Rosenzweig and Bakhtin. Hermeneutics of language and verbal art in the system of the philosophy of dialogue

Both of our authors are considered classics of the philosophy of dialogue. Yet neither Bakhtin nor Rosenzweig are in a hurry to declare their philosophy dialogic. Bakhtin mentions dialogue in his early philosophical works but calls his philosophy “moral philosophy,” “participatory thinking,” and “aesthetics of verbal art,” but not a philosophy of dialogue. Dialogue is one of the central themes in Bakhtin's Problems of Dostoevsky's Creative Art (1929) as well as in his later works. Yet even there he does not discuss the philosophy of dialogue. Makhlin suggests using the term “ontology of partaking” [19. P. 268] in relation to Bakhtin's philosophy, and warns against reducing it to dialogism. The same is true of Rosenzweig. Although there is a chapter in The Star of Redemption entitled Dialogic Form [8. P. 181], dialogue is more of a passing theme in this book than a central one. Rosenzweig prefers to call his philosophy “New Thinking” or “narrative philosophy” [15. P. 121]. This gives the impression that falling into the category of philosophy of dialogue is not the result of the authors' intentional aspiration but rather turned out to be a consequence of the historical-philosophical process. A line of thought that includes the works of such different philosophers as Cohen, Ebner, Rosenzweig, Buber, Rosenstock-Huessy, Marcel, Levinas, Bibler, and others turned out to be united by the common denominator of the philosophy of dialogue Casper's work examining the teachings of Rosenzweig, Buber [20], and Ebner from a unified dialogical standpoint was published in 1967 [21]. Thus it is possible to speak of the philosophy of dialogue as a well-known direction starting from the 1950s and 1960s.. Considering that each of the above authors had their original philosophy, the study of their place in the philosophy of dialogue consists not so much in examining their formulation of that philosophy, but in considering the contribution of their ideas and concepts to a general philosophical direction, which can be defined as the philosophy of dialogue.

Research Method

While Rosenzweig, in constructing his philosophical system, draws most from Hegel, which is not surprising for a professional researcher of this author, Bakhtin is more focused on the systematic notion of Kant's philosophy. As for Kant, for Bakhtin, the method of unfolding the system is the study of the architectonic, but whereas for Kant it is architectonic of reason, for Bakhtin it is architectonic of answerable act In A Few Unpretentious Recommendations for Readers of Bakhtin Vadim Lyapunov gives a detailed and very fruitful list of the meanings of the word “architectonic” [22. P. 195--199]. As I see it, these explanations are important for understanding Bakhtin's literary and cultural studies works, but somewhat detract from the main Kantian meaning of “architectonic” necessary for the formation of a philosophical system. Also ref. [7. P. 445--446; 10. P. 146--178]..

Like Kant's [23. P. 691], the most important feature of Bakhtin's architectonic is the unity of philosophy as an integral form and its subject as content. Bakhtin fully borrows here the Kantian method but criticizes the idea of the subject of philosophy. Already in Art and Answerability, Bakhtin declares that neither cognition nor artistic creation are originally united with the integral personality [13. P. 1--3]. Thus, according to Bakhtin, the subject of the first and third Kantian critiques does not constitute the real subject of the first philosophy he seeks. It is to be an answerable act. This moves the center of the philosophical search into the sphere of ethics. And indeed, the first major work on which Bakhtin worked in the early 1920s was to be called Subject of Morality and Subject of Law [24. P. 343, 415--416, 504]. The stated problems of this work follow from Cohen's thesis that morality is not reducible to ethics, which expresses just the legal relations between people [25. P. 20--21]. Bakhtin's probably preserved text published under the title Toward a Philosophy of the Act was precisely a fragment of this work. Already at the beginning of the text, Bakhtin repeats the most important idea of Art and Answerability that in describing the subject “all these activities establish a fundamental split between the content or sense of a given act/activity and the historical actuality of its being, the actual and once-occurrent experiencing of it. And it is in consequence of this that the given act loses its valuableness and the unity of its actual becoming and selfdetermination” [14. P. 2].

This rift cannot be bridged by either epistemology or aesthetics:

“Thus, neither theoretical cognition nor aesthetic intuition can provide an approach to the once-occurrent real Being of an event” [14. P. 18].

Meanwhile, in the mentioned fragments, Bakhtin does not consider the ethical subject, the subject of the second Kantian critique. This is, of course, not accidental, because it is the concept of the answerable act, which is largely based on Cohen's ethics, that is the key to Bakhtin's entire construction [7. P. 442--443]. This forces him to dwell thoroughly on the ethical problem:

When we spoke of the theoretical world and opposed it to the answerable act, we said nothing about contemporary ethical constructions, which have to do, after all, precisely with the answerable act [14. P. 21].

According to Bakhtin, ethics is also characterized by “fatal theoreticism (the abstracting from my unique self)” [14. P. 27]. Bakhtin builds his moral philosophy based on ethics but understands it more broadly.

It is another matter when ethics seeks to become the logic of social sciences.

<...> a moral philosophy of this kind can be and should be created, but one can and should also create another kind of moral philosophy, which deserves this name even more, if not exclusively [14. P. 27].

What is the descriptive feature of moral philosophy that distinguishes it from theoretical ethics?

A first philosophy can orient itself only with respect to that actually performed act [14. P. 28].

Thus, it is not the ethical subject taken as a theoretical concept that should become the subject of the new first philosophy, but “the actually performed act-not from the aspect of its content, but in its very performance” [14. P. 28]. As M. Soboleva shows, the moral act, as understood by Bakhtin, fills the gap between the content of the act and its fulfillment, arising because of the autonomy of oughtness in relation to being [11. S. 14]. The unique singular act combines in itself the closedness of the content and the openness of the fulfillment. For this very reason, according to Bakhtin, it should become the basis of the new first philosophy. One cannot ignore here how close Bakhtin's thought is to Rosenzweig's philosophical teaching, yet the methods of unfolding their systems are essentially different.

Bakhtin rejects the interpretation of an act in terms of the philosophy of life, psychologism, historical materialism, theosophy, and other doctrines. All of them view an act from outside as a possibility of action, which according to Bakhtin has its merits [14. P. 13--21] or from inside in terms of content, which gives rise to “fatal theoreticism.” As an alternative to these truncated versions, the subject of philosophy, according to Bakhtin, is participative thinking.

“Participative thinking predominates in all great systems of philosophy” [14. P. 8].

Although according to Bakhtin's position, participative thinking is a characteristic feature of philosophy as such, it appears in its purest form in Plato's philosophy. “But in this case we have to do with an instance of participative thinking (which seeks to overcome its own givenness for the sake of what-is-to-be- attained) sustained in a penitent tone; this participative thinking, however, proceeds within that architectonic of Being-as-event which is affirmed and founded by us” [14. P. 11].

Describing Platonism in a pronounced neo-Kantian interpretation, Bakhtin restores the line of philosophical continuity as Cohen understood it -- from Plato to Kant and back to Plato again [26. P. 34].

As Makhlin stresses, it is precisely participative thinking that Bakhtin turns into the main subject of his first philosophy [19. P. 280--287]. This allows Bakhtin, by analogy with Kant's architectonic of pure reason, to formulate an architectonic representing responsible action both outside and inside.

“It is this concrete architectonic of the actual world of the performed act that moral philosophy has to describe, that is, not the abstract scheme but the concrete plan or design of the world of a unitary and once-occurrent act or deed, the basic concrete moments of its construction and their mutual disposition” [14. P. 59].

Bakhtin's conception of partaking extends Cohen's doctrine of proximity and partaking [7. P. 451], but it also has many distinctive qualities. Cohen builds his religion of mind from the sources of Judaism and, in his study, relies on the biblical concept of intimacy with God in a Judaist interpretation. Rosenzweig follows a similar path. Bakhtin speaks of partaking using the Christian concept of communion and proclaims that moral philosophy is essentially an expression of the idea of “Christian morality” [14. P. 75]. All three thinkers see their task as a philosophical rather than a theological definition of their subject. In all of them, the notion of man is at the center of consideration. However, for Cohen and Rosenzweig, man is considered within the framework of the dynamic relation of I and Thou, while for Bakhtin the duality and openness of man are expressed in his concept of the author and the hero. What Bakhtin and Rosenzweig have in common is their discovery of the centrality of language in interpersonal dynamics. This leads Bakhtin to hermeneutics of verbal art, and Rosenzweig to its grammatical organon. Taking different paths, Bakhtin and Rosenzweig arrive at close and complementary results.

The Relation to Ontology

Before turning to Bakhtin's philosophical hermeneutics, we should scrutinize his ontology. Bakhtin's attitude to being has much in common with Rosenzweig's position, but it also has differences. Like Rosenzweig, Bakhtin rejects the classical Aristotelian notion of being as existence. He also criticizes the Kantian concept of being, which he calls “lightweight”:

“Historically actual once-occurrent Being is greater and heavier than the unitary Being of theoretical science” [14. P. 8].

Bakhtin's concept of ontology is based on the concept of the event of being.

“But that once-occurrent event of Being is no longer something that is thought of, but something that is, something that is being actually and inescapably accomplished through me and others (accomplished, inter alia, also in my deed of cognizing); it is actually experienced, affirmed in an emotional- volitional manner” [14. P. 13].

The event of being is more than just being. It is a participative or partaking responsible being that is involved, a being that transcends internal content, but is not limited to external factuality. The word “event”' [sobytie] in Russian means “being with” [so-bytie], that is, participatory being, being together. Bakhtin was well aware of the wordplay with the particle “so” (Mit) characteristic of Cohen's philosophy In particular, the concept of co-humanity outlined in the synopsis of Religion of Reason discussed in Nevel [27. P. 59].. Heidegger finds a similar use to “Mit” specifically concerning the concept of being -- Mitsein (Being with) Heidegger, however, refuses to consider participation as going beyond the concept of being, which distinguishes him from philosophers of dialogue [28. S. 114].. The event understood as being with, i.e., the act of being together or belonging turns out to be something more powerful than being as a concept of ontology. There is a tendency among Bakhtin's researchers to consider his teaching as a kind of existentialist philosophy [29. P. 36; 11. S. 24]. V.L. Makhlin encourages utilising the term “ontology of being -- being with” regarding Bakhtin's philosophy [19. P. 268]. Makhlin suggests using the said term [19. P. 268], and also Theunissen's [30] concept of “social ontology” [19. P. 274] for describing the “being in-between”. This puts Bakhtin on a par with philosophers who are defined by him as “philosophy from below” (Philosophie von unten) [19. P. 276]. Bakhtin's philosophy from this point of view is defined as a special type of ontology. It seems to me that any ontological treatment of Bakhtin's philosophy requires serious reservations. At the basis of the ontological approach, however one understands it, lies the idea of the unity of the content of being (i.e., mind, thinking, logos) and being itself. Yet, the necessity of the new first philosophy, according to Bakhtin's thought, arises precisely because of the gap between the content of being and its actuality. This rupture cannot be bridged from within -- neither from the meaning of being nor from the action itself. The free moral act is a radically new level that is not reducible to the syntheses known to ontology. Act transforms being, not follows from it.

“It is only from within the actually performed act, which is once-occurrent, integral, and unitary in its answerability, that we can find an approach to unitary and once-occurrent Being in its concrete actuality. A first philosophy can orient itself only with respect to that actually performed act” [14. P. 28].

Here being appears as one of the moments of an answerable act, not as its equivalent. The center of Bakhtin's philosophy is precisely an act in its duality.

“Everything in me -- every movement, gesture, lived-experience, thought, feeling -- everything must be such an act or deed; it is only on this condition that I actually live, that I do not sever myself from the ontological roots of actual Being” [14. P. 44].

In these statements, Bakhtin does not say that being is the source or purpose and content of human life -- an approach descriptive of Heidegger and existentialist philosophers, but quite alien to Bakhtin. The moral act includes being but is not limited to it. The mention of being is necessary here because we are discussing the construction of the first philosophy, which, since the time of Aristotle, is considered a science of being. Bakhtin, however, stresses that the answerable act is a reality above being itself, a reality that is super-ontological. Being itself cedes a central role in the philosophical system to the moral act. This approach, like Rosenzweig's, is an undeniable step forward from the ontological tradition. It can be characterized as meta-ontology, but neither Bakhtin nor Rosenzweig use such terms, preferring to speak of the event of being, participatory thinking, narrative philosophy, dialogue, etc.

Considering the mentioned points, one cannot but admit that the problem of being concerns Bakhtin, just as it troubles Rosenzweig. In particular, Bakhtin contemplates the link between being and death that has been characteristic of the European ontological tradition since Plato's time. Considering the architectonic of Dante's Divine Comedy, the philosopher says that its “action is also set into immediate proximity to the ultimate bounds of Being” [14. P. 54]. Thus, the finitude of being and its connection with the problem of death turns out to be the most important moment in the unfolding of Bakhtin's philosophy. But, as with Rosenzweig, death does not prove to be self-sufficient but appears solely to sharpen the question of the centrality of the concepts of life and love.

The Place of Language and Literature in Bakhtin's Philosophy

First, we need to understand the relation of Bakhtin's ideas of the answerable act and the participatory event of being to his doctrine of the aesthetics of verbal art. As we have noted, Bakhtin's idea of participation or partaking leads to the splitting of subjectivity. The wholeness of the one and only being of the event is no longer expressed in the self-consciousness of the detached subject, but in the interpersonal process. For Bakhtin, the relation of the individual to the other is expressed in the concept of the author and the hero, and the realization of this relationship is expressed in verbal art. This course of Bakhtin's thought is similar to Rosenzweig's one. However, Bakhtin comes to the problem of language and speech more directly than Rosenzweig.

Bakhtin moves to the aesthetics of verbal art in two ways. On the one hand, in Toward a Philosophy of the Act, he considers Pushkin's lyrical poem Parting as a way of expressing the interpersonal relationship as an “author-hero” relationship [14. P. 66]. As a result, it is the literary text, not thinking, that becomes the subject of his philosophical study. Then, in his work The Problem of Content, Material, and Form in Verbal Art [13. P. 257--325], he writes of the philosophical aspects of the text. Bakhtin queries the very nature of the aesthetic. He writes:

“We observe in the history of philosophy a constantly recurring tendency toward a substitution of the yet-to-be-achieved unity of cognition and action by the concrete intuitive, and as it were given, present-on-hand unity of aesthetic vision” [13. P. 280].

Here Bakhtin moves in the footsteps of Kantian and Cohenian aesthetics, which act as a synthesizing basis for the formation of the philosophical system. For Kant, the feeling is the connecting element between reason and the will. But now it is no longer simply a question of reason and will but of the unity of cognition and action. In this way, he approaches the problem of the aesthetics of verbal art from the architectonic of a philosophical system.

Bakhtin's expression of the complicity of being an event in the aesthetics of the verbal art leads to an understanding of language and the literary text in general. Whereas Rosenzweig moves from the individual elements of language to literature within the processes of creation, revelation, and deliverance, for Bakhtin the literary text appears immediately as a whole as an expression of the participatory event of being. Thus, Bakhtin's verbal art is a synthetic rather than an analytical concept. Such a movement is, in various ways, the opposite of Rosenzweig's.

Meanwhile, the method of considering verbal art as an environment of interpersonal interaction, which alone makes human reality integral, turns out to be an effective method of literary research. Literature itself, its forms, and genres become a subject of theory.

Bakhtin's notions of the author and hero arising at the end of Toward a Philosophy of the Act and making it into the spotlight in Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity is the result of a fundamental philosophical inquiry. Equally fundamental is Bakhtin's move from Kantian transcendental aesthetics to an exploration of the spatial and temporal form of the hero. The next step is the study of categories, which are now seen not as categories of the detached subject, but as categories of interpersonal relations. Inquiries regarding appearance, corporeality, and causality appear by themselves.

At the next stage in the novel's study, Bakhtin is confronted with the splitting of the hero himself. The famous Bakhtinian polyphony emerges Worth noting that the idea of the polyphonic novel is not the result of researching Dostoevsky but the original premise and emerges in the very first pages of the book [31. P. 11--12]..

It is well known that Bakhtin said many times that he was not a literary scholar, but a philosopher. For his followers and students, these insistent statements were an oddity. Meanwhile, it is clear from what we have said above that Bakhtin's reference to literature as an expression of interpersonal relations was part of his philosophy. At a more mature stage, however, Bakhtin moved on to a broader consideration of culture as an environment of interpersonal communication. And here the results obtained in the study of literature work effectively. It turns out that the concepts of polyphony, chronotope, and carnival developed at the previous stage work not only in the analysis of an artistic text but also in the study of culture as a whole.

The Philosophy of Dialogue

As in Rosenzweig's case, the philosophy of dialogue results from Bakhtin's thinking rather than its original goal. In developing his philosophical system, Bakhtin eventually arrived at a dialogical approach. If we compare Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity, Problems of Dostoevsky's Creative Art, and Discourse in the Novel, we see how the ideas of dialogic philosophy are gradually strengthened in him. However, if we consider Bakhtin's philosophical and literary studies, it is intelligible that dialogism was not an accidental result of his work but was its backbone [11. S. 124]. Almost all of Bakhtin's fundamental ideas are, in one way or another, connected with the philosophy of dialogue. Let us plan some of Bakhtin's main themes concerning the latter:

* Rethinking the concept of being and the transition from the isolated being of the New European subject to the idea of the participatory being of the event.

* Philosophy's return to the singular, unique being of the individual.

* Interpretation of subjectivity as a creative relationship between the author and the hero.

* Establishing a fundamental connection between ethics and aesthetics through the study of the architectonic of the answerable act.

* A new interpretation of the problems of space, time, and categories by replacing the concept of the transcendental subject with a concept of the world of the event of being. Introducing the doctrine of chronotope, corporeality, carnivality, etc.

* Turning the aesthetics of verbal art into the conceptual center of philosophy, creating the concept of polyphony, the inner dialogue of the creative text.

* Creation of dialogic literary criticism and dialogic cultural studies.

Bakhtin as Philosopher of the Future

Significantly, Bakhtin became known to the public only in the second half of the 20^th century, and his philosophy is still not very well researched. As one of the most popular authors of the 20^th century, he is also one of the most controversial and ambivalent figures. A comparison of Bakhtin's ideas with Rosenzweig's philosophy allows us to see the inner coherence of his teachings and many new, original ideas. This permits concluding that the study of Bakhtin's philosophy as a systematic whole is just beginning, and important discoveries await us along the way.

Rosenzweig and Bakhtin: Differences and Analogies The Philosophical System