The subject of this research is the philosophy of history of Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev as the founder of “Russian idea”, the problematic of which was principal in reasoning of the representatives of the Russian sociopolitical thought regarding the place of Russia in world civilization, its sociocultural and national identity. Alongside the assessments of the vector of Russian history as a whole and its separate stages, the subject of the analysis is also the character of author’s discourse, which united the (...) perception of history as the synthesis of historical narrative and philosophy of history, fine intuition, and rational analysis. Methodology of research of Chaadayev’s works as the most remarkable representative of Christian historicism suggest the application of interdisciplinary approach, principles of intellectual history, comparative culturology, and retrospective political science. The scientific novelty is defined by specification of the stages of creative evolution of P. Y. Chaadayev, conclusion on similarity of the worldview and theoretical-methodological basis of the delegates of two movements of the “Russian Europeanism” represented by the Westernizers and Slavophiles. Accent is made on the difference of the heuristic value of methodology of P. Y. Chaadayev’s history for the assessment of historical fates of the European and Russian people. (shrink)

Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadaev (1794–1856) declared Russia to be a non-place in both space and time, a singular nothingness without history, topos, or footing, without relation or attachment to the world-historical tradition culminating in Christian-European modernity. This paper recovers Chaadaev’s conception of nothingness as that which, unbound by tradition, constitutes a total, even revolutionary ungrounding of the world-whole. Working with and through Chaadaev’s key writings, we trace his articulation of immanent nothingness or the void of the Real as completely (...) emptying out the mechanisms of history and tradition, thereby putting also into question the basic conceptual machinery of modernity. Chaadaev’s position appears, as a result, not only as a neglected genealogical element to contemporary critiques of modernity and its logic of reproduction through tradition and futurity but also as a contribution to the ongoing critical rethinking of this logic in contemporary theory. (shrink)

The purpose of the article is to study the creative heritage of A. Pushkin and P. Chaadaev as catalysts of historiosophical reflections on the fate of Russia, which later took shape in the circles of Westernizers and Slavophiles. By comparing the positions of Pushkin and Chaadaev, the author finds out the reasons and consequences of the emergence and strengthening of the Uvarov ideological construction "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality", which is still the main identifying principle of Russian thought. Study of theses of (...) Pushkin and Chaadaev in relation to Russia; its attitude to Europe; the opposition of Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism gives reason to consider the general goal of the Russian autocracy through the dialogue of Russian thinkers. (shrink)

모리스의 생태적 사유의 출발은 19세기 사회적 상황과 관련 있다. 그의 사유는 당시의 산업혁명의 결과로 나타난 사회적 부조리에 기초한다. 삶의 환경이 악화되고 공장에서 대량 생산되는 생산품은 규격화되고 형편없는 품질의 제품들이었다. 따라서 그는 기계로 생산되는 제품을 부정하고 인간의 솜씨를 통한 창의적인 제작과정으로 생산되는 제품이 아름답다고 주장한다. 이것은 그가 주목했던 도시의 미관과 도시 생활자들의 열악한 생활환경에 대한 우려와 관심에서 비롯되었다. 보건위생의 악화는 도시화의 결과였고 이것은 산업혁명에 의한 산업화의 부작용이기도 했다. 도시화에 따른 보건 위생, 생태적 위기, 근대 건축물의 등장은 모리스로 하여금 자본주의 체계가 야기한 (...) 생태 문제들을 정확하게 깨닫도록 하였다.BR 모리스의 생태적 사유는 사회의 미적 질을 개선하기 위해 사람들에게 사고의 전환을 요청한다. 그의 이러한 생각은 러스킨(John Ruskin)의 자본주의 문명에 대한 비판과 크로포트킨(Pyotr A. Kropotkin)의 공산주의 이념으로부터 영향을 받은 것이다. 그는 동시대의 사상가들로부터 자신의 이론을 구축하는 바탕을 마련하였고 예술로 사회의 변화가 가능하다는 자신의 신념과 생태적 사유를 결합한다. 이 신념은 미적 가치를 개선하고 미적인 삶의 회복을 지향한다. 모리스는 생태 위기 극복을 위한 인문학적 접근에서 생태와 환경 철학적, 미학적 가치를 규명하는데 노력했다. 나아가 자연과 공존하는 지속가능한 사회를 위한 실천 활동도 함께 했다. 그의 대표적인 활동은 런던의 에핑(Epping) 숲의 벌목을 막아내고 숲을 온전한 모습으로 보존하였던 일이다. 이처럼 모리스는 자연보호 정책에 있어서도 통찰력 있는 중요한 인물로 평가되고 있다. (shrink)

This essay is a translated excerpt from the first volume of Solzhenitsyn’s controversial history of Russian-Jewish relations, Dvesti let vmeste: 1795 – 1995, which was first published in Russian in 2001 and 2002. Solzhenitsyn writes from explicitly nationalist positions, ascribing defined identities and “fates” to disparate peoples, and seeks to offer a “two-sided and equitable” account of the “sins” and historical “guilt” of both Russians and Jews. He seeks to establish “mutually accessible and benevolent paths along which Russian-Jewish relations may (...) proceed” on the basis of an honest and full accounting of history. In this excerpt he treats the immediate prerevolutionary period of the early twentieth century, drawing on the writings of a number of prominent commentators of that period, both Jewish and Russian. He argues that a combination of, on the one hand, the investments of the progressive Russian intelligentsia in atonement for anti-Semitic policies and social violence, and, on the other, Jewish assimilation to Russian cultural life led to an identification of Jews with revolutionary and anti-tsarist culture. Among the figures treated here by Solzhenitsyn are Vladimir Jabotinsky, Lev Tolstoi, Nikolai Berdiaev, and Pyotr Struve. (shrink)

Anarchists get a bad rap. More often than not, TV shows, comic‐books, videogames and sometimes even serious journalism portray anarchists as lazy work‐shirkers or as cartoonish evil villains, hell‐bent on causing chaos for chaos's sake. Unfortunately, the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender is not immune to this habit. Book Three of Avatar: The Legend of Korra even features an antagonist, Zaheer, who is nominally an anarchist. Anarchists would never jealously guard knowledge in a personal library, like the owl spirit (...) Wan Shi Tong. Anarchism involves a radical commitment to democracy‐sharing power and an opposition to unjust hierarchies. Anarchism also involves a way of looking at human beings and human interaction. This perspective is encapsulated in the anarchist principle “mutual aid,” which is often ascribed to the Russian biologist and philosopher Pyotr Kropotin. (shrink)

I detect a specific attitude to Byzantium (“the Byzantine Enlightenment”) in Ivan Kireevsky’ Slavophile article “On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe” (1852). I qualify this attitude as Byzantinocentrism. I take that as a focal point and, against this background, consider the image of Byzantium in Kireevsky and some thinkers of his social circle. It allows me to trace the most important lines of attitudes to Byzantium in the Russian historiosophical literature and opinion journalism of the nineteenth century. I detect (...) two opposite lines in perceiving Byzantium in Kireevsky’s early social circle: the anti- and pro-Byzantine ones. The first line goes back to an anti-Byzantine message, characteristic of the epoch of Enlightenment. It found its manifestation in G. W. F. Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History. I point to the traces of the implicit polemics with Hegel’s anti-byzantinism in Kireevsky and identify the context of these polemics in Arist Kunick. As well, I outline how these lines worked in Pyotr Chaadaev and Alexander Pushkin. Then I distinguish between how the image of Byzantium was presented, first, in Kireevsky’s earlier Slavophile article “On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe” and, second, in his last article “On the Necessity and Possibility of the new Foundations for Philosophy” (1856). In the latter article, which sees Byzantium as bipolar, I find another view on Byzantium. I suggest that this view on Byzantium as a bipolar entity goes back to Alexey Khomyakov’s Semiramis. My point is that this difference in the views on Byzantium is paradigmatic and it reflects a division that was present in the Russian Slavophile-conservative milieu of that time. I suggest that this division stands behind another division within the same milieu, which was politically oriented, the one in relation to the Greek-Bulgarian ecclesiastical question. I analyze how both monopolar (Byzantinocentric) and bipolar views on Byzantium were reflected in the Greek-Bulgarian question as it was considered by Alexey Khomyakov and Terty Filippov. I find a context for developing Kireevsky’s attitude towards Byzantium in François Guizot’s historiosophic scheme as well. (shrink)

The article provides proof that the concept of time articulated in Russian philosophy of the nineteenth century was very close to the understanding of time in the philosophy of Henri Bergson. This explains the close attention of Russian culture to the philosophical system of the French thinker at the beginning of the twentieth century. It also allows us to hypothesize about the possible influence of the ideas of Russian philosophers of the late nineteenth century on Bergson. Bergson’s most original idea (...) is the recognition of the metaphysical primacy of the subjective, inner time of the human in relation to physical time. In physical time, only the moment of the present has real existence; in internal time, designated by Bergson as duration, all moments of the past are preserved as real, and this is expressed by memory. Internal time turns out to be the spiritual Absolute from which the entire material world originates. A very similar metaphysical concept is presented in Pyotr Chaadaev’s Philosophical Letters. According to Chaadaev, each person is directly involved in the spiritual Absolute, which has the characteristic of integral time. In this time, all moments are in unity, and there is no division into the past, present, and future; this division arises only in the time intrinsic to the material reality that originates from the spiritual Absolute. In the religious teaching of Leo Tolstoy, personality is defined as the appearance of God within the limits of material existence, so a person is simultaneously involved in the earthly physical time and absolute time, which manifests itself through memory. The article concludes that Bergson’s ideas determined the most important features of Russian avant-garde culture of the twentieth century; in particular, thanks to them, the opposite trends of Russian thought were brought to unity: metaphysics of pan-unity and personalism. (shrink)

What does the Soviet record tell us about the viability, effectiveness, and efficiency of socialism? There are several questions that arise if one examines the Soviet experience, in addition to the comparative systems aspect. One question relates to the impact of the experience of the Soviet Union on theories of socialism, and also vice versa: the impact and relevance of socialist theory in assessing the Soviet system. Then there is the important issue of the role of specifically Soviet- Russian circumstances: (...) traditions, political culture, and work ethic. A poet, Voloshin, wrote, “ Velikii Pyotr byl pervyi bolshevik ”. The eminent philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also remarked that “Peter's methods were purely bolshevik.” Leftists of a Trotskyist persuasion argue that the Soviet Union under Stalin took the wrong turn, that the Soviet Union is not socialist at all, that it is “state capitalist” – run by a “new bourgeoisie,” a bureaucratic ruling class—and continue to manufacture other variants on this theme.While official Soviet ideology claims that the U.S.S.R. is socialist and is following the principles laid down by Marx and Lenin, this can be questioned. One can indeed show that many aspects of the Soviet economic and political scene are at variance with the anticipations of Marx and of Lenin. But from this, one need not draw the conclusion that there was a “revolution betrayed,” but rather that some of these anticipations were unreal or unrealizable. (shrink)

In the article, for the first time, a comparative analysis of the creative biographies of Kyiv thinkers, pupils and teachers of the Kyiv Theological Academy (1819–1924), Pyotr Kudryavtsev (1868–1940) and Vasyl Ekzemplyarskyi (1875–1933) was carried out. The educational, cultural and historical background of the formation of religious-philosophical and religious-publicist views of Kyiv philosophers is reproduced, the common origin of their creative intuitions is shown. The main similar research ideas, topics and directions of their scientific and educational activity are revealed. (...) The similarity in the interpretation of one of the core ideas of their work – the Christian idea of the kingdom of God – is shown. The origin of this idea in the philosophical worldview of thinkers is admitted, the significance of this idea in their ethical and historicalphilosophical heritage is demonstrated. Both thinkers have distinctly similar interpretations of the themes of religious journalism, the core of which are: religious revival, the relationship between politics and religion and politics and morality, state-church relations in the Russian state, ways of church reformation. The inseparable unity of their philosophical and worldview foundations, theoretical principles with life, the practical implementation of the ideas advocated by the thinkers, which allowed them to preserve the integrity and organicity of their own personality, is shown. It was also demonstrated the importance for the development of philosophical thought of the unique communicative space created by Kyiv academic philosophers, the atmosphere of lively communication, within which similar philosophical and worldview intuitions, value-meaning principles and life guidelines were developed. (shrink)

The article is about the problem of evil in the work of Fyodor Dostoyevsky on the basis of an analysis of the behavior of Pyotr Verkhovensky, the hero of the Demons. The aim of the analysis will be to show that Pyotr Verkhovensky, as a human, broke and trampled all the ideals and laws that people should follow. He turned the concept of good and bad around to use them for his own evil purposes. The author will show (...) that the hero of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel consciously turned away from the Christian values of goodness, love and truth in order to devote himself to evil and introduce a new moral order in Russia in the name of socialism. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel, Demons, was used as the source material. The analysis used the statements of researchers dealing with the work of Dostoyevsky, both Russian and Polish. The collected research material allowed for an in-depth analysis that confirmed the thesis that Pyotr Verkhovensky is not to be forgiven because he is unrepentant about the wrongs he has committed, and he does not want to correct himself. Using the hermeneutic method, the author showed that Pyotr Verkhovensky does not deserve forgiveness, because he does not feel responsible for the crimes committed and does not show any remorse. He does not realize his guilt and the necessity of punishment. It is this state of consciousness, and not only his criminal deeds, that distinguishes him from other heroes. The conducted analysis and the collected material proves that all his ideas and actions are illusions, as they are not rooted in ontological or axiological truth. His mind and soul are plunged into a falsehood that creates chaos, and all his actions resulted from the evil within him of a demonic nature. However, there is hope for salvation for Pyotr Verkhovensky, but first he must confess his guilt and accept the punishment. (shrink)

This paper examines the relation between the problem of human nature and political theory; it is claimed that every such theory is founded on some anthropological preconditions. The paper studies the political conceptions of four modern philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Pyotr Kropotkin. It reveals that two opposing tendencies form the imaginary of the modern era: the authoritative one that identifies an egoistic/ unsociable human nature that needs control, and the libertarian one that recognizes a human (...) being capable of more advanced types of social fabric. The problem that is also investigated is how anthropological dualism can be transcended to permit the conception of a new anthropological type as well as the type of society that will help human potentiality of consciousness and coexistence to unfold. (shrink)