A handful of dissident philosophers survived through the Soviet period, among them Aleksei Losev. Stalin's death in gave way for new schools of thought to spring up, among them Moscow Logic Circle, and Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School. Pre- Solovyov. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. People from Russia. Field marshals Soviet marshals Admirals Aviators Cosmonauts.
Aerospace engineers Astronomers and astrophysicists Biologists Chemists Earth scientists Electrical engineers IT developers Linguists and philologists Mathematicians Naval engineers Physicians and psychologists Physicists Weaponry makers. Metropolitans and Patriarchs Saints 1 , 2. Chess players. Schools of thought. Mazdakism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism. But since these had come by a different route to underlie Russian thought as well, there was not much difficulty in grafting Marxism in Russia, where, especially in the person of Lenin, it acquired a characteristically practical, goal-directed nature.
The result is that in Russia we have the rather unusual spectacle of a philosophy actually being fully tried out in practice. It is surely important to assess what has been happening in Soviet Russia, and to consider why the project of using the unlimited power of the state to create a better society should have turned out so disastrously. Dostoevsky might be said to have foreseen the disaster. Overall, then, this is a magisterially competent survey of the major Russian thinkers. About Us. Brand Publishing.
Times News Platforms. The second and third moments, paths, or steps are antithetical and take various forms in different spheres, such as matter and reason or universal and particular. The final moment is a fusion of the two into a higher unity. In the social and ethical realm, Chicherin placed great emphasis on individual human freedom. Social and political laws should strive for moral neutrality, permitting the flowering of individual self-determination.
In this way, he remained a staunch advocate of economic liberalism, seeing essentially no role for government intervention. The government itself had no right to use its powers either to aim at a moral ideal or to force its citizens to seek an ideal. On the other hand, the government should not use its powers to prevent the citizenry from the exercise of private morality. Despite receiving less treatment than the negative conception of freedom, Chicherin nevertheless upheld the idealist conception of positive freedom as the striving for moral perfection and, in this way, reaching the Absolute.
Another figure to emerge in the late s and s was the neo- Leibnizian A.
Kozlov , who taught at Kiev University and who called his highly developed metaphysical stance " panpsychism. This unity he held to be an obvious fact. Additionally, rejecting the independent existence of space and time, Kozlov held that they possessed being only in relation to thinking and sensing creatures. Like Augustine , however, Kozlov believed that God viewed time as a whole without our divisions into past, present, and future. To substantiate space and time, to attribute an objective existence to either, demands an answer to where and when to place them.
Indeed, the very formulation of the problem presupposes a relation between a substantiated space or time and ourselves. Lastly, unlike Kant, Kozlov thought all judgments are analytic. An unfortunately largely neglected figure to emerge in this period was M. Karinsky , who taught philosophy at the St.
Petersburg Ecclesiastic Academy. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Karinsky devoted much of his attention to logic and an analysis of arguments in Western philosophy, rather than metaphysical speculation. Unlike his contemporaries, Karinsky came to philosophy with an analytical bent rather than with a literary flair—a fact that made his writing style often decidedly torturous.
True to those schooled in the Aristotleian tradition, Karinsky, like Brentano to whom he has been compared held that German Idealism was essentially irrationalist. Arguing against Kant, Karinsky believed that our inner states are not merely phenomenal, that the reflective self is not an appearance.
Inner experience, unlike outer, yields no distinction between reality and appearance. In his general epistemology, Karinsky argued that knowledge was built on judgments, which were legitimate conclusions from premises.
Knowledge, however, could be traced back to a set of ultimate unprovable, yet reliable, truths, which he called "self-evident. Additionally, he accepted an analogical argument for the existence of other minds similar to that of John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell.
Lopatin , who taught at Moscow University, defended the possibility of metaphysical knowledge. He claimed that empirical knowledge is limited to appearances, whereas metaphysics yields knowledge of the true nature of things. Although Lopatin saw Hegel and Spinoza as the definitive expositors of rationalistic idealism, he rejected both for their very transformation of concrete relations into rational or logical ones.
Nevertheless, Lopatin affirmed the role of reason particularly in philosophy in conscious opposition to, as he saw it, Solovyov's ultimate surrender to religion. In the first volume, he attacked materialism as itself a metaphysical doctrine that elevates matter to the status of an absolute that cannot explain the particular properties of individual things or the relation between things and consciousness. In his second volume, Lopatin distinguishes mechanical causality from "creative causality," according to which one phenomenon follows another, though with something new added to it.
Despite his wealth of metaphysical speculation, quite foreign to most contemporary readers, Lopatin's observations on the self or ego derived from speculation that is not without some interest.
jemimicar.tk Denying that the self has a purely empirical nature, Lopatin emphasized that the undeniable reality of time demonstrated the non-temporality of the self, for temporality could only be understood by that which is outside time. Since the self is extra-temporal, it cannot be destroyed, for that is an event in time. Likewise, in opposition to Solovyov, Lopatin held that the substantiality of the self is immediately evident in consciousness.
In the waning years of the 19th century, neo-Kantianism came to dominate German philosophy. Because of the increasing tendency to send young Russian graduate students to Germany for additional training, it should come as no surprise that that movement gained a foothold in Russia too.
In one of the very few Russian works devoted to philosophy of science A. Vvedensky presented, in his lengthy dissertation, a highly idealistic Kantian interpretation of the concept of matter as understood in the physics of his day. He tried therein to defend and update Kant's own work as exemplified in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.
Vvedensky's book, however, attracted little attention and exerted even less influence.
Much more widely recognized were his own attempts in subsequent years, while teaching at St. Petersburg University, to recast Kant's transcendental idealism in, what he called, "logicism. Vvedensky was also willing to cede that the time and the space in which we experience everything in the world are also phenomenal. Although metaphysical knowledge is impossible, metaphysical hypotheses, being likewise irrefutable, can be brought into a world-view based on faith.
Particularly useful are those demanded by our moral tenets such as the existence of other minds. The next two decades saw a blossoming of academic philosophy on a scale hardly imaginable just a short time earlier.
Most fashionable Western philosophies of the time found adherents within the increasingly professional Russian scene. Even Friedrich Nietzsche's thought began to make inroads, particularly among certain segments of the artistic community and among the growing number of political radicals. Nonetheless, few, particularly during these formative years, adopted any Western system without significant qualifications.
Second, Herzen apparently did not renounce revolution in his late years. Discovery of his correspondence with leaders of Prussian Rosicru- cianism, who hoped that the Grand Duke Paul could be enlisted in the movement, probably had a good deal to do with the matter. The options are varied. Subsequently other theological academies were established, as at Kharkov and St Petersburg. Russia was being purged of its philosophy. PDF eBook Watermarked. Further, although the Greco-Roman world had had its splendours, its thinkers, such as Aristotle and the Stoics,7 had contributed little to social advance.
Even those who were most receptive to foreign ideas adapted them in line with traditional Russian concerns, interests, and attitudes. One of these traditional concerns was with Platonism in general. Some of Plato's dialogues appeared in a Masonic journal as early as , and we can easily discern an interest in Plato's ideas as far back as the medieval period.
Possibly the Catholic assimilation of Aristotelianism had something to do with the Russian Orthodox Church's emphasis on Plato. And again possibly this interest in Plato had something to do with the metaphysical and idealistic character of much classic Russian thought as against the decidedly more empirical character of many Western philosophies. We have already noted the Christian Platonism of Jurkevich, and his student Solovyov, who with his central concept of "vseedinstvo" "total-unity" can, in turn, also be seen as a modern neo-Platonist.
In the immediate decades preceding the Bolshevik Revolution of , a veritable legion of philosophers worked in Solovyov's wide shadow. Among the most prominent of these was S. Trubetskoi The Platonic strain of his thought is evident in the very topics Trubetskoi chose for his magister's and doctoral theses: Metaphysics in Ancient Greece , and The History of the Doctrine of Logos , , respectively. It is, however, in his programmatic essays "O prirode chelovecheskovo soznanija" "The Nature of Human Consciousness" , and "Osnovanija idealizma" "The Foundations of Idealism" , that Trubetskoi elaborated his position with regard to modern philosophy.
Holding that the basic problem of contemporary philosophy is whether human knowledge is of a personal nature, Trubetskoi maintained that modern Western philosophers relate personal knowledge to a personal consciousness. Herein lies their error. Human consciousness is not an individual consciousness, but, rather, an on-going universal process. Likewise, this process is a manifestation not of a personal mind but of a cosmic one. Personal consciousness, as he puts it, presupposes a collective consciousness, and the latter presupposes an absolute consciousness.
Kant's great error was in conceiving the transcendental consciousness as subjective. In the second of the essays mentioned above, Trubetskoi claims that there are three means of knowing reality: empirically through the senses, rationally through thought, and directly through faith. For him, faith is what convinces us that there is an external world, a world independent of my subjective consciousness.
It is faith that underlies our accepting the information provided by our sense organs as reliable. Moreover, it is faith that leads me to think there are in the world other beings with a mental organization and capacity similar to mine. However, Trubetskoi rejects equating his notion of faith with the passive "intellectual intuition" of Schelling and Solovyov. For Trubetskoi, faith is intimately connected with the will , which is the basis of my individuality.
My discovery of the other is grounded in my desire to reach out beyond myself, that is, to love. Although generally characterized as a neo-Leibnizian, N.