Translated material
We have the Acropolis
We have the Acropolis
Date of publication: September 1, 2000
Date of publication: September 1, 2000
From the editor . The hero of the collection is the text. Here he is born: literally before our eyes, in front of us, almost witnesses to what is happening. A text that coincides with its time. It contains the exact word, absolutely adequate language. By a tragic accident, the eighteen-year-old author has been dead for a year. But communication continues, discussion continues.
- Ilya Tyurin. Mechanics of humanitarian thought
Reflections in the "metaphysical lair"
The traditional Russian soap series “Humiliated and Insulted” has firmly been replaced in the hit parade by the super series “The Rich and Famous.” This means, of course, that a “change of milestones” has occurred, but the wrong “milestones” have changed at all - not a system of values, that is, nouns, but a system of emotions, that is, adjectives. Russian thought is deeply touching, even to the point of tear-jerking. Therefore, it seems almost impossible to imagine Hegel or Kant, in general a philosopher as such, in his native podzol - that is, a thinker who does not give evaluative and qualitative characteristics and emotional comments.
But the loss of one or another property is always fraught with compensation from an unexpected direction. And, having sacrificed tenderness, over the course of a decade and a half, for no reason at all, we caught up in rigidity and rationalism, which was never seen before. We got two thinkers at once, acting in the sphere of logic and epistemology, and not emotions and lamentation. The first - Dmitry Galkovsky - although they were roughly defamed, they were noticed - they could not help but notice based on the array of hypertext he created ( "Endless Dead End" ). The second - Ilya Tyurin - died at the age of 19 and left many poems and several sketches of philosophical essays. At this point there is a strong urge to be moved - tradition speaks to itself: oh, so young and so smart! Oh, we don’t have philosophers! And something like that. But the feeling of the greatness of God, while remaining just as emotionally abstract, still outweighs not at all philosophical sighs. There are instant embodiments of the Plan. In nature, this is a phenomenon, say, lightning. In a person, this is a phenomenon of thought and life as a certain period, a time period. Man is lazy, which is why longevity is still considered a special virtue. Moreover, this particular phenomenon makes the main question of existence “Death, where is your sting?” a little less pathetic. Ilyusha Tyurin, himself embodying such fruitful and complete instantaneity, having fully matured as a human being until the age of 20, completely regardless of the volume of what he created, could not, simply did not have the right not to fall into classical tautology. I mean he was charged reflect on a thought .
An example of a children's philosophical exercise is quite stereotypical: what am I thinking about? I think about the fact that I don't think about anything. Etc. Ilya Tyurin decided to describe the “mechanics” of thought, to restore the process of thinking itself, and immediately made the reservation that this deistic concept - mechanics - is nothing more than a metaphor. A philosopher who does not create a field of paradox and does not contradict himself is not only uninteresting and mechanistic in the proper sense. It is precisely philosophically deficient, because it does not provide a reason for co-creation - an indispensable part of real thought. The fragment left to us by Ilya, already due to its incompleteness, prepares abundant food of this kind, speaking about the plural and holistic, that is, the universal human nature of thinking, which does not exist, according to the author, “in an isolated personality.” “...Human society is a single and indivisible whole; its existence is multiple, but one ,” writes Ilya.
I would venture to suggest that Tyurin has not read the epistemological-ontological works of the outstanding and little-known Russian philosopher S.A. Alekseev - in particular, Consciousness as a Whole. Psychological concept of personality (Alekseev S.A. - M., 1918). Meanwhile, it has a lot in common with the thoughts of Ilya Tyurin. In the young philosopher, Spencer and Bergson seem to continue their eternal dispute, who also argued that “Consciousness is an indivisible process,” its “parts mutually permeate each other.” But it's not that. The paradox of Ilya’s work is that its main logical premise is a statement—quite, let’s add, traditional (tradition in philosophy is the basis of originality, just as regular meter and rhythm are in poetry): “... The whole already has all the subjective knowledge about themselves, and the part is not able to add anything from the inside to this knowledge . " But the work itself is a part, since it is not completed, and at the same time there is a whole, since there is no one to complete it. This again stimulates a purely emotional feeling of the tragedy of existence, in which human thought is the protagonist playing the main role, whom there is no one to replace in the event of illness or death, just as there is no one to replace, despite the efforts of all fans of Roland Barthes, the absent Author. And yet the main thing - the whole - for me in the work "Mechanics of Humanitarian Thought" remains not a fragment of the first volume, but the preface. There is nothing strange here - it is not for nothing that Kierkegaard called his most significant work an “afterword,” and even “unscientific.” It is by this space that one can judge Ilya’s plan. Himself, perhaps without suspecting it and certainly without naming it, with the power of thought Ilya Tyurin recreates the picture of the thinking of a humanist as primarily essayistic thinking: it is no coincidence that the phrase “look and something”, which has become an idiom, is adjacent to the thought of a humanist as the organizer of a “metaphysical lair” through the search for what a person is endowed with from birth - existential loneliness - or what he is deprived to the highest degree - physical solitude.
The lack of independence of the cycle of the humanities gives rise to parasitism as the main quality of thinking in the humanities. Is this conclusion sad in the mouth of a young man so systematically gifted in an unsystematic civilization like Ilya Tyurin? We repeat: the work does not give ratings on an ethical scale ( “The purpose of the book is not denunciation, but pure illustration ,” the author is modest). But humanitarian thinking in the preface is presented as “rethinking,” that is, thinking “about.” This is what distinguishes it from positive science, which is based on facts that are often not provable at the ontological level. Therefore, natural science is entirely speculative. Humanitarianism is parasitic. And whether the author wants it or not, his plan is quite pessimistic. There is no smell of Nietzschean “gay science” (despite the irony of the definition) here. Perhaps this is an imprint of the fate of a person who did not live to be twenty years old. But rather, this is a summary of the results of a “millennium of rethinking” - or the beginning of “comprehension”, surrounding chaos with meaning. Which, in fact, is the goal of philosophy.
Petr Bystrov
I consider the main feature of Ilya Tyurin’s work in a variety of genres to be unshakable ontologism. But this is not that childish, or, as they say, “youthful maximalism”, which, as a form, can disavow any content in depth. Poems, as a rule, are not usually analyzed using arguments, hypotheses and evidence. That is why I would like to pay close attention to the prose texts of Ilya Tyurin. All his essays - from the earliest to the very last - have this very feature: all arguments are based on ontology. The humanist, he wrote, first of all equips his “metaphysical lair”: this is what it says in “The Mechanics of Humanitarian Thought” . Ilya himself went from a humanitarian lyceum to the Sechenov Academy - and this is an important illustration of his thoughts set out in the above-mentioned essay. And it seems to me that his “metaphysical lair” was structured very fundamentally. Doubt and tenderness are absolutely not characteristic of his pathos. For everything he asserts is said so categorically that it is difficult not to assume a strong philosophical system behind it. Saying it's all his arguments on ontology , I mean that he considers any question at its root - how exactly this or that area is genetically structured. It seems that poetry is characterized by a certain eccentric tenderness before being, at least it seems so to the majority. This feature is completely unusual in the poems of Ilya Tyurin. I was surprised, looking at the dates signed under the poems: a great amount of dogmatism is obvious in the judgments about the world of a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old young man.
But there are two types of dogma: the one that forces you to look this way and that, and the one that invites (although in some sense forces) to think about this or that issue. After all, attention is always drawn to a thought expressed in a strict form, without a smile, without youthful (or maybe age has nothing to do with it) tenderness, spoken seriously, without visible doubt. In general, Ilya’s views are the result of a systematically analyzed reality. Always - from a small reason, one or another thematic sketch (look at the titles and topics of the essay) to global generalizations, to a total diagnosis of the state of affairs. Things are this way and that way - and not otherwise. It is difficult to doubt, but not because you doubt the possibility of presenting your point of view, but because you see that there is a fundamental ontological vision behind the author’s argument. And even when he expresses a particular, particular opinion on a separate issue, it is obvious that it represents only part of the structure of beliefs. This does not mean that the author did not speak unconvincingly, as someone may probably think, I just want to emphasize that he spoke exclusively as an ontologist and that the author of an acceptable counterargument could and can only be a person with an equally systematic view of things. The volumes of what is expressed and implied (outlined only in outline) must be adequate to each other, and thus one can disagree only with the entire volume of beliefs, with this system, with this ontology. I think this is what ensures the thematic dispersion (now we are talking about essays) - dissolution in the topic, the opportunity (to which Ilya resorted) to go up and down levels, orders of argumentation, to look at the subject from above and below, from the side and however you like; for the occupied outpost for successful reasoning on a certain topic was not the topic itself, not the topic itself, but a system of beliefs that allowed or, so to speak, forced one to speak out. In this sense, Ilya is certainly a metaphysician. Moreover, his metaphysics is original in the sense that it is composed of positions that he thought out, and this is even expressed purely lexically and terminologically. After all, if you look closely, he operates with a fairly constant vocabulary - hypotheses, diagnoses and positions are assigned to specific, favorite words.
Today, a slight doubt or distance from one’s own position is considered almost a sign of good taste and subtlety of mind; when the author seems to say: “no, no, I’m not insisting at all, this is just my opinion,” this feigned pluralism is widespread everywhere - from analytics to the most frivolous genres.
In fact, there is simply a lack of courage to talk about things in a straightforward tone, and this haze of self-irony is simply a trait of a cowardly character.
I am convinced that this is a rare and absolutely unusual feature of modernity - ontologism in judgments, even dogmatism - and not just rhetoric (that is, that too, but not primarily), but beliefs and convictions, the metaphysical nature inherent in his way of thinking - and total conclusion, total result. The exhaustion of the topic, since the glance at it is not cast by chance, not on a whim, and not at all fragmentary. The solution to the problem does not depend on the volume of a particular text, and I want to draw attention to the specificity of the solutions taken by Ilya. All of them can at least be called solutions.
Uninterrupted dialogue
A year ago, the phrase “philosopher at eighteen” was for me just a classic quote, a kind of verbal balancing act, flavored with a touch of irony. The text “Russian Character” was the first to introduce confusion into the usual understanding. Then came the poems and the “Letter”. And along with them, the author’s explanation of what is happening in himself, expressed very simply and absolutely clearly: to comprehend, and not to rethink.
An excessive prefix gives a secondary effect. Ilya strictly formulates his own principle - mental, moral, spiritual: himself and to the very essence.
In the unfinished “Mechanics of Humanitarian Thought” this finds an even more categorical expression: literary knowledge , art knowledge and other X-knowledge - for those who cannot create on their own, who do not know the dynamics.
Ilya calls any “re-” an adaptation of a phenomenon for a specific intellect, and the work of a humanist is a way of forming an individual opinion. Maybe it’s too categorical, but it’s damn true, and even the continuation is clear: this opinion must become not general, but universal. The author's first attempt to create a new type of humanities is associated with a brilliant statement: mathematics is a humanities science in its essence, or more precisely, according to the principle of the movement of mathematical thought. A paradoxical statement for the sweetly sluggishly habitual “I am a humanist and alien to mathematics,” but quite adequate for the new humanities, because this is an attempt to formulate its task.
The author’s inherent categoricalness has nothing to do with youthful maximalism; it is the earned right of a mature mind to its own assessment and its own truth, which the reader can either share with him or try to refute.
If we continue the physical metaphor, it is clear that this work would not have had a second part. The author enclosed the dynamics of the development of his thoughts in words. And in these words one can read an increase not only in the author’s thoughts, but also in his personality. And the subjunctive loses its hopelessness.
Ilya has the lines “The future will not come without me...”. Thanks to the book “Letter”, the future will come and give the opportunity to talk with the author, argue, object, but everyone will not hear the answer, but will find it themselves.
Regulations on the Grant (award) in memory of Ilya Tyurin in the field of literature (poems, essays)
1. A grant (award) in memory of Ilya Tyurin is established as an annual charity event, the purpose of which is (along with promoting the work of Ilya Tyurin) to help a person with a clearly demonstrated literary gift at the start of his creative activity.The founders of the award believe that the most appropriate step in this direction may be the publication of the first book of the nominee - the winner of the competition.
2. The mechanism for selecting literary works is a competition, which the founders of the Grant (award) announce through the media. To evaluate the works submitted to the competition, the founders of the Grant (award) form a special jury of famous cultural figures.
3. Age limits for nominees are not established, but other things being equal, preference is given to younger people.
4. Only manuscripts participate in the competition: a selection of poems (1/2 sheet of paper - 12 pages), essays (1/2 sheet of paper - 12 pages).
5. During the competition, extraordinary talent in the field of poetry and essayism is awarded, expressed in the obvious desire to develop a synthetic language, to create at the intersection of genres, to search for new forms of organizing literary space as the most expected at the turn of the millennium.
6. Based on the results of the competition, the founders of the Grant (award) conclude an agreement with the publishing house on the publication of the winner’s book (circulation 500 copies). The guaranteed maximum material investment in this project is 1000 US dollars. The published book is the property of the author; the founders of the Grant (award) do not have any rights to it.
Regulations on the Grant (award) in memory of Ilya Tyurin in the field of art song
1. A grant (award) in memory of Ilya Tyurin is established as an annual charity event, the purpose of which is (along with promoting the work of Ilya Tyurin) to identify and support young talented performers at the start of their creative activities.
2. The age of participants is limited to 19 years.
3. The jury for awarding the Grant (prize) at the first correspondence stage will include young singer-songwriters who have clearly distinguished themselves in the genre of modern art song in the last 5 years; At the second final stage, the decision to award the prize will be made by the contestants themselves using the “Hamburg count” method.
4. The Grant (award) organizing committee releases a CD with the laureate’s songs (circulation 500 copies), most of which is distributed among organizations, associations and clubs whose activities are related to the original song.
5. The regulations on the Grant (award) are published in the media.
Organizing Committee of the Ilya Tyurin Memory Fund
E-mail: a_silence@mail.ru