S. Frank and J. Derrida : the need for the impossible

In article some aspects of philosophy of one of the main figures of the Russian religious Renaissance - S. Franc - and one of the brightest representatives of the French post-structuralism - J. Der-rida are compared. A subject of the analysis is the mystical and intuitive knowledge set as criticism of ratio and expansion of its borders as the project of need of comprehension "impossible". On the basis of the comparative analysis of construct of "differance" with a concept "incomprehensible" clears up sense of the principle "potentsirovanny denial" as intension of a post-metaphysical discourse. It is shown that the post-metaphysical space of philosophy is a metaphysics "distinction". The aspiration Derrida and Franc is found to express "incomprehensible" in reason language. It is claimed that refusal of the Hegel's dialectic principle "denial denial" leads the Russian philosopher to justification of a "antinomystical monodualism" position and the doctrine about positive ontologic sense and value "denial". The substantial and verbal analysis of the concept "potentiate denial" of the Frank's doctrine is carried out. As a result, the author suggests to consider this concept as a concept anticipation of "the distinguishing distinction" Derrida. The author shows how reflections S. Frank moves in the context of the basic concept of Vl.Solovyov "positive unity", with the result that reinterpreted the Platonic-Pythagorean relationship of being and non-being and establishes the principle of absolute negation. In the opinion of the Russian philosopher, the denial must not only deny but also consolidate various bond. In the context of post-metaphysical philosophical discourse analyzed concepts such as "antinomy", "convergence", "gift", etc. By which S. Frank tries to find a way to overcome the denial meta-logical. In the end, S. Frank manages to comprehend the scope of trans-rational, will not go beyond the rational, without leaving the border area between the subject and that stipulates the terms of this knowledge.

Keywords

Authors

References