A History of Russian Philosophy. 2 Vols.

1954 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 276
Author(s):  
John Somerville ◽  
V. V. Zenkovsky ◽  
George L. Kline
Keyword(s):  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
History Of

Bakhtin and Shpet – Inheritance and Transcendence

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-103
Author(s):  
Jingyu Xiao ◽  
Ruofan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
History Of

AbstractIn the history of Russian philosophy of language, Bakhtin and Shpet are two very important figures. As scholars having reached the peak of academic humanities, they both scored great achievements in many fields. The contributions they made to semiotics have a direct impact on the semiotic view of the Moscow-Tartu School and other scholars who later represented the highest achievements of Russian semiotics. It was many years earlier than Bakhtin that Shpet put forward views similar to those of Bakhtin. But Bakhtin surpassed Shpet and extended semiotics to a broader humanistic space.

A History of Russian Philosophy

Books Abroad ◽  
1954 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
M. Raeff ◽  
V. V. Zenkovsky ◽  
George L. Kline
Keyword(s):  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
History Of

“Russian” Spengler and the Destiny of World History in Russian Philosophy in the Beginning of the 20th Century

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 115-128
Author(s):  
Vladimir A. Kudryavtsev ◽  
Alexandra I. Vakulinskaya
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Cultural Revival ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
Ideological Influence ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
History Of ◽  
Religious Factor ◽  
In The Beginning

This article deals with the history of Russian philosophers ‘acquaintance with the ideas of O. Spengler, set forth in his work “The Decline of the West”. The authors point out that the initial orientation of Russian thought towards Historiosophy, problems of history and ontology became the key factor of Spengler’s popularity in Russia. The article considers and analyzes critical and methodological approaches to the theory of cultural and historical types by O. Spengler and N. Ya. Danilevsky within the framework of Russian philosophical thought. The authors pay attention to the ideological influence of the United States as the country which adheres to the ideas of the Enlightenment, as well as to German thinkers, who visited this country in the early twentieth century. It is concluded that the global scenario of the human civilization development, that used to be the mainstream of its formation before the events of the beginning of this year, is unsuitable and untenable. The authors insist on the important role of the theory of cultural and historical types supported and developed by Russian emigration representatives, and focus on the importance of the religious factor in the process of cultural revival.

The Crisis of Contemporary Culture: A View from the History of Russian Philosophy: (Fedotov – Weidle – Landau – Bicilli) Materials of the “round table”

2021 ◽  
pp. 184-212
Author(s):  
Boris I. Pruzhinin ◽  
◽  
Aleksandr V. Antoshchenko ◽  
Tanya N. Galcheva ◽  
Inna V. Golubovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Round Table ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Contemporary Culture ◽  
Philosophy Of Culture ◽  
Local Experience ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
Social Organism ◽  
As If

On August 26, 2021, with the support of “Voprosy filosofii” was held a “round table”, the participants of which considered it meaningful and relevant to address the legacy of experiencing and philosophical reflection of critical epochs by peo­ple who have fully endured the “breakdown” of being and an anthropological crisis – for comprehending the disturbing changes taking place in modern soci­ety. In this regard, the intellectual biographies of thinkers who felt a colossal shock in the 1920s and who tried to comprehend their local experience as a global are exceptional. In the authors’ focus are ideas and arguments of the philosophers of the Russian Abroad about the crisis of their contemporary culture (Fedotov – Weidle – Landau – Bicilli). The “round table” is an attempt to correlate their experience with the modern reality of the anthropological crisis. The studying intellectuals underlined the death of culture as the main threat to the life of the social organism. The salvation of culture, first of all, depends on the spiritual efforts of people. From this point of view, philosophy has to com­prehend the principles that make it possible to resist the processes of cultural de­struction. And in this regard, the personality of the philosopher is of exceptional importance, his willingness to live and work “as if history would never end, and at the same time, as if it ended today” (G.P. Fedotov). The philosophy of culture forms the ideal of personal choice as a free submission to universal human goals. The relevance of the intellectual and spiritual search of the “Russian Abroad” thinkers can't be overestimated since this crisis continues today, entering ever new, previously unpredictable phases. The struggle for culture continues. There­fore, the intellectual searches of the "Russian Abroad" thinkers are essential to­day. The core of the discussions was three actual topics in the context of their comprehension by the philosophers: 1. The crisis of religious consciousness; 2. The crisis of scientific rationality; 3. Crisis of cultural identity.

The ideologist Yu.N. Govorukha-Otrok and the philosopher N.Ya. Grot: polemics of 1890–1891

2021 ◽  
pp. 123-137
Author(s):  
Аleksandr А. Ermichev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Life ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
First Year ◽  
Evaluative Judgments ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Xix Century

The article analyzes a little-known episode in the history of Russian philoso­phy – the polemic of the editor of the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psy­chology” N.Ya. Grot and the outstanding publicist of the conservative newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti” Yu.N. Govorukha-a boy who spoke under the pseudo­nym Yu. Nikolaev. The controversy took place in the first year of the magazine’s existence, when the principle and direction of the editorial policy were deter­mined. Yu.N. Govorukha-Otrok, sharing together with N.Ya. Grotto hope that the journal will lead to the formation of Russian national philosophy, insisted on the conscious circulation of the publication to the Slavophile tradition, defining the end goal of philosophical search for the creation of the Orthodox meta­physics meet the needs of aboriginal people's lives. His opponent, N.Ya. Grot, was a typical representative of the liberalism of the 80s of the XIX century, which was undecided in its socio-political preferences. Being a neophyte of meta­physics, the editor of “Questions” proceeded from an understanding of the ratio­nal nature of philosophical knowledge and justified the variety of directions of philosophical searches. He gave the pages of his magazine to the positivist authors from the liberal populist camp, which was completely unacceptable to his opponent. Thus, the circumstances of public life complicated the nature of the polemic on the issues of theoretical content and introduced social-evaluative judgments into it. Talker-Boy considered the polemic as an episode of the world-historical struggle of Christianity with the eudaemonistic idea of progress. The article claims that the subsequent development of Russian philosophy in the early twentieth century confirmed the correctness of the editorial line of the journal.

Lopatin, Lev Mikailovich (1855–1920)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall A. Poole
Keyword(s):  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Psychology ◽  
Main Work ◽  
Philosophical Language ◽  
Long Time ◽  
History Of ◽  
Vladimir Solov'ev

In 1911 the Moscow Psychological Society celebrated the accomplishments of Lev Lopatin, a major Russian idealist and personalist philosopher. Lopatin was lauded for his chairmanship of the Psychological Society, the oldest learned society ‘uniting the philosophical forces of Russia’, and for his contributions to Russian philosophy: to the critique of positivism, to the development of Russian philosophical language and the history of philosophy in Russia, to the defence of idealism through his theories of ‘creative causation’ and the soul’s substantiality, to philosophical psychology, and to the strength and independence of Russian philosophic culture. Twenty-five years earlier the appearance of the first volume of Lopatin’s main work, Polozhitel’nye zadachi filosofii (The Positive Tasks of Philosophy), was indeed a milestone in the philosophical revolt against positivism and the development of Russian neo-idealism. In this and subsequent works Lopatin advanced his ‘system of concrete spiritualism’. His idea of the person as an ontologically grounded spiritual entity relates him to Leibniz’s monadology, and he is regarded as one of the main representatives of ‘neo-Leibnizianism’ in Russia, following Aleksei Kozlov. Another source of his ideas was his long-time friend the Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Solov’ëv, despite certain philosophical differences between them.

scholarly journals Russian Neo-Kantianism and Philosophy in Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Pavel Vladimirov
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Philosophical Literature ◽  
Global Context ◽  
History Of ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Related Theme

Russian neo-Kantianismʼs status in the history of the development of Russian philosophy is an important, but poorly presented in scientific publications, issue is revealed in the article. With some exceptions, which are represented by a number of few, but informative and informative articles and a monograph, the problem remains without proper reception in the scientific discourse of our time. Russian neo-Kantianism, however, leaving aside the question of what is the phenomenon of Russian neo-Kantianism, it is impossible to productively and consistently actualize the content of Russian neo-Kantians and, moreover, to show their significance in the history of Russian philosophical and socio-humanitarian thought in general. Three key difficulties stand out: 1) the question of originality and the related theme of the independence of the philosophical direction (originality, independence and originality – differ from each other, but are united in their immanent orientation); 2) Russian neo-Kantianism, which in many ways seems to be the most difficult task for researchers engaged in historical and philosophical reconstruction; 3) the question remains ambiguous as to whether Russian neo-Kantianism is a continuation of the German tradition or whether it is a direction of Russian philosophy of thought. Russian neo-Kantianism, the three difficulties identified in the reception of the phenomenon of Russian neo-Kantianism taken as a whole, are consistently revealed in the content of the proposed article, supplemented by a brief overview of the most systemic positions of Russian philosophers, ranked among Russian neo-Kantianism. Overcoming the indicated difficulties, which undoubtedly affect the objective disclosure of the creativity of each representative of Russian neo-Kantianism or thinkers related to them, seems appropriate not only from the standpoint of the history of philosophy, but also for actualizing the heritage of philosophers in the conditions of modern socio-humanitarian pragmatics. Russian neo-Kantianism The author of the article suggests that one of the ways to overcome the ambiguity of the definition of Russian neo-Kantianism in the history of Russian thought may be, firstly, a more detailed consecration of the activities of Russian neo-Kantians in the historical and philosophical literature, and secondly, a comprehensive representation of this direction, including studies of individual personalities and their works. Despite the controversial and polemical nature of the task, its formulation is necessary for the objectivity of the meaning of Russian thought in the global context.

scholarly journals Timofey Ivanovich Rainoff as a histprian of russian philosophy

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-58
Author(s):  
S.S. Ilizarov ◽  
V.A. Kupriyanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Scientific Program ◽  
Historical Reconstruction ◽  
Philosophical Concept ◽  
History Of Thought ◽  
Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Conditioning ◽  
The Social ◽  
Organic Solidarity ◽  
History Of

The essay deals with history of creation of the «Outlines of the history of Russian philosophy of the 50–60s» written by T.I. Rainov (1890–1958), a historian of natural science, literary scholar and a philosopher. The authors show specificity of T.I. Rainov’s methodology both against the background of the historiography of Russian philosophy and in the broader context of the historical-philosophical program proposed by the German classical idealism. It is indicated that the basis of the methodology of historical and philosophical works of the 19th – early 20th centuries, regardless of their national and scholarship, was the approach most clearly expressed in the Hegelian historical and philosophical concept. The essence of this research method involves either the complete elimination of the socio-psychological aspects of the history of thought, or it relates them to secondary, «background» elements of the historical development of philosophy. It is shown that T.I. Rainov’s essays on the history of Russian philosophy represent one of the first attempts to apply the idea of social conditioning of knowledge, anticipating the scientific program of modern sociology of scientific knowledge. It is revealed that the basis of the methodology of T.I. Rainov is the sociological doctrine of E. Durkheim, namely his concept of mechanical and organic solidarity, on the basis of which Rainov examines the social conditions that determined the specificity of the philosophy of the 1850-1860s shown by him. The comparison of Rainov’s interpretation of the philosophy of the period under consideration and similar approaches presented in the famous works of G.G. Shpeta, B.V. Yakovenko, E.L. Radlova and A.I. Vvedensky. An important part of the study is the reconstruction of T.I. Rainov before the revolution of 1917. On the basis of archival sources, the biographical context of the writing of the work is reconstructed and its dating is proposed. The study used the traditional tools of history and the history of philosophy: methods of archival search, historical reconstruction and hermeneutics of texts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document