I looked closely at the book by A.F. Losev "Dialectics of Myth" for a long time, but with caution. Once I started reading it, but quickly gave up, and so I avoided it, although I often met mentions of it. And now, after almost two years, I still sat down to read and quickly realized that my fears were justified. The book turned out to be, in a significant part, beyond the scope of my educational level, and if I had not read Dyakonov, Campbell or Meletinsky on this topic before, I think I would hardly have understood anything at all.

1. What is the book about

It cannot be said that the "Dialectic of Myth" is directly devoted to questions of mythology. First of all, this is a philosophical work in which the author considers myth as a philosophical concept. It is difficult for a non-specialist to read this, which is honestly stated in the annotation. The first part of the book is more watery and therefore easier to digest. The second part, especially after the antinomies begin to be sorted out, alas, is on the verge of my understanding, and without mastering at least the basics of philosophy and logic, by and large, there is nothing to do there. Well, in general, when the author is arguing, for example, with Kant, then without knowing the main works of the latter, it is quite difficult to understand its essence and there are many such places. Nevertheless, relying on the already existing knowledge about the myth, it seems that I still managed to keep the main thread of reasoning, and it was even interesting. Although I understand, of course, far from everything.

But besides the special, philosophical layer, the book also has a second layer, which can be called historical and political: in it the author describes the intellectual context of the 20-30s in the USSR, as well as the complex processes that took place in it. The fact that the author wrote The Dialectic of Myth before entering the camp is very noticeable. A completely different tone, a different attitude towards Soviet power, though not in sign, but in "quality." Losev in it so far does not act from the position of an aloof intellectual with obligatory, full of almost undisguised hatred, an apology for Marxism-Leninism, but as an equal "player", quite directly and reasonably stating his position, which is extremely impartial for the Soviet authorities. And in this there is just a lot of both understandable and interesting. And about where the legs of the demonization of Soviet power grow from, and why in the intellectual environment of that time there was some kind of shock and melancholy from the realization of the cultural and civilizational impasse that mankind had fallen into, and the fact that hopes for a revolution as a way to resolve it , were not justified.
In general, from a political point of view, the book is quite openly anti-Soviet, the author is fully revealed in it, and now I am surprised not so much by his conclusion, but by how easily he got off in the end. There is some mystery in this. Moreover, as it turned out, there is a second part of the work, the so-called. addition, which was immediately banned from publication. In this part, the book became an even bigger break in the pattern for me, and on the other hand, it explained a lot.
A separate topic is a detailed consideration of absurdity from the point of view of the philosophy of the concept of "dialectical materialism". It was almost understandable, and interesting, and convincing. Well, and, by and large, one way or another, Losev always returns to the idea that the way the Soviet state was built in the early years of Soviet power was a road to nowhere, that such a Gordian knot of contradictions was laid in the basis of Soviet ideology, to resolve which impossible. I think that Bogdanov, and Gorky and Lunacharsky, and, in their own way, Mayakovsky, and many other revolutionary intellectuals fought over the same problem. Stalin dealt with the knot of contradictions simply: he cut it, which made it possible to build a powerful state, win the war, fly into space, and then ... crumble into dust.
The author himself, which also turned out to be surprising for me, does not act as a conservative, but rather as an ideological revolutionary, although not without "specifics". For example, here are a couple of quotes:

• “Philosophers and monks are beautiful, free, ideal, wise. Workers and peasants are ugly, slaves in soul and consciousness, ordinary boring, vile, stupid"


• “I ... affirm that the feudal system and its ideology did not strive for the exploitation of the working people, but for the truth - of course, as it was then understood.”


• “It would be most natural for humanity if we already stand on the stage of feudalism, then continue to stand like this, improving the shortcomings arising from the natural shortcomings of human nature.”

Losev Alexey Fedorovich - Russian philosopher and philologist. After the scandalous attempt to publish The Dialectic of Myth (1930), at the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, L. Kaganovich was called an enemy of the people and was already arrested on April 18, 1930. Sentenced to 10 years in camps "for anti-Soviet activities and participation in a church-monarchist organization." 1930 - 1932 spent in prison. Thanks to the efforts of the wife of Maxim Gorky, he was released ahead of schedule. He was able to publish his works only after 1953, having managed to print over 700 works, including more than 40 monographs. A. Losev died in 1988. He was buried in Moscow at the Vagankovsky cemetery.

3. Why and to whom it is useful

Here, as I wrote above, there are three points: firstly, the book will certainly be of interest to those who are trying to understand the concepts of myth and mythology and their place in culture. Secondly, it seems to me that it will simply be of interest to philosophers. By her own. Like cognac and cigars. And thirdly, the book will be of interest to those who deal with the history of the USSR in the 20-30s, the causes of the collapse of the USSR, the synthesis of communism and religion, and, in general, the alternative development of culture and civilization.

But in general, Losev and his books are a whole universe. I think only one story of the edition of the "Dialectic of Myth" can write a gripping adventure novel. Yes, and the author himself is shrouded in so many secrets, for which you don’t take it, you dig a little, and it starts to open up that you want to put everything aside and start unraveling this tangle of mysteries and strange coincidences.

4. Disadvantages

Much of the book is not for the general reader. For qualitative assimilation of the text, a good knowledge of logic and the foundations of philosophy is necessary. I'm not good with this, so I had a hard time reading. In addition, Losev's later books seem to me more convincing, connected, and perhaps more complete. “Dialectics of Myth”, in my opinion, is written too emotionally, chaotically, which, in fact, is well illustrated by the history of its creation and publication. Well, in general, in the desire to brighten up his "sarcasm", the author at times simply goes too far. For example, as it happens in the case of an attempt to justify the divine nature of any movement "IX (Myth is not a dogma). V (Soul and body)" . But, perhaps the whole point is that I simply do not have enough education to understand what the author of the book is talking about.

5. Verdict

One way or another, the book turned out to be useful for me, even at that superficial level of perception, which is only now available to me. Now it remains to parse the extracts, and maybe I will understand something else from them. And so, of course, it is necessary to re-read after some time.

1. A.F. Losev “Dialectics of myth” / Comp., prep. text, general ed., A. A. Takho-Godi, V. P. Troitsky.—M.: Thought, 2001.—558, ISBN 5-24440969-9