Scientific journal
European Journal of Natural History
ISSN 2073-4972
ИФ РИНЦ = 0,301


Kharitonova N.N., Shchepareva T.V.
A question about relations of Philosophy and philology is discursive. No mere chance, discussions have become important in contemporary Russia: some very important peculiarities of intellectual life are brightly reflected in them. Even conversation partners with very good characteristics and very interested in results from the conversation, more often than not reach mutual understanding.

As philology is a universal text about texts and philosophy is a universal impulse: it rests on a text as on primary material, but with that comes out of the boundaries of textual.

It comes this way: philosophy once forced out philology into life. In other words, philosophy, which initially has been oral, forced text as something unfamiliar- from its boundaries and thereby gave philology freedom to independent development.

But philology soon forgot what it owes to philosophy and began describing all text as its own. And philosophy coming out of oral stage and needing to nail down the results of its work, suddenly recollected of this once gifted free rein, but knocked together with already strengthened friend- enemy.

We may say that fight between philology and philosophy is dateless.

Philology, from philosophers´ point of view, is non-topical within the meaning because it´s impossible as philology of the present. It´s because it turns the experienced events of reading into historic documents, dead thing. It is even impossible to say whether philology is right or not, from philosophers´ point of view: it merely has no relation to those important for contemporary culture texts, which are "meaningless", but bring in themselves vitality boost. Whereby their own reading technique philosophers do not show, saying it has no relation to language, they proclaim principles of "direct" reading, which appeal to show up communicative strategy of the writing.

There are interesting judgments from Gasparov - classical positivism, Merlo- Ponti - issue of body and perception, Valery - philosophy as literature, Fuko- power - knowledge and etc.

Philosophy rescue is philology made practice.

So, in philologists´ and philosophers´´ discussions, philosophers were mostly interested in encoding of sensitive gaps.

New basic structures of space and time perception which at the root of any experience are to be formed.

Thus, we raise a question of philosophy and philology balance not to compare pre-defined roles or social prestige of the disciplines. This is a question of mutual complememntarity in culture.

It is a dream of the whole science world that there´s no disagreements between philosophy and philology.


  1. Philosophy and philology. Roundtable discussion. New literature survey. 1996№17 p.45-93
  2. Yampolsky M. Philosophy on the edge. Interview of A. Ivanova with V. Podoroga and M Yanpolsky. Annal, Moscow. 1994.P9-20.
  3. Shapir M.I. Aesthetic experience of the XXth century, avant-garde and postmodernism. Philology. 1995,p.3-4,135-143.

The work is presented for All-Russia Science Conference "State Educational Institutions science development prospects", Sochi (Dagomys), September 21-24, 2009. Came to the editorial office on 31.07.2009.