Oppo , Andrea Lev Shestov: The Philosophy and Works of a Tragic Thinker (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 747 In summary, Moss’s thoughtful and well-researched study will be of interest to Russian scholars from different fields. It makes an important contribution to the existing scholarship pertaining to Russian history of ideas and modernist studies. It maps a new direction in the exploration of Russian treatment of the woman question across different periods and genres. University of Edinburgh Alexandra Smith Oppo, Andrea. Lev Shestov: The Philosophy and Works of a Tragic Thinker. Academic Studies Press, Boston, MA, 2020. xvi + 346 pp. Notes. Appendices. Bibliography and works cited. Index. $129.00. This remarkably thorough study aims to provide a comprehensive view of Lev Shestov’s philosophical legacy by analysing all its individual parts (including the most obscure and often overlooked works of this prolific philosophical writer) — something that has so far largely been lacking in research on Shestov. Indeed, as the author rightly notes, the majority of previous studies of Shestov’s heritage tend to focus on segmental, specific aspects rather than achieve a holistic understanding of Shestov’s ‘philosophy of tragedy’ in its entirety. Such an approach, which fails to see the wood for the trees, suffers more often than not from the predictable dichotomies, such as ‘Faith versus Reason’, ‘Athens versus Jerusalem’, and so on. Consequently, these studies, with a few exceptions, either dismiss Shestov’s legacy as impractical or admire his daring, but rarely venture outside this framework. Andrea Oppo avoids falling into the trap of taking things at face value, for he understands precisely the need for ‘reading between the lines’ — that is, adopting essentially the same method that Shestov did in his study of major thinkers — for Shestov ‘often concealed his real thoughts and intentions under an opposite attitude’ (p. 240). This immediately brings to mind Shestov’s own analysis of Dostoevskii, whom Shestov deemed his principle teacher: ‘fighting with evil, [Dostoevskii] put forward such arguments in its defence which it had never dared to dream of’ (‘Dostoevskii i Nitzshe — filosofiia tragedii’ [1902], in Lev Shestov, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, Tomsk, 1996, p. 92, translation is mine — OT). This is just one example that illustrates the relevance of the type of methodology (of careful and insightful decoding, the kind of hermeneutics for which Shestov is famous) that Oppo adopts — which proves to be very fruitful. In fact, this is most probably the only methodology capable of producing new meaningful analysis of a thinker like Shestov, whose ideas have tended to be presented in polemics with others rather than developed into a philosophical system in its own right. SEER, 99, 4, OCTOBER 2021 748 In a confident manner, lucid style and with substantial philosophical erudition, Oppo looks beyond the self-evident to unravel Shestovian hidden meanings, analysing Shestov’s legacy as a coded philosophical narrative, whilst also leaving no thematic stone unturned. At the start of the book Oppo sets out ‘to reveal Shestov from a number of less-considered aspects, including: an initial personal crisis; a defense of morality he sought to pursue at the beginning of his career; his first activity as a literary critic and his “aesthetic” thought; his relationship with the Russian philosophers; his political views; his studies on Greek philosophy; the experience of exile within the Russian émigré community; the crucial role of Plotinus within his thought; his relationship withpsychoanalysis;theshifttowardsamorereligiouslycommittedphilosophy and a sort of “return” to Judaism; the heritage of his “only disciple” Fondane; the relevance of his meetings with Husserl; and finally the legacy of his thought in Europe’ (pp. xiii–xiv). He delivers on each one of these, largely following Shestov’s thought in its chronological development. The book impresses not only in its methodology and thematic scope, but also in the exhaustive range of primary and secondary sources, in a range of languages, that Oppo draws upon. Oppo clearly feels at home in both the Western and Russian philosophical traditions, and is thus able to map Shestov organically and in a meaningful way within both worlds. Not deceived by Shestov’s taking issue with virtually every thinker of the Western speculative philosophical tradition, Oppo places Shestov within that very tradition, fighting at its fringes, questioning its very sources. He acknowledges that Shestov’s path...