This article is dedicated to Nikolai O. Lossky’s intuitivism and personalism and their significance in the context of Russian philosophy. The author demonstrates how Lossky’s study of Russian philosophy influenced his work and allowed him to take a second look at a number of philosophical issues, indicating ways to develop them further. As a result of his research, Lossky discovered ideas close to his own in the works of various other Russian philosophers. Lossky became especially interested in two authors, (...) Vladimir S. Solovyov and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. He created interpretations that examined Solovyov’s philosophy and Dostoevsky’s works from the positions of intuitivism and personalism. The study of Russian thought Lossky undertook in his book History of Russian Philosophy gave him a strong impetus for developing his own philosophical views, which were aimed at bringing philosophy and religion into closer proximity. (shrink)

The paper is an introduction into the concept of intuition and intuitivism in the philosophy of N. O. Lossky, considered as a leading personality of the Russian philosophy of the first half of the XIXth century and who also has been affiliated with Slovakia: in 1941 – 45 he was the chair of the department of philosophy at The Slovak University in Bratislava. Nevertheless, the Slovak philosophers did not succeed yet in coming to terms with his philosophy and that (...) led to many misunderstandings. The background of Lossky’s philosophy was the specific character of Russian intellectual tradition. Among others in his philosophy this tradition reached its zenith. The argumentation of his monistic noetics was based on his belief, that all forms of valid knowledge are an immediate insight of objects in their originals. Due to this character of the theory of knowledge it is possible to preserve the vital, dynamic nature of reality and to conceive of subject as vital, living and creative being. Lossky tries to overcome the cleavage between knowledge and being, so characteristic for modern epistemology and science, by his doctrine of the noetic coordination of the subject and the object as the presupposition of the consciousness and knowing. The being, which determines the process of knowing, is not transcendent to this process, it is rather a part of it. (shrink)

At the beginning of the twentieth century in the Russian-speaking philosophical space philosophical projects emerged which brought ontology and gnoseology closer together. One can observe this process, for example, in the philosophical doctrines of the Russian intuitivists Nikolay Lossky and Semyon Frank. I demonstrate that the emergence of these doctrines and the development of their onto-gnoseological categorial apparatus were mainly connected with the criticism of the Neo-Kantian theory of cognition and the possibility of transcendent knowledge as such. The main sources (...) of my study are The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge and The World as an Organic Whole by N. O. Lossky and The Object of Knowledge and The Unknowable by S. L. Frank. My investigation makes it possible to treat Lossky’s categorial framework as the representation of a system of levels of the universe each of which is characterised by two aspects: the ontological, i.e. it is part of the unity of the world, and the gnoseological, i.e. it has an independent cognitive significance. Frank considers categories to be an organic part of the ontological proof of intuitivism. A common trend in the construction of categorial schemes by Lossky and Frank is their striving to combine gnoseological and ontological descriptions of categories. The key difference is the way an onto-gnoseological system as a whole is justified. In revealing the contradictions in Lossky’s conception, I proceed from the critical remarks of S. A. Askoldov, pointing out that these contradictions stem from an absolutisation of intuition in cognition, the renunciation of the idea of gnoseological transcendence, incompleteness of the theory of immanence and discordance between onto-gnoseological categories. Askoldov’s critical comments clarify the substantive features of Lossky’s theory and the essence of the transformations carried out in Frank’s absolute ideal-realism. (shrink)

The paper offers a discussion of the views of intuitive realists on the philosophy of psychology, which the author sees as related to their respective philosophical conceptions. According to the author there were no responses to the intuitivist interpretation of the psychic phenomena from the side of the psychologists of that time. The responses came, however, from the philosophers S. Felber and I. Hrušovský, who criticized the views of O. Losski and J. Dieška immediately after their being published. The psychology (...) of intuitive realism is voluntaristic, closely related to Losski’s ontology. (shrink)

The paper describes the work of the Czech physician Ctibor Bezděk and his relation to the Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky. The study examines Bezděk’s ethical theories (i.e. ‘ethicotherapy’) which he tried to incorporate into Medicine and focuses particularly on the role of intuition in Bezděk’s approach to Medicine, comparing it with the concepts of intuition and of substantival agents elaborated by Lossky. Lossky’s theories about disease and healing influenced several physicians and psychiatrists, and his work also received support from T.G. (...) Masaryk. Although he has been included among the pioneers of psychotherapy, Bezděk still remains unknown in the Czech Republic. The present study aims to introduce Ctibor Bezděk and his contributions to a wider audience. (shrink)

The author demonstrates that despite of belonging to different philosophical traditions C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky concluded that everything in the Universe is connected by some fundamental acausal principle. This connecting principle cannot be described by means of classical spatial-temporal paradigm. Jung names such principle ‘synchronicity’, Lossky – ‘gnoseological coordination’. According to Jung, synchronicity is a modern interpretation of the ancient idea of sympathy, which is most fully and consistently represented in G.W. Leibniz’s doctrine of the pre-established harmony. The key (...) parameters of synchronicity are its spaceless and timeless nature. This fact, as Jung suggested, allows give a rational explanation of parapsychological phenomena. Like Jung, Lossky relied on Leibniz’s ideas. However, in spite of the fact that the principle of gnoseological coordination also describes the acausal type of connection and makes it possible to explain parapsychological phenomena, its character is somewhat different from synchronicity. As the author shows, these differences are due to the fact that Jung was largely based on Kant's transcendentalism and took into account the difference between thing-in-itself and phenomena, while Lossky consistently stood on intuitivism. -/- В статье демонстрируется, что, несмотря на принадлежность к разным философским традициям, К.Г. Юнг и Н.О. Лосский пришли к похожим выводам об акаузальном характере взаимодействия всего сущего на фундаментальном уровне, который не может быть описан в привычных пространственно-временных параметрах. Для обозначения подобного акаузального вида связи Юнг вводит термин «синхронистичность», Лосский – термин «гносеологическая координация». По мнению Юнга, синхронистичность является современной интерпретацией древней идеи симпатии, которая наиболее полно и последовательно представлена в учении Г.В. Лейбница о принципе предустановленной гармонии. Ключевыми параметрами синхронистичности является её внепространственный и вневременной характер, что, как полагал Юнг, позволяет дать рациональное объяснение парапсихологическим феноменам. Как и Юнг, Лосский во многом опирался на идеи Лейбница. Однако, несмотря на то, что принцип гносеологической координации также описывает акаузальный вид связи и позволяет объяснить парапсихологические феномены, его характер несколько отличается от синхронистичности. Как показывает автор статьи, различия эти обусловлены тем, что Юнг в большей степени основывался на трансцендентализме и дискурсивизме Канта и принимал во внимание различие между вещами в себе и феноменами, в то время как Лосский последовательно выстраивал интуитивистскую систему. В заключении даётся ответ на вопрос, зачем Юнгу и Лосскому потребовалось постулирование акаузальных принципов связи. (shrink)

The Russian intuitivist philosopher Nikolay Lossky repeatedly admitted Kant’s substantial formative influence on him as a scholar. Moreover, Lossky was a disciple of the Russian Kantian Aleksander Vvedensky, and was one of the most successful translators of the first Critique. However, his own philosophical project is rather the opposite of the critical programme. While in the framework of Lossky’s epistemology the specificities of his reading of Kant have received a fair amount of attention in Russian scholarship, in the ethical field (...) the Russian philosopher’s comments on Kant have passed largely unnoticed. My task is to reveal the link between Kant’s practical philosophy and Lossky’s ethics. A demonstration of the degree of Kant’s influence in this field will enlarge and concretise the current thinking about Lossky’s perception of Kant. We are looking at a whole range of parallels and borrowings. My comparative analysis focuses on the following aspects: 1) definition and uses of the term “categorical imperative”, 2) free will as the condition of the possibility of moral action, 3) the cause of moral evil, 4) the role of the idea of God in ethics. As a result, I reveal how Lossky used elements of Kant’s practical philosophy as conceptual, terminological and rhetorical resources in his theonomic ethics, and how the Russian philosopher interpreted them in line with his own doctrine. I argue that Lossky’s use of the Kantian moral terminology is incautious and debatable and point out several intersections of ethical argumentations in the light of its projection on radically different ontological and epistemological principles. (shrink)

This paper concerns the Russian émigrée translator and philosopher Natalie Duddington (1886–1972). By establishing Duddington’s dependence on Nicholas Lossky (1870–1965), the paper argues that Duddington formed a unique synthesis of Russian intuitivism and British realism in her essay ‘Our Knowledge of Other Minds’. Despite the historical significance of Duddington’s work, it will be concluded that her synthesis succumbs to the most recent criticism which has been posed against perceptualists such as Fred Dretske (1932–2013). Russian ‘intuitivism’ is understood here (...) as the school of thought that was first developed by Lossky and subsequently inherited by Duddington. ‘Perceptualism’ will be understood as the broad claim that we perceive the contents of another mind in an immediate way rather than infer them. (shrink)

There is an ancient, yet still lively, debate in moral epistemology about the epistemic significance of disagreement. One of the important questions in that debate is whether, and to what extent, the prevalence and persistence of disagreement between our moral intuitions causes problems for those who seek to rely on intuitions in order to make moral decisions, issue moral judgments, and craft moral theories. Meanwhile, in general epistemology, there is a relatively young, and very lively, debate about the epistemic significance (...) of disagreement. A central question in that debate concerns peer disagreement: When I am confronted with an epistemic peer with whom I disagree, how should my confidence in my beliefs change (if at all)? The disagreement debate in moral epistemology has not been brought into much contact with the disagreement debate in general epistemology (though McGrath [2007] is an important exception). A purpose of this paper is to increase the area of contact between these two debates. In Section 1, I try to clarify the question I want to ask in this paper – this is the question whether we have any reasons to believe what I shall call “anti-intuitivism.” In Section 2, I argue that anti-intuitivism cannot be supported solely by investigating the mechanisms that produce our intuitions. In Section 3, I discuss an anti-intuitivist argument from disagreement which relies on the so-called “Equal Weight View.” In Section 4, I pause to clarify the notion of epistemic parity and to explain how it ought to be understood in the epistemology of moral intuition. In Section 5, I return to the anti-intuitivist argument from disagreement and explain how an apparently-vulnerable premise of that argument may be quite resilient. In Section 6, I introduce a novel objection against the Equal Weight View in order to show how I think we can successfully resist the anti-intuitivist argument from disagreement. (shrink)

Basing itself on the cognitive theory of the modern Canadian philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan, the article conducts a critical appraisal of the notion of intuitive knowledge (ḥads in Arabic) as espoused by the famous medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna). The article shows the ways in which Lonergan’s crucial distinction between the objectivity as the knower’s intelligent grasp of the real and the objectivity as the knower’s critical affirmation of the real, revises the epistemological primacy of intuitivism that (...) is endemic not only to Avicennian thought in particular but also to Aristotelian tradition generally. At the same time, it shows various elements of continuity between Lonergan’s and Avicenna’s analyses of intentional consciousness. It argues that, while Lonergan’s thought revises Avicenna’s lack of attention to the role of one’s further rational affirmation of anything that one has gasped only intuitively, Lonergan’s cognitive theory might conceptually benefit from a number of original Avicennian insights when it comes to one’s experiential and intelligent grasp of the objects of one’s consciousness. (shrink)

The article presents a comparative analysis of the philosophical and aesthetic perspectives of English poet and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky on the issues of the theory of art and cognition. The study highlights the synergies and differences in their conceptions of art, music, imagination, and the interconnectedness of phenomena in the world, demonstrating how the philosophy of art serves as a key component in achieving a holistic understanding of human nature. The article explores Coleridge’s (...) concept of the organic unity of art as a living, evolving entity that transcends individual artistic disciplines. It delves into the poet’s views on the creative process and the role of imagination in shaping artistic expression, emphasizing the significance of his ideas for understanding the role of art in the human experience. Focusing on the unique aspects of Lossky’s philosophical ideas on art, the article argues that Lossky’s views on music are intrinsically linked to his philosophical doctrine of intuitivism. Intuitivism enables direct perception of an object by the knowing subject in its original form, rather than through a copy, symbol, or construction. Lossky’s doctrine distinguishes three modes of intuition (sensual, intellectual, and mystical) and acknowledges two realms: the world and the Superworld (the Kingdom of God). Sensual and intellectual intuition function within the world, while mystical intuition paves the way for a breakthrough into the Superworld (the Kingdom of God). The article demonstrates that music, as a fundamental component of Lossky’s philosophical doctrine, plays a crucial role in enabling a clearer vision of the object by the cognizing subject in its original form, as well as in the complete fulfillment of the missions designated for all three types of intuition. Music is a fundamental element of Lossky’s philosophical doctrine, where the indivisible unity of a musical tone’s properties serves as a symbol of the organic integrity of phenomena in the world. In conclusion, the article emphasizes that a deeper understanding of Coleridge’s and Lossky’s philosophical and aesthetic concepts can provide a transformative outlook on the philosophy of art, fostering interconnectedness among various realms of human creativity and strengthening the continuity of human culture while counteracting destructive forces in the world. (shrink)

The paper is devoted to Nikolay Lossky who was one of the leading Russian philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century. We demonstrate the interrelationship between three aspects of Lossky’s philosophy: realism in the theory of knowledge, hierarchical personalism, and supra-naturalistic concept of evolution. We pay attention to the contemporary relevance of Lossky, and we discuss and critique his ideas in light of those of other philosophers. Lossky acknowledges that the subject interacts with being itself and that knowledge (...) is not a shadow or copy of being. His ontology is based on intuitivism and epistemological optimism. Its main categories are God, as the super-systematic principle, and monads. In Lossky’s metaphysics, the idea of abstract ideal principles of being is quite harmoniously combined with personalism. Lossky’s ontology has strong ethical underpinnings. He considers that values are rooted in being and that the evolution of the world is directed by God towards the good. Lossky elaborates a supra-naturalistic concept of evolution. He extrapolates principles of teleological determination, which are fundamental to human existence, on the underlying levels of the world as a whole. Many trends of modern thought are in tune with Lossky’s philosophy, including a return to metaphysics, panpsychism, Platonism, and the desire to unite the religious worldview with new scientific discoveries. (shrink)

Depending upon their epistemological foundations philosophical systems can be divided into five types: empiricist (Locke), rationalist (Descartes), intuitivist (Bergson), traditionalist (Confucius), and scriptural (Aquinas). In the history of philosophy there were five major waves of scriptural reasoning-Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. In this context Bah ' philosophy represents the sixth wave, and it finds itself in a fruitful dialogue not only with the traditional forms of religious philosophy but also with modern Western thought which is based solely on reason (...) and empirical observation. In this collection the reader will find articles on various aspects of Bah ' philosophy-philosophical anthropology, philosophy of science, philosophy of culture, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of religion, comparative and political philosophy, and, finally, history of philosophy. The authors of those articles-Bah ' and non-Bah ' scholars-reflect global aspirations of this religion by representing diverse countries of the world-USA, Canada, France, Italy, and Sweden. This collection of articles also introduces a Global Faith Book Series which publishes works on various aspects of the Bah ' Faith and globalization. (shrink)

Nikolai Lossky is key to the history of the Husserl-Rezeption in Russia. He was the first to publish a review of the Russian translation of Husserl’s first volume of the Logische Untersuchungen that appeared in 1909. He also published a presentation and criticism of Husserl’s transcendental idealism in 1939. An English translation of both of Lossky’s publications is offered in this volume for the first time. The present paper, which is intended as an introduction to these documents, situates Lossky within (...) the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Husserl in Russia and explains why he is central to it. It also explains what Lossky principally found in Husserl: he saw in the latter’s critique of psychologism support for his own ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Lossky characterizes his ontology as an ideal-realism. According to ideal-realism, both the realm of ideal beings and the realm of real beings are mind-independent. Per his epistemology, which he calls “intuitivism,” real beings are intuited by sensual intuition and ideal beings by intellectual intuition. The realm of ideal beings includes the subrealm of values, which is intuited by axiological intuition. This thoroughly realist conception contrasted sharply with the subjectivist tendencies of the time. So, when Lossky took cognizance of Husserl’s critique of psychologism, he thereupon found an ally in his battle against the various subjectivisms. But, when Husserl took the transcendental idealist turn, Lossky was at the forefront of the backlash against the new direction Husserl wanted to give to phenomenology. (shrink)

One of the important tasks of Marxist ethics at the present stage of its development is research into the principal forms of moral consciousness - values, norms, categories. Combination of sociological with logical and epistemological analysis will make possible a deeper disclosure of the rational content of moral values and the mechanism of their genesis and reproduction, and will show the untenability of the theoretical foundations both of intuitivism and apriorism in bourgeois ethics and of various forms of neopositivism.

Bentham's critical statements on the Declaration of Human Rights of the French revolutionaries are supposed to be merely of historical value, as directed against a dated formulation. Against this, it is argued that the essential point of Bentham's argument is valid against any intuitivist interpretation of human rights (that is, against interpretations that take human rights as ultimate, absolute data) but are agreeable with an interpretation that takes Human Rights to be preferred lines of action that are normally conducive to (...) the greatest general hapiness. (shrink)

The twentieth century Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky was one of the earliest and most important proponents—but also critics—of Bergson’s philosophy in Russia at a time when many Russian philosophers were preoccupied with the same complex of philosophical questions and answers that Bergson was addressing. Thus, if only from the standpoint of intellectual history, Lossky is central to the study of the reception of Bergson in Russia. In this article, I present the principal historical links, points of agreement between Bergson and (...) Lossky, such as their respective anti-Kantianism, intuitivism, ontological realism, vitalism, organicism, Neo-Platonism, as well as their points of disagreement, including some of Lossky’s key criticisms of Bergson, with special emphasis on the issues of intuition, ideal being, substance and change, time, and sensible qualities. This paper is meant as an introduction to the translations of Lossky’s “Heдocтaтки гнoceoлoгiи Бepгcoнa и влiянie иxъ нa eгo мeтaфизикy” (The Defects of Bergson’s Epistemology and Their Consequences on His Metaphysics) (1913) and his review of Bergson’s, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (1932), which are published in the present issue of Studies in East European Thought. (shrink)

The article compares views of C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky on the nature of time, including in the context of contemporary to them physical theories - quantum mechanics by W. Pauli and relativistic physics by A. Einstein. In particular, the author points to the similarity of ideas of both thinkers that the psyche relativizes time not only subjectively, but also objectively. Jung and Lossky provide this statement with a similar empirical basis, for example, the researches of T. Flournoy, as well (...) as similar theoretical arguments by postulating a fundamental acausal principle of the connection of all things, which is better suited for describing psychic and some physical phenomena than the classical causal explanation. In analytical psychology, such a principle is synchronicity, in hierarchical personalism - gnoseological coordination. Both concepts are genetically related to the G.W. Leibniz idea of pre-established harmony, which was reinterpreted by Jung and Lossky through different worldview foundations. Jung in his reasoning relied on the transcendental idealism of I. Kant, the principle of complementarity and the discoveries of quantum mechanics, Lossky - on intuitivism, the principle of subordination and on his own interpretation of Einsteins theories. Jung comes to the conclusion that the psyche has a timeless character, and Lossky comes to the conclusion that it has a super-temporal character. Jungs timelessness indicates the transcendental nature of psyche and the strive to get away from the classical causal explanation, saving it according to the principle of complementarity only to consider the phenomenal side of being and mainly physical processes. One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics Pauli was of the same opinion in general. Because of there is nothing transcendent in hierarchical personalism, Losskys super-temporality is of a strive to find a deeper basis for occurring in time processes, and, according to the principle of subordination, to include time in the hierarchical structure of the universe, prescribing for it a role of one of the two key forms of psychic and psycho-material processes characteristic of a certain stage of being. (shrink)

This is a translation from Bulgarian into English of Nikolai Lossky’s “Razlichniiat smisul na dumata intuitsiia” (“The Different Senses of the Word Intuition”), published in the Sofianite journal Filosofski pregled (Philosophical Review), 1931, year III, book 1, pp. 1–9. In this article, solicited by the journal’s editor-in-chief, the Bulgarian philosopher Dimitar Mihalchev, Lossky surveys the different ways in which the word “intuition” (intuitsiia) has been used throughout the history of philosophy: Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Friedrich Jacobi, Ivan Kireevski, Alexei Khomyakov, (...) Vladimir Solovyov, Bergson, Husserl, and Hans Driesch. Lossky then situates his own use of the word within this philosophical tradition and compares his intuitivism with gnoseologies similar to his own, namely, those of Semyon Frank, Johannes Rehmke, Max Scheler, Paul Linke, Dimitar Mihalchev, the English realists (Samuel Alexander and John Laird), the American realists (Edwin Holt, Walter Marvin, William Montague, Ralph Perry, Walter Pitkin, and Edward Spaulding), and the Neo-Scholastic Josef Gredt. As such, the article makes a valuable addendum to his Obosnovanie intuitivizma (The Foundation of Intuitivism) (1906) and provides a helpful synopsis of his theory of knowledge, which, in accordance with the Russian terminological tradition, he calls “gnoseology”. (shrink)

The absolute self-evidence of consciousness is due to the fact that the object of consciousness is present or immanent in it. We may therefore formulate the absolutely certain starting point of philosophy as follows: knowledge about an object immanent in consciousness is absolutely certain in so far as it is the actual testimony of the object about itself, and does not go beyond that which is present in consciousness. The criterion of the absolute certainty of such knowledge is self evidence, (...) i.e. the fact that it consists entirely of what is present in consciousness. To doubt such knowledge is absurd because it is not a copy of the object, it is not a symbol of it, but simply and directly contains the object itself as known. I designate the act of the immediate contemplation of objects by the term intuition. According to the epistemological theory which I began to work out in 1903 all our trustworthy knowledge is obtained by means of such immediate observation of objects as they are in themselves; I therefore call my theory of knowledge Intuitivism. (shrink)

A significant part of the "struggles" that took place within Czechoslovak interwar thought can be considered to be the criticism that Emanuel Rádl, a representative of the realist approach, led against the supporters of individualism, or the younger philosophical generation, which was gathered around the journal Ruch filosofický. The core of Rádl's critical position is philosophical realism in terms of thought and methodology. Radl's realist position was gradually shaped and developed in the period before and after the First World War, (...) with the turning point being his experience and concern about the effects of Russian thought, which was based on mysticism, intuitivism and idealism. Alongside this was also a defining change in attitude towards Kant's thought, which consisted in emphasising the positive aspect of his rationalism. From this position of post-war realism, Radl proceeded to criticize the alienation, apoliticality and amorality of the philosophy of individualism and the interest of its representatives in the thinking approaches of irrationalism: mysticism, intuitivism and spiritualism. (shrink)

The prominent Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky and his ex-student Nicolai Hartmann shared many metaphysical and epistemological views, and Lossky is likely to have influenced Hartmann in adopting several of them. But, in the case of axiological issues, it appears that Lossky also borrowed from the axiologies of Hartmann and the latter's Cologne colleague, Max Scheler. The links between the theories of values of Scheler and Hartmann have been studied abundantly, but never in relation to Lossky. In this paper, I examine (...) the manifold relationships – similarities, differences, borrowings, criticisms, and possible influences – between Lossky's axiology and those of Scheler and Hartmann on four key interweaving issues: (1) their ontological realism with regards to the objectivity of values, (2) their epistemological theories of the intuition of values, (3) their ontological definitions of "value", i.e., whether values are relations, qualities, essences, powers, meanings, etc., and (4) their theories of the stratification of values. (shrink)

This is a translation from the Russian of Nikolai Lossky’s “Heдocтaтки гнoceoлoгiи Бepгcoнa и влiянie иxъ нa eгo мeтaфизикy” (The Defects of Bergson’s Epistemology and Their Consequences on His Metaphysics), which was published in the journal Boпpocы филocoфiи и пcиxoлoгiи (Questions of Philosophy and Psychology) in 1913. In this article, Lossky criticizes Bergson’s epistemological dualism, which completely separates intuition from reason, and which rejects reason in favor of intuition. For Bergson, reality is continuous, indivisible, fluid, etc., and reason distorts it (...) through its acts of division, abstraction, extraction, and so on. Lossky argues that this conclusion does not follow. Reason does not distort the living flow of reality; it rather provides a window unto aspects of the otherwise undivided seamless flowing organic whole. In fact, reason is itself a species of intuition in its own right, namely an intellectual intuition, the object of which is the atemporal facet of the world (the Platonic ideal realm), which is necessary for the existence of its temporal facet. Lossky thus challenges Bergson’s one-sided and self-defeating reduction of being to a flux of changes devoid of changing things. (Frédéric Tremblay). (shrink)

This is a review of: Николай Онуфриевич Лосский, под редакцией В. П. Филатова, Москва: Росспэн (Серия "Философия России первой половины ХХ века"), 2016. It describes and appraises the content of this collection of nineteen articles on the life and thought of the prominent twentieth century Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky. The volume, edited by Vladimir Filatov, presents the reader with an analysis of Lossky's philosophical legacy, including such aspects of his thought as his intuitivism, his personalism, his relation to phenomenology, (...) his narrative of the history of Russian philosophy, and so on. Lossky is also compared to other Russian philosophers (Shpet, Frank) and his legacy in other countries (Poland, Slovakia) is examined. The authors are Piama Gaidenko, Frances Nethercott, Albert Novikov, Victor Molchanov, Vitaly Lechtzer, Tatiana Shchedrina, Irina Beshkareva, Anatoly Pushkarsky, Elena Serdyukova, Vasily Vanchugov, Irina Blauberg, Roman Granin, Varvara Popova, Evgeny Babosov, Teresa Obolevich, Zlatica Plašienková, Oleg Ermichin, Alexander Podoxenov, Alexander Opalev, and Vladimir Schultz. (shrink)

The book under review is a translation of a monograph written in Czech entitled Nikolaj Losskij: Obhájce mystické intuice, published in 2011. As a theologian, the author is above all interested in the spiritual and theological aspects of Lossky’s thought. The first two chapters are concerned with Lossky’s life and work before and during his years in Czechoslovakia. The third chapter is devoted to the analysis and interpretation of Lossky’s booklet Mystical Intuition published in English in 1938, wherein Lossky presents (...) his theory of mystical intuition, as opposed to his theories of sensory and intellectual intuition. The last chapter is about Lossky’s conception of the self and of society, his interpretation of Dostoevsky, his theory of reincarnation, and his relationship with Ctibor Bezděk, who applied Lossky’s philosophy to medical practice. Since the book was written by a Czech author who has insider-knowledge of the literature written in Czecho-Slovak, most interesting for the reader unacquainted with this family of languages is the discussion of Lossky’s relationships—personal and intellectual—with Czech and Slovak philosophers such as Tomáš Masaryk, Ferdinand Pelikán, Vladimír Hoppe, Ctibor Bezděk, and Igor Hrušovský, as well as the discussion of Lossky’s publications in Czech. Given that the latter aspects are what is truly unique to this book and novel in the Anglophone literature on Lossky, this is what I focus on in this review. (shrink)