A valuable gain of our times is that many fables—true, some of the most terrible ones—have become true stories, and many allegories and metaphors have become almost literal. Take this verse: today we hardly hear in it any poetic convention; everything is the commonplace reality of our age—both its brutishness and its blood, and even the gluing together of its vertebrae after various great breaks. Therefore a clear question is posed; and surely the age is coming to an end and (...) an answer is needed. So then, who was able to do it? Who managed to glue things together? Among the few names and fates that may be given in reply, one of the most indisputable is the name of Aleksei Fedorovich Losev. Yes, he had occasion to do so. (shrink)

The Slavophile idea in the broad sense, as the idea of the self-determination of Russian culture, was by no means born together with historical Slavophilism. It has always been an immanent component of the intellectual world and intellectual development of Russia and merely received its name, a rather random and infelicitous one, from Slavophilism. In our century it has a rich history, in which the majority of events have been of a political and polemical character. They have been much discussed, (...) and now we will leave them aside and take up another task: to delimit and examine the great creative contributions to the idea. Under the closest scrutiny, we find three such contributions: the idea of a Slavic Renaissance, the Eurasian idea, and the idea of a Neopatristic Synthesis. All of them in their outward appearance diverge quite far from the customary textbook image of Slavophilism: [they are] "a series of magical metamorphoses" that show both the creative force of the idea and its well-known amorphousness. Let us try to see in these metamorphoses interrelated episodes that together trace out a graphic image of the whole. Earlier, people loved to view an idea in graphic form and in action, and they knew how to do so. Faddei Zelinskii was a great master of this, and at the beginning of the century he published in Petersburg a series of studies entitled From the Life of Ideas [Iz zhizni idei]. Indeed, it is with Zelinskii that our first episode from the life of the Slavophile idea is associated. (shrink)

Karsavin's social ideas in many respects determined his relation to the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik order. In full accord with his theory of the symphonic person, the broad and mass character of the processes that brought the Bolsheviks to power and enabled them to hold on to it was for Karsavin a sufficient reason to recognize the historical justification of the new order and to expect positive fruits from it. Of course, he never abandoned the standards of Christian ethics (...) in his evaluation of the practice of bolshevism; he was quite harsh in his denunciations of murders and persecutions. Nor did he descend to "Change of Landmarks" capitulationism, stressing more than once: "To understand the truth of what is happening does not mean to 'change landmarks' without qualification and, having lost face, to become appendages of the Communists." Although he was willing to allow, together with the "Change of Landmarks" people, that the Bolsheviks preserved Russia and its statehood from total collapse, he, in contrast to them, firmly asserted that what was needed was not submission to bolshevism but determined quests for a valid strategy to overcome it. Nonetheless, of all our religious thinkers, it was indisputably he who went further than anyone else in accepting and approving Bolshevik policy, who was inclined to believe in the fruitfulness of the Soviet experiment. This far-reaching acceptance was already clearly expressed in a short chapter on revolution that Karsavin appended to his Philosophy of History [Filosofiia istorii]. This acceptance was later intensified and actively defended in articles and public speeches, and it achieved its absolute apogee in the period of the philosopher's participation in the Eurasian movement. (shrink)

The long creative career of Aleksei Fedorovich Losev touches on many different spheres, currents, and traditions of world thought. The greater part of this manifold variety is divided between two major domains of culture: philosophy and classical philology, the study of antiquity. But such a division was by no means an insurmountable barrier for Losev. These two domains were linked together by many threads in his world view and in his work. One of the principal links running through the whole (...) of his creative career was the idea or intuition of total-unity [vseedinstvo], which has occupied both philosophers and investigators of antiquity. That this idea came to Losev was far from accidental. Total-unity is one of the dominant intuitions and pervasive themes of Russian religious-philosophical thought. It is at the center of the most important stage of the latter's development, the stage of the metaphysics of total-unity, with which Losev was intimately associated. And one cannot avoid it even now, either in the study of Losev's legacy or in broader reflections on the paths of Russian thought. (shrink)