Alexander Herzen was the most outstanding figure in the early period of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lenin claimed him as a forerunner of the Bolsheviks, and Soviet scholars have sought to establish his latent sympathy with Marxism. In the west on the other hand, he has been seen as a precursor of Solzhenitsyn, the personification of protest against all forms of oppression. Dr Acton provides a compelling intellectual biography. The focus is on the years between 1847 and 1863. (...) class='Hi'>Herzen's ideas are set in the context of those political developments and dramatic private experiences that affected his outlook. His profound faith in human nature and in the inevitable triumph of socialism was undermined not only by the failure of the revolutions of 1848, but even more deeply by personal catastrophe - the discovery of the infidelity of his beautiful wife Natalie. This dual blow, Dr Acton shows, had a decisive impact upon Herzen's approach to Russian problems. It lay at the root of the ambivalent attitude he adopted towards peasant revolution in the critical period of Emancipation. (shrink)

The philosophy of culture and the philosophy of history were the popular topics of the developing Russian history of philosophy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the following article, A. I. Herzen’s socio-cultural project is examined and compared with the Slavophiles’Christian communal socialism. Herzen’s type of socialism appears to be a specific variant of the Russian national culture as the Slavophiles depicted.

The author discusses Herzen's "liberal socialism" and later adoption of "communal peasant socialism," comparing his views with those of Marx, Engels, and Chernyshevskii. He shows how Herzen and his legacy influenced the evolution and eventual abandonment of populist ideas in Russia.

The author clarifies Herzen's historiosophy—that is, his view of the character and meaning of the historical process.

Philosophy in Russia covers its subject broadly and in detail from the eighteenth century to Lenin and beyond into the post-Stalin period. It offers a continuous history of the development of philosophical thought in Russia, and portraits of individual and influential thinkers. The author devotes careful analysis to radicals such as Bakunin, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Lavrov, and to the Marxists such as Plekhanov and Lenin. He also discusses the thought of writers such as Kireevsky, Leontiev and Solovyev, and examines (...) the philosophically relevant ideas of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. He also discusses Russian thinkers in exile, such as Berdyaev, Frank, N. O. Lossky and Shestov.For historical reasons philosophical thought in Russia has tended to become socially or politically committed thought. To what extent genuine philosophical thought has proved to be compatible with the monopoly enjoyed by Marxism-Leninism in the fields of education and publishing is a crucial question discussed in this authoritative study. (shrink)

The similarities and differences between Herzen and James as humanist theoreticians are very interesting in view of the roles which they played in their respective countries. Radical freedom was important to the theories of each.

The similarities and differences between Herzen and James as humanist theoreticians are very interesting in view of the roles which they played in their respective countries. Radical freedom was important to the theories of each.

The author clarifies the attitudes of Herzen as a Westernizer of a special kind, a consistent liberal and democrat, and a defender of the historical role of the peasant commune.

ZusammenfassungZeit ist in der Geschichtsschreibung der Chirurgie ein bislang kaum behandelter Untersuchungsgegenstand. Dennoch beruhte die Entstehung moderner Operationsverfahren maßgeblich auf der Etablierung kontrollierter Zeitverhältnisse durch die Abstimmung organischer, technischer und organisatorischer Abläufe. Besonders die frühe Herzchirurgie sah sich einem gravierenden Zeitproblem ausgesetzt, welches darin bestand, das Herz lange genug aus dem Kreislauf auszugliedern, um in seinen blutleeren Kammern zu operieren. Dieses Problem lässt sich ins frühe 20. Jahrhundert zurückverfolgen, als Chirurgen wie Ludwig Rehn (1849–1930), Friedrich Trendelenburg (1844–1924) und Alexis Carrel (...) (1873–1944) mit Abklemmungen der großen Gefäße experimentierten. Im Laufe der ersten Jahrhunderthälfte wurden verschiedene Versuche unternommen, die mögliche Zeitspanne der Kreislaufunterbrechung zu verlängern. Beispielsweise entwickelte Arthur W. Meyer (1885–1934) in Berlin chirurgisch-handwerkliche Verfahren, John H. Gibbon Jr. (1903–1973) arbeitete in Boston/philadelphia an der Konstruktion einer Herz-Lungen-Maschine und Wilfred G. Bigelow (1913–2005) experimentierte in Toronto mit der Absenkung der Körpertemperatur. Detailanalysen dieser Versuche verdeutlichen, wie heterogene Dauern, Rhythmen und Geschwindigkeiten in Einklang gebracht werden mussten, um entscheidende Minuten oder gar Sekunden zu gewinnen. Folglich lassen sich wichtige Entwicklungen auf dem Weg zur Chirurgie am offenen Herzen als eine Geschichte chirurgischer Zeit beschreiben. (shrink)

The author examines the nature of Herzen's relationship with Slavophilism in its conflict with Westernism and discusses his incipient religiosity.

Many solemn words were uttered in connection with the Herzen anniversary. The ceremonial feast is long past, and the fires of the celebration have been extinguished. Yet Herzen is for us such a peak of revolutionary thought that it is not too late to write of him even post festum - "after the holiday.".

The article explores common ground shared by Alexander Herzen's `Dilettantism in Science' (1843) and Mikhail Bakhtin's `Towards a Philosophy of the Act' (1919) in the context of the Russian intellectual tradition as a whole. The primary aim is to explore in many ways, perhaps, unlikely affinities between two very different writers in the early stage of their careers. The secondary aim is to explore identifiably `Russian' motifs which may be said to call into question conventional typologies of Russian thought (...) based on the progressive/conservative divide. (shrink)

The article deals with the argument about free will and determinism between A. I. Herzen (1812—70) and his son, the physiologist A. A. Herzen (1839—1906). The topic, sufficiently familiar to Herzen scholars, interests me above all for its relevance to the history of science. The polemics between father and son touched upon such burning questions of the day as materialism in understanding human beings, positivism as scientific methodology, and the relation of the human sciences to the natural (...) sciences. Seeing physiological materialism as a threat to the values he shared, Herzen the father sought to convince his son of the limitations of mechanistic explanation. At first, Herzen had invested his hopes in the human sciences which were then in the course of forming disciplines — psychology, sociology, and history. He believed they would encompass freedom and consciousness, rejected by the natural sciences, as their subject-matter. But, when it had become clear that these disciplines were following the model of the natural sciences, Herzen then abandoned arguments taken from science and turned towards literature. His argument with his son, which was to do with rethinking rationality, was both critical and constructive for the nascent human sciences. (shrink)

The author examines Herzen's political outlook as reflected in his journal Kolokol and discusses his relationships with other revolutionary and reformist Russian thinkers of his time.