2024 Vol. 15 №2

In contemporary critical literature, there are various perspectives on the relationship be­tween the political and the poetic. Some view poetry as a form of politics, encapsulated in the aphorism ‘the word is a weapon’, while others argue that politics itself should embody the qualities of poetry, as suggested by Andy Merrifield's assertion that "politics should be like poetry." This article seeks to explore the poetic dimensions that underpin the political necessi­ty for poetry, namely, the attributes of poetry that establish a connection with the political sphere. The focus of this exploration is the concept of poetic defamiliarization and its interac­tion with the political within Jacques Rancière's theoretical framework. Rancière posits that the political function of poetry, and art more broadly, lies in its ability to disrupt the estab­lished order of sensory perception, challenging the prevailing system of unquestioned percep­tual facts. This disruptive quality of poetry contrasts with what has been termed "police aes­thetics" by Vatulescu, which reflects the conformity and uniformity inherent in consumer society. The article contends that, within the contemporary cultural landscape, the transform­ative potential of poetic expression risks being co-opted by aestheticizing practices prevalent in consumer culture. As a result, the subversive nature of poetic utterance is somewhat dilut­ed, as it becomes assimilated into commodifying forces. However, the article also suggests that poetry retains the capacity to resist such commodification by transcending the limitations imposed by conventional boundaries, thereby offering a means of resisting capture by com­mercial interests

The paper explores the perspectives of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Karl Marx regarding hu­man freedom, highlighting their relevance amidst the contradictory landscape of social devel­opment in late capitalism. It is well-established that Dostoevsky's ‘orthodox’ socialist stance resonated with Marx's critique of bourgeois society, focusing on themes of materialism, the dominance of wealth, and alienation. Both thinkers grappled with the concept of human free­dom, recognizing it as an intrinsic characteristic and essential aspect of humanity. While they shared similar views on existential and social dimensions of freedom, they diverged in their conceptual approaches to achieving it. The study aims to demonstrate, through a comparative analysis of Dostoevsky's and Marx's perspectives, that despite differences in their under­standing of freedom and its attainment, their positions can be seen as complementary. Dosto­evsky advocated for inner spiritual improvement, while Marx prioritized external structural change. Research indicates that these perspectives can mutually reinforce each other. The au­thors assert and support the thesis that according to Dostoevsky, achieving spiritual freedom is feasible through labour activity, a concept akin to Marx's notion of praxis.

The main purpose of this work is to explore the experience of confronting guilt ‘after Auschwitz’ in the creative dialogue between two significant poets of the twentieth century — Paul Celan and Johannes Bobrowski. Despite their importance, their works remain inade­quately studied, particularly in the context of the interaction between language and existence, or more precisely, poetic semiotics and the ontological foundation of existence. Sander Gil­man, an American Germanist, in his work “Why and How I Study German” aimed at stu­dents of the German language in the United States, notes: “Learning German means under­standing the path that leads from the text to the crematory”. Celan shared a similar senti­ment. Bobrowski, while agreeing with Celan's belief that Auschwitz revealed the infernal nature of the German language, attempted to counter him by suggesting that even within the language of the underworld, a poet could serve as a synergistic participant in the manifesta­tion of Truth from the Light of Truth in the performative "production of the presence" of God. One of those who supported him in this argument was perhaps the most complex author in German history, Hamann, whom Goethe considered to be “the brightest mind of his time” and the future “forefather and teacher” of all Germans. In this context, the poetic dialogue between Celan and Bobrowski concerning the German ‘language after Auschwitz’ could be seen as an effort to prevent its complete deontologization, due to what the philosopher Hei­degger referred to as “the lack of holy names," stemming from “the defining characteristic of the present era of the world being the closed dimension of the Sacred”.