However, the founders of Moscow Philosophical Circle weren’t able to calmly enjoy the accessibility of the fruits of enlightenment and the steady flow of first-class humanitarian texts. Pillars of the English-, French-, German-, Italian-, Hispanic-language humanitarian scenes, did not tear themselves away from desks to produce texts on coronavirus. The Russian language as a tool of thought, having fallen into quarantine, flourished anywhere: in the heated debates of faculties at Zoom, in dialogs on YouTube and fleeting skirmishes on Facebook. But didn’t want to lie down on paper. Iconic figures of modern philosophy seemed to us as if asking: what did you write during the quarantine, besides fifty Facebook comments and three posts? Perhaps it was a conscience. Rather, it was the very itch that Socrates describes in Plato’s “Philebus”.

The book you are holding is the product of this itch. It is unique for several reasons.

First, it gives a panoramic picture of the phenomenon that mankind encountered in the first half of 2020. In terms of the coverage of the plots given to us by the pandemic for observation and evaluation. In terms of the scatter of points of view. And in terms of the focus and sharpness of the advanced estimates and proposed arguments.

Second, it is a multi-party book. If we can call SARS-CoV-2 a thing, then this is its full-fledged democratic parliament. The Russian intellectual space has long been marked by demarcation lines protecting the integrity and hermeticity of intellectual camps. “Goodbye COVID?” behaves as if these lines do not exist. Left, right, liberal, communist, statist, and anarchist points of view and argumentation systems are presented here on an equal footing. And no, neither the world nor this book collapsed from an unexpected or even provocative neighborhood. On the contrary, they became more voluminous and enlightened.

Thirdly, as it seems to us, this book is a good example of how should work a conscious attitude toward those forms of inequality that have no place in science and academia. We are talking about gender, ranks, and merits, about the age and differences in academic statuses. Absolute equality is still only a mathematical function, but we tried to get to it as close as was possible.

The collection consists of four sections. Choosing names for them we could not resist the temptation to play a game with the nomen of the virus that hit the world – SARS. To emphasize the inconceivable expressiveness of COVID-19, we used words of Esperanto, not live, not dead, not purely artificial, but not a natural language, the justification for the existence of which could confuse anyone, as well as the justification for the existence of a virus that is too perfect, to be a pure offspring of nature.

The Scio (Knowledge) section contains texts examining the problem of collision with COVID-19 through the prism of epistemology and speculative philosophy. Aŭtonomeco (Autonomy) section presents this clash in the optics of personal ontological, existential and ethical experience. Reagoj (Reactions) – combines texts that interpret in one way or another the reactive nature of this collision, which mixes and redefines the set of maps, ideas, and situations in which we’ve been caught before the pandemic. Societo (Society) section collects texts devoted to social structures (in a broad sense of the word) that have been manifested, actualized, affected, or destroyed by a pandemic.

The usual words of gratitude to the authors and those who helped the birth of this book are not enough. Our idea to gather the “pandemic” series of texts together under one cover received approval and support from everyone we contacted from the very first attempt. The authors – philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists – agreed on very short notice to participate. Foreign colleagues helped with all the difficulties that arise. Expert Institution of Social Researches, Moscow-based think tank, despite the obvious adventurousness of the idea (a book? a philosophical book? in two months? it can’t happen!), provided the necessary funding. Colleagues from the editorial office of the Logos journal and the Gaidar Institute Press, without asking any questions, gave us a comradely shoulder in advance and immediately agreed to be publishers. From the moment of the birth of this crazy idea to the appearance of the book layout, less than a month and a half passed, so it was truly a miracle, by any standards.

“The world will never be the same” – this seems to be the main post-COVID mantra. We do not quite agree with this. There is another world, and it exists regardless of epidemics and crises. This other world is called respublica literaria, and you are now holding the artifact from it.

Moscow Philosophical Circle,

June 2020

Дмитрий Кралечкин. Независимый исследователь и переводчик, член редколлегии философско-литературного журнала «Логос»; Москва, Российская Федерация;

e-mail: [email protected]

В статье рассматривается конфигурация медицинского знания, сложившаяся после изгнания в XIX веке аномалий и отдающая привилегию индивидуальному пациенту, выступающему гарантом и противовесом для объективного и обобщенного знания. В ситуации пандемии эта конфигурация испытывает перегрузку, связанную как с перформативной структурой самого понятия пандемии, так и с управленческой логикой секьюритарного блефа, которая грозит сместить хрупкое равновесие. В то же время пандемия размечает границы новой эпистемической сборки, способной сохраниться и после чрезвычайной ситуации.

Ключевые слова: пандемия, ситуация знания, Кангилем, частный пациент

DOI: 10.22394/978-5-93255-592-7_1

Independent scholar and translator, contributing editor of philosophical literary journal “Logos”; Moscow, Russian Federation;

e-mail: [email protected]

The article analyses the general setting of medical knowledge, which includes and privileges the individual patient’s position. In a pandemic, this setting suffers from overstretching that produces drastic changes, shifting the equilibrium that has been achieved by emphasizing an individual private observer, eliminating anomalies and generalizing knowledge. The pandemic threatens to overturn this fragile equilibrium, but, at the same time, may sketch a new epistemic assemblage.

Keywords: pandemic, epistemic condition, Canguilhem, private patient

DOI: 10.22394/978-5-93255-592-7_1

Когда мы спрашиваем «Чем я болею?» или «Чем болеешь?» и даже просто «Я болею или это ерунда?», в определении самого факта болезни и ее качества задействуются три основные линии адресации вопроса, три оси, которые определяют выявления болезни как таковой.

Задавая вопрос о болезни, мы рефлексивно уже спрашиваем о том, кому стоит о ней спрашивать и кто должен ответить. Болезнь может стать вопросом преимущественно для меня самого, я могу быть первым, кто ею обеспокоен, но также задавать вопрос о болезни, интересоваться ею и определять ее может преимущественно другой. Эти различия в адресации вопроса можно назвать осью наблюдения, составляющей первый компонент «пространства возможностей» болезни, ее выявления как отдельной сущности. Конечно, мы всегда можем приписывать себе болезни, но важнее то, какая именно позиция в общей экономии знания о болезни и болезнях получает в нашей практике привилегию. Считаем ли мы, что болезнь должен определить, по крайней мере поначалу, сам больной? Должен ли он сам выявить какие-то симптомы, заметить в себе что-то такое, что позволяет ему маркировать свое состояние в качестве болезненного или больного? Или же за него все это может и должен сделать другой – но какие у этого другого возможности и обязанности?