity, everything we think is an entity, and everything that is present is an entity. Being is the most understandable, most basic idea of a person's relationship to himself in the perception of the world and himself as a part of it.
Being is being, being who we are in essence, being at the essence, existing as the very essence of a phenomenon, action, object, in our case, consciousness. Being is the very existence of us, as consciousness, in the awareness of ourselves by it, which is completely opposite to being-images and representations in our identity with them.
On the one hand, being is precisely what is connected in the fact of the appearance of beings, and, on the other hand, it is fundamentally different from it. In contrast to the noun – being, which is, as a fulfilled present or past, being is a verb form that emphasizes the continuity of existence, as an action.
Being is nothing that exists.
But as soon as we made a distinction between being and being, we immediately turned being into being, we immediately left all the sharpness of perception of the essence of ourselves by the being of consciousness present in us in the awareness of ourselves by it. The moment is lost, the living being of us immediately turned into a dead being, into the contents of the mind. Reality ceased to exist as reality, we lost power, it passed into the hands of the virtual, speculative, that is, to the mind.
So, the difference between being and being is the difference between being in the presence of the here and now and being that is given to us directly, as a result of phenomenological, and then speculative (logical) thinking.
Being is not being, but without being there can be no being. As soon as we made the distinction, we immediately defined being by assigning it a certain meaning, and it became being. The distinction would have to be such that it does not separate them. But this is where the problem arises, because thinking in a person is completely unsuitable for this. We constantly perceive being as existing, making the transition from considering existing to postulating something more general, more fundamental, than just existing for a person.
There is an entity and there is an entity. Being is what we deal with phenomenologically, that is, what we come in contact with in the perception of it, but essence is what constitutes the being of being. Not just as the essence of this entity, but as the essence of what makes this entity exist, that is, the entity answers the question: What is existence?
And in order now to pass from being to being, and vice versa, the mind, when dealing with a multitude of beings, finds in them something in common, as that which is their essence, which makes beings exist. And only then is the conclusion made that being is common to all things, that is, its essence. This is how the logo is built.
However, this approach leaves a person only within the limits of a certain combinatorics in relation to those entities with which he has to deal. That is, it does not touch being itself, but only deduces it on the basis of the set of beings. Therefore, in the end, this approach buries itself, because there is a gradual oblivion of being, the kingdom of Nietzsche's nihilism comes.
Otherwise, the destiny of man is not the divine, but the human, which from time to time fails, because everything that is of man is doomed, in the end, to negation, the cause of which is the denial of man's own awareness of himself not in the truth, but in the ego-illusory mind. Through the substitution of imaginary knowledge about Truth: theory, logos, culture, civilization, which inevitably leads to the arrival of Nietzsche's kingdom of nihilism.
I will only note that everything that is not based on the phenomenological, authentic existence of you in the being of self-awareness, leaves a person only in his schizophrenic, illusory, detached from reality mind, in the gap between being and being, which, according to Heidegger's definition, is an ontological difference.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by the term “philosopher”. Why, when judging whether Dugin is a philosopher or not, none of the respondents gave a definition of the concept under question is not known. I'll try to do that.
A philosopher is a person who is able to think systematically. The philosopher also has the ability to reflect, i.e. is able to be aware of what he is doing and how he is doing, here and now. A distinctive feature of philosophical thinking from ordinary (ontic, in Heidegger's language) thinking itself falls into the zone of thinking and reflection. That is, the philosopher can think about how he thinks. This is a new topic of thought, the “daimon”, which, as Heidegger tells us, illuminates the ontic thinking of the first philosophers, pushing them to the question of what exists.
If we talk about more specific topics, philosophy is specified in the philosophical text. Dugin's texts (in letter or video format) often indicate that A. G. has philosophical thinking: he thinks systematically and reflects almost at every step. Thus, Dugin can rightly be called a philosopher.
The fact that the philosopher A. G. Dugin has a common position with someone does not indicate whether he is a philosopher or not. This is absurd. The possibility of having philosophical thinking and ideological activity does not contradict; an example of this is the same J.-P.Sartre, whose philosophical works, I note, are often compared more to journalism than directly to philosophy. But who can say that Sartre is not a philosopher?
Not on any of them. Dugin is simply ignorant, and his “intellectual” activity is profanity.
I'll give you an example. I once happened to watch the first half hour of Dugin's lecture on Heidegger (youtube.com). During this half-hour, Dugin, in particular, tried to explain the most important concept of ontological difference for understanding Heidegger's entire philosophy – “being is not existing/existing” – Das Sein ist also nicht selbst ein Seiendes (keine Entität). This is easily explained by the example of Platonism – the existence of everything that exists is reduced to the existence of forms (ideas), and, ultimately, to the form of Good. Therefore, being = existing = a form of Good. In medieval European scholasticism, nothing really changed – only the form of the Good changed to God. Being = existing = God. And even in Heidegger's contemporary philosophy, there were similar ideas. In Frege's early theory of meaning, propositions refer to “truth” or “non-truth” in the same way that reference to an object (referent) means “truth” and “non – truth” means existing or non-existing. According to Heidegger, being is not equal to existing, it is a necessary condition for the possibility of existing. Dugin's” explanation ” was eventually reduced to a cyclical formal explanation: “being is not being because because, being is not being.” It is obvious that he does not understand even such a completely basic idea – he lacks the necessary philosophical training. Dugin is simply out of the appropriate intellectual context.
At the same time, Dugin positions himself almost as a leading Russian – speaking expert on Heidegger, loves to use as “intelligent”, obscurantist language as possible, and in general-just somehow physiologically anti-intellectual. And that's how they do it.
You can “position” yourself any way you want. So far, this is not prohibited in our country.
Of course, Dugin is not a philosopher at all (if only because he does not belong to any philosophical school, has not written anything ontological in his life, and has not revealed any secrets of being to his students). He can be called partly a mystic, and even then with a big stretch (since he did not get serious mystical and spiritual realization, because he mostly fought rather than meditated). Best of all, Alexander Gelievich is considered an ideologue (regardless of his own “positioning”), but even an ideologue he is not persistent: his views have changed from radical-nationalist-revolutionary to conservative-monarchical-imperial. And now the “professor” is engaged in recruiting mercenaries and has descended to absolutely terry propaganda.
So, if there was a philosopher there, then the whole thing came out: (