Scholarly article on topic 'Metaphysical shape of the Russian civilization'

Metaphysical shape of the Russian civilization Academic research paper on "Law"

Share paper
OECD Field of science
{Criticism / "Metaphysical shape" / "Philosophy of language"}

Abstract of research paper on Law, author of scientific article — Andrew Tolstenko

Abstract The goal of this study is to analyse changes in the sphere of criticism reflecting the process underway in Russia by which political and economic reality is altered. A review of prior philosophical works regarding the transformation of criticism in Russia was conducted. Heidegger's Dasein-analytics infer that the process of annihilation becomes relevant for the possibility to learn about the meaning of being (Seyns) because everything is immersed in the immaterial world (Machenschaft) and participates in the domination of material things (des Seienden). The concept proposed in this analysis considers the inclusion of criticism into a wide metaphysical linguistic context. At a time when information technology controls both the material and immaterial, events depend only on power to the extent that truth is commensurate with vigour. The tendency to create a new ruling subjectivism is embodied in subversive tactics and a strategy to seize power, which is justified by any means whatsoever.

Academic research paper on topic "Metaphysical shape of the Russian civilization"

Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect


Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences

journal homepage:

Metaphysical shape of the Russian civilization

Andrew Tolstenko*

Department of History and Philosophy, Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Vtoraja Krasnoarmejskaja ul. 4, St. Petersburg, 190005, Russia


Article history: The goal of this study is to analyse changes in the sphere of criticism reflecting the process underway in

Received 21 April 2016 Russia by which political and economic reality is altered. A review of prior philosophical works regarding

Accepted 9 June 2016 the transformation of criticism in Russia was conducted. Heidegger's Dasein-analytics infer that the

Availat>le °nline xxx process of annihilation becomes relevant for the possibility to learn about the meaning of being (Seyns)

because everything is immersed in the immaterial world (Machenschaft) and participates in the

Keywords- domination of material things (des Seienden). The concept proposed in this analysis considers the in,. , , clusion of criticism into a wide metaphysical linguistic context. At a time when information technology Metaphysical shape , , , , .,,..,, , , , , . Philosophy of language controls both the material and immaterial, events depend only on power to the extent that truth is

commensurate with vigour. The tendency to create a new ruling subjectivism is embodied in subversive tactics and a strategy to seize power, which is justified by any means whatsoever. Copyright © 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

1. Introduction

1.1. Origin of the term "critic"

The role of criticism in the present-day cultural environment is actively discussed both by foreign authors of different generations (Arnold, 2011; Crane and Keast, 1919; Culler, 2015; Frye, 2006; Kuhn, 2004; Lewis, 2014; Norrie, 2014; Poulet, 1998) and by Russian authors (Bogomolov, 2002; Dobrenko, 2003; Gromova, 2009; Mezhuev, 2012; Senchin, 2009). A critic (kriticos) is an individual capable of demanding and holding the attention of others (holding court), as well as investigating and interpreting the implications of intellectual works.

The term "critic" has been borrowed from Ancient Greek and descends from the verb krino, which means literally "to select and collect something of good quality discarding all that is unsuitable" (, 2015). The term krino implied an aspiration to determine the "field" of understanding, impart thoroughness to one's discourse, and similarly to Socrates, an apprehensive attitude that becomes pervasive. Terms such as "crisis", "crisis-related", and

* Tel.: +1 921 0943299. E-mail address:

Peer review under responsibility of Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University.

"criterion" descend from the same verb krino and are associated with the capability to judge in a comprehensive manner. A critic demonstrates a definitive capacity for knowing something, not for the sake of further self-esteem, but aspires to explain a difference between what is proper (what should be) and what appears in fact (Crane and Keast, 1915). Kriticos holds court and announces a statement not as a "casual observer" but as an attending steward supervising an exhibition of what is and what shall be.

1.2. Immanuel Kant's perspective of the metaphysical status of criticism

Previously, Kant focused on the importance of criticism and used it against dogmatization of "pure" principles of reasoning; because "pure" reason disfigures and entangles itself. Kant beckons individuals to proceed using their own reason as a general principle, without free application of their own mental abilities, when "smart" criticism is not possible. In this case, boundaries to "pure" reason contribute to a personal and scientific perception of the outside world (Kant, 1995).

Thus, criticism of Kant has been aimed against all those who -dream of "pure reason" and those who engage in "pure sensuality", which leads to obsession and insanity. Kant has intentionally excluded intolerance and exasperation from criticism. Criticism of reason, a priori, may result in a conclusion and verify the integrity of objects by interconnecting them with a unified perception.

2405-8831/Copyright © 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

A. Tolstenko / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6

Science is exclusively capable of examining an authentic state of affairs that reveals advantages and disadvantages of the capability of our judgement.

1.3. Criticism's intended purpose in the twentieth century

However, individuals have a right to ask why critics become extinct, and any hope to receive justifiable explanations disappears with them. Not infrequently, critics as well as judges, are referred to as "unhappy people" and often discuss imaginary worlds and false disputes. Certain individuals believe that the prudent evaluation of day-to-day realities is no longer appropriate; their reasoning is that in the service of post-modern ideals and illusions, everything is due them; including the ability to be anyone or no one (De Man, 2013).

It is advisable to analyse European criticism in terms of crisis. What does this crisis mean? The crisis is expressed in the transition of criticism from sensation, from a state of awareness and temporality to a discourse of social sciences (particularly, in the second half of the twentieth century). Critics have been influenced; first by sociology, then by anthropology and, finally, by neofreidism and were often considered to be concordant with their own convictions (Boltanski, 2011).

The disadvantage of criticism (particularly in America) is that texts are reviewed as if they were natural objects. This type of criticism forgoes tools of observation and interpretation.

According to Michel Foucault (1994), criticism should concentrate on the task of "re-actualization" of prior discourses into a new problematic field with the aim of transforming and understanding modern day-to-day realities.

According to Martin Heidegger (2001), we can only understand that which is already given to us, to a certain extent, even though it may only be in a fragmentary and unauthentic manner. This constitutes pre-understanding (Forhabe), which precedes any understanding, an existential pre-structure of our own presence. A hermeneutic circle occurs here. To clarify, the implicit pre-knowledge always precedes explicit interpretative affirmation. In this regard, the critic's task is highlighting the text, adding nothing to it by means of critical interpretation, the possibility of which is originally present.

1.4. Types of criticism

Thus, the analysis of criticism distinguishes the following types:

1. Criticism reviewing texts analogous with natural processes for which, the role of the author's productive force of imagination is not taken into account and the authentic criteria of work assessment are absent (which depends on the observer's point of view) (Abrams, 2000; Crane and Keast, 1979; Richards, 2014).

2. Criticism based on discourses of sociology (Goldmann, 1981; Lukacs, 1999), anthropology (Lévi-Strauss, 2010), or neofreidism (Lacan, 2013), etc.

3. Criticism entering into a dialogue with a work without changing or destroying it; the critic solely discloses the implication from the point of view of "sideliner" to a maximum extent (Heidegger, 2009a, 2009b).

This study is devoted to defining a possible circle of value-for the conscious basis of Russian criticism and revealing the methods of its institutional execution. Specific features of Russian criticism are considered, particularly the occurrence and development of a revelatory and vengeful position.

2. Methods

The goal of this study is to analyse changes in the sphere of criticism reflecting the process that Russia is undergoing and altering the political and economic reality. This study analyses the inclusion of criticism into a broad communication context understood as the relationship between an individual and society. To clarify, this investigation is not only about power, but the social and cultural environmental changes, which directly influence institutional practices and social dynamics.

As for the methodology, it is possible to use two principally opposite approaches to study the essence of criticism.

Heidegger's approach relies on the fact that our civilization only features a metaphysical ("superphysical") image. Dasein-analytics infer that the process of annihilation becomes relevant for the possibility to learn about the meaning of being (Seyns) because everything is immersed in the immaterial world (Machenschaft) and participates in the domination of material things (des Seienden). The main disadvantage of our era is expressed in widespread revolutionary enlightenment, and despotism, which lead to an unbounded deprivation of being (Seyn), and substitute origins with power deployment (Heidegger, 1987, 2009a, 2009b; Krell, 2015).

The hypophysical ("subphysical") Foucault approach (Foucault, 2006, 2013) consists of an investigation into implicit practices related to a change in social and economic conditions; i.e., an analysis of power is implied. Conversely, this methodology includes sharp criticism of cultivated public discourses and contemplates reconstruction of concealed (from the viewpoint that critics do not seek to understand any deeper than what is apparent) conditions for implementing power policies. Thus, Foucault's position connects both epistemological (discourse of knowledge), and descriptive (discourse of rules) aspects of a problem including an analysis of different social practices and aspects of power relationships.

This study analyses features of Russian criticism on the basis of Heidegger's and Foucault's positions backed by a value-conscious thinking and through calculating exclusively rational and human objectification of all things that exist.

3. Main section: revolutionary criticism in Russia

3.1. The atheist image ofBenedictus Spinoza and the propaganda of godlessness

The atheist image of Spinoza corresponds to intentions of Soviet Marxists to shape the disciplined and controllable "social body" according to Joseph Stalin's instructions. It was vital to focus attention of the establishment of the country on atheism.

A remarkable example follows. A front-page profile of Nikolai Bukharin (1923), a Communist International leader, declaring a Soviet revolution in heaven was issued in the magazine "Bez-bozhnik". Bukharin stated:

"International gods ... still are very strong ... One shouldn't live such! It's time to get up to the heavenly crown, to take account of something in the sky. To do this we must first start with the release of antideific proclamations, a great revolution begins with this. It is true that the gods have their own army, and even, as the saying is, police, in other words, different Archistrategi, St. Georges the Victorious, and other Knights of the Order of St. George. In hell they have a real court-martial, and the secret police, and torture chamber. However, what do we have to fear something? Is not it that we have seen a kind of beasts on our earth? So, comrades, we make our demands: abolition of the autocracy in heaven ... the eviction of the gods from the sanctuaries and the transfer of them to the basements (the worst of them to the concentration camps),

A. Tolstenko / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6 3

the delivery of the principal gods, being responsible for all misfortunes, to hold court of the proletarian Revolutionary Tribunal."

Emelian Iaroslavskii (Gubelman), the ideologist and leader of anti-religious policy in the USSR, explained on May 1,1929 in the party paper "Pravda" that one of the asylums or shelters for a farmworker, who does not want to join a collective farm and is, hence, a "petty bourgeois", is the "religious organization with a giant machinery, with one and a half million of activists: priests, rabbis, mullahs, evangelists, preachers of every kind, monks and nuns, shamans and sorcerers, and so forth. The whole double-dyed counter-revolution, yet not ranked in the Solovki, still lurked in the folds of a huge body of USSR and parasitizing in this body, is part of this active" (Iaroslavskii, 1929).

In 1929, there were more than one million juvenile atheists in Russia. A plan was enacted to increase this number to ten million by 1932. This reveals the true nature of the Soviet power to socially equip the "masses", i.e., empower it with new rights, and new civil and social-and-economic functions.

3.2. Anatolii Lunacharskii: Spinoza as a rebel against religion

A revolution by way of violence was required (it is always required) to alter the former relationships of power. New methods of distributing power during the era of Stalin demanded ideologists to turn Spinoza into a rebel against religion. Lunacharskii (1933) was one of the first to set about a process of "revolutionary" mastering the heritage of Spinoza. Spinoza appeared to be an enemy of the Dutch philosopher; the priests with their "dog-eat-dog malice" treating the immortal thinker "as a dead dog".

Spinoza appears in this Marxist context as an "ideologist of his class"; however, from Stalin's point of view this was not the primary issue. It was more important to determine in what context "he is our ideological forefather".

Lunacharskii sought to make the interests and needs of the working class clear with respect to "cressets" or beacons of new-European thought as demonstrated in the following quotations: "Spinoza has not a single lot of priesthood or monkhood"; "Spinoza had acknowledged with an utmost definition that bourgeois class brought along the new world and the new culture", "everything: the nature, society, personal behaviour, shall become secular and rational"; "brave and consistent passion of democrat has boiled in the heart of Spinoza", and "He is a fighter for reason".

The style of Lunacharskii was affected by the proletarian dictatorship and the context of Stalin's technology of power organization. The critic's role would be used for different forms of control. The task of a critic serving the ruling power served not only to establish but maintain the controlled truth that was produced by Stalin's regime.

Lunacharskii underscores that it is impossible when following the texts of Georgii Plekhanov (1992) and Abram Deborin (1927) to "admit Spinoza implicitly into his pantheon and declare that he is Marxist, while Marx is a follower of Spinoza".

Furthermore, "the most harmful feature for Spinoza himself was the pantheistic terminology, in which Spinoza dressed his materialistic doctrine". Leadership of this era noted pantheism (Deus sive natura) as the "most harmful" because of an assumption of a "new" god or intellectual love of God (amor dei intellectualis) and that these should be discarded as "feudal rubbish". A feeling of love was allowed to remain (substance shall be necessarily understood hereunder) because it may be revealed in Lenin's philosophical notebooks. It is insufficient to state that Spinoza was a natural scientist; he was a materialist. Society may not understand, if we state that Spinoza was a fatalist. He was a decisive advocate of freedom, a champion for the happiness of people and for

democracy. This "ingenious and consistent ideologist of young bourgeois class" has outgrown Spinoza's public ideal.

Lunacharskii relied on Lessing for his courage in the struggle with German priests, he spoke with enthusiasm about paganism and Spinozism of Goethe; he referred to Schelling's philosophy as a type of Spinozism, and lastly, he reproached Hegel as he transformed materialism "so vividly dominating in the system of Spinoza" into spirit, and into an idea. In general, the scenario is disappointing, and at best, the bourgeois scientists aspired to appropriate Spinoza as a "freethinker"; at worst they shamelessly attempted to make a faithful priest of him.

It follows that the true successor of great thinkers and artists is not the bourgeois class but the proletariat.

3.3. Spinoza in the context of power relationships

Lunacharskii had his own "policy" with respect to what was true and what was false. He accepted the mode of truth as a function of the proletarian society because he understood that the truth is incompatible with the mission to be a free-thinker, a type of free spirit. Moreover, what is the sense of raising a question about something authentic in itself, if nothing of the kind can happen in principle because the ontology of everything existing is disclosed to intellectuals in the context of power relationships?

The primary concern is that Soviet ideologists in the 1920s and 1930s were guided by their own specific "political economy" of truth. To clarify, the perception and production of knowledge in the political and economic reality of Soviet Russia were subjected to the continuous influence of those in power. Undoubtedly, after Lenin seized power, and later Stalin, economic efficiency and effectual-ness of political power became primary functions within the entire social "body" of the Soviet society.

It becomes imperative to review ideological disclosure and reveal the truth of former philosophers, who were unable due to the limitations of the cultural and political level of their class. Former philosophers were unable to duly perceive the philosophical heritage of the great Dutch which became a demarcation point of all Lunacharskii's speculations about Spinoza. Therefore, "proletariat is to clear Spinoza" of "ugly" interpretations of former and present bourgeois thinkers highlight the "grimaces of dilapidated bourgeois thought". In this case, the-intellectual pretends to be representative of the universal consciousness occupying the indisputable position and knowing in advance the "substance" of popular will, i.e., the proletariat.

3.4. Critic Grigoríí Tymianskfí versus Spinoza

Tymianskii (1934) specialized in investigating philosophical sources of Marxism and became an exclusion from such types of "effective" approach.

From Tymianskii's point of view, the identification of Spinozism and Marxism is impermissible because Spinoza's ideas contained a contemplative character rather an active one such as with Marx. From a proletariat's perspective of revolutionary theory, it becomes necessary to disregard the attempts of "mechanists" and "minority-related idealists" and Plekhanov to belittle the philosophical importance of Marxism.

To understand Spinoza and defend him from any attempts of the bourgeois class to transform him into a "thinker flushed by god", Tymianskii brought forth the experience and theory of class struggle to the forefront; wherefore "bourgeois class too brought forth those forces in his philosophy, which were advantageous and needed by it".

Soviet Marxists believed in the bourgeois class aspect of Spinoza's ideas. Numerous articles and books on this topic have been

4 A. Tolstenko / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6

published since 1934, and include Chuchmarev (1927), Isakov (1932), Vaïnshteïn (1932), Vandek and Timosko (1932). According to Sergeï Mareev (2007), "metaphysics" of disputes about Spinoza contributed to forgetting the subject disputed by the critics.

Thus, a significance of special "economy" aimed at the production of truth in its particularly informational element testifies to one fact only: in the dispute regarding Spinoza, a collision took place regarding "what is actually available". And more likely, a fierce conflict has taken place regarding the "status" and "regime" of the truth.

3.5. "Red" and "white" criticism in Russia

In Russia, criticism had been formed under unique conditions of class confrontation, which resulted in revengeful and revelatory thinking. This implied a path to the spirit of revenge predetermined by Friedrich Nietzsche. Criticism based on political and class hatred and antagonism attained a strongly pronounced revelatory trend after 1911. Marxist sociology and Hegelian dialectic arose from complex elements, which stimulated criticism to radical negation of the entire radical experience. If Karl Marx criticized the previous political economy to discover a phenomenon of surplus exchange value, then Vladimir Lenin was interested in the criticism of Marx from a perspective of power for power's sake, an unrestricted social experiment.

However, it is possible that the demise of certain individuals and even of entire classes may predetermine happiness and prosperity for those that remain. Radical critics infected with a spirit of revenge failed to arouse a spirit of thanksgiving and forgiveness for their opponents after seizing power. A succession of periods of repression was accelerated by "red" power and has provoked reciprocal criticism that is both uncompromising and vengeful. A representative of "white" criticism, Arkadii Averchenko (1923), castigates the widespread loss of public respect. Averchenko depicts an entire gallery of demoniacal characters, such as Nikolai Gogol, in his book. The red terror organizer, Iakov Peters, expressed staunch cynicism when he proposed that starving workers look for food in the cesspits. The famous proletarian word servants, Vladimir Maiakovskii and Maxim Gorkii, unsheathed mind-bending freedom in their slavish commendation of totalitarianism. Society numbed by the spiritual decline of the famous Russian singer Fedor Shaliapin who was ready to drop to his knees for Soviet power just to remain safe. Shaliapin undercut the White Guard's uniform shoulder straps in advance to spectacularly tear them off in front of the public during a performance on stage as a safety measure and to please the proletarian dictatorship functionaries. "This insanity features something methodical!" exclaims Averchenko wrathfully recalling the well-known Shakespeare's expression.

It is unlikely that an analysis will be undertaken to study the dilemma of whether the "red" or the "white" criticisms are most correct. The "red" criticism that Averchenko diminished the spirit-stirring character of Russian leaders (Kerenskii, Lenin, Trotskii, Peters, Shaliapin, Gorkii, etc.), or the "white" criticism stabbing 12 short stories the equivalent of 12 knives into an imaginary body of the proletarian revolution. It is clearly evident that vengeful criticism has divided Russians as a toy and thrown them into the hands of rulers who have turned the country into a "Junkie's heap". Reflect on the words of Gogol, "What precisely the heap contained was difficult to determine, for dust lay on it so thick that the hands of anyone touching it would come to resemble gloves. Protruding from the pile, more conspicuously than anything else, were the broken-off piece of a wooden shovel and the old sole of a boot" (Gogol, 2004).

3.6. Criticism reveals true character

Presently, the genre of a revelatory "black portrait" has completely overwhelmed the Russia of Vladimir Putin. The spirit of hatred and revelatory criticism in the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth century, propels critics repeatedly into the clutch of discord. An article of the well-known critic Vladimir Bushin (2003) devoted to the criticism of Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaia may be used as an example. What do we come to know about them? A famous musician (the very same Philemon) comes across as a universal magpie; a tongue-tied and hypocritical representative of the "fifth column" endeavouring to invalidate everything previously Soviet, while his wife singer (the very same Baucis) appears as a feeble-minded woman. Philemon emits unflattering remarks regarding Shostakovich's "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" opera qualifying it as an anti-Soviet expression of the ideology of Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin. It is recognized that Maksim Shostakovich proclaimed the following: "I strived to create opera, a revelatory satire ripping away the masks and making hate the whole of terrible despotism and scorn of merchants' way of life" (Shostakovich, 1932). When it becomes clear that Philemon is mistaken in suspecting the Stalinist Shostakovich of anti-Soviet attitudes, the author critic wrangles: "Hey, you, ugly mug, you are one of the first Trotskyites and counterrevolutionaries of Boris Eltsin epoch ... Jewish whoreson .... " However, what of Baucis who has an unusual genetic background? She hates his communist father with cruel-hearted loathing and is absolutely indifferent to her own mother. The star is strangled with fury all throughout her life and is a greedy consumer of imported trinkets. The author presents eloquent quotations from Baucis as proof: "All the furniture in the weekend house and in Moscow (in a three-bedroom apartment, 100 square metres), dishware, linen, refrigerators, cars, grand pianos — all this was brought from abroad, even the roof for the weekend house was bought in Holland. I have brought all the clothes for us and for our children from abroad, including threads for dresses. I have brought instant coffee, sausages, cooking pots and detergent powder" (Vishnevskaia, 1998). An act of jealousy is revealed and during this act the "exquisite intellectual" Philemon, nearly naked and only wearing underpants climbs a window sill: "I will throw myself down now! " — "Stop, where are you going! I am pregnant! " shouts the scared Baucis. She embodies the deceptive grovelling of the post-perestroika era; this is one of the primary conclusions of this analysis.

It may appear that this example is only a regrettable exclusion from the general rule of criticism toward reality. Perhaps, a modern critic may not be referred to as an individual, insomuch that he or she has lost measure of evaluations and judgements. It is clear that criticism has been struck with the spirit of nihilism; it repeatedly returns to exasperation and hatred, to shape its restricted understanding of human existence.

3.7. Friedrich Nietzsche: criticism in the context of conscious ontology

One issue regarding revelatory criticism exposing the truth on the subject of revenge is not particularly psychological or moral. Criticism belongs to the ontology of consciousness, to the dominating method of forming ideas, destined to express vital interests of not only global and geopolitical thinking but of everyday reason associated with it, which is ready to become unreasonable in the everyday elements of life. Criticism becomes suspicious but omnipotent at the same time.

A. Tolstenko / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6

Below represents a collection of quotations from Nietzsche (2015) about criticism generating vengeful thinking:

«THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE: my friends, that hath hitherto been man's best contemplation; and where there was suffering, it was claimed there was always penalty. "Penalty", so calleth itself revenge. With a lying word it feigneth a good conscience».

Revenge became a way of criticism and the production of "original ideas" in proletarian Russia. Nietzsche exclaims:

«No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse ... "Formerly all the world was insane", - say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby».

And further Nietzsche continues:

«"We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby (Zarathustra's prologue, 5)».

Earlier Nietzsche spoke about the last man on his way to the superman:

«"Lo! I show you THE LAST MAN. "What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" — so asketh the last man and blinketh" (Zarathustra's prologue, 5)».

Nietzsche states that in his time the rule of "the last man" began. It is important to note that this does not imply the end of the modern era in which vengeful thinking dominated. The face of "the last man" is expressed with a constant blinking, winking and squinting. "The last men" that are "winking" believe that they will rule for a long period of time:

«"The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest" (Zarathustra's prologue, 5)».

It is important to note that vengeful thinking is expressed in the "last man" through never-ceasing blinking, squinting and winking. When knowledge has the character of force, when information attains significance of one of the most important values through winking and squinting, the vengeful and envious thought perceives everything ontologically existing. It becomes necessary to subdue and dominate. In this situation, the truth is produced, proliferated and controlled by political and economic institutions. In this case, critical thinking became an effective tool of changing the world, but individuals have lost their capacity to critically understand and form a sober estimate of any issue.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Algorithm of revenge

An algorithm of revenge should be discussed. It should be noted that vengeful thinking has unexpectedly and instantaneously prevailed in current mass media. It is no secret that qualitative changes have taken place in the social and cultural medium over the past decades. Due to supraliminal motives, new information technologies very frequently exclude spirituality and genuine dialogue regarding the essence of individuals. Numerous contemporary highly publicized and popular works are focused solely on

informing and entertaining. Congestion with action, substitution of traditional perceptions of good and evil, scenes of cruelty, violence, fights and murders, adoration of various actors, performers and charlatans take place. Conversely, social and cultural situations unfold in the background of freedom from censorship because of the capacity to yield commercial profit.

The present-day social and cultural medium in Russia "lives" according to a definite algorithm of concealed stage direction based on revenge. 1) First, the critic provides a feeling of involvement in fashionable and contemporary trends. 2) Next, the critic initiates a great number of mental provocations. The "mass" is brainwashed by general phrases and pretentious officialese. A commonplace motivation and goal direction, includes the narrowness of historical horizons of media criticism. True thoughts, feelings, and even rueful feelings are replaced with virtual simulacra and pseudo similarities. 3) Finally, the consumer's soul becomes completely empty, and the consumer becomes transformed into a vapid participant in the world of performance and entertainment. The Faust's saying "if you want to save your personality, destroy it" becomes appropriate. The individual becomes brainwashed (enveloped by the foreign consciousness of the media critic) and is brought to a "spirit of revenge" by means of selection and modernization of narrow and uniform motivation and target dominants.

4.2. What brings about revenge?

Criticism could be brought to the level of an exclusive science capable of revealing the true state of affairs that determines advantages and disadvantages of the ability to judge. If looking for the truth, we proceed from the self-asserting subject, then it becomes our will. Criticism comprises the purposes and generates the means for attaining the decisions as "indefinitely definite" according to Hegel's expression. An individual enters reality only through a decision (Hegel, 2000).

Gyorgy Lukacs (1999) determines the messianic will of the proletariat in present and future events; it is the only class in history capable of attaining the truth for it is the only class able to ruminate over its own annihilation because this action is targeted at a classless society. A correct cognition of society becomes a direct condition for self-cognition of the proletariat that is destined by its position to a revolutionary renovation of society, and victory over the elements of objectification and alienation.

4.3. Criticism in the context of the metaphysics of light

According to Heidegger (1987), a concept of truth as confidence, incredible as it may seem, became the result of metaphysical perception of a sense of genesis and truth in terms of light, brightness and transparency.

The metaphysics of light make it possible for criticism to settle itself in the genesis as an instance of substantiation of cognition and acquire clear-eyed subject consciousness. This logic implies that it is necessary to be supported by a convincing method, which could substantiate a unique role of subjectivity in establishing "by the force of its own power, which should be referred to as correct and incorrect". The truth guarantees command and rules over everything that is considered objective.

Subjectivity commands limitation and delimitation, of which an individual may be sure of. Pre-settling implies choosing anything in front of you to settle, what is present or with respect to yourself.

The present-day network system radically transforms human existence. Society is filled with informational elements and becomes transformed into a new technocratic system. The social machinery now is not only the technical activity of man as the

A. Tolstenko / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1—6

subject, but an extreme expression of European metaphysics, including criticism. This testifies to the fact that in Russia, thinking has lost a spirit of generosity and thanksgiving. Marx proclaimed: "Philosophers have just differently explained the world, but the purpose is to change it" (Marx and Engels, 2011). Can interpretation, if it is a deed of a genuine criticism, change the world? Could theoretical insight be utilized as a tool for this change?

5. Conclusions

Thus, the following conclusions are provided:

1. Kant declared himself a philosopher of "cold-water" thought, intentionally excluding impatience and exasperation. He had a great world-outlook value because the fanatical cult of Reason obsessed with insanity had established itself in Europe beginning with the French revolution (1189). The aspirations of criticism provided a new vision of the world, radical structural adjustments of society and values contributed to an emergence of the most recessionary tendencies that threatened society.

2. Criticism as a subject, given that the basis of all outdoors exists in metaphysical subjectivity, relates to an omnipresent command of all that is true and false.

3. Social and cultural transformation aimed at expanding and increasing the spirituality of an individual, frequently encounter cultural desperation. This is a paradox, but any effective delusion elevates contemporary media critics and is evaluated by the social medium as the truth.

4. Comprehensive computerization and enhanced Internet communications contribute to technical enslavement of the populace. Because vengeful thinking appears to be originally criminal in its essence, computerization contributes to an unexpected and instantaneous "brittleness" (collapse) of spiritual culture.

5. The spirit of revenge pierces an individual's innermost thoughts, which are deep, ingenious and righteous in Russian society.

6. Suspicious and vengeful criticism seeking cynical scientific reason makes it impossible to achieve a fundamentally new society in Russia.


Abrams, M.H., 2000. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical

Tradition. Oxford University Press, London. Averchenko, A.T., 1923.12 Portretov Znamenitykh Liudei v Rossii: v Forme "Buduar" (12 Portraits of Famous People in Russia: in "Buduar" Form). Internationale Commerciale Revue, Paris. Bogomolov, N.A., 2002. Kritika Russkogo Simvolizma (Criticism of Russian Symbolism). Olimp, AST, Moscow. Boltanski, L., 2011. On Critique: a Sociology of Emancipation. Polity, Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA.

Bukharin, N., 1923. Na borbu s mezhdunarodnymi bogami (For struggle with international gods). Bezbozhnik-Nothingarian 1,1—2. Bushin, V., 2003. Felimon i Bavkida udivitelnogo vida (M. Rostropovich i G. Vish-nevskaia) (Philemon and Baucis of Extraordinary Type). In: Bushin, V. (Ed.), Genii i Prokhindei (Geniuses and Swindlers). Algoritm, Moscow. Chuchmarev, V.I., 1921. Materializm Spinozy. K Pereotsenke Idealisticheskoi Tradicii (Materialism of Spinoza. For Revaluation of Idealistic Tradition). Moskovskii Rabochii, Moscow.

Crane, R.S., Keast, W.R., 1915. Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago. Crane, R.S., Keast, W.R., 1919. Critics and Criticism: Essays in Method. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago. Culler, J.D., 2015. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism. Routledge, London.

De Man, P., 2013. Blindness & Insight; Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary

Criticism (eBook). Oxford University Press, New York. Deborin, A.M., 1921. Mirovozzrenie Spinozy (World-View of Spinoza). Vestnik

Kommunisticheskoi Akademii-Bull. Communist 20, 5—29. Dobrenko, E.A., 2003. Kritika 1911-1932 Godov (Criticism of 1911-1932's Years). Astrel, Moscow.

Foucault, M., 1994. Qu'est—ce qu'un auteur? (What is an author?). In: Dits et Ecrits: 1954-1988 (Discourse and Writings). T. 1. Editions Gallimard, Paris.

Foucault, M., 2006. Groupement de textes (Grouping of texts). In: Rambeau, F. (Ed.), La Volonté de Savoir: Droit de Mort et Pouvoir sur la Vie (The Will to Know: Right of Death and Power Over Life). Gallimard, Paris.

Foucault, M., 2013. Histoire de la Sexualite. 1, La Volonté de Savoir (History of Sexuality. 1, The Will to Know). Gallimard, Paris.

Frye, N., 2006. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Gogol, N., 2004. Dead Souls: a Poem (Mertvye Dushi: Poema). Transl. by R.A. Maguire. Penguin Classics, London.

Goldmann, L., 1981. Essays on Method in the Sociology of Literature. Transl. by W.Q. Boelhower. Blackwell, Oxford.

Gromova, N.A., 2009. Raspad: Sudba Sovetskogo Kritika, 40-50-e Gody (Decay: The Fate of the Soviet Criticism, 40-50's Years). Ellis Lak, Moscow.

Hegel, G.W.F., 2000. Philosophy of Right. Transl. by T.M. Knox. In: Houlgate, S. (Ed.). The Oxford University Press Translations (eBook), Charlottesville, Va.. InteLex Corporation.

Heidegger, M., 1987. Nihilism. Transl. by F.A. Capuzzi. In: Krell, D.F. (Ed.), Nietzsche, vol. 4. Harper & Row, San Francisco.

Heidegger, M., 2001. Being and Time. Transl. by J. Macquarrie, & E. Robinson. Blackwell, Oxford.

Heidegger, M., 2009a. Hölderlin and the essence of poetry, Transl. by J. Veith. In: Figal, G. (Ed.), The Heidegger Reader. Indiana University Press, Bloo-mington, IN.

Heidegger, M., 2009b. On Nietzsche. Transl. by J. Veith. In: Figal, G. (Ed.), The Heidegger Reader. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

laroslavskiî, E., 1929. Sotsialisticheskoe Sorevnovanie i Antireligioznaia Propaganda (Socialist Competition and Anti-Religious Propaganda). Pravda, 1 May.

Isakov, G.K., 1932. K voprosu o "teologicheskom priveske" v uchenii B. Spinozy (Spinoza i teologiia) (To issue of "theological appendage" in doctrine of B. Spinoza (Spinoza and theology)). Antireligioznik-Antireligionist 11-12,13—23.

Kant, l., 1995. Wider den problematischen ldealismus (Against the problematic idealism) [Refl. 6311—6316]. In: Adickes, E. (Ed.), Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Hrsg. von d.), Kants Gesammelte Schriften (Kant's Collected Writings). Bd. 18: (lll/5), Handschriftlicher Nachlaß: Metaphysik II. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Krell, D.F., 2015. Ecstasy, Catastrophe: Heidegger from Being and Time and the Black Notebooks. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Kuhn, T.S., 2004. Reflections on my critics. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Proceedings of the lnternational Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965, vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lacan, J., 2013. Le Seéminaire de Jacques Lacan. Seuil, Paris.

Lévi-Strauss, L., 2010. La Pensée Sauvage (The Savage Mind). Presses Pocket, Paris.

Lewis, C.S., 2014. An Experiment in Criticism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lukaécs, G., 1999. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Transl. by R. Livingstone. MlT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Lunacharskiî, A.V., 1933. Baruh Spinoza i Burzhuaziia (Baruch Spinoza and the Bourgeoisie). Zhurnalno-Gazetnoe Obedinenie, Moscow.

Mareev, S., 2007. Spinoza v SovetskoT filosofii (Spinoza in Soviet philosophy). Logos 2 (59), 187—200.

Marx, K., Engels, F., 2011. Theses on Feuerbach. ln: McLellan, D. (Ed.), Selected Writings. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mezhuev, B.V., 2012. Politicheskaia Kritika Vadima Tsymburskogo (Political Criticism of Vadim TsymburskiT). Evropa, Moscow.

Nietzsche, F., 2015. Thus spake Zarathustra. A book for all and none. Transl. by T. Common. ln: Levy, O.L. (Ed.), The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Reprint, 1914), vol. 11. Hardpress Publishing, Miami, Fl., 2015. KRITES, Lexicon Entry in Liddell, H.G., Scott, R., Jones, H.S. (1996). Greek-English Dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford. at. http://www. 04.0057:entry=krith/s-contents. accessed 16.12.15.

Plekhanov, G.V., 1992. Fundamental Problems of Marxism. Transl. by J. Katzer. International Publishers, New York.

Poulet, G., 1998. La Conscience Critique (The Critical Conscience). J. Corti, Paris.

Richards, I.A., 2014. Practical Criticism: a Study of Literary Judgment. Harcourt, Brace & Co, San Diego.

Senchin, R., 2009. Novaia Russkaia Kritika: Nulevye Gody (New Russian Criticism: Zero Years). Olimp, Moscow.

Shostakovich, D., 1932. Tragediia-satira (The Tragedy-Satire). Sovetskoe Iskusstvo-Soviet Art, 16 October.

TymianskiT, G.S., 1934. Vstupitelnaia statia (Introduction). In: Spinoza, B. (Ed.), Traktat ob Usovershenstvovanii Razuma (Treatise on the Emendation of the lntellect). GSEl, Moscow, Leningrad.

VaTnshteTn, l. Ja, 1932. Spinoza v osveshchenii burzhuaznoT filosofii (Spinoza in Bourgeois Phylosophy Coverage). Vestnik KommunisticheskoT Akademii 11-12, 91—105.

Vandek, V.G., Timosko, V.l., 1932. Kritika otsenki mekhanistami i men-shevistvuiushchimi idealistami filosofii Spinozy (Criticism of Spinoza Philosophy Evaluation by Mechanists and Minority-Related ldealists). Pod Znamenem Marksizma-Under Banner Marxism 1-2,128—159.

Vishnevskaia, G.P., 1998. Galina. lstoriia Zhizni (Galina. Life Story). Rusich, Smolensk.