17th and 18th Century Russian Philosophy

This article is a review of the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Russian Philosophy, the result of the work of a team of Russian specialists in philosophy and human sciences, edited by M. A. Maslin, professor of History of Russian Philosophy at Moscow University. However, it is also intended to be an assessment of the conditions that legitimate the denomination ‘Russian philosophy’, and a reflection on the character and orientations of Russian thought, especially in the period before and after (...) the Revolution of 1917. (shrink)

This is a review of Teresa Obolevitch's Faith and Science in Russian Religious Thought, which provides an intellectual history of the collaboration between fides and ratio in the course of the development of Russian thought, from its Byzantine origins to the twenty-first century. Obolevitch examines various approaches to combining faith and science in such eighteenth-century thinkers as Mikhail Lomonosov and Gregory Skovoroda, the nineteenth-century thinkers Victor Kudryavtsev-Platonov, Dimitrii Golubinsky, Sergei Glagolev, the Schellingian Peter Chaadaev, the Slavophiles Alexei Khomyakov and Ivan (...) Kireevsky, the writers Fedor Dostoevsky and Lev Tolstoy, Vladimir Soloviev, the twentieth-century philosophers Nikolai Lossky, Pavel Florensky, Semen Frank, Nikolai Berdyaev, Lev Shestov, Sergius Bulgakov, Alexei Losev, the Russian Cosmists Nikolai Fedorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and Vladimir Vernadsky, and the Orthodox priest Georges Florovsky. The book ends with considerations on the Neo-Patristic synthesis of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the present review, I situate the book in the context of the author's works, I summarize it, editorializing occasionally, and I discuss the thesis of the book in the wider context of world religions. (shrink)

Leibniz’s philosophy enjoyed a Russian fandom that endured from the eighteenth century to the death of the last exiled Russian philosophers in the twentieth century. There was, to begin with, Leibniz’s direct impact on Peter the Great and on the scientific development of Saint Petersburg. Then there was, still in the eighteenth century, Mikhail Lomonosov, who was sent to study with Christian Wolff in Marburg, and who came back to Saint Petersburg with a watered-down Leibnizian worldview, which he applied to (...) the study of chemistry and physics. Another eighteenth century philosopher, Alexander Radishchev, who studied in Leipzig, displayed acquiescence with a number of key elements from Leibniz’s philosophy. Russian Lebnizianism as a continuous philosophical movement was considerably reinvigorated in the 1870s when the Leibnizian German philosopher Gustav Teichmüller took a position at the University of Dorpat (nowadays Tartu, Estonia), which was then located within the Russian Empire. Teichmüller influenced a number of Russian philosophers into adopting a “Teichmüllerian” version of Leibnizianism. Among these philosophers were Evgeny Bobrov and Alexei Kozlov. In Saint Petersburg, Kozlov influenced his own son, Askoldov, and the latter’s friend — Nikolai Lossky. In the meanwhile, in Moscow Lev Lopatin, Nikolai Bugaev, and Petr Astafiev developed their own Leibnizianism in seemingly relative independence from Teichmüller’s influence and presumably, in some cases, under the partial influence of Vladimir Solovyov. Despite this relative independence, however, the fact remains that there was in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia a network of more or less loosely interconnected Leibnizian philosophers who read each other and wrote about each other, who exchanged ideas, and who constituted a movement that we might characterize as “Russian Leibnizianism” or “Russian Neo-Leibnizianism.” In this chapter, I tell the story of the intellectual lineage of Russian Leibnizianism. (shrink)

Based upon the Ukrainian hierarchs’ epistolary legacy, the article analyzes characteristic features of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy intellectual space, which was created by Academy alumni of different generations and various hierarchy levels. The author establishes that the closest relations were between correspondents belonging to the same or almost same hierarchy level and who were bonded together by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy educational system and school comradeship, eventually obtained high positions in the hierarchy. Communication within the boundaries of individual centers (the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, the (...) Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, collegiums in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Pereiaslav, seats of Ukrainian bishops in Russia, etc.) depended on specificity of the environment. Predominant themes encountered in the letters of the Ukrainian bishops included needs of the alma mater, the Kyiv Academy, and the collegiums. The correspondence addressed issues of their legal status, academic staff, financial support, as well as the literary work and publishing activities of the hierarchs. (shrink)

This is a review of Thomas Nemeth's Kant in Imperial Russia, Cham: Springer, 2017. It gives a rundown of the contents of the book, which may be considered the definitive, comprehensive, and authoritative overview of the Kantrezeption in pre-Soviet Russia in the English language. The book proceeds chronologically, starting from Kant's days up to the Bolshevik Revolution, examining well-known and lesser-known Russian philosophers and thinkers as well as figures of other nationalities who contributed to the dissemination of Kant's ideas in (...) Russia, from intellectuals like Nikolai Karamzin, who paid Kant a visit during his travels, to Mikhail Vladislavlev, Vladimir Solovyov, Aleksej Kozlov, Aleksandr Vvedenskij, Lev Lopatin, Nikolai Berdjaev, the brothers Trubeckoj, Georgij Chelpanov, Gustav Shpet, Pavel Novgorodcev, Ivan Lapshin, Vladimir Ern, Nikolai Losskij, Boris Jakovenko, and many others. The review emphasizes the principal outcome of the book, which is that the Russian reception of Kant's philosophy was largely negative. (shrink)

Michael Schippan legt mit seiner Studie die erste umfassende deutschsprachige Darstellung der russischen Aufklarung (prosvescenie) vor. Vor allem in der zweiten Halfte des 18. Jahrhunderts nahm das Russische Zarenreich teil an der europaischen Emanzipationsbewegung des "Siecle des Lumieres", eignete sich durch Ubersetzung und Spracherwerb das Gedankengut des "lateinischen Europa" an und formte es den Bedurfnissen des euro-asiatischen Landes entsprechend um. Unter prosve'enie wurden sowohl Bildung, Zivilisation, Europaisierung und menschliche Selbstvervollkommnung als auch die Teilhabe an der europaischen Geistesbewegung der Aufklarung verstanden. (...) Zwei herausragende Herrscher gaben entscheidende Anstosse: Zar Peter I., der nach 1700 vor allem aus militarischen Grunden heraus umfassende Reformen einleitete, und Katharina II., die zum inneren Zirkel der aufgeklarten europaischen Monarchen gezahlt wurde. Nicht nur in den beiden "Hauptstadten" St. Petersburg und Moskau, sondern auch in einigen Gouvernementszentren Zentralrusslands sowie in Sibirien wurde ein reges kulturelles und geistiges Leben begrundet.Schippan untersucht in institutions- und personengeschichtlicher Perspektive, welche neuen weltlichen Bildungs- und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen geschaffen wurden und wie zunehmend private Vereinigungen gebildeter Adliger und Vertreter anderer Stande entstanden. Zudem werden zentrale Debatten der Aufklarung in Russland in ihrer Wechselwirkung mit den Diskursen der europaischen "Republique des lettres" beleuchtet, so die Diskussionen uber Russland und Asien, Krieg und Frieden, okonomische Landeserschliessung und Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft, Theologie und Religion sowie Geschichtsschreibung. (shrink)

The article constitutes an attempt at reconstructing the views of Aleksander Radishchev, the 18th and 19th century Russian writer and thinker. In considering his most famous work, the novel A Journey from Petersburg to Moscow, the author questions the validity of the decade-long held opinion of Radishchev as the precursor of Russian intellectual consciousness. In analysing various motifs within his thought – his political programme, historiosophy, and moral philosophy he shows that Radishchev was at the same time an advocate of (...) modernisation and a pessimist aware of its very limitations. This determines the difference between his position and that occupied later by intellectual progressivism and allows one to consider him as the precursor of contemporary post-Enlightenment consciousness. (shrink)

The eighteenth-century natural philosopher Mikhail Vasil'evich Lomonosov has long been represented by Russian writers and scholars as an encyclopedic figure who not only pioneered the dissemination of a scientific ethos in Russia, but whose own innumerable contributions to science make him eminently worthy of inclusion in a pantheon among the greatest scientific minds. A robust mythology extolling Lomonosov's role in Russian science and culture formed in the years immediately following his death, and would increase in vigor while adapting to changing (...) historical circumstances until well into the twentieth century. This dissertation explores the evolution of Lomonosov's imposing stature in Russian thought from the middle of the eighteenth century to the first decades of the Soviet period. It reveals much about the intersection in Russian culture of changing attitudes towards the meaning and significance of science, as well as about the rise of a Russian national identity of which Lomonosov became an outstanding symbol. ;The processes by which myths can be used to create and shape historical memory are highlighted throughout this inquiry. At first, Lomonosov was depicted very generally as the pioneering Russian natural philosopher; later his contributions, still broadly framed, were conflated with select institutional agendas; finally historians of various disciplines appropriated his life in order to reinforce their own professional strategies. Even as the myth of Lomonosov grew more elaborate, however, it was the inspiring idea of Lomonosov's heroic determination to propagate science, culture, and education within Russia and his successful struggles against myriad obstacles to achieve this end that remained the primary and enduring biographical element. It is this image with which my study is principally concerned. (shrink)

This is a fine book on a heroic and noble figure of Russian political and intellectual history. Alexander Radishchev, descendant of Tartar princes, was a page at the court of Catherine the Great who sent him to Leipzig to complete his education. Imbued by the ideas of the 18th century in Germany and of the French enlightenment, Radishchev went back to his native Russia but could not reconcile himself to the horrible state of the Russian serfs. Thus he wrote a (...) vitriolic denunciation of the feudal regime in A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow after which the Empress Catherine exiled him to Siberia. Eventually he managed to get back to the capital but he was unable to win back his former position. In despair of ever realizing his ideas he committed suicide. His tormented life and his rich, eclectic philosophic and political views are treated in this well-written, interesting study.--M. J. V. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This lengthy and fascinating anthology surveys Russian philosophy from the middle of the Eighteenth Century to the present, accompanying selections from twenty-seven Russian philosophers with informative biographical and critical material. Many of the selections appear for the first time in translation. After a short introduction on the subject of Russian philosophy, Vol. I takes the reader from the thought of Grigory Skovoroda into the Nineteenth Century movements of the "slavophiles" and "westernizers." Of special interest here are the selections by Skovoroda, (...) Kireyevsky, Belinsky, and Bakunin. Vol. II deals with the nihilist and populist movements of the latter half of the Nineteenth Century and the reaction of religious slavophile critics to these movements. Among those represented are Chernyshevsky, Mikhailovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Leontyev. Vol. III traces the course of Russian philosophizing, both in and outside Russia, during the Twentieth Century. Selections from Fyodorov and Solovyov represent pre-revolutionary religious philosophy. Writings from Shestov and Berdyaev are among the works of "philosophers in exile" who reacted to the revolution. The final section of the volume surveys Marxist philosophy in Russia. Several essays by Georgy Plekhanov show the Marxist movement in Russia in its early years. Selections from Lenin's Materialism and Empirico-Criticism are included, along with Akselrod's review of the book. The final selection is a translation of A. G. Spirkin's article "Dialekicheski Materializm" from the Filosofskaya Entsiklopedia, 1960.—A. W. W. (shrink)