Russian Philosophy of History and Literature

2018 ◽  
pp. 116-127
Author(s):  
Sergey Nickolsky
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
History And Literature

scholarly journals Russian philosophy and the formation of the Russian national and cultural canon: problems and prospects ([Review on:] Malinov A.V. Research and articles on Russian philosophy. Saint Petersburg: RHGA, 2020, 608 p.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 181-190
Author(s):  
A.B. Bocharov
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Context ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Russian Culture ◽  
Saint Petersburg ◽  
The Common ◽  
Evolution Of Ideas ◽  
The Russian Language

This work is devoted to the analysis of the book by A.V. Malinov “Research and Articles on Russian Philosophy”. The main subject-content and thematic-subject lines of the book are revealed: philosophy of Slavophiles; historical, cultural and philosophical contexts of V.S. Solovyov and V.V. Rozanov; professional philosophy in Russia. Points to the variety of genres published in a collection of articles and materials of historical and philosophical articles, teaching materials (lectures and paragraphs from the textbooks), archival materials, methodological reflections. The author considers the interpretations of A.S. Khomyakov, the Slavophil ideas of O.F. Miller, the evolution of ideas about the common Slavic language, the attitude of V.S. Solovyov with N.I. Kareyev and St. Petersburg Slavophiles (including the polemic of V.S. Soloviev with the Slavophiles in the last work of the Russian philosopher – “Three Conversations”), V.V. Rozanov with the Slavophiles and V.I. Lamansky, features of V.V. Rozanov, the philosophical heritage of A.I. Vvedensky and the controversy caused by him, the place of L.P. Karsavin in the tradition of teaching the philosophy of history at St. Petersburg University, the specifics and historical path traversed by university philosophy in Russia, the modernization of the methods of modern historical and philosophical research, etc. The author notes the author's appeal to little-studied representatives of Russian philosophy, original interpretations of biographical and historical-philosophical plots, the use of the expressive possibilities of the Russian language, enriching the interpretive possibilities of the historiography of Russian philosophy. The conclusion is made about the preservation of the “Russian canon” in the research of Russian philosophy, about its heuristic possibilities. The author's intention is explained and the value of research of this kind, serving the purpose of reinterpreting the ideas of Russian philosophy, solving the problem of preserving the values and meanings of Russian culture in the modern historical and cultural context, is indicated.

scholarly journals «HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION» IN F. ANKERSMIT’S PHILOSOPHY

2021 ◽  
pp. 269-278
Author(s):  
Глеб Сергеевич Ицкович
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Historical Narratives ◽  
Historical Writing ◽  
Historical Knowledge ◽  
Historical Representation ◽  
History And Literature ◽  
Attitudes And Knowledge ◽  
Cognitive Attitude ◽  
New Look

В статье рассматривается концепция «исторической репрезентации» в философии Ф. Анкерсмита. Данная концепция является важным компонентом нарративистской философии истории голландского философа. Используя эту концепцию, Анкерсмит стремится решить проблему истинности в историческом познании, поновому взглянув на историописание. Отвергая реализм как познавательную установку, он склоняется к мысли о подтверждаемости атомарных исторических фактов и возможности говорить лишь о большей или меньшей степени достоверности исторических повествований, поскольку они опираются в значительной степени на различные аксиологические установки и предпосылочное знание. Анкерсмит постмодернистски сближает историю и литературу, что ведет к трудностям в различении исторических и художественных текстов. The article is aimed at the analysis of the concept of «historical representation» in F. Ankersmit’s philosophy. This concept is an important component of the Dutch scholar narrativist philosophy of history. Using this concept, Ankersmit seeks to solve the problem of truth in historical knowledge by taking a new look at historical writing. Rejecting realism as a cognitive attitude, he inclines to the idea of the confirmability of atomic historical facts and the possibility of talking about a greater or lesser degree of reliability of historical narratives, since they depend largely on various axiological attitudes and knowledge presuppositions. Ankersmit brings history and literature together in a postmodern way, which leads to difficulties in distinguishing historical and artistic texts.

Russian philosophy of history

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Walicki
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
National Identity ◽  
World View ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
The Past ◽  
Russian Intelligentsia ◽  
Secular Religion ◽  
Russian Idea

In his classic book The Russian Idea Nikolai Berdiaev pointed out that ‘independent Russian thought was awakened by the problem of the philosophy of history’. It was because educated, Westernized Russians needed an answer to the problem of Russia’s whence and whither: Who are we? Where are we going? What is Russia’s place in universal history? There were many reasons for this passionate search for the meaning of history. It was a means to define Russia’s national identity. It expressed the deeply felt need for modernization, stemming from increasing awareness of the contrast between Russia’s political power and its social backwardness. And – above all, perhaps – it was a result of the disintegration of Russia’s ecclesiastical culture, serving as a substitute for a religious world-view. The central place in this secular religion of history was occupied by the notion of progress. It showed a direction, thus answering the ‘cursed question’ of what was to be done; therefore, the nineteenth-century Russian intelligentsia saw the commitment to progress as the most important constitutive part of its self-definition. But many conceptions of progress could also function as a secular theodicy, or rather historiodicy, explaining and justifying the sufferings of the past and present as a necessary price for the triumph of truth and justice in the future. Even more: in a historically retarded country the idea of inevitable stages of development could serve also as a justification for suffering in the immediate future, providing arguments for the view that present individuals, and entire generations, had to sacrifice themselves for the earthly salvation of their descendants. Hence it is understandable that the idea of inevitable, universal progress found in Russia not only enthusiastic advocates but also powerful critics.

The Formation of the Historiosophical Discourse in Russiaat the Beginning of the 19th Century

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Irina F. Shcherbatova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Russian History ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Russian Idea ◽  
The French Revolution

This article argues that by 1830s historiosophical discourse in Russia had be­come both a specific genre and a type of ideology. The article outlines the spec­trum of philosophical approaches to history within this genre and ideology. It ar­gues that the defeat of the Decembrist revolt led to the formation of a particular negative interpretation of Russian history amongst Russian philosophers of that time. The author offers an analysis of works by Dmitry Venevitinov, Ivan Kireyevsky, and Pyotr Chaadayev written in the late 1820s and in the early 1830s. These texts allow us to explore the genealogy and distinctive style of Russian philosophy of history. Nikolay Karamzin’s interpretation of history as governed by providence proved to be the most influential interpretation of the 19th century. Pyotr Chaadaev’s historical pessimism and Ivan Kireyevsky’s opti­mistic messianism were both influenced by Karamzin’s humanist anthropology. All these thinkers were looking to determine the meaning of Russian history, and this very task inevitably entails rhetorical and ideological constructions. Russian messianism and the popular Russian idea of the decay of Europe were inspired by the conservative reception of the French revolution by religious thinkers in Europe. This messianic philosophy of history was expressed in a very non-schol­arly discourse and was interwoven with ideas of teleology and providence to­gether with some superficial comparative observations. There is a striking simi­larity between philosophy of history in the 1830s and the philosophy that was developed by the authors of the Vekhi collection in the early 20th century.

scholarly journals Historiosophical Sources and Meanings of the Russian Philosophy of History

2018 ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Irina Sizemskaya
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Social Philosophy ◽  
Human Dimensions ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Progressive Movement ◽  
Spiritual Senses ◽  
The Subject

The article analyzes the socio-cultural and theoretical origins of the Russian philosophy of history. These origins determined the development of the philosophy of history as a special feld of philosophical knowledge. This process took place in the second half of the 19th century, a significant factor of which was the split within the cultural and spiritual unity of Russian society on the wave of Alexander II’s reforms associated with the abolition of serfdom. In this period the subject-matter of the philosophy of history was defned. In the author’s opinion, the subject-matter of the philosophy of history includes: 1) the historical process in its universal human dimensions and in “past – present – future” movement, 2) the life of society in historically concrete forms of the organization of human community, 3) historical epistemology. The article shows why the philosophy of history, formed in this research feld, was established in the public consciousness and intellectual context as historiosophy, i.e. knowledge of spiritual senses, the beginning and end of history. This philosophical-historical paradigm excluded the oppositions, on the one hand, between philosophical knowledge and historical science and, on the other hand, between the philosophy of the history and social philosophy. As the main ideas of the Russian philosophy of history during that period, the author considers the idea of the integrity of historical existence as an “organic life” (Granovsky) and the idea of the variability of the historical process, interpreted as the constant inclination of history to “permanent improvisation” (Herzen). The author pays special attention to the development of the concepts of “transitional form” and “chaos,” which provide the acceleration of the progressive movement of history and the possibility of an active and responsible participation of an individual and masses in it. The attention to this problem introduced the spiritual and moral component into the ontological basis of the historical process as well as the concept of necessity and chance, freedom and violence, revolution and evolution into the conceptual apparatus of philosophical and historical knowledge. As a result, simultaneously with the metaphysical principles, the principles of concrete historical and axiological analysis were integrated into the methodology of the philosophy of history. This approach to the analysis of the historical process has preserved its heuristic potential to the present day.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document