Evert van der Zweerde, “Philosophy in the Act: The Socio-Political Relevance of Mamardašvili’s Philosophizing,” /Studies in East European Thought/ (2006) 58: 179–203.
‘. . . Loneliness is my profession . . .’ — Merab Konstantinovic( Mamardašvili (1930–1990) ‘Loneliness is my profession,’ is the title of an interview the Latvian philosopher Uldis Tirons conducted with Mamardas?vili in 1990. 35 In this interview, Mamardašvili pointed out that his loneliness was of a personal character – ‘‘I am a chronic specialist in loneliness since early childhood’’ – as well as of a professional nature: ‘‘And then, loneliness is my profession ... (OMP, p. 69)’’36 Leaving the first form to biographers, we can, I think, distinguish two senses of this professional loneliness of the philosopher, one structural, the other contextual. In the first sense, intended by Mamardas?vili himself, philosophy is a ‘lonely activity’ in any case, as some of his definitions of philosophy make clear: ‘‘Philosophy is just a fragment of the smashed mirror of universal harmony that has fallen into an eye or a soul (OMP, p. 64).’’ And: ‘‘... philosophy is a reaction of the dignity of life in the face of anti-life. That’s it. And if there is a pathos of life, then man cannot be a non-philosopher (OMP, p. 67).’’ In a second sense, his was a lonely position because, unlike most of his colleagues, he did not actively deal with the problem of Marxist–Leninist dogmatics or with Marxism as the official ideology in the Soviet Union. Mamardašvili declared that he was not a Marxist, but he also said he was not an anti-Marxist either. Van der Zwerde endeavors to explain the unique position of this philosopher within Soviet philosophical culture. Van der Zwerde is the author of an important study, /Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: Istoriko-filosofskaja Nauka <http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-7923-4832-X>/ (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997 [Sovietica; v. 57]), which I reviewed in 2003: Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: Review Essay http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/sovphilhist.html I wrote more about Soviet philosophical culture in my diary of December 2003 - January 2004: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/diary0401a.html#soviet Van der Zwerde sets out to explain two things: the philosophical culture in which M. was active, and his central concepts--form, thought, and culture. First, he demystifies Western presuppositions about Soviet philosophy, and he provides a biographical summary of M., who indeed became a hero of Soviet intellectuals seeking autonomy and integrity. M. himself commented on the changing role of the intelligentsia, drawing on Gramsci, while rejecting the conceit of the intelligentsia as arbiters of enlightenment. M. also selectively engaged Marx, in a non-trivial fashion. For M., the role of the intellectual in society was to was to claim a presence for /thought /in culture and society. There must be conditions for thought to be able to take place--a public space. M. criticized Russian culture for a neglect of form, for example of the formal character of legal systems and of democracy, though his position did not devolve into a pure formalism. M.'s second preoccupation is the process of thinking--when thinking becomes alive and a presence in the world, not just closed up in itself. Engaging the past of philosophy is to make its thoughts come alive again, not that past philosophies are absolutes in themselves, but that they create spaces in which thinking beings 'reconstitutes' itself. Descartes is a prime example. Russian philosophy has systematically degraded Descartes and Kant. (190-1). But, taking a cue from Hegel, M.. rejected "Robinsonades". M.'s third central concept is 'culture', and here the cosmopolitan notion of 'transculture' (not 'multiculturalism'!) becomes important. In the 1980s M. took on the issue of 'civil society', which became a big theme in late Soviet society. M., criticically discussing Hegel in 1968, had already broached this subject. Once again, M. is concerned with the live act of thought and its conditions of possibility. In his conclusion Van der Zweerde cautions against romanticizing dissenting heroes or demonizing the philosophical culture of the Soviet system, given that any social system tends toward rigidity and requires independent criticism. M. has been characterized as the Georgian Socrates, interestingly, since M. in his youth was lucky enough to circumvent the proscription of Socrates demonized at the hands of Stalinism. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis