Advertisement

Theurgy revisited, or the harmony of cultural spheres

  • Vladimir L. MarchenkovEmail author
Article
First Online:
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

The paper argues that Nikolai Berdyaev’s doctrine of theurgy has remained relevant in today’s cultural-historical context because it highlights a continuing problem in the philosophy of art. The problem is the misunderstanding of the ludic nature of art, its role in the evolution of consciousness and transformation of reality. The author questions the idea that artistic play is deficient compared with religious expression. As a result of this critique, he proposes that the theurgic quest for a radically new form of creativity was misguided and that the true meaning of the aspiration behind it is the need to comprehend culture as a dialectically articulated integral system of the cultural forms that constitute it.

Keywords

Art Play Religion Myth Ontology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics, translated by C. Emerson. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies, translated by A. Lavers. New York: Nill and Wang.Google Scholar
  3. Berdyaev, N. (1962). The meaning of the creative act, translated by D. A. Lowrie. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bychkov, V. (2007). Russkaia teurgicheskaia estetika [Russian Theurgic Aesthetics]. Moscow: Ladomir.Google Scholar
  5. Danto, A. C. (1981). The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Danto, A. C. (1992). Beyond the Brillo box: The visual arts in post-historical perspective. New York: Farrar, Straus, Grioux.Google Scholar
  7. Dostoevsky, F. (1971–1990). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Collected Works] (Vol. 30). Leningrad: Nauka, Leningradskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
  8. Evlampiev, I. (2017). Russkaia filosofiia v evropeiskom kontekste [Russian Philosophy in the European Context]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo RKhGA.Google Scholar
  9. Hegel, G. W. F. (1975). Aesthetics: Lectures on fine arts (T. M. Knox, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Losev, A. F. (1990). Vladimir Solovyov i ego vremia [Vladimir Solovyov and His Time]. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  12. Losev, A. F. (2003). The dialectics of myth (V. Marchenkov, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Losev, A. F. (2014). Problema simvola i realisticheskoe iskusstvo [The Problem of the Symbol and Realist Art], edited by A. A. Takho-Godi & V. P. Troitskii. Moscow: Russkii Mir.Google Scholar
  14. Marchenkov, V. (2018). The continuing relevance of symbolist thought: The case of Clifford Geertz and Aleksei Losev. Slavic and East European Journal, 62(1), 77–92.Google Scholar
  15. Marchenkov, V. (2019). Nikolai Berdyaev’s philosophy of creativity as a revolt against the modern worldview. In M. F. Bykova, L. Steiner, & M. N. Forster (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Russian thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  16. Schiller, F. (1965). On the aesthetic education of man in a series of letters, translated by R. Snell. New York: Frederick Ungar Publ. Co.Google Scholar
  17. Solovyov, V. (1991). Filosofiia iskusstva i literaturnaia Kritika [Philosophy of Art and Literary Criticism]. Moscow: Iskusstvo.Google Scholar
  18. Zenkovsky, V. (2003). A history of Russian philosophy (Vol. 2), translated by G. Kline. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interdisciplinary ArtsOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options