Рус Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2065,   Articles in work: 293 Declined articles: 786 
Library

Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

How does the historical forgiveness work? Historical guilt and historical responsibility as a subject of philosophical realization
Buller Andreas

Doctor of Philosophy

Research Officer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration of Baden-Wuerttemberg

D-71332, Germaniya, Baden-Vyurtemberg, g. Vaiblingen, ul. Giselastraße, 12

andreas.buller@gmail.com
Linchenko Andrei Aleksandrovich

PhD in Philosophy

Docent, the department of Philosophy, Lipetsk Branch of Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation; Scientific Associate, Tomsk State University

398002, Russia, Lipetskaya oblast', g. Lipetsk, ul. Tereshkovoi, 17, kv. 104

linchenko1@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

Article was received:

30-11-2019


Review date:

30-11-2019


Abstract.

The subject of this research is the modern philosophical conceptualization of the notions of “historical guilt”, “historical responsibility” and “historical forgiveness”. On the works of Paul Ricœur, Aleida Assmann, Hans Jonas the authors analyze the logical content and volume of these notions, as well as their correlation with such notions as “historical memory”, “historical consciousness” and “nation”. The article is based on the comparison of the Russian and German contexts of rethinking the historical experience. Analysis is conducted on the key aspects of the problematic of historical forgiveness. Results of the use of comparative method of research are applied to allow juxtaposing various interpretations of the notions of “historical guilt” and “historical responsibility”, as well as determining their logical content and volume. The novelty of this research consists in substantiation of the need for further philosophical interpretation of the problem of historical forgiveness. It was discovered that the content and volume of the notions of “historical guilt” and “historical responsibility” demonstrate a vivid trend towards expansion, which is related not only with reevaluation of modern philosophy of such notions as fear, desecration and repentance, but also refers to the notions of “nation” and “historical memory”. The concept of “nation” cannot serve as a reliable foundation for the historical memory, as well as historical reflection. The past should be evaluated leaning not on the national interests, but ethical criteria. The authors determine the specificity of the interpretation of historical guilt and historical responsibility within the framework of antagonistic, cosmopolitan and agnostic modes of functionality of historical memory. The author substantiates the importance of the role of historical consciousness within the discourse of historical responsibility, demonstrating the need to transition from ethics of persuasion towards ethics of responsibility in the process of analyzing modern forms of historical forgiveness.

Keywords: agonistic memory, ethics of responsibility, ethics of persuasion, philosophy of history, historical forgiveness, historical responsibility, historical guilt, cosmopolitan memory, antagonistic memory, historical consciousness

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2019.11.31541

Publish date:

01-12-2019


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Assman A. Dlinnaya ten' proshlogo: memorial'naya kul'tura i istoricheskaya politika. M.:NLO, 2014. 328 s.
2.
Wyschogrod E. An Ethics of Remembering. History, Heterology, and the nameless others. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. – 281 p.
3.
The Ethics of History / ed. by David Carr, Thomas R. Flynn, Rudolf A. Makkreel. Evanston: Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 2004. – 178 p.
4.
Margalit A. The Ethics of Memory. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 2004. 237 p.
5.
Khabermas Yu. Moral'noe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deistvie. SPb.: Nauka, 2000. 380 s.
6.
Ricœur P. Symbolik der Bösen. Phänomenologie der Schuld II. München: Verlag: Alber Karl, 2002. 408 s.
7.
Lotter M-S. Verantwortung und Schuld // Handbuch Verantwortung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien 2017. S.251-265.
8.
Assman A. Nemtsam predstoit izobresti sebya kak natsiyu zanovo [Elektronnyi resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://www.colta.ru/articles/literature/22582-aleyda-assman-bolshoe-intervyu?fbclid=IwAR1muUuCRtevT4bjzm5YLBKaQ426a4vuEL-Q26pFEPsxvWsySJqM6VZrkyo
9.
Jaspers K. Die Schuldfrage. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1946. 106 s.
10.
Assis A. Review of, Was heißt historische Verantwortung? H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. May 2006 [Elektronnyi resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=28405
11.
Bull, A. & Hansen, H. L. On Agonistic Memory // Memory Studies. 2016. № 9(4). pp. 390-404.
12.
Arendt Kh. Otvetstvennost' i suzhdenie. M.: Izdatel'stvo instituta Gaidara, 2013. 352 s.
13.
Krasavin I.V., Simonova I.A., Tomil'tseva D.A. Istoricheskaya otvetstvennost': [uchebnoe posobie] pod obshch. red. k. filos. nauk D.A. Tomil'tsevoi. Ekaterinburg: OOO Izdatel'stvo «Delovaya kniga», 2016. 98 s.
14.
Nansi Zh.-L. V otvete za sushchestvovanie // Intentsional'nost' i tekstual'nost'. Tomsk: Vodolei, 1998. S.306-317.
15.
Hasberg W. Erinnerungskultur – Geschichtskultur, Kulturelles Gedächtnis – Geschichtsbewußtsein. Zehn Aphorismen // Zeitschrift für Geschichtsdidaktik. 2004. № 3. S.198-207.
16.
Ionas G. Printsip otvetstvennosti. Opyt etiki dlya tekhnologicheskoi tsivilizatsii. M.: Airis-Press, 2004. 480 s.
17.
Filosofiya otvetstvennosti / pod red. E.N. Lisanyuk, V.Yu. Perova. SPb.: nauka, 2014. 255 s.