people

---

Some external Internet links (marked by icon), biographies and other materials helpful for studying A. F. LOSEV`s life and works.

	ARISTOTELES E. CASSIRER H. COHEN DAMASCIUS PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITES EUCLIDES PAVEL FLORENSKIJ A. HAARDT F. HANEY G. W. F. HEGEL E. HUSSERL V. M. SOKOLOVA-LOSEVA P. NATORP NICOLAUS VON CUES NOVALIS		PHILOLAUS PLATON PLOTINUS PORPHYRIUS PROCLUS   F. W. SCHELLING A. SCHOPENHAUER SIMPLICIUS SOCRATES V. SOLOVJOV O. SPENGLER   A. A. TAKHO-GODI A. TRENDELENBURG   E. ZELLER

 

ARISTOTELES

ARISTOTELES has never enjoyed the particular inclination by LOSEV.  The most precious concept of ARISTOTELES is, of course, that of quidditas. It constructs a category of being in such a way that it is possible to logically derive further symbolistic and mythologic hierarchies. It is an unique possibility in ARISTOTELES. According LOSEV, quidditas is: noetically perceived (theoreisthai)  three principles of A.: eidos, hyle, and synolon (7, ch. 3). Enantiosis of Eidos proceeds in a middle sphere of sense, between being and not-being. It is a fundamental difference of classic Platonic oysia. A. feels that it would be good to hypostasize the reason of this enantiosis, from here the concept of prime mover and the overall tendency to the sphere of expression (of Platonic category of name). Also some parallel to Stoic lekton individuality (kath' hekaston)  see 7, ch. 6. Quidditas of thing is the same as individual thing according its fact, but differs in sense. In this chapter A. a bit better uses the oysia. In the latter are   the sphere of pure sense and the sphere of factuality: any   fact has sense, and sense embodies itself factually. But   this faculty of factualization is only the accidens of   sense: the sense of accidentality is the other as the plain   sense. But, the identity of sense and fact in the   numerically one is the oysiodes definition of fact by sense,   i.e. the sense of fact is oysia. The sense of accidens when   enabled by the force of oysia is the same pure sense.   Quidditas is the pure sense of meonically expressed pure   sense. Maybe this is a most advanced talk of oysia in all   Metaphysics in this way turned into the individual thatness (tode ti)  when thing is understood, without paying attention to its   accidens`es, as indivisible unity, as the numerically one   sense, inapplicable to any other. See almost neoplatonic   phrase 1030 a6 ff. of the sameness of logical and alogical (achoriston)  three spheres : pure logos, expressed logos (eidetical and   hyletic quidditas), and hyletic fact of sense and   quidditas. Neoplatonically: hyle noete (cf 1036 b - 37 a) of   A. is the the intratetractidal meon. Quidditas always   presupposes the expression of sense , given as  energetically (energeia(i))  energy is not only the realized opportunity but also   individualized method of this realization. General /   individual = potency / energy. Energy is tode ti (1087) whole (holon)  wholeness is a kind of o(O)neness ( 7, 13; 5, 6). Quidditas   has no parts in the meaning of dispersion. But any quidditas   is given in hyletic embodiment, and then the usual   dispersion of meon is possible. Of course, eidos presupposes   the possibility of this embodiment and includes it, but the   realization of this possibility comes only in the middle   sphere of quidditas development of  potentially being (dynamei)  potentiality presents the possibility of that wholeness:   potentially being is ready to accept any energeia to yield   any thing, it is universal. Against, this enables the sense   transcend into its expression governed by the mediation of   the quidditas sense (logos) of substantiality (kath' ayto). so in any self of hyletic phenomenon we can discern the   sense only if this sense is transcended into that   phenomenon. But, according to A., energeia brings only the   sense, but not being itself (13, 10).  This definition, given in Class. kosmos, App. note 214, 9, in fin., is very easy to use for creating further categories of sensic expression. LOSEV did it and finally found that ARISTOTELES, contrary to popular belief, simply had elaborated the Platonic doctrine, being straight Platonist. Neoplatonists were left to further synthesize the dialectics of PLATON and phenomenologism of ARISTOTELES, what they did fine in their doctrines.

---

 
 

Prof.  ALEXANDER HAARDT

Researcher from  Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany. His book (Haardt,Alexander: Husserl in Rußland. Phänomenologie der Sprache und Kunst bei Gustav Spet und Aleksej  Losev.1992.263 S.(Übergänge 25) Gb.68.-/ ÖS 531.-/sFr 74.80 ) is published by Fink Verlag.  German Amazon says that this book is temporary unavailable. Sadly, I have never seen this book.

---

 
 

O. SPENGLER

All of us remember that thrill and joy of first reading of Untergang d. Abendlandes in our youth. Saturated colors, exquisite beauty and ineffable force of style, infinitely expanding vistas of most exotic philosophic and historic landscapes, and -- the numerous intellectual challenges. LOSEV seems to be quite incapable to ignore these challenges, greatest of which maybe was the phrase in the note to 16 chapter of Einleitung: that systematize philosophy of PLATON were the dubious initiative; whereas LOSEV himself did always stressed that his philosophy is the taking the Platonism to its limit; whether the Platonism holds its identity this way is another question, but the results of this approach are overwhelming. Philosopher of Gestalt/Gesetz happened to be very useful for the philosopher of eidos/logos. Although LOSEV denied his overly dependence, but did it only in some details. The culturological gist of SPENGLER undoubtedly influenced the "sociologic" approach of LOSEV. But much more vast implication was that those disparate cultural entities (e.g. Greek numbers, Arab numbers, European numbers) were, for LOSEV, only another challenge. As he loved to say over and over, one of the main dialectical principles was that to understand any special one should always study that common from which these specials originate in the course of dialectic antithesis, and only that common is logically antecedent. That this antecedent is in its meonized form also chronologically previous and forms Ur-Phänomen -- is simply accidens of it. Culturological entities of SPENGLER were second-best objects for that kind of investigation, especially because that both philosophers strongly prefer the same realms of mathematics (cf. about equation as result/equivalence and number as value/variable in 10 of Numbers) and philology. Notably, SPENGLER managed to write brightly about things which he did not understood, and now, esp. after training in LOSEV, much of his text, esp. about ontological status of categories, appear hopelessly naive. On the other hand, much of Untergang (esp. Vol 1) is made of unrealized research programs. E.g. 1, 11 presents the entire paradigm for existentialism which remain not realized not only because existentialism happened to start earlier in the European domain, but also because no single existentialist could simply understand about what the talk was. In the same chapter, SPENGLER demonstrates a possibility for existentialism to include the onomatodoxy (only partially and unconsciously realized by HEIDEGGER) and shows that exact science about nature might simply be a branch of that ideal existentialism. Of course, all these programs remain unrealizable because of lack of Dionysiasm in the currently dying European culture... But I digress. Another major virtual challenge of SPENGLER is his handling of anagke denying the mythological aspect of it, although acknowledging its absolute authoritativeness, acausality (causality is a logos of factualized predestination), and its visual and eidetic nature. So, this lone Glassperlenspieler, inspired mathematician and logical Schwärmer, should have had a strong influence to LOSEV, as to all of us in our Wanderjähre.

---

 
 

A. TRENDELENBURG, etc.

According to LOSEV, he immortalized himself by his fenomenal failure to understand HEGEL and therefore the entire logical-dialectical tradition. He seems to be totally unable to tell symbol from analogy, judging by his grammatical exercises. But, as LOSEV notices, he is but a saint in comparison to queer buddy who tried to write the history of logics, C. PRANTL, and wrote it in obscene language, characterizing, e.g., PLOTINUS as "hochmütiger Pharisäer", and his theories as "etwas komisches". Strange figures lurk in the dusty corners of history of philosophy...

---