UDC: 101.1
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-1-66
EDN: FCSMFC


viewing

DEATH OF SUBJECT’S DEATH

D. V. Ankin
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: dmitryankin@gmail.com

Abstract. In modern philosophy, there is a synthesis of the main directions of classical philosophy of language of the early 20th century: analytical philosophy, hermeneutics and structuralism/poststructuralism. The article provides a brief overview of the idea of the disappearance of the subject in two of the three indicated natures – (post)structuralism, as well as in one of the school analytical philosophy – «critical rationalism».

The author seeks to show the lack of meaningfulness of the thesis of the «death of the subject» in the context of the modern development of philosophy. The ideas of «death of the subject» and «death of the author» appear to the author as only slogans that contradict real history. As one example, the article notes the presence of authorship and the author in ancient literature, and the absence of this authorial individual in the scientific discourse of antiquity itself.

The evolution of the category of subject in the Middle Ages is briefly examined. It is argued that both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, the categories of subject and object are not yet connected in any way with the human individual, but retain a pure logical-grammatical interpretation: the subject is just the subject, the object of thought, and the object is just the predicate, predicate. The significance of medieval nominalism is also noted, which influenced the subsequent inversion of these categories: the subjective existence of the scholastics is transformed into an object, which leads to the category of objective reality, and objective existence turns into a subject (the Cartesian subject as an individual cognitive mind).

Finally, the article examines some interpretations of the category of subject in 20th-century philosophy. Controversial aspects of these interpretations are criticized. The tendency towards a synthesis of various philosophical trends of the 20th century in the field of philosophy of language is also considered. As an additional classification, the author uses and analyzes the already traditional (after the works of R. Rorty) division of philosophy into «philosophy as a science» and «philosophy as literature». Philosophy as a science is seen by the author as the mainstream, and philosophy as literature as marginalia of the European tradition.

Key words: meaning, semantics, death of the subject, death of the author, philosophy as a science, philosophy as literature.

Cite as: Ankin, D. V. (2024) [Death of subject’s death]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 1, pp. 66–71. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-1-66.


References

  1. Averintsev, S. S. (1979) [Classical Greek philosophy as a phenomenon of historical and literary series]. Klassicheskaya grecheskaya filosofiya kak yavleniye istoriko-literaturnogo ryada [New in modern classical philology]. M., pp. 41–81. – EDN: YTQZSW. (In Russ.).
  2. Averintsev, S. S. (1996) Ritorika i istoki yevropeyskoy literaturnoy traditsii : Sb. st [Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition: Collection of articles. Art]. M.: Shk. «Languages Russian. Culture», 446 p.3.
  3. Ankin, D. V. (2020) [Evolution of ideas of metaphysics and ontology]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovation. Investments]. Vol. 3, pp. 71–78. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2020-3-71. – EDN: GQAPZS. (In Russ.).
  4. Koffa, A. (2019) Semanticheskaya traditsiya ot Kanta do Karnapa. K Venskomu vokzalu [Semantic tradition from Kant to Carnap. To the Vienna Station]. M.: Kanon-plus, 526 p. (In Russ., In Engl.).
  5. Kurennoy, V. (2000) [Theory and rhetoric]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 1 (22), pp. 42–49. (In Russ.).
  6. Lyubutin, K. N., Pivovarov, D. V. (1993) Dialektika sub”yekta i ob”yekta [Dialectics of subject and object]. Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. University, 416 p. – EDN: RWHUOT. (In Russ.).
  7. Petrov, M. K. (1996) [Discussions of theologians and the development of the category of objective being (ESSE OBJECTIVUM)]. M. K. Petrov. Istoriko-filosofskiye issledovaniya [M.K. Petrov. Historical and philosophical studies]. M., ROSSPEN, pp. 293–311. (In Russ.).
  8. Petrov, M. K. (2004) Yazyk. Znak. Kul’tura [Language. Sign. Culture]. Intro. Art. S. S. Neretina. 2nd ed., erased. M.: URSS, 328 p.
  9. Popper, K. R. (2002) Ob”yektivnoye znaniye. Evolyutsionnyy podkhod [Objective knowledge. Evolutionary approach]. M.: Editorial URSS, 384 p. (In Russ., trans. from Engl.).
  10. Popper, K. R. (2004) Predpolozheniya i oproverzheniya: Rost nauchnogo znaniya [Assumptions and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge]. M.: «AST Publishing House»; «Ermak», 638 p. (In Russ., trans. from Engl.).
  11. Rorty, R. (1977) Filosofiya i zerkalo prirody [Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University Publishing House, 320 p.
  12. Sokal, A., Brikmont, J. (2002) Intellektual’nyye ulovki: Kritika sovremennoy filosofii postmoderna [Intellectual tricks: Critique of modern postmodern philosophy]. M.: «House of Intellectual Books», 248 p.
  13. Foucault, M. (1996) [What is an author?]. M. Fuko Volya k istine: po tu storonu znaniya, vlasti i seksual’nosti [M. Foucault The will to truth: beyond knowledge, power and sexuality]. M.: Kastal, pp. 7–46. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  14. Khestanov, R. (2000) O teorii neprotivorechivoy i neytral’noy [R. On the theory of consistent and neutral]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 1 (22), pp. 50–55. (In Russ.).
  15. Khestanov, R. Z. (2000) [Theory and rhetoric as two projects of rationality]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 1 (22), pp. 83–104. (In Russ.).
  16. Heartfield, James (2002) Postmodernism and the «Death of the Subject» Available at: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/heartfield-james.htm (accessed 15.12.2003) (In Engl.).