Search

Various conceptions of philosophy of education have been mooted over the last sixty years. The paper looks at five of these, associated particularly with R. S. Peters, D. W. Hamlyn, David Bakhurst, Philip Kitcher, and Harvey Siegel. It shows differences and sometimes overlaps among these, to do with whether or not philosophy of education should be seen as a branch of philosophy, as central to philosophy as a whole, or as a form of applied philosophy. The paper puts most weight on the last of these while recognizing the importance of work on the enculturation of young human beings as exemplified in Hamlyn's and Bakhurst's writings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research examines the logical and epistemological studies of Leonid Evgenievich Gabrilovich (1878-1953), a Russian philosopher, logic and engineer, and subsequently a Russian-American thinker. The works of L.E. Gabrilovich still remain practically unknown or little known in Russian philosophy. In the study of the philosophical concept of one of the main works of L.E. Gabrilovich “On Mathematical Thinking and the Concept of the Actual Form” (1914), the study of the theory of “actual forms”, which clarifies the foundations of human thinking, is central to the attention of readers. It is proved that the topics of mathematical formalism, the system of experience, the actual form and the problems of number touched upon by Gabrilovich were logical and epistemological aspects of his philosophy. The research covers the content of a review of this essay by Gabrilovich of the famous German mathematician and logic Leopold Löwenheim, published in 1915. The similarity of the theory of actual forms Gabrilovich’s and the meaning of the Löwenheim theorem is revealed. The analysis of Gabrilovich’s work conducted here covers little-known pages of Russian philosophical thought and should serve to enrich and fill existing lacunae in the study of Russian philosophy of the 20th century. In the process of studying the central work of Gabrilovich, results were obtained, on the basis of which they came to the conclusion that the Russian thinker sought to build a complete system of the science of philosophy. In his emigration, Gabrilovich turned to the legacy of such Russian philosophers as Vladimir Solovyov and Nikolai Berdyaev, which was surprisingly combined with mathematical thinking and the concept of actual forms. The study outlines the prospects for studying this and other works of Gabrilovich in the context of neo-Kantianism and the philosophy of mathematics. The original theory of “actual forms” proposed by Gabrilovich can be considered the result of a philosophical understanding of the foundations of mathematics, which was characteristic precisely for logical and epistemological philosophical searches.

Introduction. The article analyzes the works of Russian populists, which contain a socio-philosophical solution to the problem of moral autonomy of the individual. Theoretical analysis. The socio-philosophical ideal of populist thought was closely connected with the theory of organizing a fair society based on the pattern of social solidarity, which implies socially responsible behavior of citizens who respect other people’s rights and act in the interests of human liberation. Individual autonomy can be achieved through various methods of liberation: through labor activity and the practice of cooperation, socio-political activity in the direction of realizing the social ideal of conscious solidarity. The moral autonomy of the individual, therefore, does not imply moral nihilism, but, on the contrary, is aimed at finding a compromise between private and public interests. Theorists of populism develop the thesis of N. G. Chernyshevsky’s «reasonable egoism», according to which intellectually and morally meaningful individualistic (autonomous) behavior can correspond to collective interests. The moral autonomy of the individual, according to most populists, does not deny the possibility of socially responsible behavior. Conclusion. Populist thought becomes a kind of counterpoint to the development of liberating social thought in Russia, transforming the ideal type of carrier of liberating ideas: a morally autonomous nihilist turns into a socially responsible populist.

The purpose of this research is to reconstruct Kant’s project of practical anthropology and trace how it is transformed in the teaching of Vladimir Solovyov about the primary data of morality, as well as to try to identify the reasons that prompted the Russian thinker to move away from following Kant’s plan. During the study, standard methods of the history of philosophy were used, primarily analysis of philosophical texts, including direct quotes and indirect borrowings of Vl. Soloviev. The subject of study was Kant’s works “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, “Critique of Practical Reason”, “Metaphysics of Morals”, “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason”, as well as the main ethical work of Vl. Solovyov “Justification of the Good” with the appendix “The formal principle of morality (Kant) - presentation and assessment with critical comments on empirical ethics.” As a result, I established that Vl. Solovyov knew about Kant’s project of practical anthropology and fully shared it in the early period of his work. However, in “The Justification of Good” the intentions of Vl. Solovyov have changed radically. Unlike Kant, who paid more attention to the inclination towards evil in human nature, Vl. Solovyov was interested in her good feelings of shame, pity and reverence, “the primary data of morality.” The desire to supplement Kantian ethics by including irrational feelings as the basis of good grew in the Russian thinker into a desire to improve it in accordance with the philosophy of unity and led to the rejection of the idea of moral autonomy, namely the proclamation of the inextricable unity of Good, God and the immortal soul.

The research is based on a little-known essay by Evgeny Alexandrovich Bobrov (1867-1933), a philosopher and a remarkable representative of the Russian university professorship of the late XIX - first quarter of the XX centuries. The essay is based on a public report that Bobrov delivered at the celebrations at the Warsaw Imperial University dedicated to the centenary of Kant's death. In 1904, solemn meetings with speeches and philosophical discussions were held at Russian universities around this memorial date. The usual practice of that time was then to publish the texts of speeches in scientific journals and individual books, which provided access to the text to the general public. Thanks to this tradition, historians of philosophy have the opportunity to penetrate into the philosophical moods and thematic palette of that time around the name of Kant and his ideas. Our choice fell on the speech of E. A. Bobrov, because in his speech he shows for his listeners/readers a retrospective of the adaptation of Kant’s philosophy in the Russian universities community. Symbolically, the century after Kant’s death can rather be considered as the birth of Kantian in the Russian school of philosophy. The central part of our research is devoted to this retrospective, as it was analyzed by Russian philosophers in 1904. Who philosophers were considered supporters of Kant’s philosophy, and who stood in opposition. In the final part, we considered it appropriate to draw attention to the fact that Kantianism was actively developing in the next decade of 1904-1914. But the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 influenced the tone of philosophical discussions around Kant’s ideas. The topic of “overcoming Kantianism” becomes one of the directions in the criticism of Kant.

This invited article is a tribute to Giovanni Maniscalco Basile, reflecting on his multifaceted contributions as a scholar, and cultural enthusiast. Darko Suvin highlights Basile's extensive work and interests spanning Russian politics and ideology, music, science fiction, and utopian studies. Suvin underscores Basile's unique intellectual presence, likening him to a Renaissance man with a profound ability to interweave diverse fields. The article delves into Basile's engagement with Russian utopian and dystopian literature, his polyglot abilities, and his critical approach to blending historical and futuristic narratives. Suvin discusses Basile's role in elevating science fiction as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and his efforts in integrating it with contemporary cultural and political critiques. Marina Ciccarini further explores Basile's life, and personal and professional background, emphasizing his broad interests, between literature, politics, music and physics, and eventually providing a selected bibliography of his works. In conclusion, the article portrays Giovanni Maniscalco Basile as a profound thinker whose interdisciplinary work continues to inspire discussions on creativity, freedom, and the intellectual's role in society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aleksandr Beljaev (1884-1942) is widely regarded as the first professional Russian science fiction writer and one of the pioneers of Soviet science fiction. This essay explores the impact of cosmist thought, also known as Russian Cosmism, on Beljaev's work, with a particular focus on the novel Amphibian Man (1928). It examines the creation of possible worlds in which humanity can extend life and overcome death through the 'new religion' of science and technology. The analysis of Beljaev's work considers the influence of early 20th century Russian cosmist thought in a unique and innovative way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interview given by Marina F. Bykova, Professor of Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at North Carolina State University (USA), and the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Studies in East European Thought. She earned her PhD and Dr. Habil in Philosophy from the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), where she worked until relocating to the USA in 2000. Bykova specializes in the history of nineteenth century continental philosophy, with a particular focus on German idealism. She has also written extensively on Russian philosophy and intellectual tradition. She has published 11 books and over 250 scholarly articles. Her forthcoming book, Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Guide, is set to be released by Cambridge University Press in 2024.

The subject of the study is the dispute between the Russian philosopher, K. Leontiev, and the French emperor, Napoleon III, regarding the meaning and orientation of historical events. The topicality of the study is determined by the importance of the problem of progress in the modern world and the need to take into account the entire range of previous approaches to it. The novelty is defined by the absence of works in which a comparison of the two analyzed approaches would be presented. The article uses the following methods: hermeneutic, phenomenological, and comparative historical. The policy of Napoleon III is characterized in the artistic works of Leontiev as well as in the works in philosophical and publicistic genres. In the novel Odysseus Polychroniades, the Second French Empire appears as a mechanical structure devoid of a spiritual core. In the autobiographical work Egyptian pigeon, the emperor appears as a usurper. In his philosophical and political writings, Leontiev focuses on the theory of cultural types. Napoleon III's France in this context serves as an illustration of the period of secondary mixing and simplification in the lives of civilizations. But its history is also important to Leontiev as a kind of reference point in the historical coordinate system, which allows us to compare the Western path with the fate of Russia. The Russian thinker strongly emphasized the connection between the history of his country and Byzantine principles. He saw its future in their preservation and support. Leontiev considered France, which rushed along the path of liberal egalitarianism, a decaying state characterized by decomposition and loss of originality and religiosity, as well as by the transition from complexity to a more primitive organization. Napoleon III, on the contrary, considered France the vanguard of civilization, and the principle of nationalities proclaimed by him was seen as the only reliable basis for international politics. Although Leontiev and Napoleon III do not have the same interpretations of progress, in their understanding of the general meaning of history and the laws of civilizational development both considered it necessary to introduce conservative elements into public life. The forecasts of the Russian philosopher regarding the future give more reason to name him (rather than the emperor) a prophet.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) was the central figure of Russian religious thought, which had its heyday at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, rich in wonderful and deep thinkers such as Pavel Florensky, Sergey Bulgakov, Nikolay Berdyaev, and Simon Frank among many others. Solovyov was the first classical Russian philosopher, in the sense that he had his own philosophical system at a time when systemic philosophy was being abandoned in the West. It was Solovyov who deepened Russian philosophy and firmly entrenched Christian metaphysics in Russian philosophical discourse. He introduced Russian philosophical thought to Europe. His project of a free universal theocracy intended to fundamentally change the course of social history. In fact, the project of a universal free theocracy and the reunification of Christian churches associated with it became the most prominent idea of the philosopher in the Western intellectual environment. Moreover, the question about Solovyov's pro-Catholic leanings, including his contacts with catholic clergy and theologians, as well as the issue whether Solovyov converted to Catholicism came into prominence after the book of Michel D'Herbigny Vladimir Soloviev: Un Newman russe was published in 1911. This article focuses on the narrow but important issue of reconstructing the historical context of the philosopher's ideas. The focus is on the history of Solovyov's contacts with the Holy See. The author analyzes the existing historiography, which testifies to the indirect contacts of the philosopher with the Holy See, the philosopher's published correspondence, contemporary research articles, as well as materials from the Vatican and Russian archives. As a result, the article presents a new look at the history of the relationship between the Holy See and Russian philosopher, who is currently recognized by most researchers as the ancestor of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vadim Valeryevich Vasilyev is Doctor of Philosophy Sciences, Professor, Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences, and cofounder and member of the Academic Council of the Moscow Center for Consciousness Research at the Philosophy Department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The talk is dedicated to the specifics of analytic philosophy in Russia.

Introduction. This article discusses the ideas about the revolution, the Russian people and the state in the works of Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov. K.S. Aksakov was a well-known Russian publicist, literary critic, poet and one of the main ideologists of Slavophilism. Over the years, many researchers of Russian philosophy and history have shown interest in his legacy, noting his originality and incredible love for Russia. The purpose of this article is to analyze and highlight the views of Konstantin Aksakov on the revolution - as a reflection on the events that took place in Europe and the Russian Empire during his life and work.Methodology and sources. The results of the study were based on the textual and conceptual analysis of the works of K.S. Aksakov. The main sources were journalistic notes, essays and letters.Results and discussion. Based on the analysis of historical and philosophical sources, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that for a comprehensive analysis and complete understanding of the idea of revolution in the works of K.S. Aksakov, it is necessary to closely study the key concepts of his philosophical views on Russia, the Russian people, the state and their relationship. Conclusion. For K.S. Aksakov's revolution is an exclusively Western phenomenon. The very idea of revolution is extraneous to the Russian people, since the Russian people themselves chose the state for themselves and entered into an equal alliance with it, seeking to protect themselves from any state activity in order to stay in the process of moral and spiritual improvement.

This essay addresses one of the most concerning features of Russian thought: its claim to exceptionality. The author contends that the notion of Russian distinctiveness and exceptionality has reverberated consistently throughout Russian intellectual discussions. In contemporary Russia, these debates have heightened, often taking on a distinctly political character. The essay highlights the perilous consequences of believing in the exclusivity and superiority of one national tradition over others. Not only does this belief lead to national isolationism, negatively impacting the country's intellectual culture and diminishing its vibrancy and creativity, but it also erodes the foundation for a critical attitude and self-reflection, essential aspects of philosophical inquiry. Russia needs an open philosophy that is seamlessly integrated into the global philosophical process and actively engages in constructive dialogue with other philosophical cultures. Achieving this goal requires breaking free from the longstanding belief in exceptionality that has cast a shadow over Russia's state, culture, and thought for centuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These are my comments and responses to questions and comments by my colleagues at the Handbook symposium that took place last fall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the transformation of Dante's image in post-Soviet scholarship. The author shows how Russian philologists Vladimir Bibikhin, Olga Sedakova, and Georgii Chistiakov introduced a new image of Dante to post-Soviet readers in fresh translations of his work, scholarly writings, and lecture courses that revealed previously obscured philosophical and theological dimensions of his texts. The post-Soviet reader came into contact with a more complex image of Dante than previously portrayed in official Soviet literary scholarship: Dante the philosopher, the Christian humanist, the spiritual guide who calls upon individuals to embark upon a difficult but crucial existential journey. The author also shows how the unstable and transitional decade of the 1990s was a time of a particularly active study of Dante's philosophical and poetic anthropology. Dante's main themes (personal salvation, activism, living in tradition) resonated profoundly with intellectuals during the late Soviet and early post-Soviet years, which were marked by a special soteriological attitude and a belief that individuals and society not only can but must change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In the modern world, the problem of the purpose of art remains relevant due to the emergence of various forms of non-classical art. Modernism and postmodernism differ from classical art, therefore it is inappropriate to transfer the purpose of classical art to these movements without a deep analysis. It seems reasonable for the analysis of non-classical art to consider it through the spectacles of Russian religious philosophy. Theoretical analysis. Representatives of the philosophy of unity and the representative of religious existentialism N. A. Berdyaev wrote about the purpose of classical art. The question arises: what is the purpose of non-classical art – modernism and postmodernism? The philosophers themselves – V. S. Solovyov, S. N. Bulgakov, N. A. Berdyaev analyzed works of classical art and modernist works. The author analyzes the artifacts of postmodern art through the spectacles of Russian religious philosophy. Conclusion. For a deep analysis of works of non-classical art, the criteria developed in the philosophy of unity should be used, since any work of art can be evaluated for the author’s desire to realize unity and from the point of view of actualization of eternal ideas. It is also possible to use the concept of Berdyaev’s creativity for the analysis of modernism, but this concept is not applicable for evaluating the art of postmodernism.

The acquaintance with significant philosophical doctrines emerging in the West has been a systematic process in the leading Russian-language philosophical journals, collections of articles, monographs and translations. Practically all the most important Western philosophical doctrines have been subjected to scrutiny by Russian philosophers. One of the most vivid Neo-Kantian projects of the early twentieth century, Emil Lask's Logic of Philosophy, has not gone unnoticed either. Reaction to Lask's works were far from being homogeneous. His project received several different evaluations, including the critical ones. The project was criticized for the unsolved ontological potential of philosophy, the dogmatic immobility of logic of philosophy, inconsistency of material–form relation, etc. The article considers the first reviews and critical assessments of Lask's works in Russia as well as the texts of Russian religious philosophers and Russian Neo-Kantians which contain constructive criticism. The range of reviews allows us to reconstruct the reception of Lask's ideas in Russia and provides a significant supplement to the overall picture of the reception of Neo-Kantianism in Russia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Russian philosophy is “a sphere of conversation” in which thought is “divined”. It is a realm of search for “universal meaning” and “cultivation” of historical reality. Such a “conversation” around the work of Dostoyevsky took place in the 1920s among philosophers (including members of the Free Philosophical Association or Volfila in its abbreviated form). The theme takes on added significance at the hands of Ya. E. Golosovker and S. L. Frank whose intellectual affinity manifests itself today in the way they interpret Kantian motives in the work of Dostoyevsky. Reflecting on “the logic of imagination” Golosovker draws attention to the fact that the concrete-metaphysical method of seeing the world is not identical to the amphiboly of Kant’s reflexive concepts. He made it the central theme of his book, Dostoyevsky and Kant, immersing the philosophical component of the novel The Brothers Karamazov in the context of Kant’s antinomies. The later Frank took up the subject of Dostoyevsky’s worldview in response, as it were, to the discussion of the problem of cultural crisis at Volfila (including at meetings “In Memory of Dostoyevsky”). Following Yakov Golosovker, Andrey Bely, Aron Steinberg, Semyon Lurie and others, he continued the discussion of the crisis in its organised forms. In this context, too, Kant is a significant presence. For Frank, as for Golosovker, Dostoyevsky’s world view has a “concrete-metaphysical character”. They come to this conclusion reflecting on the problem of freedom as seen by Dostoyevsky who sought to overcome Kant’s antinomies.

Copyright of L'Ospite Ingrato is the property of Quodlibet S.r.l. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Our knowledge of physics and chemistry is relatively well defined. Results from that knowledge are predictable as, largely, are those of their technical offspring such as electrical, chemical, mechanical and civil engineering. By contrast, biology is relatively unconstrained and unpredictable. A factor common to all areas is the trade-off, which provides a means of defining and quantifying a problem and, ideally, its solution. In order to understand the anatomy of the trade-off and how to handle it, its development (as the dialectic) is tracked from Hegel and Marx to its implementation as dialectical materialism in Russian philosophy and TRIZ, the Theory of Invention. With the ready availability of mathematical techniques, such as multi-objective analysis and the Pareto set, the trade-off is well-adapted to bridging the gaps between the quantified and the unquantifiable, allowing modelling and the transfer of concepts by analogy. It is thus an ideal tool for biomimetics. An intracranial endoscope can be derived with little change from the egg-laying tube of a wood wasp. More complex transfers become available as the technique is developed. Most important, as more trade-offs are analyzed, their results are stored to be used again in the solution of problems. There is no other system in biomimetics which can do this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religious cosmologies put forward by Russian philosophers and thinkers at the beginning of the last century had important things to say about the linguistic construction of personhood and the relations between words and reality. Not shying away from personal phenomenologies which regard words as cosmic self-expression, these philosophers help us rediscover both the sensuality and physicality of language. This article explores how such apparently long forgotten philosophies of language live on to some degree in religious Orthodox practice in Russia today. What is more, it serves to remind us of the connections between language, spirituality and the sacred. By engaging with the spirit of prophecy, thinkers such as Bulgakov (and indeed some contemporary worshippers) show us the significance of what it means to 'feel' language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of anthropological crisis is very popular in contemporary Russian humanities: the Russian Scientific Electronic Library, or Elibrary.ru, includes more than ten thousand publications with the keyword anthropological crisis. On the contrary, Google gives links to Russian publications only when one searches for anthropological crisis. This keyword has no reference in the famous online book catalogue Worldcat.org. Nowadays English-speaking scientific communities still explore the crisis in anthropology as a discipline. The difference between the anthropological crisis and the crisis in anthropology seems essential. The crisis of a scientific discipline is not a crisis of the human nature. The modern Russian academicians, including the late Vyacheslav Stepin, find many features of the anthropological crisis in the successes of genetic engineering and modern medicine as well as in the growing psychological pressures. Russian-language scholars find the traits of anthropological crisis in many fields, including studies of memory, bioethics, pedagogics, literature, and economics. The loss of the sense of life is often treated by Russian scholars, like Stepin and Boris Pruzhinin, as a trait of the anthropological crisis. The problems of self-identity are also marked by Russian authors as a mark of that crisis. Sergey Averintsev felt that human beings lack their human nature. Pruzhinin supposes humans cannot predict consequences of genetic engineering for their nature as a species. But all these trends have nothing in common with the anthropological crisis. Genetic engineering helps improving of sick human nature and self-realization. Certainly, all consequences are not open but there is no scientific discovery whose effects would be absolutely evident at once. Cyborgs are an inevitable step towards healthier and smarter humans. Existential problems are universal since the emergence of self-consciousness among the humans. Self-identities are in constant flux since the birth of complex societies, especially since the industrial revolution strengthened alienation. The growth and volume of information flows are not threats to humans as there is no necessity to memorize all the data in the world, and there are multiple network and personal filters which block garbage. The anthropological crisis seems a myth in contemporary Russian-language humanities in general and philosophy in particular.

This publication introduces the preface by Sergey Rachinsky, a profeccor of the Moscow University, to the book of Charles Darwin «On the Origin of Species». Rachinsky is best known in Russia as an educator and the founder of the school in Tatevo, Tver Oblast, and also as a founder of the temperance society in Tatevo. But in his correspondence Rachinsky repeatedly touches on religious and philosophical matters. For example, he gets into an argument with people like Vasily Rozanov and Leo Tolstoy. In addition, Rachinsky left some religious and philosophical works that are still in manuscript. This unpublished work was written in the 1882. Rachinsky touched upon the issues related to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Some of them had been raised before by his famous Russuan contemporaries, such as Nikolay Strakhov, Dmitry Pisarev, Kliment Timiryazev, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. By the time that the preface was written, disputes over Darwin had been going on more than two decades. Disputes were related not only to «On the Origin of Species», but also to Darwin's later works. At the beginning of the preface Rachinsky commends the theory of natural selection which had proposed a general law of classification of living beings. The main body of the preface is devoted to Darwin's attempt to incorporate human into a genealogical tree of animal species. Rachinsky points out that Charles Darwin tried to gather some animal's characteristics and to work out the image not merely of a human being but of a Christian. Rachinsky calls it “a futile exercise”. He indicates that the inner human world has no precedent in the animal kingdom and believes that it is a miracle. Citing the principle of energy conservation as an example, and aims to show that “a miracle” exists in this theory. At the end of the preface author points out that Darwin's theory is applicable in some areas of science and it has no any contradictions with Christianity. He also points out to critics of this thesis that Church poses no restrictions to the exploration of nature.

The review analyzes the collection of works by P. E. Astafiev, a forgotten Russian philosopher, and shows the scale, methodological consistency and theoretical and scientific features of the publication. The collection, prepared and published by the Moscow Heritage Institute, includes not only the landmark writings of the philosopher that were not published after the October Revolution, but also a fundamental article about his works and main ideas, scientifically verified comments and memoirs, as well as obituaries of famous Russian scientists and philosophers dedicated to P. E. Astafiev. Having a complicated structure the collection demonstrates integrity and internal completeness, which is ensured by the deep and systematic exploration of P. E. Astafiev's philosophical heritage by the compilers and commentators. The presented voluminous teaching of P. E. Astafiev clarifies the soul correlation with consciousness, faith, personality, nationality and substantiates that spiritual life of a person is organically and naturally associated with the processes of its awareness and self-knowledge. The most important ideas that develop Astafiev's thesis of the soul as the most precious thing are the ideas that the soul and spiritual life conceal the core of the transformation of a person into a spiritual one and the self-knowledge leads to the acquisition of faith and the knowledge of God. Astafiev's work “Moral Doctrine of L. N. Tolstoy and Its Criticism” significantly corrects the ideas about the evolution of the views of Leo Tolstoy. P. E. Astafiev proceeds from a holistic perception of the entire work of this writer and believes that the basis of his philosophy is anti-personalism, distrust of the individual and its denial, which he consistently reveals in Leo Tolstoy's works, starting with the trilogy. This was, ultimately, the cause of his anti-Orthodox views. In the work “Rebirth of the Word” one can find the most relevant predictions of “the creativity abandoned by the spirit” as a problem of modern culture, and foreseeing that utilitarianism and positivism in relation to the word and creativity lead to the word degradation — to its oversimplification, and loss of the lofty meanings that it contains. It seems that the main ideas of the philosopher, developing and updating the discoveries of Russian philosophy, are extremely relevant today and should become a living, “working” part of modern philosophical and, more broadly, humanitarian knowledge.

Introduction. The article is devoted to the work of a Russian revolutionary, writer and Marxist theorist V. I. Zasulich. The subject of consideration is the historical and philosophical views of the thinker, which are analyzed on the basis of her work on modern idealism and one of its brightest representatives – F. Nietzsche. The purpose of the work is to analyze V. I. Zasulich’s ideas about the philosophy of F. Nietzsche. Theoretical analysis. The works of V. I. Zasulich devoted to the problems of research are highlighted, the thinkers whose views gave rise to her statements about F. Nietzsche are described. In the article, with the help of a systematic analysis, the socio-economic prerequisites of the philosophy of F. Nietzsche are revealed, the social base of his views is indicated, the thoughts of a German philosopher refl ecting the bourgeois worldview are highlighted. Conclusion. The conclusions of V. I. Zasulich are sustained in the spirit of a dialectical-materialistic approach, which is characterized by the allocation of economic conditions and the social base of philosophical views, consideration of the role of ideology in the development of society, the allocation of progressive and regressive trends of this development. However, having no thorough theoretical training, V. I. Zasulich not only does not single out the theoretical sources of the philosophy of F. Nietzsche, but also does not cover all its aspects.

This article analyzes the evolution of Pavel Florensky's teachings about language from the end of the 1910s to the early 1920s in the context of the two lines of influence (Humboldtian–Potebnian and Palamite) on the basis of which this teaching developed. In his reasoning about language, Florensky, proceeding from intuition, declares that there is a rigid connection between the word's sound/phoneme; its morpheme, etymon, and sememe (the given here and now meaning); and its denotate. According to Florensky, this points to the magicism of the word as such. At the beginning of the 1910s, Florensky, having become a participant in the name-glorifying debates, also adhered to the line presupposing a rigid connection between the word's sound (the name, which is applied to God), its meaning, and its denotate. All these lines converged in Florensky's thoughts on the nature of language in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. He turned again to the Humboldtian–Potebnian language scheme but rethought it, speaking of the intentionally charged sememe as the word's inner form. In texts written in the late 1910s and the early 1920s, we single out two aspects of the understanding of the magicism of the word which were key for Florensky, namely the aspect revealed in the discourse of the independent and autonomous existence of words and names and the aspect presupposing the intentionally willed moment in the phenomenon of the magicism of the word. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Book Review

The occasion of the 100th anniversary of I. Kant’s death was a colossal impulse for many researchers of Immanuel Kant’s legacy. One of the goals of the paper is to introduce one of the less known anniversary critical texts, which appeared in the Russian intellectual milieu. It attempts to disrupt the usual approach regarding the interpretation of Bely’s comprehension of Kant’s legacy, i.e., Kant as a skeleton of philosophy or a police officer of thinking. The paper points to a more systematically conceived scale of Bely’s reflections of Kant. From Bely’s point of view, Kant is the author of firm grounds for the shaping of thought. On the unstable background of philosophy, which during the historical development of thought succumbed to erosion, it is Kant’s philosophy that serves as the stabilizing base. Bely tries to highlight that Kant’s epistemology forms distinctively outlined the foundations of a knowledge of the world and philosophical comprehension not only of history but also of symbolism. The symbolism of Andrei Bely.

The purpose of this article is to reveal the life experiences of Nicolai Berdyaev in a paradoxical language that will shed light on how the extraordinary mind world was formed. The main purpose of the study is to reveal how Berdyaev looks from the outside, not how Berdyaev thinks. Thus, we aim to contribute to the better recognition and reading of Berdyaev, who is an important thinker but is not well known in our country. For this purpose, instead of Berdyaev's works and their contents, the mental world of the thinker and the factors that shape it will be emphasized. Berdyaev's world of belief, his exile experience, the problematic structure of philosophy education with formal education, his literary adventure and mental states caused by his in-betweenness are presented to the reader in the form of subtitles. The presentation style in question will focus on where the thinker positions himself rather than where Berdyaev is defined in the institutional and school context. The main reference in these narratives will be the thinker himself. Because of this point of view, it will be our greatest wish for the truth to come to light that what is said about it is less important than what is said about it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the concept of the perfect, a key idea in Lev P. Karsavin's metaphysics that largely determines his understanding of personhood and its ontological status. The associated concept of the perfect person develops throughout the entire philosophical period of the thinker's work, from his Philosophy of History to his treatise "On Perfection," written in the last year of his life in the Abez' camps. In this article, I argue that the concept of perfection is the main structural element in Karsavin's religious–philosophical system, making it ontologically full and complete. I believe the Christian idea of the perfection of man in God, philosophical variations of which Karsavin finds in Nicholas of Cusa's system of total unity and Vladimir Solovyov's idea of Godmanhood, is both the initial intellectual intuition and the ontological premise of the thinker's metaphysical constructions. His religious–philosophical work has a continuity with Russian culture's spiritual tradition, where patristic thought of man considers the ideal to be the spiritual transcendence of the person in his striving toward the Perfect God. This evangelic idea turns out to be the central binding element both of Karsavin's Christian personology and of his metaphysics of history, which is resolved in a metaphysical vein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the evolution of Lev P. Karsavin, the connection between the philosopher's historical perspective and his ontological constructions, his postulation of the personhood principle of being's organization, and the common mindsets of the philosophy of all-unity. The author of this article distinguishes between reflections on the future found in Karsavin's pre-emigration work and the image of the future he creates within the framework of the Eurasianist paradigm. This article presents three variants of representation of the future: the universal, the national-cultural, and the state. The author analyzes the image of the future associated with the coming-to-be of the All-One Humanity, its transformation into a truly symphonic person, and show how this image turns into a concept of the future that affirms the self-development of national culture. The prospect of developing Russia-Eurasia as an ideocratic and statist state that acts as a form of manifestation of the national culture represents the final stage of this evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which author discusses articles on topics inclduing focuses on the Russian philosophy of the Silver Age, but also by recognizing the development of original thought in the Soviet period which tells story Soviet philosophy and its struggle against orthodox Marxism.

This article looks at Lev P. Karsavin's experience with the heritage of early Christian Gnosticism, from his attempts at stylization based on his study of genuine Gnostic texts and his systematic presentation of Gnostic systems in art almanacs published in the Soviet Union, to his perception of Gnosticism as a kind of "other principle" in his original religious–philosophical texts. We show that, following Silver-Age traditions, Karsavin uses myth as a form of philosophical thinking. He teeters on the edge of Gnosticism, applying certain Gnostic concepts, but he generally turns to Gnostic thought only to distinguish it from his own, which he presents as authentic to the Christian tradition. He criticizes both ontological and anthropological postulates of Gnosticism: the hierarchization of intradivine life, the introduction of the cosmic feminine into the bosom of the Divine, the interpretation of the Fall as the kenosis of God in time, and the explanation of the perfect God from the imperfect world, as well as the type of religious personhood that leads to a rupture in theory and personal faith. We examine Karsavin's reception of Gnosticism against the background of interest in Gnosticism in post-revolutionary Russia, as expressed by Kropotkinite anarchists, A. Karelin, V. Murav'ev, Yu. Danzas, and M. Kuzmin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the unique role of Russian intellectual and émigré Lev Platonovich Karsavin (1882–1952) in understanding "Russian communism" as a phenomenon deeply religious in nature. Trained as a historian, specializing in the history of European religiosity, medieval sects, and heresies, the young Karsavin studied the manifold ways in which religious and politics were interwoven. His experience with concrete historical–cultural research helped Karsavin, who became an active figure in Russian Orthodoxy during the First World War, to analyze the origins of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevism. Finding himself in exile in 1922, Karsavin continued actively developing the theme of the "religious" nature of Russian Bolshevism, believing that this was the only path to overcoming it in the future from an Orthodox Christian standpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to analyze Karsavin's theory of revolution in the broader context of a Russian metaphysics of revolution in order to determine the place of Karsavin's phenomenology of revolution both in his work and within Eurasianist ideology. His article "Phenomenology of Revolution" ontologically links two key concepts within Karsavin's understanding: the "symphonic person" and the "ruling stratum." The meaning of revolution consists in leading the symphonic person to a realization of its main tasks, which require the utmost exertion and are related to the very existence of its historical form. This crisis can result in the person's death, but in the death of the old person is born a new individuation of a higher order of personhood for whom that revolution has been a rebirth. If the symphonic person succeeds in "being revived through death or recovery," then this will also be the birth of a new ruling stratum and a new government, that is, its new being as a state. Karsavin thus clarifies the historical functions both of the symphonic person and of the ruling stratum. The latter turns out to be a kind of entelechy of the symphonic person, providing its own personal content to the generic concept. The concept of the ruling stratum is explained in the metaphysical context of the symphonic-person theory. In light of the symphonic person's mission, the ruling stratum is an organic connection among individuals of the active sociocultural segment of the population that has resonated with the spirit of history and the people. In this case, the stratum "rules" along with parties and institutions, eventually passing judgment on them. The main results of Karsavin's work are (1) modeling a developmental phase of revolution and (2) the concept of the ruling stratum, which allows us to avoid formal sociological understanding of the active elite and direct our attention to the connection between personal activity and the "silent" but by no means "sleeping" substrate of the nation that manifests itself in critical epochs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article dedicated to Lev P. Karsavin's creative path, I focus mainly on the evolution of the thinker's religious–philosophical ideas. I consider the reasons that prompted the professional historian to choose the path of a free philosopher, defending an argument about the interrelation of Karsavin's historiosophical ideas and the key provisions of his metaphysics. The article assesses the philosopher's legacy in the context of the problem of Russian religious metaphysics as an independent and significant intellectual tradition that has shaped Russian cultural history among other spiritual–intellectual practices. In denoting the perspective of Karsavin's activity, the author suggests key tasks in studying the philosopher's work. These include, on the one hand, revising the corpus of Karsavin studies, and on the other hand, polemicizing with already existing interpretations of his work in Karsavin studies both in Russia and abroad. This strategy allows the author to conduct reinterpretations of Karsavin's personological, onto-epistemological, and cultural–historical understandings that constitute the theoretical core of his religious metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the main stages of the N.O. Lossky's work on the book "History of Russian Philosophy", starting with the emergence of his interest in the works of Russian philosophers when writing an article for the journal "The Slavonic Review" about Vladimir Solovyov and his followers; preparing lecture courses on Russian philosophy for reading at foreign universities (including lectures on Slavic philosophy delivered at Stanford University in 1933) and ending with the publication of the book in the USA, England and France and his work on the future Russian edition. Particular attention is paid to the debate that arose after the publication of the book in America (1951) in the 50s and unfolds on the pages of American journals. The main claims of American critics (Sidney Hook, John Somerville, George L. Kline, etc.) to the content of the book are the uneven presentation of Russian philosophers teachings, the sketchiness and the absence of representatives of some schools of thought. N.O. Lossky's book also became the subject of discussion in the publications of the Russian migr about Lossky's author's vision statement of the development of Russian philosophy and its specifics. As it follows from the correspondence of N.O. Lossky with D.I. Chizhevsky and with publisher A.S. Kagan, it was also planned to publish the book with additions in Spanish and German publishing houses. Up to and including 1956, N.O. Lossky continued to work on the Russian-language "History of Russian Philosophy", which was given to Russia for publication by his son Boris Nikolaevich Lossky only in the early 90s (it was published in 1994). New materials found in the Paris archive of N.O. Lossky (Lossky's text "Philosophy in Pre-Revolutionary Russia", S. Hook's review "They Looked to the West") complement the debate both about N.O. Lossky's "History of Russian Philosophy", and about the nature of Russian philosophy.

The article provides a historical and philosophical analysis of the deportation of many Russian intellectuals abroad in 1922. It is known that such a vicious deed on the part of the Soviet authorities, in fact, turned out to be an act that saved many Russian intellectuals either from starvation or from repression and death in the camps. It is also widely known that the cultural activities of Russian emigrants after their arrival in the West were varied and intense. The article also emphasizes that expulsion and its significance for the destinies of the country and the emigrants themselves remained a "blank spot" for a long time. It was only in the 1990s that research into the events of the 1922 exile, both in Russia and abroad, started to change. The author draws attention to the fact that the very nature of examination of the expulsion of the Russian intelligentsia has also changed over the years. At the beginning of studies in the 1990s, it was purely archival works aimed at recovering emigrants' cultural heritage and returning "forgotten" names. Over the last decade, we may observe a more critical reading of this heritage, supposing a more precise reconstruction of facts and contexts and a broader analysis of the significance of events in the history of the early 1920s. The study of the various cultural activities of the Russian migr intelligentsia allows us to strike a conversation on Russian philosophy, its peculiarity and originality, the mutual influences of the Russian and European philosophical traditions, and the meaning and significance of Soviet philosophy relevant again.

The article presents the reconstruction of the views of F.M. Dostoevsky and Vl.S. Solovyov on the nature of relations between church and state. A line of mutual influence of thinkers in the context of the perception of Christian truth is drawn. It is shown that Dostoevsky was impressed by a series of lectures by Solovyov's "Readings on God-manhood" and adopted from them the idea of the possibility of religious and moral improvement not only of an individual, but of society as a whole. The article shows that not without the Solovyov's influence Dostoevsky arrives at the Slavophil idea of sobornost and the impossibility of salvation outside of church communion, while speaking of the Church as an ecclesia, that is, an assembly of believers. The author of the article shows that the sophistic and mystical moments in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" appear under direct influence on Dostoevsky's "Readings on God-manhood" and a joint trip of thinkers to the Optina Pustyn monastery. It is also noted that in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" the idea was expressed about the gradual growth of the state into the truth of the Church. Solovyov continued this line within the framework of his project of free theocracy in the 1880s, developing the thought of F.M. Dostoevsky - about the Church as the best social order. At the same time, the article shows the principled position of both thinkers on opposing the ideal of socialism and the idea of the Christian community, within which the term "Russian socialism", formulated in the "Diary of a writer". The author shows that Solovyov in his work "Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky" was the first to explain the term "Russian socialism" precisely through the concept of the Christian community.

Archpriest Pavel Svetlov (1861–1941) is the most prominent representative of Orthodox apologetics in the late 19th — early 20th centuries. He was professor at the University of St. Vladimir in Kiev, a distinguished theologian and essay writer, the author of more than 100 published works and a large number of never-published manuscripts. Until now, his works have not yet become the topic of academic research. This article makes public for the fi rst time several unpublished essays of Pavel Svetlov from his personal archive (1916–1917) which pertain to his understanding of theomachy and atheism as “the religion of deifi ed man” (человекобожество). He believed that this phenomenon is an attempt to elevate and glorify human beings through the “abating” of God. He associated it with the “fashion” for “atheistic humanism” that embraced the European intellectual world. Pavel Svetlov criticised various atheistic conceptions for decades, from the time of his paper on philosophy of religion of L. Feuerbach in 1885. In his later works, he wrote that religiosity is rooted in human nature. Svetlov believed that “absolute” atheism is “almost impossible” for man, so in refusing Christ intelligentsia creates idols such as abstract concepts of ‘human’, ‘humanity’, ‘people’, ‘science’, ‘Communism’. In these manuscripts, as well as in his publications of 1916–1917, Svetlov analyses religious-philosophical quests and “divine creativity” (боготворчество) of the Russian intelligentsia in the early 20th century. He calls Nikolai Berdiaev and Leonid Andreev clear-cut representatives of ‘individualistic theomachy’.

The article is devoted to the work of the Russian revolutionary, writer and Marxist theorist V. I. Zasulich. The subject of consideration is the historical and philosophical views of the thinker, which are analyzed on the basis of her study devoted to the work of J.-J. Rousseau – “Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The experience of characteristics of his social ideas”, which previously remained almost without the attention of researchers. The purpose of the work is to analyze the basic principles of the approach of V. I. Zasulich to the study of philosophical thought: the desire to recreate the historical situation and the mental situation, the focus on the selection of socio-political and ideological determinants of the views of a particular thinker, the selection of unique and innovative thoughts compared to contemporaries and predecessors, the influence of the thinker on contemporaries and descendants. The research methodology is the system analysis, and reconstruction of the works by V. I. Zasulich on the problems of research. The work of V. I. Zasulich is a full-fledged scientific research: it analyzes the works of the thinker, refers to other researchers of his work. It identifies the determinants of the direction of his works, the thinker’s innovation and contribution to philosophy, as well as his influence on the further development of spiritual life, that is, adheres to the Marxist methodology of historical and philosophical research (and largely forms this methodology for Russian scientists).

The article explores the development of the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity in Russian religious thought from the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. This notion of «civilizational» multipolarity suggests that power centers, beyond forming a geopolitical balance, also represent distinct civilizations. During the first half of the 19th century, Russian conservatism was predominantly Eurocentric and semi-colonial. However, in the latter half of the century, Russian religious thinkers began to recognize the plurality of civilizations and their potential to emerge as independent power centers, thereby reevaluating Russia's role in the world. Thinkers like Nikolay Danilevsky, Vladimir Lamansky, and Konstantin Leontyev progressively moved away from a colonial mindset, leading to the crystallization of the idea of «civilizational» multipolarity.At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, thinkers such as Vladimir Gringmut, Lev Tikhomirov, Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, and Sergey Syromyatnikov further advanced these ideas. They identified an «awakening of the East» and advocated for Russia to align with Eastern civilizational powers in anticipation of an imminent world war. Post-1917 revolution, the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity persisted in the Eurasianist thought of the 1920s and 1930s, which is a focal point of this article. Leaders of the Eurasianist movement, such as Prince Nikolay Trubetskoy and Petr Savitsky, developed the doctrine of autarkic «worlds»-civilizations, envisioned as large economic blocs unified by common culture, ideology, and centralized authority. Religious ideas and rhetoric, including the trope of «Babylonian confusion», played a significant role in the Eurasianists' justification of their preferred international order.

The paper analyses Aleksei F. Losev's position in respect to the notion of time, which he considers in a dialectical perspective. The Russian philosopher proceeds from the Platonic interpretation of the relationship between the one and the many, according to which each plurality carries in itself a unifying principle, as its ontological grounding. This anti-modern perspective represents a rejection of the positivist "objectification" of the world, which introduced the "metaphysical" notions of absolute space and time. According to Losev, time as an indefinite continued progress of events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession (from the past, through the present, into the future) does not exist as such and cannot be considered other than within the framework of the overall unity of temporal fragments, so that they acquire a common background. By placing the interpretation of time on the ontological plan, in its dialectical connection with its opposite (eternity), Losev manages to overcome the problem of the measurability of time, raised in Aristotle's definition of time as a "measure of motion." Losev also rejects modern subjectivist ideas about time as an experience of the present (Husserl) or as pure duration (Bergson), both conceptions inevitably leading to the problem of identifying in the continuous flow of time a stable (extratemporal) ground that serves as the basis for any temporal change. Besides that, Losev's approach to the interpretation of time leads to criticism of the modern idea of progress, understood as an endless striving for the future, which always remains unattainable. The main task then is to find "mobile rest," a unifying principle that can give meaning to human existence through the combination of past, present and future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]