Gogotishvili, L. A. Contribution of Post-Symbolists Losev and Bakhtin to the Theory of Discourse (Fundamental Differences Amid Fundamental Similarity)

Abstract: The author of the article compares views of the two philosophers, Aleksey Losev and Mikhail Bakhtin. These two philosophers worked in the sphere of post-symbolism, both Russian symbolism (mostly referring to Vyacheslav Ivanov) and German symbolism (i.e. in terms of German classical philosophy represented by Goethe, Schelling, Hegel and others). In other words, they were in dialogue with Neo Kantianism and phenomenology that can be interpreted as the post-symbolism stage in German philosophy. The authors show that the fact that both philosophers developed their ideas according to the common ‘post-symbolism’ patterns defined their intellectual-technical (‘operational’) and intuitive-thematic similarities despite their differences in themes and axiology. The research methods include phenomenological description; comparison of comparable concepts amid both historical background (post-symbolism) and modern cognitive and narrative theories and the method of the dual methodological optics, i.e. simultaneous search for contrast and common parameters. The results of the research are: 1) even though thematic ‘surface’ of Losev’s and Bakhtin’s writings seem to be very different, both of them use the same intellectual-operational technique as they are both oriented at post-symbolism; 2) the aforesaid operational unity lies in the basis of Losev’s and Bakhtin’s thematic innovations (imiaslavie – literally ‘praising the name’ and double-voicedness). The author proves that both Losev and Bakhtin woked with the same two phenomena. These phenomena can be conditionally called ‘dual’ or ‘triadic’ symbols. The author also argues against the opinion that while duality expresses the core of the Russian philosophy, the triplicity is not accepted in Russian philosophy up to the ‘mystical fright’ before the ‘third’ element. Despite the common opinion that triplicity was not adequately accepted by Russian symbolism, the author of the article shows that Losev and Bakhtin did not only accept the idea of triplicity but also used it as an innovation in their early works. Losev used a name as a triadic symbol (in his concept of Imiaslavie) while Bakhtin talked about a double-voiced word as a ground for polyphony. In Losev’s name the third element is the essence itself (presented solely through the energy) while in Bakthin’s ‘dual word’ the third element is the hidden, i.e. linguistically unobvious, relation of one voice to another. Analysis of all additional elements in the ‘dual word’ is a particular narrative issue which can be adequately viewed only through detailed analysis of the phenomena of duality and triplicity. The author of the present article defines the following two stages in the development of both philosophers’ post-symbolism concepts: 1) the relative stage when both philosophers moved from the triadic symbol to the thesis about linguistic relativity, and 2) the adequation stage when both philosophers proved that there were particular linguistic strategies that allowed to overcome the linguistic relativism by the means of the linguistic relativism itself. Studying the topic of relativity, the author has discovered another important peculiarity that Losev and Bakhtin had in common: Gogotishvili establishes a hypothesis that Losev’s theory of relative mythologies correlates to Bakhtin’s theory of the division of the common language into different (professional, genre and etc.) sublanguages, and Losev’s theory of absolute mythology partly correlates to Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony.

Keywords: