Russian classical literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries constitutes the whole with the finest Russian journalism of the same period. Almost all famous authors started their careers by releasing their first works of literature in magazines and even in newspapers. Nevertheless, even when gaining popularity, they continued to cooperate with periodicals, offering them their masterpieces. Thus, Leo Tolstoy published his novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the Russkiy Vestnik [Russian Herald] magazine, while his novel Resurrection was published in Niva, the most popular Russian magazine aimed at mass reader. The writer wanted to reach as many ordinary people as possible. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov first appeared in the same Russkiy Vestnik, along with Ivan Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons. This list is long indeed. Russian authors actively employed material published in press in their works. Therefore, the characters of Anna Karenina passionately discussed the events highlighted by the newspapers and magazines of that time. The references to certain periodicals, their brief description made it possible to understand better the mood and to expose the nature of their characters for the readers. During Soviet times, the attitude of the characters to certain newspapers and magazines displayed the role of media in public relations and their place in the political system of the country. Finally, thanks to the media subscriptions of the characters in novels and short stories, the reader could better understand their worldview, hobbies, and dreams. The authors set themselves the task of studying the specifics of the use of references to certain media as an artistic detail in literary works. They attempt to identify the role of such details in creating the artistic character, as well as in recreating the atmosphere and ideology of the era. They also examine references to journal articles read by the characters of a literary work from the perspective of intertextuality theory, as well as the task of revealing the peculiarities of the interaction of artistic and journalistic texts in the context of the era. The authors also raise the question of the possibility of using texts of literary works as a source for the study of media history.
The problem with M. Foucault’s method, foundations and limits of applicability is one of the central issues in the discussions of his many followers. Reconstruction of the method, per se, involves various strategies for working with his texts. The article proposes a comparative analysis between the interpretations of R. Descartes’s philosophical ideas and Manet’s artistic paintings in the works of M. Foucault. Such an approach through a collision of analysis of visual and verbal objects allows us to identify the general contours of Fucoldian methodology. Interpreting Cartesian ideas, M. Foucault actively uses the metaphors of light and darkness and refers to the possibilities of verbalized visibility. R. Descartes’s ideas turned into a basis for switching to a new register of attitudes towards madness in European culture. In turn, the interpretation of E. Manet’s paintings, proposed by M. Foucault, is based on an analysis of the revolutionary changes in the understanding of art introduced by an outstanding French artist. It affects not only the aesthetic context itself, but leads to new relations between a painting and an audience and also helps to establish new sociocultural practices. Foucault’s verbalization of visual is radically different from approaches of traditional art history. Thus, in Foucault’s work, verbal and visual are closely intertwined with each other and his method can be successfully applied when working with verbal and visual objects.
Mentalizing is an important actual topic, both in psychodynamic theory and in clinical practice. Remarkably, mentalizing has been explicitly related to religion or psychology of religion only to a limited extent. This article explores the relevance of the concept of mentalizing for psychology of religion by first describing mentalizing, its development, and neuropsychological underpinnings. Second, to illustrate how the concept gives more insight into the psychology of religious phenomena, mentalizing is related to an almost universal religious practice, namely religious prayer. Empirical studies from different psychological subdisciplines are interpreted from the perspective of mentalizing. Finally, its relevance for the discipline of psychology of religion is discussed. In this way, the potential of the concept as both an explaining psychological mechanism and a bridging notion that overcomes differences between psychological subdisciplines is demonstrated.
For centuries philosophers have argued about the existence and nature of God. Do we need God to explain the origins of the universe? Can there be morality without a divine source of goodness? How can God exist when there is so much evil and suffering in the world? All these questions and many more are brought to life with clarity and style in The God of Philosophy. The arguments for and against God's existence are weighed up, along with discussion of the meaning of religious language, the concept of God and the possibility of life after death. This new edition brings the debate right up to date by exploring the philosophical arguments of the new atheists such as Richard Dawkins, as well as considering what the latest discoveries in science can tell us about why many believe in the existence of the divine.
Recently, we co-edited a volume of essays (Draper & Schellenberg 2017) dedicated to the proposition that our field, the philosophy of religion, is not all that it could be. The new set of essays we’re joining here shows that this sentiment is, at the least, not going away. That’s encouraging, but how can we get beyond sentiment? In this our own essay we hope to do so by focusing very precisely and persuasively on problems and solutions: on why our field needs renewal and how to achieve it. More specifically, we hope to get every reader to recognize and accept at least one problem from the range of problems in the field as it exists today that we propose to identify, and to select for special thought and supportive effort at least one solution from the range of solutions we’ll be promoting. Let’s adjust that slightly: one extra problem and one extra solution – for we’re going to start by setting the right mood with some thoughts about a very basic problem/solution pair that we should all be able to recognize/support.