Posts from philosophy

to understand Gumilev, you need to UNDERSTAND him:)

Perhaps... It's like with Hegel:) But I just didn't like him - at least partly because, in my opinion, he inappropriately delved into philosophy and the search for some global historical patterns, which is not ideal for a historian, and therefore I don't have a strong desire to understand him in any special way...

P.S. - my dad even wanted to apply to Moscow State University (now St. Petersburg State University) because of Gumilev; but then he changed his mind and went to Moscow State University:)

You know, what about Toynbee and Danilevsky? They also developed global historical concepts. But for some reason, they are recognized authorities, while Gumilev, who was largely their follower, is not. Perhaps he is not accepted because he was too right. As Pushkin said, "The darkness of low truths is dearer to us than the deception that elevates us."

Gumilev shouldn't be idolized, but understanding him means grasping the principle behind what he wrote and what he implied. Gumilev is a genius of 20th-century historiography because he created a unique system for understanding and interpreting historical sequences. Furthermore, based on Gumilev's system, one can make predictions about the future development of ethnic groups, which the CIA was quick to exploit.

the CIA didn't fail to take advantage of it.

Aha, so Gumilev was a NATO spy!!!:D That's why I think it's always boring to hear about him in literature lessons - it turns out he wasn't Russian, because it's interesting to listen about Russian people!:D

(this is a joke):D :D :D

Hmm... and Dostoevsky and Chekhov were adherents of the American school of acting:) Yes, let's go that far...

In literature, they study his father, Nikolai Gumilev. He was a great poet with a tragic fate. And Lev Gumilev's mother was Anna Akhmatova. By the way, this was also an argument against Lev Nikolaevich: his parents were poets, so how could their son be a historian? Yes... it's a compelling argument.

Hmm... and Dostoevsky and Chekhov were adherents of the American school of acting? :)

No! Dostoevsky and Chekhov are ours – it’s interesting to listen to them. :)
But Bulgakov – maybe. He came up with "The Master and Margarita," so how can you take him seriously?:D

In my opinion, Toynbee is one of the most unintelligent historians. His popularity only confirms the decline of modern intellectual thought, and mentions of his theory make me feel nauseous...

Toynbee's concept is very original. Yes, it is not without its flaws, and it does have some shortcomings. And it became popular not in our time, but much earlier. But who has been able to create a complete picture without a single flaw?

No! Dostoevsky and Chekhov are ours – it’s interesting to listen about them. :)
And Bulgakov – maybe. He came up with "The Master and Margarita," and how can you take him seriously?:D

Well, Bulgakov isn't considered a classic just because of "The Master and Margarita." He has some truly powerful works: "The White Guard," "Theatrical Novel," "The Life of Monsieur de Molière." These are truly serious works in the context of classical drama. And "The Master and Margarita," unfortunately, is an overplayed pop culture phenomenon, although it does contain a certain element of truth.

They simply ruined a masterpiece. Might and Magic is a truly powerful work. No matter how many times I reread it, I always find something new and original. And "The Dog's Heart" is also a masterpiece! Yes, the 1920s and 1930s were a golden age for Russian literature.

The Silver Age, of course... Blok, Mandelshtam, Bely, Kharms, Mayakovsky (again), Tsvetaeva, Akhmatova, Pasternak, Gumilev... Roerich, and so on...

And we shouldn't forget about the Golden Age... After all, no matter how you look at it, without it, there wouldn't have been Russian literature in the form it took throughout the 20th century.

Added 2 minutes later
Toynbee became popular after World War II, and it was then, I think, that the collapse of the scientific worldview began and the transition to the present day.

I don't accept or understand the concept of a "golden age" at all. The creativity of the nobility was only understandable to themselves. Perhaps only at the end of the 19th century did truly accessible writers and poets emerge. The collapse of the scientific worldview began earlier – in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the values of liberalism were declared eternal and immutable. When the laws of nature regarding social development were simply ignored. And such people as Danilevsky, Marx, Spengler, Toynbee, and Gumilev sought a way out of this unscientific impasse.

The collapse of the scientific worldview began earlier – in the 18th-19th centuries, when the values of liberalism were declared eternal and immutable.

:eek: In my opinion, it was established in the 18th century, and its peak was in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries...
Alexey, we probably have different things in mind when we talk about the "scientific worldview." Please explain to me what you mean by this phrase.

And the literature of the Golden Age is also quite distant from me personally. But this does not diminish its value in any way. There are people who prefer the works of Dondsova to all other books, but