The concept of “mythological thinking” appears in the problematic field of philosophy in the 19th century and receives several interpretations over the next century. The article examines the reception of mythological thinking in the studies of the most significant figure in classical studies of the Soviet period - A.F. Losev. It occurs at the intersection of the dialectical method (inheriting the features of Neoplatonism, German idealism, as well as the philosophy of all-unity of V.S. Solovyov), the tradition of symbolic interpretation of myth (F.W.J. Schelling and E. Cassirer) and domestic and European psychology that was actively developing at the beginning of the 20th century (G.I. Chelpanov, W. Wundt and the Würzburg School). A comparative analysis of the concepts of A.F. Losev and E. Cassirer is carried out in the context of their internal polemics, transferred by Losev from work to work, which allows us to demonstrate the connection between Losevs reception and the intellectual landscape of German philosophy of the 19-20th centuries. With a detailed analysis of the sources and theoretical foundations of A.F. Losevs methodology, it becomes clear what myth is, how it functions and how it underpins mythological thinking. Losev understands myth as a space for the development of thinking, where a special form of cognition of reality grows from the emotional beginning, fixing reality by means of symbols. Mythological thinking here is a special form of thought, where myth, arising as a given, receives a symbolic embodiment, dictated by the figurative-sensory nature of cognition and called upon to fully express the worldview of the ancients.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Marina G. Podgornaya
Juliana A. Sarkisyan
IZVESTIYA VUZOV SEVERO-KAVKAZSKII REGION SOCIAL SCIENCE
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Podgornaya et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68f9840c1881b68f3b7ae69a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.18522/2687-0770-2025-3-4-11
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: