The Russian philosopher and cultural theorist Mikhail Bakhtin has traditionally been seen as the leading figure in the group of intellectuals known as the Bakhtin Circle. The writings of other members of the Circle are considered much less important than his work, while Bakhtin's achievement has been exaggerated in proportion to the downgrading of the thinkers with whom he associated in the 1920s. This volume, which includes new translations and studies of the work of the most important members of (...) the Circle, sets out to correct the distortions in the established representations of its activity. The original contributions to literary and linguistic theory made by Valentin Voloshinov and Pavel Medvedev (but frequently credited to Bakhtin) are assessed, and the distinctiveness of their approaches is highlighted. (shrink)

Understanding the differences between scientific approaches to cybernetics is difficult because of the very different histories and intellectual traditions in Russia and the West, i.e. the U.S. and Europe. This paper, firstly, describes the peculiarities of the Russian style of scientific thinking, considering as an example Alexander Bogdanov’s theory in context of the Russian intellectual tradition. Secondly, the paper compares Vladimir E. Lepskiy’s and Stuart A. Umpleby’s theories of cybernetics looking at them through the prism (...) of Russian and American intellectual traditions. Western cybernetics of the second order includes biological and social versions. It arose from “experimental epistemology.” The goal was to understand the processes of cognition on the basis of neurophysiological experiments, as a result of which cyberneticians came to the conclusion that the observer cannot be excluded from science. Biological cybernetics is concerned with how the brain creates descriptions of the world. Little attention is paid to the world since it already is included in the perceptions of the observer. Social cybernetics is concerned with how people act in the world. Theories or descriptions are thought to be less important than appropriate actions. The Russian interpretation of second-order cybernetics develops its social version. The paper concludes that the differences described demonstrate the great potential for ideas from Russian and Western scientists to enrich further development of cybernetics and science in East and West. (shrink)

This chapter provides a historical overview of the Russian intellectual tradition from the Kievan Rus’ to the end of the Soviet period. It argues that the interrelation of philosophical thought with literature, social theory, and art constitutes the most important peculiarity of this tradition, which distinguishes it from the majority of Western philosophical and cultural traditions. This chapter also describes the scope and goals of this Handbook.

Milestones was a manifesto of rightwing, anti-revolutionary liberalism, according to which the political events of 1905 should have officially concluded the intelligentsia’s battle against autocracy and inaugurated the intelligentsia’s cooperation with Russia’s “historical rulers” to turn the country into an economically and culturally strong “state of law.” All the Milestones ’ authors agreed that Russia’s intellectual history was not identical with the traditions of the radical intelligentsia, and that there was need for a new intellectual canon focused on (...) religious thought and efforts to define the Russian national identity. (shrink)

This article demonstrates the unique role of the Russian philosophical tradition in the formation of an individual’s self-consciousness and attempts to overcome the limitati...

I attempt to answer thequestion about the place of Eurasianism in theRussian intellectual tradition. I reconstructits historiosophical assumptions as well thepolitical ideology following from them. I sharethe opinion of certain historians thatEurasianism is interesting for a variety ofreasons, but I disagree with those who see init nothing more than a synthesis of standardideas often found in the history of Russianthought. Eurasianism''s originality includes itsacknowledgment of the positive contribution ofthe Mongols to the history of the Russianstate, the radicalism of (...) its critique of theWest, the innovativeness of its theory ofrevolution, as well as the absence, unusual forRussian thinkers of the period, of aneschatological sensitivity. (shrink)

The Afterword reevaluates Isaiah Berlin’s highly influential collection of essays, Russian Thinkers, and suggests that some of Berlin’s views are either somewhat dated or tendentious. It sketches out a new vision of the Russian intellectual tradition as perceived from the twenty-first-century Anglophone perspective.

Intellectual experiences of Russian philosophers of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries devoted to Russia demonstrate the intensive work of national self – knowledge. The concentration of thinkers on a certain range of topics, such as freedom and revolution, the state and society, culture and politics, religion and ideology, indicates a high density and polemical intensity of discussion. The thematic focus of Russian thought on national and cultural issues creates an end-to-end narrative with an (...) open structure, where texts are dialogically intertwined with each other. These statements often indicate a value and ideological conflict between various actors in the social history of Russia. This historiosophical narrative can be interpreted as a meta-text of Russian social and religious-philosophical thought, which in many senses is the practice of self-description of the national intelligentsia. It testifies to her spiritual and ideological quest, the struggle for a social ideal – about the moral choice of thinking Russian people, which encourages criticism of the historical experience of Russia. The main problem of this pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary discourse is the question of the moral and political responsibility of the educated class for the historical choice of Russia and its fate. The most important from a historical and philosophical point of view texts are the works of Russian Silver Age thinkers. Their arguments about Russia include both a reaction to the events of the three Russian revolutions and the Great War, which traumatized the consciousness of the intelligentsia, and a painful post-traumatic reception of their own intellectual tradition and the moral deformation of ideals that took place in it. Those ideals based on the idea of freedom and philosophical honesty in achieving the truth. (shrink)

This paper considers the views of Alexander Dugin, a leading proponent of Eurasianism in contemporary Russia. The point of his teaching is the preservation of the traditional social/cultural make-up of each civilization. He also believes that the Russian Slavs together with the minorities of the Russian Federation constitute a quasi-unity of Eurasian civilization. He emphasizes that globalism, led by the USA, is a mortal threat to the cultural identity of Russia/Eurasia and all other civilizations. For this reason the (...) USA and Russia are locked in mortal conflict with one other. At the outset of his intellectual career, in post-Soviet Russia, Dugin believed that Putin would follow the Eurasian road. It would be wrong to see Dugin as an intellectual guru at the head of the post-Soviet elite. Still, his views are important, for they indicate the kinds of ideas that circulate in the minds of the Russian elite. (shrink)

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)

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. (shrink)

The paper compares two intellectual traditions, that is, psychoanalysis and Russian philosophy. As a result, it demonstrates the kinship of the main methodological principles of both of these two trends of thinking in twentieth century. First, a psychoanalytic image of the Russian type of cognition is set - this is an existentially loaded experience of asking the truth, carried out by a person from the people. In culture, this image is presented as an agent of truth, usually (...) in need. The following demonstrates the attitude to this image in the work and personal way of knowing N.A. Berdyaev. In this part of the article, a psychoanalytic study of the work of the Russian philosopher is done. In particular, the neurotic nature of N. Berdyaevs letter, which is expressed in the excessive emotionality of the text and the prophetic emphasis, which sets the tone throughout his work, is noted. The main part of the article is devoted to the analysis of the intuitive-symbolic method of working with consciousness in the psychoanalysis of Freud and the philosophy of Berdyaev. Here the author emphasizes the practical side of the psychoanalysis and to how an emotionally and bodily tinted meaning arises in that context. This phenomenological reconstruction allows us to draw a parallel with what constitutes a symbol in the tradition of Russian religious thought, which also notes the experienced nature of the work of obtaining the meaning of a symbolic utterance. In this perspective, the author conducts a hermeneutic reconstruction of the continuity of the method of these two traditions from mystical Christian theology, in which the knowledge of God is understood as a passionately lived experience of communication with the Other, which occupies the status of a lover. This article represents the initial stage of a more detailed study of the relationship between psychoanalysis and Russian philosophy. (shrink)

This groundbreaking work by one of the world's foremost theoreticians of Russian literature, culture, and thought gives for the first time an extensive and detailed examination of the development of Russian thought during the late Soviet period. Countering the traditional view of an intellectual wilderness under the Soviet regime, Mikhail Epstein offers a systematic account of Russian thought in the second half of the 20th century. In doing so, he provides new insights into previously ignored areas (...) such as Russian liberalism, personalism, structuralism, neo-rationalism, and culturology. Epstein shows how Russian philosophy and culture has long been trapped in an intellectual prison of its own making as it sought to create its own utopia. However, he demonstrates that it is time to reappraise Russian philosophical thought and cultural theory, now freed from the bonds of totalitarianism. We are left with not only a new and exciting interpretation of Russian thought, but also an opportunity to rethink our own intellectual heritage. (shrink)

Liberalism in Russia is one of the most complex, multifaced and, indeed, controversial phenomena in the history of political thought. Values and practices traditionally associated with Western liberalism—such as individual freedom, property rights, or the rule of law—have often emerged ambiguously in the Russian historical experience through different dimensions and combinations. Economic and political liberalism have often appeared disjointed, and liberal projects have been shaped by local circumstances, evolved in response to secular challenges and developed within often rapidly-changing institutional (...) and international settings. This third volume of the Reset DOC “Russia Workshop” collects a selection of the Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism conference proceedings, providing a broad set of insights into the Russian liberal experience through a dialogue between past and present, and intellectual and empirical contextualization, involving historians, jurists, political scientists and theorists. The first part focuses on the Imperial period, analyzing the political philosophy and peculiarities of pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, its relations with the rule of law, and its institutionalization within the Constitutional Democratic Party. The second part focuses on Soviet times, when liberal undercurrents emerged under the surface of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology. After Stalin’s death, the “thaw intelligentsia” of Soviet dissidents and human rights defenders represented a new liberal dimension in late Soviet history, while the reforms of Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” became a substitute for liberalism in the final decade of the USSR. The third part focuses on the “time of troubles” under the Yeltsin presidency, and assesses the impact of liberal values and ethics, the bureaucratic difficulties in adapting to change, and the paradoxes of liberal reforms during the transition to post-Soviet Russia. Despite Russian liberals having begun to draw lessons from previous failures, their project was severely challenged by the rise of Vladimir Putin. Hence, the fourth part focuses on the 2000s, when the liberal alternative in Russian politics confronted the ascendance of Putin, surviving in parts of Russian culture and in the mindset of technocrats and “system liberals”. Today, however, the Russian liberal project faces the limits of reform cycles of public administration, suffers from a lack of federalist attitude in politics and is externally challenged from an illiberal world order. All this asks us to consider: what is the likelihood of a “reboot” of Russian liberalism? (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 62.2 (2001) 335-358 [Access article in PDF] Between East and West: Hegel and the Origins of the Russian Dilemma Ana Siljak Nikolai Berdiaev, the eminent twentieth-century Russian philosopher, wrote that the "problem of East and West" was an "eternal" one for Russia. 1 Attempting to make sense of the violent upheavals that shook Russia in 1917, Berdiaev believed that the source (...) of Russian troubles lay in the "inconsistency of the Russian spirit" due to the "conflict of the Eastern and Western elements in her." 2 Russia, he argued, always contained within its wide territory an invisible and shifting border between two continents, and thus Russian society was forever torn between two cultures. Berdiaev insisted that Russia could not discover its true calling or its place in the world until it resolved its internal conflict between East and West. 3Berdiaev was contemplating the course of the nineteenth century, when Russia's geographical destiny had deeply troubled Russian intellectuals. In the late 1830s Russian thinkers began their minute analyses of cultural and historical sources, hoping to determine the essential character of their nation and believing that their research would enable them to predict Russia's future. Often, diverse questions of progress and stagnation, tradition and innovation, and the individual and society were all framed within this overarching problem of East versus West.It is tempting to see this Russian dilemma as longstanding and natural, given Russia's position between two continents. Indeed, many recent scholars have argued that Russian encounters with Asia, taking place within the framework of Russia's territorial expansion eastward, forced Russians to examine their relationships [End Page 335] with the Eastern, Asian world. 4 It is true that European geographers and historians have debated the location of the border between Asia and Europe since the Middle Ages. But before the nineteenth century this ambiguity hardly troubled Russian minds. The Muscovite state of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example, was well acquainted with cultures and lands to its East, engaging in trade and diplomatic relations with Muslim Tatars and others. Yet there is little evidence to suggest that Muscovy was concerned about its position between Eastern and Western countries. 5 Even Peter the Great, whom historians have credited for bringing European customs into Russia, was little concerned with the European/Asian divide in Russian culture. For him the most important geographical question was Russia's place among the northern states, and he was particularly obsessed with Sweden as Russia's primary military rival. 6After Peter's reign, educated Russians, as they became increasingly acquainted with Western European culture, experienced their first pangs of envy and self-doubt in the face of perceived European superiority. Nonetheless, throughout the eighteenth century few cultured Russians had trouble embracing a diverse historical legacy and national character--German, Slavic, Asian. After all, Europeans themselves were proud of their barbarian past. Peter the Great's chief historian, V. N. Tatishchev, wrote with full confidence and little concern that the Russian empire was located "in both Europe and Asia," noting that though more Russian people lived in Europe, Russia had more territory in Asia. In passing he mentioned that "where the border between these two large and most important cultures is located, no one has as yet determined for certain." 7 According to him, the Slavic people as a whole could be divided into Asian and European branches, thus both cultures were of importance in Russian history. 8The first of the great nineteenth-century Russian historians, Nikolai Karamzin, was proud of Russia's diverse heritage. Russia, he wrote, [End Page 336] raising its head between the Asiatic and European kingdoms, represented within its civic life the characteristics of these two parts of the world: a mixture of old Eastern customs, brought by the Slavs into Europe and renewed, so to speak, by our long connection with the Mongols; Byzantine customs borrowed by the Russians along with the Christian religion, and some German customs imparted by the Varangians.... 9This cultural "mixture... (shrink)

The development of Russian culture predetermined three propensities which form the intellectual framework of Russian national philosophy—historicism, mysticism and aestheticism. The most significant conceptions of Russian philosophy, united by the idea and image of Sophia, are defined by this framework.There is no contradiction in Russian philosophy between rational and mystical modes of thought because they are complementary in this tradition. It is, however, necessary to redefine the conception of rationality.I would like to finish with (...) Solovyov's words: “The idea of a nation is not what it thinks of itself in time, but what God thinks of it in eternity”. (shrink)

The article explores the civilizational and socio-political foundations of Russian ideology in the context of contemporary global shifts and challenges. The study underscores the pivotal role of the ideology as a directional and developmental vector for Russia amidst profound domestic and international metamorphoses and the emergence of a multi-civilizational and polycentric world order. Focus is placed on the integral role of amalgamating traditional Russian civilizational values with tenets of innovative development. The article argues that measures toward social justice, (...) combating poverty and excessive wealth disparity are fundamentally important for modern Russia. Moreover, it advocates for resistance against the imposition of a dependent model of socio-economic and political evolution. The author articulates that the quintessential elements of Russian ideology encompass the intellectual, spiritual, and ethical growth of the individual, lifelong educational enrichment, and the nurturing of a creative rather than consumptive human ethos. Additionally, it calls for proactive measures against the moral, intellectual, and physical degradation of youth populations. The findings suggest that the current ideological stance in Russia should be anchored in the historical continuity and unification of diverse epochs, specifically referencing the pre-revolutionary, Soviet, and post-Soviet eras. This continuity is primarily rooted in the struggle for independence and sovereignty, the protection of family, morality, and culture, and the striving for social justice. The author concludes that the formation and development of contemporary Russian ideology could be of key importance not only for internal societal consolidation but also for the inception of a more equitable global order, as the fundamental principles of this ideology are relevant for many other countries as well. (shrink)

This essay analyzes the recent appearance in Russian letters of ultra-nationalist fantasies about the restoration of Russia’s imperial or totalitarian status. This new trend has its roots not only in the increasingly patriotic tone of Russian society and politics, but also in the dynamics of the literary field itself. ‘Imperialist writers’ such as Aleksandr Prokhanov and Pavel Krusanov have both revived and reacted against postmodern themes and motifs from earlier decades. Relying on the legacy of sots-art and stiob (...) , the ‘imperialists’ advance a new model in Russia’s postmodern tradition, one that is balanced on the very borderline between irony and ideological militancy. In playing the game of ambiguous fanaticism, these writers have been able to attract the attention of a broad and diverse public, and have moved from an intellectual periphery into the cultural mainstream. (shrink)

About seventy-five years ago, philosophers and literary intellectuals as diverse as Edmund Husserl, George Santayana, and Paul Valéry, aware of the declining influence of Christianity on Western culture, spoke of “the crisis of Western civilization.” Santayana observed: “The present age is a critical one and interesting to live in. The civilization characteristic of Christendom has not disappeared, yet another civilization has begun to take its place. We still understand the value of religious faith.... On the other hand, the shell of (...) Christendom is broken.” All three pinned their hopes for the future of the West, not so much on a revived influence of a divided Christendom, but on the revival of the classical sources of Western culture, and Valéry insisted on an acknowledgment of the West’s debt to Roman law and Roman Catholicism. (shrink)

The present paper is devoted to the relation between changing historical identity of Russian Formalists in the second half of the 1920s and their individual evolution — as writers, members of society, figures of culture. Formalists with their aggressive inclination to modernity are opposed here to structuralists, the bearers of a conservative, traditional ideology (relating to the idea of Revolution). It could be explained by the specific “romantic” identity of Russian Formalists whose purpose was to appropriate cultural values (...) renamed and renewed by their revolutionary theory. As a revolutionary ideology, formalism was imported from the West. But the Stalinist “Renaissance” made the idea of Revolution both in mind and society senseless at the end of the 1920s. That is why Russian Formalism lost its mainstream positions and began to work out a new, adapted form of intellectual resistance (private life, domestic literature) in the next decade. (shrink)

To date, critical engagement with Arnold Hauser’s sociology of art has been confined to the field of art history. This perspective has ignored Hauser’s interest in literary history, which I argue is essential to his project. Hauser’s dialectical model, composed of conflicting realist and formalist tendencies, extends to the literary sphere. In The Social History of Art, these two traditions are epitomised by the Russian social novel and German idealism. Anti-enlightenment tendencies in German intellectual culture provide Hauser with (...) evidence of idealism’s propensity for escapism and reaction. Conversely, he extols the Russian social novel as the naturalistic art form par excellence. Because the intelligentsia is central to Hauser’s understanding of the formation of literary culture, this paper provides an outline of his sociology of intellectuals. Through a comparison of the German and Russian literary intelligentsia, this paper shows that Hauser’s analysis of literature is often more complex than his sociological interpretations of the visual arts. (shrink)

The article presents an analysis of the two-century development of the Russian intelligentsia, traces the transformation of views and ideas due to historical and socio-cultural foundations. The Russian intelligentsia is regarded as a very special phenomenon in the world, whose historical significance and basic idea are determined by the relationship with the state. It is proved that the main driving force of the development of the Russian intelligentsia changed depending on the political and ideological regime. Much attention (...) is paid in the article to the understanding of the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia in the present reality, traditional and acquired features in this historical period are considered. Its role in the formation of value orientations of modern society is analyzed. The author suggests that in the post-reform Russia of the XXI century there is no conceptual unity in the awareness of the "Russian intelligentsia". The intelligentsia itself to a greater extent today does not see itself as a recognized and clearly defined social group, its self-consciousness is fragmented and contradictory. The conclusion is made that the ideological form of the Russian intelligentsia was and remains its alienation from the state and hostility to it, brought up on abstract enlightenment schemes supplemented by cosmopolitanism and globalization, the modern intellectual continues to suffer from the lack of a healthy national identity. Today, when time dictates the need to move to a fundamentally new type of civilizational development, where the key question of the values that set the guidelines for this transition arises again, it is the intelligentsia, as a generator of the thought field, as two centuries ago, can play a major role. (shrink)

In the eighteenth century, Voltaire presented China as the kingdom of philosophers. The term philosophe, which appeared at this period, is the ancestor of the "intellectual," a name most historians date back to the Dreyfus Affair at the beginning of the twentieth century. But the request for a specific role in public affairs by literati is much more ancient than this specific case. After all, at least since the early nineteenth century, the Russian intelligentsia affirmed its involvement in (...) the public sphere. And discussions have been going on in China for decades to assess how much modern zhishifenzi can be considered as the heirs to the traditional literati, or shi. All along the twentieth century, and especially after the May Fourth movement signaled its irruption on the political scene, the intelligentsia has been involved in the definition of the way to "save China." The 1920s and 1930s have been witnesses to raging debates on the path to modernization, the necessity to create a new culture in rupture with Confucianism, and on the desirable political system for China.1 The majority of intellectuals agreed on the necessity to introduce the values of Enlightenment in the Middle Kingdom, but they soon diverged on the type of political system that would best ensure their enactment. Intellectuals were soon involved with the various political parties that competed for the leadership of the country, and opposition between exponents of parliamentary democracy such as Hu Shi and Marxists such as Chen Duxiu. (shrink)

The role of intellectuals in the reconciliation between Latvians and Russians in postcommunist Latvia is analysed in the context of the traditional philosophicalproblem of the social role of philosophers and based on the ideas of Plato, Kant and Foucault. In accordance with Kant's understanding of the political role of philosophers, the main political functions of the intellectuals a repointed out. Despite the important role played by Latvian intellectuals in the so-called "singing revolution," they did not fullill their critical potential in (...) opposition to the mass consciousness after the renewal of independence. Nowadays the establishment of dialogue between Latvian and Russian communities, based on mutual understanding and respect for otherness, is a crucial presupposition for the long-term stability of Latvian society. Whether this dialogue arises is to a great extent a question of moral choice made by intellectuals from both sides. (shrink)

The volume contains Isaiah Berlin's letters to his Polish friend, Andrzej Walicki, and Walicki's detailed account of Berlin's role in his life. Berlin actively promoted Walicki's books on Russian intellectual history not only because of his own interest in the subject. Above all he wanted to promote Russian intellectual history as a separate, internationally recognized field of study and, therefore, warmly welcomed Walicki's firm intention to study it in a systematic way, with the aim of providing (...) a comprehensive synthesis of all important currents in pre-Revolutionary Russian thought. Already at their meeting Berlin discovered in Walicki a promising candidate to help him in laying foundations for Russian intellectual history as a legitimate part of the universal history of ideas; as a discipline rewarding in itself and particularly relevant for rediscovering the great traditions of the Russian intelligentsia and setting them against the stifling dogmas of Soviet totalitarianism. (shrink)

When this volume was first published by Oxford University Press in 1967, it was hailed as a superb historical study of an intellectual current that died in Russia with the defeat of the Constitutional Democratic Party and the ascendancy of the Bolsheviks, namely, the later nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thinking of those Russian philosophers who championed the liberal values of democracy, individual rights, and a state based on the rule of law. Now reissued in a changed world by (...) the University of Notre Dame, the book takes on additional, highly contemporary significance: the destruction of Soviet totalitarianism has given new life to liberal values, and the ideas of these forgotten thinkers are now relevant to the most burning political issues of the day in Russia. Not surprisingly, a Center for the Study of Russian Liberalism has been established within the Russian Academy of Sciences, and a Russian translation of Walicki's book is in preparation. (shrink)

This paper investigates the multifaceted universe of Russian intelligentsia and addresses the following, troubling, questions: What caused pro-democratic political dissent to weaken among the intelligentsia in the aftermath of perestrojka? Why has the young generation of Russian public intellectuals undergone a radical metamorphosis of their value system and plunged into political passivity and conformism? Freedom has historically been a prima facie value for the Russian liberal intelligentsia. By the mid-1990s, however, much of the intelligentsia came to be (...) associated not with advocacy of individual liberty and human rights but with the failure of liberal democracy in Russia. This paper focuses on how the generation of the 1960s liberal intelligentsia, or shestidesjatniki, who played an active role during perestrojka, gave way to a generation of the “sons,” who, characterized as Western-style intellectuals, became spin doctors and political technologists, replacing the original ideals and high moral stance of their predecessors with nihilistic nonchalance. It is argued that the demise of dissent in post-Soviet Russia derives from the younger generation of intellectuals’ view of the attainment of political power by the generation of shestidesjatniki during perestrojka and the first El’tsin term as the latter’s moral fall and abandonment of the intelligentsia’s traditional role as an outside critic of the state. (shrink)

ROMANIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY do not constitute themselves in an orderly and continuous system of their own. Nor are they indispensable to the serious student of central human reflections and searches for truth. Their real interest is a historical one and, in the light of the globalized civilization of the twentieth century, one of cultural geography. A national community placed at the margins of Western culture, pertaining to it, but not quite able to synchronize its intellectual (...) or socioeconomic development with that of the West, while definitely unwilling to accommodate itself to non-Western modes of existence and thought-such were the circumstances that invited the discovery of philosophical discourses in which some key Western dilemmas and concepts could be qualified. Romanian philosophizing was and remained largely Western in its orientation, but Byzantine and Russian influences are acknowledged. Even more powerful was the sense that the experience of the Carpathian-Danubian area entitled the intellectual members of this community to speak not only for the values of a continuously progressing West, but also for a humanity that was pre-Western or even pre-Christian, a humanity that had not yet advanced from a "culture of shame" to a "culture of guilt", and a humanity whose ways of behavior and thinking were more "natural," and still widespread over large parts of the globe. Unconsciously first, but often consciously, Romanian philosophers saw themselves as bridges over the wide chasm separating Western and non-Western intellectual behavior and as mediators between both sides. Similar intentions can of course be detected among other practitioners of philosophy in Asia, South America, or Eastern Europe. Arguably, however, Romanian philosophy can be seen as exemplary in its earnest effort to transpose Western values and concepts into a language intelligible and acceptable to non-Western and traditional readers, while at the same time rehabilitating archaic and traditional beliefs and behaviors, or making them palatable to modern and Western audiences. This was a worthy communicative effort, one that remains of great interest to the contemporary intellectual community which is sometimes puzzled or discouraged when trying to discover the best ways and means for a common, worldwide philosophical language at the end of the twentieth century. Even a cursory examination of Romanian philosophers should be helpful in this respect. I will first present a few early examples of this effort of communication, connection, and qualification by Romanian philosophers; thereafter I will enumerate the main features of a modern Romanian school of philosophy as it crystallized from 1930 on. Finally I will examine in some more detail the writings of Mihai Sora, not only because he seems the most significant living Romanian philosopher, but also because he typifies the questionings of Romanian philosophers, modifies in original and lucid ways the themes of its tradition and, indeed, supplies a kind of retrospective coherence to this tradition. (shrink)

For a long time, leading European thinkers have denied systematic, theoretical and rational nature of Chinese traditional thinking, unpretentiously reading it as banal moralizing, not supported by any proper philosophical discourse. However, the habitual socioethical label conceals a much deeper problematic of strategic thinking. At its center, there is the question of choosing all sorts of strategies: from everyday life to special technical ones, from personal existential choice to fateful state decisions. The concept of a winning strategy is emblematized by (...) the dramatic plot of a deadly risk but under certain conditions with guaranteed happy end. The strategy of harmony, which is miraculous in its effectiveness, is proposed as a exemplary strategy. It allows you to “step on the tiger’s tail” with impunity. From the point of view of strategic thinking, the criterion of cognitive value of reasoning is its effectiveness, and the most effective is unmistakable prediction, i.e. the ability to predict the outcome of future developments with the help of reasoning. In the ideal case, prognostic reasoning becomes not just plausible but 100% reliable that is an apodictic true inference. Therefore, the highest cognitive status in the Chinese intellectual tradition is endowed with guaranteed error-free prognostic reasoning. This type of reasoning, where the reliability of foresight is guaranteed by the implementation of a certain winning strategy, can be called the prognostic form of deduction. As a result, the dynamism of Chinese logic, which relies on a deliberate staging of the future, is strikingly different from the static nature of the classical image of logic, where logic is no more than a static guardian of correctness of reasoning. On the contrary, the Chinese concept of logic focuses on deriving consequences from strategic considerations regarding the future, actively and purposefully shaped by the subject who at the same time constructing both himself and the world around him. (shrink)

The end of the eighteenth century was a transformational period for the Muslim communities in the Russian Empire and their relationship with the tsarist state. One of the major figures to emerge out of this context was the reformer Abu Nasr Qursawi. A controversial religious scholar, he put forward a sweeping reform of the Islamic scholarly tradition that was influential among these communities into the twentieth century. Nathan Spannaus presents the first detailed analysis of Qursawi's reformism, both in (...) its contours and broad historical setting, addressing issues of modernity, secularity, tradition, and intellectual history. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the analysis of the influence of the ancient Chinese philosophy of Taiji on artistic creativity and the development of the internal evolution of artistic culture. Taoist philosophy of nature and Confucian ethics synthesized the philosophical core of the traditional Chinese worldview with its emphasis on the simplicity and naturalness of the world order, and formed the fundamental principles of Taiji. Fundamental to Taiji, the concept of Yin and Yang emphasizes the dual nature of the existence (...) of movement and variability as a balance of opposing forces of development. The Taiji philosophy of dialectical development is supplemented by the idea of ​​the genesis of renewal energy - Qi. The main research method is the method of revitalizing traditional systems on a new intellectual basis. The method of diachronic analysis of the social situation that influenced the development of Chinese neorealism in art was used. As a result of the study, the functional significance of the influence of the principles and philosophical ideas of taiji on the evolution of neorealism is described. Using the example of the work of Chinese neorealist artists Xin Dongwan and Zheng Yi, the authors come to the conclusion that there are three driving factors of artistic motivation for creativity: internal, external and subjective. The basic principles of Taiji philosophy and ethics, such as: the naturalness of change without the use of force (Wu Wei), change as the only constant in the existence of the world and its stability, gentleness - help develop the creative power of renewal. The idea is shown that in the ancient Chinese philosophical heritage, Confucianism and Taoism became two full-fledged directions, functionally complementing each other in explaining differences in cultural, political, philosophical and social environments. (shrink)

This book presents an overview of the later medieval trinitarian theology of the rival Franciscan and Dominican intellectual traditions, and includes detailed studies of thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus, ...

This article proposes a generational approach to the study of the formation of the philosophical tradition. A philosophical generation is a powerful intellectual pattern with its own optics, sets o...

The End of Russian Philosophy describes and evaluates the troubled state of Russian philosophical thought in the post-Soviet decades. The book suggests that in order to revive philosophy as a universal, professional discipline in Russia, it may be necessary for Russian philosophy to first do away with the messianic traditions of the 19th century.

In this essay, I assess Stalin’s ideas and concepts about nationalities, their ‘manipulability’ and their legacies. I do this by briefly reconstructing their theoretical and political roots in both Tsarist and socialist traditions. Special attention will be paid to the discovery of a positive correlation between economic development and the growth of nationalism among ‘backward’ peasant peoples, which went against the grain of previous socialist beliefs, and to the appearance of a theory according to which socialism would naturally produce a (...) superior national-popular society. After discussing the evolution of these ideas and concepts, their practical applications, and the reaction they generated up to 1953, I will focus on the Soviet post-Stalinist theories and practices, and their results, also by taking into consideration the development in Soviet times and after 1991, of new, hybrid variants of Russian nationalism, as well as of Eurasian trends. (shrink)

Transcript of papers presented in a seminar and meetings.

Traces the development of thought through historical movements and periods from 1500 to 1830.

Disc 1. Philosophy and the modern age ; Scholasticism and the scientific revolution -- Disc 2. The rationalism and dualism of Descartes ; Locke's empiricism, Berkeley's idealism -- Disc 3. Neo-Aristotelians : Spinoza and Leibniz ; The Enlightenment and Rousseau -- Disc 4. The radical skepticism of Hume ; Kant's Copernican revolution -- Disc 5. Kant and the religion of reason ; The French Revolution and German idealism -- Disc 6. Hegel, the last great system ; Hegel and the English (...) century -- Disc 7. The economic revolution and its critic, Marx ; Kierkegaard's Critique of reason -- Disc 8. Nietzsche's Critique of morality and truth ; Freud, Weber, and the mind of modernity -- Disc 9. Rise of 20th-century philosophy, pragmatism ; analysis -- Disc 10. Rise of 20th-century philosophy, phenomenology ; Physics, positivism and early Wittgenstein -- Disc 11. Emergence and Whitehead ; Dewey's American naturalism -- Disc 12. Heidegger's Being and time ; Existentialism and the Frankfurt School -- Disc 13. Heidegger's turn against humanism ; Culture, hermeneutics, and structuralism -- Disc 14. Wittgenstein's turn to ordinary language ; Quine and the end of positivism -- Disc 15. New philosophies of science ; Derrida's deconstruction of philosophy -- Disc 16. The challenge of postmodernism ; Rorty and the end of philosophy -- Disc 17. Rediscovering the premodern ; Pragmatic realism, reforming the modern -- Disc 18. The reemergence of emergence ; Philosophy's death greatly exaggerated. (shrink)

The present volume focuses on aspects of Islamic thought in Iran and Yemen, and other regions of the Middle East, ninth through fifteenth century CE, through a close study of manuscript materials. The book's sixteen chapters are arranged under five rubrics: Mu'tazilism, Zaydism in Iran and in Yemen, Twelver Shi'ism, Mysticism, and Bibliographical Traditions. The material included in the book has been published previously in a different version. The appearance of these studies together in a single volume makes this book (...) a significant and welcome contribution to the field of classical Islamic Studies. (shrink)

The paper handles a possibility to use the term “national philosophical tradition” in comparative philosophy as a branch of knowledge, which provides for methodological tools in an intercultural dialogue. It defines the concept of “national philosophical tradition”, principles and ways of its research. The basis of studies is a comparison between the Russian and Spanish philosophical cultures. Inherent common features of both traditions are an epistemological status of philosophy in culture, prevalence of an intuitive insight in the (...) essence of the matter, a tendency to a synthesis between life and reason, confirmation of a fundamental cognation of literature and philosophy. An understanding of a boundary character of their culture has given rise to a messianic predestination of both nations and caused a keen interest in creation of an original national philosophy. So much in common have these two extremes of the European civilization, their main difference lies in the personalism of the Spanish philosophy and the cosmologism of the Russian one. This distinction can to a great extent be explainedby a different type of a religious background and mentality. It is these differences in national philosophical traditions that feed the world philosophy. It is on the basis of these national philosophical traditions that achievements of other philosophical cultures are introduced and assimilated in a new context. That is the reason why this concept may serve as a basis of comparison between different philosophical system. (shrink)

Traces the development of thought through historical movements and periods from 1500 to 1830.