On some aspects of A.F. Losev's definition of dialectics in Dialectics of Myth

In the first paragraph of definition Losev considersdialectics as ''logos''. This means that dialectics is always an abstraction, a distraction from the thing. Dialectics is not a direct andimmediate perception, in which all its moments are given together and indistinguishable, in contrast, dialectics is always formalizationand differentiation, causing order and regularity, harmony in perception. It should be noted that this ''logization'' of dialectics does notindicate its abstraction in general, its strangeness in real life. It is an ''abstraction'' of dialectics to immediate perception that saysdialectics is directly related to real life. The second paragraph in Losev's definition of dialectics is positioning it as the ''eidos of logos''.Eidos of thing is the thing itself. Dialectical knowledge of thing is knowledge of thing relative to thing by itself, dialectics is preciselythe lack of ''normativity'' in cognition in the negative sense of this word. The things that surround us in our immediate existence arealways a little meaningful, are a certain degree of the meaning themselves. This ''degree of comprehension'' of things is absolutelynatural, and this circumstance justifies the existence of all other sciences except philosophy. Meanwhile, neither the existence of thesesciences, nor their success in the cognition of the universe indicates that there is no possibility of a more holistic approach to things.Eidos of thing is taking thing in the fullness of its meaning, which makes eidos the ''semantic face'' of the thing. The third and lastparagraph of Losev's definition of dialectics is positioning it as logos not of any eidos, but ''logos of the categorical eidos''. Thing existsin itself and it also relates with other things. The specificity of the dialectical approach is in the fact that dialectics takes eidos in its moreexternal sides, fixes in eidos its external relations. Losev calls this way of eidos in dialectics ''categorical eidos''. In order to use thingthere is no need to pay attention to the semantic context, in which it connects with other things. But let us make a mental experiment:pay attention to these connections. What happens in this case? The thing reveals to us. How will the nature of our interaction with thisthing change? Our interaction will become… communication, from using the thing we will get to communicating with it.

Keywords

Authors

References