2. Philosophical thought of Ancient Rus'.
3. Petrine reforms and enlightenment in Russia.
6. Russian Marxism. Philosophy of the Soviet period.
1. Main features of Russian philosophy.
An integral part of the world historical and philosophical process is the centuries-old history of philosophy in Russia.
The cultural and historical development of our country is reflected in our national philosophy, which has gone through an original path of development. Having originated later than in neighboring countries, domestic philosophical thought was strongly influenced first by Byzantine and ancient thought, then by Western European philosophy.
Russian philosophical thought has some common features.
Firstly,Russian philosophy is closely connected with socio-political activities, with artistic and religious creativity. Hence the journalistic nature of many philosophical works, the authors of which are public figures, writers, and scientists. Even fine art had a philosophical significance - medieval icon painting, called the book. E.N. Trubetskoy “speculation in colors”, and then - the Russian avant-garde of the early twentieth century (Kandinsky, Malevich, Filonov). At the same time, the share of institutionalized thought in Russian philosophy is small - universities and similar religious educational institutions appeared only in the Age of Enlightenment, the teaching of philosophy in them was repeatedly limited, or even completely prohibited. As a result, Russian philosophy acquired such a quality as diffuseness, meaning that it exists only permeating the entire spiritual culture, and not in formal isolation from it, as was often the case in Europe.
Secondly,Russian philosophy is not specifically engaged in the development of theoretical and epistemological problems; cognition becomes the subject of study in connection with the problems of being - this is seen ontologism Russian philosophy.
Third,special attention is paid to the problem of human existence, in this regard, domestic thought anthropocentric.
Fourthly,Socio-historical problems are closely connected with the problem of man: the problem of the meaning of history, the place of Russia in world history. Russian philosophy historiosophical.
Fifthly,Russian philosophical thought ethically oriented, as evidenced by the moral and practical nature of the problems it solves, and great attention to the inner world of man.
In general, Russian philosophical thought is heterogeneous; these features are unequally represented in the teachings of different thinkers.
It should be borne in mind that some researchers distinguish within the framework of Russian philosophy an original Russian philosophy, essentially religious and mystical. According to A.F. Losev, “Russian original philosophy represents an incessant struggle between Western European ratio and Eastern Christian, concrete, divine-human Logos.”
There are several periods in the history of Russian philosophical thought:
1st - philosophical thought of Ancient Rus' (preparatory period) - XI - XVII centuries;
2nd - educational philosophy (XVIII - early XIX centuries);
3rd - development of original Russian philosophy (second third of the 19th century - beginning of the 20th century);
4th - post-October period (most of the 20th century).
2. Philosophical thought of Ancient Rus'
With the adoption of Christianity in Rus' (988), pagan mythology begins to be supplanted by the Christian worldview, which contributes to the emergence of philosophy and gives it a religious character. However, the formula of medieval Western thought “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology” is of little use in Rus' due to the underdevelopment of theology. The formation of the thought of medieval Rus' was significantly influenced by patristics, especially the teachings of representatives of the Cappadocian school: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as the last representative of Eastern patristics, John of Damascus.
Work was important John of Damascus(675-750) “The Source of Knowledge” (especially the first part - “Dialectics”). Noting the need for philosophy to justify religious faith, he gave six different definitions of philosophy. Exploring the problems of the relationship between God and the world (God is not only the Creator, but also the Reason of the world), the relationship between the rational and sensual soul, Damascene rationally comprehended the heritage of patristics. The popular “Six Days” by John Exarch of Bulgaria is also a creative adaptation of the work of Basil the Great. John sought to combine the biblical ideas about the creation of the world in six days with the ancient natural philosophical teaching about the elements. (God created 4 elements out of nothing: earth, air, water and fire; the rest of the world arises from them). In man, he distinguishes two cognitive abilities: feelings and mind, while distinguishing between reason as an active thinking force and mind. The collections “Bee”, “Dioptra”, “Explanatory Palea”, “Izborniki” of 1073 and 1076 became widespread in Rus'. Thus, the foundations were laid for the formation of ancient Russian philosophy.
In the 11th century, the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion, and “The Teaching” by Vladimir Monomakh appeared. Among the works of the 12th century, the creations of Cyril of Turov should be noted. Metropolitan Hilarion presents a unique philosophy of history. He distinguishes two periods: law and grace, the first is preparatory, the second is the era of freedom. Rus', which adopted Christianity, became the “people of God”, before which there is a great future.
The formation and development of Russian philosophical thought was not interrupted during the years of the Mongol yoke. In the 13th-14th centuries, hagiographic (hagiography) literature developed. Behind its religious shell hid a strong and original thought that explored issues of the universe.
Of even greater importance was the development of the tradition of compiling “Soborniki”, which were compilations of translated fragments from theological, philosophical, and scientific texts of antiquity and the Middle Ages, which were original in their compositional design. The most famous and representative is the Sobornik by Kirill Belozersky. A huge place in it is occupied by sections devoted to ideological and dogmatic polemics with various heretical teachings (several dozen), Catholicism, Judaism, paganism, and early critics of Christianity. It also contains explanations of atmospheric and lithospheric phenomena, the lunar calendar, a presentation of Easter (the basis of Byzantine chronology) and some other articles of a scientific nature. Finally, much attention is paid to the ideology and practice of monasticism. As you can see, this code contains a large number of materials of ideological significance, which obviously contributed to the development of original thought in Rus'.
In the 15th-16th centuries, Russian philosophical thought experienced a significant rise, which some researchers consider comparable to the European “pre-renaissance.” At this time, the influence of Orthodox Byzantine and Western thought on her increased.
The following main components of the philosophical culture of Rus' at that time can be distinguished:
1) mystical-ascetic direction, concentrated around northern monasteries and authoritative elders (Kirill Belozersky, Nil Sorsky) and based on the philosophical and practical system of Byzantine hesychasm;
2) allegorical rationalism, also predominantly developed in a monastic environment (Joseph Volotsky, Daniil Ryazanets, Elder Philotheus, Zinovy Ottensky), based on the tradition of Christian exegesis, that is, a multi-level symbolic interpretation of sacred texts;
3) rationalistic heresies(Strigolniki, Judaizers, Tver anti-Trinitarians, Theodosians), who rejected the dogma and cult of the Orthodox Church based on the systematization of common sense and everyday experience;
4) socio-political thought of the Renaissance type(Fyodor Kuritsyn, Fyodor Karpov, Ivan Peresvetov, Ermolai-Erasmus, Ivan the Terrible).
An important component of the Russian culture of this period is hesychasm (from the Greek hesychia - silence) - a religious and mystical teaching that cultivated silent prayer and spiritual concentration. One of the largest representatives of hesychasm is Gregory Palamas, a Byzantine mystic of the 14th century. Contrasting God and the world, hesychasm understood the world as uncreated energy. Faith in God must be supplemented by the comprehension of energy, mystical experience, the union of soul and energy. Hesychasm influenced the largest representative of the “non-acquisitive” movement, Nilus of Sora (1433-1508) and the 16th-century philosopher Maximus the Greek (1470-1556).
Neil Sorskywas the author of the largest collection of the lives of saints, exclusively Greek, before the famous “Chetiy-Minea” (mid-16th century), as well as a large treatise on monasticism, usually called simply “11 chapters,” and several epistles. “The Sobornik” by Nil Sorsky is unique in that its author, for the first time in the history of Russian culture, used, albeit the simplest, textual criticism when comparing lists of lives. This was especially significant because He compared Greek texts, being at that time one of the few Russians who spoke this language perfectly. A whole workshop of translators and copyists worked under his leadership, which for a long time became a reference point for educated people of his time. “11 Chapters” are also compilative in many respects; their value primarily lies in the fact that they introduced the Russian reader to the complex anthropology and psychology of hesychasm in all its main aspects. In fact, this is a treatise on the theory and practice of hesychasm, adapted for Russian monasticism of that time.
Maxim Grek(in the world - Mikhail Trivolis) came to Russia without yet speaking Russian. And yet, it was he who became the most prolific and famous writer of the entire Russian Middle Ages. Hesychasm, although it affected Maximus, was not the core of his views, which developed in Italy at the end of the 15th century. Maxim was the first Russian humanist who preached the ideas of anthropocentrism, social service of the church, and the humanistic orientation of the state. His translation activities played a major role, introducing the Russian educated people of that time to the achievements of ancient culture. The tragic fate of Maxim (he spent twenty-seven years in the dungeons of a monastery) made his figure attractive to unorthodox thinkers of the time, and subsequently to Old Believers who fought against the official church.
The influence of hesychasm can also be traced in the subsequent development of Russian philosophical thought, in its inclination towards mystical-intuitive knowledge.
The development of allegorical rationalism occurred primarily based on the needs of the fight against heresies (this is how “The Enlightener” by Joseph Volotsky and “The Verbose Epistle” by Zinovy of Otensky appeared) or for influence on the grand princely power (“Words” by Metropolitan Daniel). In the writings of Joseph and Daniel, the problem of justifying autocracy occupies a huge place. But this work was carried out opportunistically and the result carries indelible contradictions. Until now, the greatest merit of Joseph and the “Josephites” is considered not the theory of God’s chosenness and unlimited royal power, but the thesis about the right of subjects to resist unjust power, put forward during the period of opposition to the great princes. Daniel went the furthest in preaching unlimited power, starting from the gospel category of patience. But this was already hotly argued by his contemporaries, for example, diplomat Fyodor Karpov, who was supported by Maxim Grek. From a philosophical point of view, the most interesting works are Zinovy Otensky, developing towards scholasticism. He is the only Russian thinker who put forward rational proofs of the existence of God, of which there were three, and one of them was not known in the European tradition.
The richest and closest to the Western European Renaissance was the socio-political thought of Muscovite Rus'. In line with the Aristotelian doctrine of the state they worked Fedor Karpov, Ivan Peresvetov, Ermolai-Erasmus. These thinkers created a specific terminology that included such political categories as “truth”, “thunderstorm”, “mercy” and acted as ideologists of a monarchy transitioning from class-representative to absolutist type. Ermolai-Erasmus even developed projects for specific reforms, sometimes very naive. Standing apart is the figure of the diplomat and heretic Fyodor Kuritsyn (late 15th century), the author of “The Tale of Dracula” - an allegorical treatise on the power of a true absolute monarch in the spirit of Machiavellianism.
However, the history of Russian thought was more influenced by the messages of the elder Filofeya, in which the ancient mystical concept of the “wandering kingdom” received an original development. Filofey is the author of the idea “Moscow is the third Rome” (1520s). In accordance with it, two “Romes” (Ancient Rome and Byzantium) fell without accepting Christianity or betraying it. Moscow became the bearer of the true faith - the third and last Rome, which will become the last refuge of believers before and during the coming of the Antichrist. This implies the messianic role of Moscow, which, however, does not promise it any benefits or political success. One way or another, a full-fledged theory of Russian autocracy was developed by Metropolitan Macarius and reflected in the sarcastic journalism of Ivan the Terrible.
In the 17th century, Western European influence on Russian philosophical culture began to overpower the Byzantine tradition. The decisive role in this was played by the process of institutionalization of education and science, which began in Ukraine with the opening in 1632 of the Peter the Mogila Collegium, built on the model of Jesuit educational institutions. Soon the collegium became the famous Kiev-Mohyla Academy - a conductor of scholastic philosophy on Russian lands. For more than a hundred years, most of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church were graduates of the academy, which gave systematic courses of lectures on philosophy in general, as well as on individual philosophical disciplines, logic in the first place.
Also, the university was initially supposed to have a pro-Western character, the project of which was developed at the court of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich by 1682. However, the death of this enlightened monarch led to the opening of a de facto censorship and supervisory institution - the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Its first teachers were Greek monks - the Likhud brothers, who were guided by the Byzantine tradition. But under Peter it was transformed into an educational institution similar to the Mogila Academy.
In the 17th century, Moscow became a center of attraction for thinkers from Slavic countries. Croatian (and Catholic) Yuri Krizhanich(XVII century) put forward the idea of a distinctive Slavic world, opposed to other cultures. The thinker developed a fundamental classification of all types of knowledge, clarified the relationship between wisdom, knowledge and philosophy, and considered philosophy the highest level of knowledge. He rightfully entered the ranks of Russian philosophers.
Thus, the foundations of philosophical culture were laid in Ancient Rus', although the original philosophy had not yet received a developed systematic form.
3. Petrine reforms and educational philosophy in Russia
With the reforms of Peter I, a new period begins in the history of Russian philosophy. There is a process of demarcation between philosophy and theology. Secular, primarily political, thought is developing.
Russian philosophy of the 18th century was the philosophy of the Enlightenment. As in Europe, the spectrum of Russian enlightenment was very wide. We can talk about the following components of the philosophical culture of the Russian Enlightenment:
1) institutionalized (university) secular philosophy(D.S. Anichkov, A.A. Barsov, S.E. Desnitsky, A.M. Bryantsev) and the similar philosophical thought of Russian naturalists, primarily M.V. Lomonosov;
2) non-institutionalized secular philosophy, which includes professional but not teaching philosophers (G.S. Skovoroda, V.N. Teplov), and philosophizing poets, writers, administrators (V.N. Tatishchev, A. Kantemir, K. Trediakovsky, G. Derzhavin, etc.), and thinkers of the socio-political direction, both conservatives (M.M. Shcherbatov) and radicals (A.N. Radishchev);
3) institutionalized religious (spiritual-academic) philosophy(Theophylact Lopatinsky, Theophylact Gorsky, Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, Apollos Baibakov, Damaskin Semenov-Rudnev);
4) non-institutionalized religious philosophy, which included the theological and philosophical creativity of Russian hierarchs (Dmitry Tuptalo, Platon Levshin, Tikhon Zadonsky) and Freemasonry, which was in many ways the opposite of it (I.E. Schwartz, I.V. Lopukhin).
Within the framework of the Russian Enlightenment, a number of notable and quite original philosophical phenomena were formed.
The first in time was the “scientific squad” of Peter the Great (Feofan Prokopovich, V. Tatishchev, A. Cantemir, etc.), whose representatives theoretically substantiated the reforms of the state and church, anticipating the ideas of future “Westerners.” V.N. Tatishchev as a representative of the Enlightenment, based on the teachings of the enlightenment philosopher H. Wolf, he criticized Plato’s doctrine of the soul. The ideas of the Enlightenment are also inspired by his philosophy of history, which distinguishes three stages of “intellectual enlightenment”: the creation of writing, the coming of Christ, and printing. Tatishchev believed that although Russia lags behind the West, it is following the same path, the same future awaits it.
He made a huge contribution to the development of science and science-based philosophy M.V. Lomonosov(1711-1765). The scientist considered matter to be the basis of natural phenomena. It is understood by him as elements and groups of elements - corpuscles. Everything is filled with matter, there is no emptiness. Changes in things are the essence of the movement of matter. Lomonosov distinguishes three types of motion: translational, rotational and oscillatory. Considering matter to be eternal, Lomonosov formulates the law of conservation of matter: “If a little matter is lost somewhere, it will increase in another place.” Nature, therefore, does not need divine intervention. Despite the fact that Lomonosov highly values the dignity of reason, he separates the world of reason from the world of faith, although they are in agreement (“Truth and faith are two sisters”). Lomonosov is a deist. His teaching marks the emergence of secular natural philosophy in Russia. It is also interesting that the discovery of some physical laws (for example, the conservation of matter) was preceded by M.V. Lomonosov by putting forward corresponding philosophical hypotheses. The Russian scientist brilliantly demonstrated the unity of philosophy and science in the knowledge of the objective laws of nature and the world as a whole.
"Itinerant University" was called G.S. Skovorod(1722-1794), who propagated his religious and philosophical teachings in the Kharkov, Belgorod and Kursk provinces. At the center of his philosophy is man as a microcosm. Skovoroda distinguishes three worlds: macrocosmos, microcosmos (man) and the world of symbols (the Bible), connecting the big and small worlds, ideally expressing them in itself. Believing in the limitless possibility of knowing the world, he is convinced that the source of thought is the heart. Skovoroda’s teaching is characterized as “mystical symbolism”; it anticipates the philosophy of the Slavophiles of the 19th century.
The problem of man is the focus of the writer and socio-political figure A.N. Radishcheva(1749-1802). Based on the ideas of the French Enlightenment: the theory of social contract, natural law, the priority of law, Radishchev criticizes autocracy and serfdom. In Siberian exile, he wrote a treatise “On Man, His Mortality and Immortality” (1792). Radishchev's position in the treatise is ambiguous. On the one hand, he explores the problem of the natural origin of man, his mortality, relying on contemporary philosophical and scientific ideas; on the other hand, he recognizes the immortality of the soul, failing to materialistically explain the origin of the “mental ability.” In this regard, Radishchev complements the materialist teaching with traditional religious and philosophical teaching.
By the middle of the 18th century, liberal (D.I. Fonvizin) and conservative (M.M. Shcherbatov) directions of socio-political thought were taking shape.
Finally, within the framework of the so-called " learned monasticism“The foundations of original religious philosophy are laid. Its representatives (Platon Levshin, Feofilakt Gorsky, Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, Apollos Baibakov, Damaskin Semenov-Rudnev) developed three main problems - the meaning of human life, social ethics and mystical knowledge. “Synergy” was proclaimed as the meaning of human life, i.e. assisting God in realizing his plan for the world. Man, choosing between God and the world itself, chose either simple satisfaction of his needs, or became a co-creator and received a high status in existence that was truly worthy of man. However, co-creation has always been understood as a test and was conveyed through such an image as carrying a cross. Social ethics was less original and was based on the ideas of modern German and French educational philosophy. In mystical knowledge, the “learned monks” relied on the Byzantine tradition and developed antinomian logic, which involved thinking through contradictions that cannot be resolved within the created world, and an anagogical method of knowledge based on the rational-intuitive and philosophical-artistic interpretation of sacred texts.
Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, the basic ideas of Western philosophy were assimilated, and a number of areas of philosophical knowledge were formed. At the same time, the process of formation of original Russian philosophy has not yet been completed. The decisive role here was played by German classical philosophy, primarily the teachings of Schelling, and later Hegel, which penetrated into Russia in the first decades of the 19th century. It was Schelling’s philosophy that was one of the components of the creative synthesis, as a result of which a new period in the history of Russian philosophy begins.
4. Russian philosophy of the 19th century.
Beginning of the 19th century - this is a period associated with the formation of the self-awareness of the Russian nation and, as a consequence of this, the formation of the first original philosophical movements of Russia: Westerners and Slavophiles. The difference between them is primarily on the issue of the paths of historical development of Russia: Westerners saw the future of Russia in following Western Europe, highly appreciated the activities of Peter I; Slavophiles, on the contrary, accused Peter of violating the organic development of Russia, which has cultural originality; Russian culture requires a special path of development and creation of Orthodox philosophy. There are also differences on issues of ontology and theory of knowledge, but in the 30s and 40s the divergence was not yet deep.
The immediate cause for controversy and the formation of directions was the “Philosophical Letters” P.Ya. Chaadaeva(1793-1856), which raised the question of Russia’s place in history. Chaadaev is a religious thinker who believed that history is guided by Divine Providence. The leadership role of the Catholic Church is in accordance with providence; Western Europe has achieved great success in the implementation of Christian principles. Chaadaev in this regard is a Westerner. Russia is neither a dynamic West nor a sedentary East; it seems to have fallen out of world history; providence has abandoned it. Russia exists as if to teach the world some serious lesson. Subsequently, Chaadaev changed his assessment of the historical role of Russia, but he formulated the first original theme of Russian philosophy.
The problem of Russia's place in history is also in the center of attention of Slavophiles (I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin).
I.V. Kireyevsky(1806 - 1856) creatively synthesized the ideas of patristics and Western philosophy of the New Age (primarily Schelling). He pays special attention to the question of the difference between the spiritual culture (“enlightenment”) of Russia and the West. Kireevsky notes the following differences: the culture of the West inherited individualism and rationalism from Rome, hence the predominance of egoism and rational knowledge there. The result of rationalism is analysis, “self-dominant reason - this logical activity, detached from all other cognitive abilities.” In Rus', on the contrary, communal property, the union of state and church, and “a living and integral vision of the mind” have been preserved. It is necessary to develop the principles of Orthodox culture and contrast them with the “decaying” West.
The one-sided nature of Western culture was also criticized A.S. Khomyakov(1804 - 1860), - religious philosopher, theologian and poet. Combining Orthodoxy and philosophy, Khomyakov came to the idea that true knowledge is inaccessible to an individual mind, divorced from faith and the church. Such knowledge is flawed and incomplete. Only “living knowledge” based on Faith and Love can reveal the truth. Khomyakov was a consistent opponent of rationalism. The basis of his theory of knowledge is the principle of “conciliarity”. Sobornost is a special type of collectivism. This is church collectivism. Khomyakov’s interest in the community as a social entity is connected with it as a spiritual unity. The thinker defended the spiritual freedom of the individual, which should not be encroached upon by the state; his ideal was a “republic in the realm of the spirit.” Later, Slavophilism evolved in the direction of nationalism and political conservatism.
Among Westerners two directions stand out: liberal (V.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) and revolutionary-democratic (V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev, N.A. Dobrolyubov). Thinkers of the revolutionary-democratic trend associated Westernization with the idea of a revolutionary transformation of society. The formation of their philosophical views was influenced by Schelling, Hegel and Feuerbach. V.G. Belinsky(1811-1848) used Hegel's dialectic to criticize the autocracy and the church. At the same time, he criticizes Hegel for underestimating the importance of the individual: “... the fate of the subject, the individual, the personality is more important than the fate of the whole world...”.
The greatest philosopher of the revolutionary-democratic movement - A.I. Herzen(1812 - 1870). In “Letters on the Study of Nature,” he was the first in Russian philosophy to apply Hegel’s dialectics to the interpretation of nature. Later he moved away from Hegel's teachings. His skepticism gradually increases. Disillusioned with the civilization of the West after the revolution of 1848, Herzen began to doubt the rationality of history, emphasizing the illogic of the historical process, the role of chance and personality in history. At the same time, his interest in the specifics of Russia’s national path of development and the role of the community in the transition to socialism intensified.
N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889) sought to form a holistic materialist understanding of nature and society. Based on the teachings of Feuerbach, Chernyshevsky developed the anthropological principle in philosophy and combined it with materialism in natural science. In this regard, he emphasized the special role of chemical processes as the basis of the unity of nature. Chernyshevsky applied Hegel’s dialectics (the idea of the triad), as well as the results of his research in the field of political economy, to the study of social processes. However, he did not create a holistic materialist theory of society. His aesthetic theory (“The Beautiful is Life”) is of some interest.
Subsequently, the tradition of revolutionary democratic thought in Russia was continued by representatives of populism, whose leaders P.L. Lavrov and N.K. Mikhailovsky were influenced by the “first” positivism. In general, in the 60-80s of the 19th century, there was a predominance of positivism and natural scientific materialism (I.M. Sechenov, I.I. Mechnikov). Religious and philosophical thought is gaining new breath.
The ideas of the Slavophiles, primarily Kireevsky and Khomyakov, contained the premises of the theory of cultural-historical types developed Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky(1822-1885), a famous practical scientist (he was a specialist in the field of climatology and ichthyology), author of the famous treatise “Russia and Europe” (1871). However, he had already partly deviated from classical Slavophilism. He was not satisfied with the fact that it only proclaimed the national idea, but did not discuss the problem of “original national development.” The first Slavophiles, in his opinion, acted in many ways the same way as the Westerners they condemned: they simply adopted the logic of German philosophy, transferring the implementation of a universal task from European soil to Slavic soil. In reality, according to the thinker, everything happens differently: every tribe, every people pursues purely selfish goals, relying on their own internal strengths and abilities. Some nations have more of them, others have less. And those peoples who are in some respect superior to others create special cultural and historical types, or civilizations, which represent the embodiment of their spiritual essence. So far, only ten such distinctive civilizations are known: 1) Egyptian, 2) Chinese, 3) Chaldean, or ancient Semitic, 4) Indian, 5) Iranian, 6) Jewish, 7) Greek, 8) Roman, 9) New Semitic, or Arabian , 10) German-Roman, or European. The rest of the peoples were not so lucky: they either acted as the so-called “scourges of God”, destroyers of “decrepit” civilizations (such as the Huns, Mongols, Turks), or constituted “ethnographic material” for other cultural and historical types (such as , Finns). The uniqueness of civilizations means that the principles that lie in a people of one cultural-historical type can be distorted and destroyed, but cannot be replaced by other principles that belong to a people of a different cultural-historical type. At most, one can assimilate the conclusions and methods of the positive sciences, techniques and improvements in the arts and industry; “everything else, especially everything related to the knowledge of man and society, and especially the practical application of this knowledge, cannot at all be the subject of borrowing.”
Formulating the general laws of development of original civilizations, Danilevsky proceeded from the fact that they all represent the implementation of a certain form of cultural creativity - scientific, legal, religious or artistic. Therefore, the first law stated: for the emergence of civilization, it is necessary that the people have the appropriate “spiritual inclinations” and enjoy political freedom. Further, the laws of the functioning of civilizations were put forward: 1) The beginnings of a civilization of one cultural-historical type are not transmitted to peoples of another type; 2) The completeness and richness of a cultural-historical type depends on the diversity of the ethnographic elements included in it, “when they, without being absorbed into one political whole, taking advantage of their independence, constitute a federation, or a political system of states”; 3) The period of growth of a civilization is always indefinitely longer than the period of flowering and fruiting, after which it exhausts its vitality and is no longer renewed.
According to Danilevsky’s scheme, the West, which created the last historical civilization, has already experienced “the apogee of its civilizational greatness,” and now the rise of the Slavs and the formation of a unique Slavic civilization are next in line. “...Slavism,” he wrote, “is a term of the same order as Hellenism, Latinism, Europeanism, the same cultural and historical type, in relation to which Russia, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Bulgaria should have the same meaning as France, England, Germany, Spain in relation to Europe - what Athens, Sparta, Thebes had in relation to Greece.” A feature of the Slavic cultural-historical type should be “four fundamentals,” i.e. “a synthesis of all aspects of cultural activity,” which until now “have been developed by his predecessors in the historical field separately or in a very incomplete combination.”
Slavophilism, however, was doomed to crisis. In the second half of the century, the Slavic peoples gradually began to reorient themselves towards the great powers of Europe, and not towards a weakened Russia; the reforms of Alexander II largely changed the typology of Russian society itself. As a methodology, the German classics are replaced by a more or less positivist-tinged natural science. Under these conditions, Slavophilism is replaced by Russophilism, or Russian nationalism, the first theorist of which was K.N. Leontyev(1831 - 1891). He himself preferred to call his teaching “Russian Byzantism”, consistently developing it in a whole series of works, such as “Byzantism and Slavism” (1875), “Russians, Greeks and South Slavs. Experience of national psychology" (1878), "Letters on Eastern Affairs" (1882-1883), etc. In them, he openly opposed the idea of a "unilaterally Slavic" purpose for Russia, recognizing it as the vanguard of pan-Slavism. For this reason, Leontyev preferred the politics of the “Orthodox spirit” to the politics of “Slavic flesh.” In other words, he openly took the position of religious-national conservatism.
Leontiev described the historical development using the universal triadic law he formulated. In accordance with this law, everything in the world exists only within a given form, without passing into any other state: something either only exists or does not exist. It is the despotism of the form, expressing the internal idea of matter, that leads to the emergence of a phenomenon that makes a gradual ascent from the simplest to the most complex, rising to isolation. The highest point of development turns out to be at the same time the highest degree of individualization of a phenomenon, the embodiment of the highest flowering complexity. However, what follows depends on the strength and stability of the form. The phenomenon lives and persists as long as the bonds of natural despotism of form are strong. But as soon as the form ceases to restrain the scattering matter, the process of development immediately moves to the stage of decomposition and death. The disappearance of a phenomenon is preceded by such specific moments as simplification of its component parts, a decrease in the number of signs, and a weakening of their unity and strength. In a word, a kind of dissolution of individuality occurs, the phenomenon, as it were, reaches “inorganic nirvana” and goes into oblivion. Thus, development is a triune process: 1) initial simplicity, 2) blossoming complexity and 3) secondary mixed simplification, equally covering natural and social patterns.
The state also develops according to a triadic scheme: first, the isolation of its characteristic political form occurs, then a period of greatest complexity and highest unity begins, and then the fall of the state occurs, which is expressed by the disorder of this form, its merging with the surrounding. The longevity of the state does not exceed 1000 or maybe 1200 or so years. Each nation has its own special state form. It is not developed suddenly or consciously, and even for a long time it can remain ununderstood. At the initial stage, as a rule, the aristocratic form predominates; at the stage of blossoming complexity, the tendency towards autocracy strengthens (at least in the form of a strong presidency, temporary dictatorship, individual demagoguery or tyranny, like the Hellenes in their blossoming period), and towards old age and death a democratic, egalitarian and liberal principle reigns. It followed that the formula for a strong state is dictatorship, strict centralization, while for a weak and dying state it is equalization, democratization of life and mind.
On this basis, Leontyev came up with a program of socio-political “freezing” of the country, speaking, in particular, even against the widespread spread of education.
Criticism of contemporary culture and society, religious and philosophical quests are characteristic of the work of the great Russian writers F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy. In the center of thoughts F. M. Dostoevsky(1821 - 1881) is a person, his contradictory essence. The existence of a person is, first of all, the moral existence of the individual, the existence of a choice between good and evil. Freedom of choice is understood in the Christian sense. Man, in essence, is free, but this freedom can lead to self-deification and arbitrariness (“live according to your own stupid will”). True freedom is connected with God, with merging with him through love (“You will love every thing and you will comprehend the mystery in things”). Refusal of freedom in favor of “bread” gives rise to slavery and emptiness. Dostoevsky is a critic of socialist utopianism. He contrasts socialism with the peaceful unification of the upper strata of society with the “soil”, the Russian people (“pochvennichestvo”). His Christian anthropology anticipates the ideas of existentialism and personalism in domestic and foreign philosophy.
L.N. Tolstoy(1828 -1910) acts as a critic of culture and calls for “simplification”. In his “Confession” he describes a spiritual crisis that gripped him with a feeling of the meaninglessness of life. Not finding meaning in science or rational knowledge, Tolstoy turns to faith. Acting as a religious reformer, he goes beyond the Christian tradition. Personality dissolves in the general principle (life, mind). He subordinates religion, like other forms of culture and knowledge, to morality. The core of the ethical system is non-resistance to evil through violence. Tolstoy's moral preaching had a noticeable impact on the development of Russian culture.
Russian philosophical thought reached its highest development in the second half of the 19th - early 19th century. XX century, when the prerequisites for the formation of philosophical systems appeared. One of the first and most significant systems is represented by the philosophy of V.S. Solovyova.
Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853 - 1900) - the largest Russian philosopher who systematized in his teaching the results of the previous development of Russian philosophy. His main works are “Critique of Abstract Principles” (1880), “Readings on God-Manhood” (1878-1881), “Justification of Good” (1897). For the first time in the Russian philosophical tradition, he created an independent theosophical system based on the ideas of Christianity and German dialectical idealism. His immediate predecessors in Russian philosophy are the Slavophiles.
In Solovyov’s creative activity, an important place is occupied by the project of church reunification and attempts to implement it. The philosopher sees in the world a confrontation between two temptations: the temptation of the West - “godless man”, the temptation of the East - “inhuman deity”. Russia's vocation is “a religious vocation in the highest sense of the word.” It consists of uniting churches. Soloviev proposes a project for a global theocracy, in which the leading role would be played by the Catholic Church (theocracy is a political system based on the ruling role of the church). Showing sympathy for Catholicism, Solovyov called for national self-denial in the name of a universal human task, thus occupying a special place in the historical dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners. In the last years of his life, he became disillusioned with his theocratic utopia; he was overcome by thoughts about the end of history. (“Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of World History” (1900)).
Soloviev revives the philosophy of unity, which has its roots in the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics and the ancient Greek cults. This is a special type of religious philosophy, at the center of which is the doctrine of the Absolute as “all-unity.” The Absolute, in contrast to the Christian God the Creator, is the basis for the formation of the world and is connected with the world. He gives birth to the “other” - the world, in order to manifest himself in it. But the world is an imperfect being. Nature is characterized by discord, the desire for self-affirmation of a separate being. At the same time, nature is not fundamentally different from God, it is only a different combination of elements, less perfect: “Nature (in its opposition to the Divine) can only be another position or rearrangement of the elements that exist substantially in the divine world.” The real world arises as a result of the loss of each individual being's direct connection with God. The original unity is broken. It manifests itself only through humanity, in which the “eternal soul of the world” is preserved. Humanity, then, is divine-humanity.
The doctrine of God-manhood, of the special role of man, is an important component of the philosophy of “all-unity.” In Solovyov’s philosophy, the concept of “soul of the world” plays an important role, originating in the philosophy of Plato and Neoplatonism. The world, having fallen away from God, fell apart into many warring elements. He is saved from destruction by the “world soul”, it is “the existent subject of created existence.” This “soul,” by virtue of its connection with God, seeks to restore the lost unity. The entire evolution of the world is the desire of the “soul” to overcome chaos and reunite the world, imperfect and perfect. The philosopher in a number of works identifies the “world soul” and “Sophia”, which for him is either a “heavenly being” or “the soul of the world”. The triumph of Sophia (Divine wisdom) means the restoration of unity. But Solovyov’s understanding of Sophia is mystical. At the same time, his teaching about Sophia opens the tradition of sophiology in Russian religious philosophy.
Emphasizing the universal mission of man, Solovyov, however, dissolves the individual in the universality of humanity. Is the primary reality humanity and not the individual? humanity is a being becoming absolute through universal progress. He is interested in the topic of “humanity as a whole,” called the “uniform personality.” In humanity as a whole, there is the “soul of the world”; it is sophic, and therefore acts as an intermediary between the absolute existence of God and the absolute existence of the cosmos. Through the efforts of humanity (through the spiritualization of man, the development of consciousness, the assimilation of the divine principle), the lost unity is restored. This is the meaning of the historical process. Solovyov’s teaching is characterized by an evolutionary-historical view of existence. To restore unity, the emergence of unity between the sexes is important. Love is the most important driving force of development.
The restoration of unity is the triumph of good. Soloviev believes in the positive power of good. Evil is only a lack of good. At the end of his life, the thinker comes to the idea of the deeper foundations of evil in the world. He also emphasizes the important role of beauty in the process of restoring unity. Art must continue the artistic work begun by nature. The philosopher affirms the positive ideal of the unity of truth, goodness and beauty.
The idea of “all-unity” has its own epistemological aspect. Soloviev develops the concept of “integral knowledge” proposed by the Slavophiles, which presupposes the unity of knowledge and faith. Faith “connects us internally with the object of knowledge, penetrates into it.” It makes both rational and experiential knowledge possible. Soloviev emphasizes the importance of intellectual intuition as the primary form of integral knowledge. “All-unity” is not understandable only by means of scientific knowledge. Philosophy is a holistic reflection on the world, connecting theoretical knowledge and the practice of moral life. Soloviev sees the basis of “true philosophy” in mysticism. The doctrine of knowledge by V. Solovyov involves the integration of various types of knowledge into a single whole.
The philosophy of V. Solovyov, his work as a symbolist poet contributed to the revival of interest in religious and philosophical thought in Russia. The teaching of the Russian thinker begins the tradition of the philosophy of unity in Russia, among whose representatives are Sergei and Evgeniy Trubetskoy, S.N. Bulgakov, L.P. Karsavin, P.A. Florensky. Solovyov’s role in the formation of the phenomenon of Russian cosmism was also significant.
The philosophy of unity revived by Solovyov has a long historical tradition. It was created by some medieval philosophers, N. Kuzansky. The Russian philosophy of unity is characterized by: the rapprochement of God and the World and a tendency towards pantheism, the desire to combine religion, science and morality in the doctrine of Sophia (sophiology).
5. Russian religious philosophy of the early twentieth century. Metaphysics of unity and the Russian religious renaissance.
Russian religious philosophy of the early twentieth century was an original development of the basic ideas of the original religious philosophy of the end of the previous century, made using the most important achievements of the then European thought. At the same time, many Russian philosophers were able to anticipate some of the achievements of European philosophy in subsequent decades. Thus, N.A. Berdyaev and L.I. Shestov became the forerunners of personalism, S.L. Frank - the existentialist ontology of K. Jaspers, etc.
The most important role in Russian philosophy of the early twentieth century was played by the development of V. Solovyov’s ideas, which took shape in the form of such directions as sophiology and the metaphysics of unity. One of the most interesting Russian philosophers who followed the tradition of unity was P.A.Florensky(1882-1937). He did not repeat Solovyov and disagreed with him on many issues. He develops the doctrine of Sophia based on the material of Orthodox church life. For him, Sophia is “the ideal personality of the world,” “the root of the earthly world, the connection between God and the world.” His teaching influenced the sophiology of S. Bulgakov. In his work “The Pillar and Ground of Truth” (1911), P. Florensky described his experience of spiritual search and acquisition of true knowledge. Truth is comprehended by the “feat of faith”; in rational form it manifests itself in the form of antinomy: truth is antinomy. Thus, the “two-unity” of truth is emphasized. The thinker sought to combine scientific and religious ideas. Considering the second law of thermodynamics, the “law of entropy,” to be the basic law of the world, he understood it as the law of Chaos, which is opposed by Logos as the beginning of entropy. Culture is a means of combating entropy (“with world equalization”). His works in the field of mathematics and semiotics show that rational knowledge and mystical experience coexisted in his work.
The tradition of the philosophy of unity in the twentieth century continues S.N.Bulgakov(1871-1944). At the turn of the century, he moved from Marxism to idealistic philosophy and developed the concept of “Christian socialism.” In 1918 he became a priest and in exile dealt with theological problems. Bulgakov's contribution to the philosophy of unity is mainly associated with the doctrine of Sophia as “the principle of the worldview and the totality of creative energies in Unity.” Sophia is “a living connection between the world and God.” At the same time, he notes the duality of Sophia, distinguishing between the divine and earthly Sophia. Because of this duality, the world is also contradictory. The evil in him comes from rebellious chaotic nothingness. History can be presented as the development of the Sophia principle, as the overcoming of evil, but it can be destroyed along with the lower part of the world, and this threatens to end in a world-historical catastrophe.
The philosophy of unity is the main, if not the only, original philosophical movement that arose in Russia. The most important of Russian philosophers belonged to him. Those last in their glorious ranks were destined to be L.P. Karsavin(1882-1952). His philosophy appears to be not just another system of unity. He turns it into a philosophy of personality. The purpose of man, Karsavin believes, is in the aspiration to God and union with him, communion with the fullness of Divine existence, and this means in the formation of a true personality, “personification.”
The tradition of Russian cosmism, which is significant for Russian philosophy and science, is also connected with the philosophy of unity. Russian cosmism- a special worldview that developed in the 19th - 20th centuries. Its signs are considered to be: 1) consideration of the world, the cosmos as a single whole, and man in inextricable connection with the cosmos; 2) an active evolutionist understanding of the cosmos, in the development of the cosmos a decisive role is played by the creative activity of man, and therefore the transformation of man is assumed; 3) emphasizing the role of science in transforming space; 4) recognition of the need to unite the efforts of people, the unity (“conciliarity”) of humanity. In the ideology of cosmism, an important place is occupied by the ideas of overcoming human mortality, space exploration, and love as a connecting and transforming force. In domestic cosmism, there are religious and philosophical directions (V. Solovyov and the tradition of unity, N. Fedorov, N. Berdyaev) and natural science (N. Umov, K. Tsiolkovsky, A. Chizhevsky, V. Vernadsky).
One of the most prominent representatives of the religious movement in cosmism - N.F. Fedorov(1829-1903). In his work “Philosophy of the Common Cause” he presented an original religious utopia. The thinker emphasizes that “humanity is called to be God’s instrument in the salvation of the world.” The Universe around us is dominated by chaos and hostility, leading to destruction. This process can be stopped by transforming the world based on the combination of science and religious faith, overcoming the “non-brotherly” relationship between people, uniting them around the “Common Cause” project. Saving the world is the task of humanity itself. The solution to this problem involves the scientific management of nature, overcoming finitude in time and space: the exploration of new worlds in space and power over death. The idea of a stage-by-stage resurrection of all ancestors based on the use of scientific achievements is especially original. Only by eliminating injustice towards ancestors can disunity be overcome and the common good achieved.
Teaching K.E. Tsiolkovsky(1857-1935) belongs to the natural science direction, despite its fantastic elements. The thinker views the cosmos as a living, spiritualized whole (“panpsychism”), inhabited by highly developed living beings. The world and man are in the process of ascending development, the human mind is an instrument of development. The scientist substantiates the idea of human settlement of space and develops technical projects. In 1903, he presented the theory of rocket flight.
The most significant representative of the natural science direction in cosmism is IN AND. Vernadsky(1863-1945). An outstanding scientist, the creator of a whole complex of Earth sciences, examines the phenomenon of life in its connection with other planetary spheres. Vernadsky developed the theory of the biosphere as a collection of living matter covering the Earth. The introduction of the concept of living matter provided a natural scientific basis for the study of life, which he understood as a cosmic phenomenon (the “omnipresence” of life). Man is considered in unity with the biosphere, his evolutionary transformative activity is studied. Vernadsky concluded about the origin noosphere- the sphere of reason, or nature controlled on the basis of science. The formation of the noosphere is an objective process that presupposes the development of relations between people and the cessation of wars. The ideas of Russian cosmism are especially relevant in the era of the environmental crisis and the search for ways out of it.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a worldview turn took place in the spiritual culture of Russia - a “religious and philosophical revival” (V. Zenkovsky). Such great philosophers as N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, S. Frank turn from materialism to religious search. Religious and philosophical societies emerge. This turn in the consciousness of part of the intelligentsia took shape in the collection “Vekhi”.
The symbol of this era is considered to be the outstanding Russian philosopher Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev(1874-1948), one of the most prominent cultural figures of the “Silver Age”. He reacted critically to the revolution and was expelled from Russia in 1922. In exile, he wrote “The Philosophy of the Free Spirit” (1927), “On the Purpose of Man” (1931), “The Russian Idea” (1947), etc. Berdyaev is known as a religious personalist and existentialist. The starting point of his teaching is man. N. Berdyaev partly deifies man, considering him as a god-like being: “The infinite spirit of man lays claim to absolute, supernatural anthropocentrism, he creates himself as the absolute center not of a given closed planetary system, but of all existence, of all worlds.” The main themes of his philosophy: freedom, creativity, personality. Freedom, according to Berdyaev's philosophy, is the basis of existence. Berdyaev distinguishes between types of freedom, but the main one is primary, irrational freedom, rooted in Nothing. This freedom exists pre-eternally, it was not created by God. God created freely. Freedom was and is always and everywhere. The doctrine of the omnipresence of uncreated freedom is one of the original features of Berdyaev’s philosophy.
Freedom is the basis of creativity; true creativity is free. Creativity is the most important religious task of man, his duty. “The goal of man is not salvation, but creativity.” The creative act is valuable in itself, there is no external judgment over it. Berdyaev developed an ethics of creativity that is “beyond good and evil.” In this he also departs from the Christian tradition and criticizes Christianity for underestimating the role of creativity. But, deifying creativity, the philosopher of the “free spirit” notes its problematic nature in the world. “Being in the world is already a fall.” Personality is revealed in creativity. The spirit as a subject strives to create a new being. But the implementation of a creative act in the world requires adaptation, a person becomes depersonalized, the spirit turns into an object, into “nature” - objectification of the spirit occurs, suppressing a free personality. Forms of objectification include works of culture, relationships in society, and the state. Berdyaev pessimistically connects every creative act with the inevitability of objectification, although he allows for the possibility of creativity that preserves the personal principle (“expressiveness”). Freedom and creativity presuppose the existence of a free personality. Berdyaev's philosophical personalism emphasizes the priority of the individual. She is the fundamental principle of everything. “Personality is generally more primary than being.” At the same time, the existence of a person is a mystery. “No metaphysical doctrines can be constructed about personality,” the spirit of personality is comprehended only through mystical experience. Emphasizing the primacy of the free personality leads to subjective idealism, but Berdyaev emphasizes the importance of the spiritual “community” (community) of individuals through mystical experience. Subjectivism and individualism are overcome through love in the Divine principle.
An important place in the work of N. Berdyaev is occupied by problems of social philosophy and philosophy of history. The philosopher sees the meaning of history in the final triumph of the “kingdom of God,” but he views real history as a history of objectification, as a “failure of the spirit,” since “the Kingdom of God will not be formed in it.” The basis of the story is the freedom of evil.
The thinker criticizes contemporary civilization both in the form of capitalism and socialism. Civilization is mechanical, it kills living culture, there is a loss of spirituality and the barbarization of existence. But Russia differs from the West by representing unity: East-West. The “Russian idea” is the idea of “community and brotherhood of people and peoples, the search for a new community”, the idea of the “City of the Future”, they reflect the special world of Russia.
Berdyaev's keen attention to the problem of personality, freedom and moral choice allows us to consider him as one of the first representatives of existential philosophy both in Russia and in the West.
Creativity is associated with the tradition of existential philosophy L.I. Shestova(1866-1938), who paid special attention to the tragedy of human existence. Noting the insufficiency of rational, scientific means for understanding human existence, he leans towards irrationalism. Perhaps, like no other Russian philosopher, Shestov expressed doubt about the possibilities of rational knowledge in resolving ethical problems, calling himself a “hater of reason.” Without denying the importance of science, he emphasized its limited nature and sharply separated reason and faith (their symbols for him were “Athens” and “Jerusalem”). Knowledge of true existence is possible only in a supernatural way, through Revelation. Shestov is a religious mystical philosopher, but due to his skepticism and existentialism he occupies a special place in Russian philosophy.
6. Russian Marxism. Philosophy of the Soviet period
The religious revival in Russia intensified the debate between philosophers of the idealist and materialist schools. The latter is represented primarily by Marxism, in the spread of which in Russia at the end of the 19th century he played a major role G.V. Plekhanov(1856-1918), one of the greatest Marxist philosophers. Plekhanov dealt with problems of the history of philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, theory of knowledge and the materialist understanding of history.
Since the mid-90s of the 19th century, the decisive role in the development of domestic Marxism has been played by V.I Lenin(1870-1924). He dealt mainly with problems of social theory and practice: he developed the theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, the theory of socialist revolution. The tasks of ideological struggle prompted him to write the theoretical work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” (1911). Some Marxist philosophers sought to reform Marxism, to combine it with some of the latest philosophical teachings (“empiriomonism” by A. Bogdanov, God-seeking and God-building by A. Lunacharsky). In his work, Lenin criticized attempts at reform of Marxism, criticized empirio-criticism as a subjective-idealistic philosophy, and gave a new definition of matter: “Matter is an objective reality given to us in sensation.” In Philosophical Notebooks (1916), Lenin turns to a materialist study of the problems of dialectics. Lenin's philosophical works determined the main features of Soviet philosophy for a long time.
A new stage in the history of Russian philosophy begins after the 1917 revolution. The philosophy of Marxism became an integral part of the official ideology. Representatives of other trends either emigrated (S.L. Frank, I. Lossky and others) or were repressed and died (P.A. Florensky, G. Shpet). In 1922, a “philosophical steamer” was sent from Russia, on which dozens of leading philosophers and cultural figures were expelled. The original Russian philosophy emigrated or became “apocryphal”, going underground.
In the Soviet Union in the 20-30s, official standards for interpreting the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism were formed, the process was controlled by the party and the state. Thus, the struggle between mechanists and dialecticians (A.M. Deborin) ended in victory for the latter, but in 1931 they were declared a “Menshevik deviation.”
Some revival of philosophical thought began in the mid-50s. At the same time, bright researchers occupy a worthy place in the history of Soviet philosophy: A.F. Losev, V.F. Asmus, E.V. Ilyenkov and others.
Wide resonance in the philosophical community of the 60-80s. called discussions about the nature of the ideal and its relationship with the concepts of individual and social consciousness. The discussion of this issue was all the more important because in the first third of the 60s. a point of view gained some popularity, the representatives of which tried to substantiate the materiality of consciousness by reducing the mental to the physiological. However, experience has shown that studying problems of consciousness primarily using natural scientific material leads to insoluble difficulties. Although physical or physiological reflection plays an important role in the formation of consciousness, in the cognitive process, the latter is carried out not by a biological organism that processes information, but by a person as an active subject included in the system of social activity. Based on this understanding, E.V. Ilyenkov and his supporters believed that the ideal is not an individual psychological phenomenon, much less a physiological one, but a socio-historical one, a product and form of spiritual production. He criticized those who reduced the ideal to the state of that matter that “is located under the individual’s skull.” Ideality, by its nature and genesis, is purely social in nature. “Ideality is a characteristic of things, but not of their natural certainty, but of the certainty which they owe to labor, the transformative-formative activity of a social person, his purposeful sensory-objective activity.” Ilyenkov’s central position is that ideal phenomena, although not reducible to physical ones, act as genuine components of objective reality. In other words, the ideal exists objectively as a form of human activity, embodied in the form of a “thing”. Some opponents questioned the assertion about the objectivity of the ideal, since they associated it with objective idealism of the Hegelian type.
In the discussion about the nature of the ideal, the activity approach was contrasted with the information approach, according to which the ideal is information actualized for the individual in “pure form” and the ability to freely operate with it. In other words, the ideal is a subjective reality.
Since the late 80s, the process of returning the emigrant part of Russian philosophy of the twentieth century began, and the possibility of restoring the lost unity of national culture opened up. Prerequisites have emerged for the further development of philosophy, which is the creative search for a free personality.
The peculiarity of Ukrainian philosophy is that it did not present itself in systematized and harmonious theories, with the exception of some teachings (Skovoroda, Yurkevich, academic philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries), but dissolved itself in the literary and journalistic works of famous writers and poets ( Gogol, Shevchenko, Franko), the polemical thought of the Ukrainian Renaissance in the 19th century (I. Vyshensky, Z. Kopystensky, G. Smotrytsky), the reform ideas of fraternal schools, and even in the political sentiments of the Southern Society of Decembrists.
Ukrainian philosophical thought is difficult to perceive because, like no other philosophical tradition, it reflects the spiritual and practical history of the nation, the nature of the mentality of the ethnic group, the originality of its sociocultural background, and only an understanding of all these factors in interaction will be a condition for revealing the originality of Ukrainian philosophical thought.
Ukrainian philosophy is characterized by attention, first of all, to human problems, problems of knowledge with the heart (the theory of cordocentrism), syncretism (the interweaving of contradictory elements).
13.1 Philosophical ideas in the culture of Kievan Rus
The word “philosophy” appears in the writing of Kievan Rus already in the 11th century. It is borrowed from the Greek language and originally denotes science in general. Teaching philosophy means the same thing as teaching various kinds of sciences. Thus, in the “Life” of Theodosius of Studium (11th century) it is said “Just as we see a bee flying through all the forests and fields, collecting useful things from them, so young men, learning philosophy and wanting to rise to the height of wisdom, collect from everywhere.” At the same time, the word “philosopher” appeared. It acts as a synonym for an educated, bookish, especially wise person who knows how to polemicize and prove his point of view. At the same time, the verb “philosophize” appears, meaning “to reflect.” However, we are not talking about just thinking, but about a special type of thinking that penetrates into the essence of things and, revealing their meaning, understands them as value.
A philosopher was understood as one who not only comprehended the mystery of the world and his own existence through book knowledge, but one who, through his practical life, would try to comprehend the divine plan in the natural order of the world’s existence.
The main problem of philosophy becomes the problem of integrity. The idea of integrity also permeates the idea of a person, who acts as a unity of the bodily “visible” and the spiritual “invisible” and therefore represents a small model of the entire universe. The same integrity as a methodological principle will determine the historical and philosophical concept, which will consistently pursue the idea of the universal historical unity of humanity, where each people will represent an organic component.
13.2 Philosophical thought of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy
In the spiritual culture of Ukraine, the second half of the 11th century is the period of formation of the Enlightenment worldview, a time of active comprehension of the intellectual and philosophical achievements of Western European culture. The center of philosophical culture, an innovator in the reading of the new European concept of science and knowledge in Ukraine, is the Kiev-Mohyla Academy - the first higher educational institution that not only played its historical role in the development of education, but also presented its understanding of philosophy in a new way. Philosophy has become a disciplinary form of knowledge, an object of scientific research, and a subject of the formation of a national philosophical tradition.
At the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, philosophy is introduced as a special subject of study. True, it still continues to remain within the framework of the church-scholastic worldview, but a tendency to bring it closer to experimental natural science and to the demands of social life is already beginning to emerge. The main attention is paid to the problems of knowledge of nature and man. Sharing the philosophical ideas of the Renaissance, philosophical thought sees its purpose in understanding the laws of nature, and therefore the laws of the existence of man himself, the laws of his thinking, and the content of his inner world. Philosophy already presents itself not only in a theoretical sense, but also through a practical orientation.
In the lecture courses of P. Mogila and F. Prokopovich, special attention was paid to the problems of interaction between man and the state, the state and the church. For example, in the spirit of the theory of natural law, Ukrainian thinkers believed that the state did not always exist; it was preceded by the existence of people without state regulation of social relations. However, if European social thought explained the need for the emergence of a state as a manifestation of human egoism, which leads to a war of all against all (T. Hobbes), then the social-philosophical thought of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy did not exclude peaceful and humane forms of human relations in the pre-state period, explaining this the fact that a person is initially focused on positive social actions. (For example, Feofan Prokopovich believed that a person, having free will, creates both evil and good, but by nature is more inclined to good.).
The problem of happiness in the philosophical ideas of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy sounds in accordance with the spirit of the times and the ideology of the Enlightenment. Happy is considered to be the one who lives guided by considerations of reason, recognizes the authority of knowledge and science and understands that happiness is not the pursuit of material wealth and not an ascetic escape from life, but the ability to reconcile one’s value orientations with the essence of natural laws. “The laws of nature are the laws of reason” - the leitmotif of the Enlightenment clearly sounds in anthropological problems.
Among the graduates of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, the most famous was Grigory Savvich Skovoroda (1722-1794).
At the center of Skovoroda’s philosophical quest is the problem of man, his nature and purpose, the meaning of life and happiness. The main theme of philosophy is human self-knowledge, understanding one’s meaning in the world of meanings.
The main tenets of Skovoroda's philosophy are the ideas of two natures and three worlds. Three worlds: macrocosm (nature), microcosm (man) and the “world of symbols” (spiritual world of symbols of the Bible) present themselves in “two faces” - visible nature, external, inauthentic being and invisible image - true being of divine meaning. Existing in one whole, the visible and invisible sides form the integrity of the world, in a particular case - the integrity of man. The task of philosophy in this regard is to understand the world as a whole and to realize man as the unity of two principles - appearance, “lies”, “shadow” and spirituality, eternity, the constant transformation of man in his striving for God. God has given everyone a certain destiny, which a person seeks in “kindred” work, “kindred” world, “kindred” humanity, and thanks to this he finds happiness and peace of mind.
Skovoroda saw the reason for a person’s moral foundations in his “heart,” which he understood as the center of a person’s spirituality, the basis of his individual life activity and the principle of his social existence.
Under the influence of Skovoroda, a whole tradition arose in Ukrainian philosophizing, called “philosophy of the heart,” “cardiocentrism,” (cordocentrism), which continued the theme of the integrity of man, the integrity of his spiritual being, and ideologically turned itself into the problem of man as a subject of national identity. It was this theme that became dominant in the philosophical leitmotif of the literary and journalistic creativity of the figures of the Cyril and Methodius Society.
13.3. Philosophical ideas of the educational ideology of Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood
The Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood - a secret political organization that took the name of the famous educators of the Slavic world - Cyril and Methodius - arose as an attempt to provide a progressive political solution to the problems associated with the crisis of the serfdom concept of social development. Expressing the interests of different social strata, it united in its composition their representatives, who were grouped around two opposing ideological centers - the left, revolutionary-democratic wing, led by T. Shevchenko, N. Gulak, N. Savich and the right - the bourgeois-liberal group in headed by N. Kostomarov, P. Kulish, V. Belozersky.
T. G. Shevchenko sees the basis of a person’s philosophizing as his appeal to the heart; he considers the heart to be the center of spirituality. With a heart, Shevchenko also personifies the whole of Ukraine (Ukraine, Ukraine, My Heart, dear!), and it is to him that he turns in critical moments of life - “praying to my heart, I will pray with you.”
Of particular importance for us is Shevchenko’s “Myth-making”, his idealization of the image of the Cossacks, who became “cultural heroes” for Ukraine, symbols of courageous and strong fighters for the Motherland. Shevchenko understood that the real Cossacks were far from the poetic image he created, just as his contemporaries understood this, but the power of Shevchenko’s poetic talent managed to instill in all Ukrainians faith in the image of the great Cossack he had invented. This is Shevchenko’s enormous cultural significance, since a “consolidating image” appeared in our culture, which became a symbol of an entire nation..
13.4. Philosophical ideas in the works of Ukrainian cultural figures of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries
The 19th century occupies a special place in the history of Ukrainian culture. It was during this period that the philosophy of the national idea romantically dissolved in the literary and journalistic creativity of the masters of artistic expression. The galaxy of famous names is represented by Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol (1809-1852), Ivan Franko (1856-1916), Mikhail Kotsyubinsky (1864-1913), Lesya Ukrainka (1871-1913) and others.
They mainly dealt with problems of social philosophy, showed the hardships of life of the Ukrainian people, and expressed rejection of social and individual passivity. Their vital personal credo formulated an ongoing struggle against difficulties and adversity, and the entire pathos of creativity expressed itself in the affirmation of the authority of a socially courageous individuality.
13.5 Philosophical concept of Pamfil Yurkevich (1826-1874)
P. Yurkevich sees in the heart the focus of spiritual life and the condition of human morality, and considers morality and the heart to be the foundation of human nature in general, thanks to which the existence of man as an integrity is possible. “The heart is the original place of everything good and evil in the words, thoughts and actions of a person, it is the good or evil treasure of a person... The heart is a tablet on which the natural moral law is written.” Integrity, in turn, acts as a condition for the individual’s immediate self-awareness, which allows one to understand oneself not only as a transient “small world”, but also as an immortal entity that exists individually in eternity.
Yurkevich convincingly shows that the rationalism of science can lead to absurd statements, because life practice itself reveals the fact that impeccability of thinking does not guarantee the impeccability of the human spirit and the moral character of human actions. Therefore, the law of mental activity is not its rationally verified imperativeness, but the moral meaning rooted in the heart’s impulse. “In the human heart lies the source for such phenomena that are imprinted with features that do not follow from any general concept or law.” However, we are not talking about completely ignoring the rational principle in human self-awareness; rather, this is a search for a new type of rationality, a rationality that already contains an ethical principle. This position contains a deep meaning regarding the implicitly formulated requirement to reorient the logical soundness of human behavior and life activity towards “listening” to oneself, which will result in the development of a moral culture.
Understanding the heart as a characteristic of the moral state of the soul, Yurkevich is not at all inclined to idealize the heart’s ability to accumulate a moral ideal. The heart may be capable of falling to the other extreme - moral baseness. For morality, it is first of all important to be the result of a person’s internal freedom, because moral activity contains the basis for the act that a person commits outside of external compulsion, by virtue of the free dictates of the heart. “We are called to do good freely,” writes Yurkevich. Thus, a person, guided by the moral guidelines contained in the heart, deliberately arrives at the logic of his social behavior and thereby presents himself as an integrity.
13.6 Philosophical thought of Ukraine of the twentieth century and the philosophy of the Ukrainian diaspora
In Ukrainian philosophy of the twentieth century, various philosophical traditions, schools and directions are intricately intertwined, reflecting the dynamic history of the state and the change of its ideological paradigms. In the first third of the new century, the most striking images of the philosophical worldview were the concepts of M.S. Grushevsky, famous political and statesman, ideologist of Ukrainization N.A. Skripnik, historian of philosophy and philosophy of culture V. A Yurints, theorist of social philosophy Y. Bilyk and others. Their theoretical heritage contains a substantiation of the philosophy of the national idea (M, Grushevsky, N. Skrypnyk), and consideration of philosophical problems of natural science (V. Yurynets, D. Blokhintsev), and criticism of the ideology of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism and great-power chauvinism (Commission of Philosophy at the Academy of Sciences Ukrainian SSR) and promotion of the study of the works of K. Marx and F. Engels in the transcription of the Leninist stage of development of philosophy.
In the 40s, much attention was paid to the development of the educational and scientific institutional base in philosophy in the country; the opening of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Kiev State University was of great importance, in the curriculum of which a significant place was devoted to the study of problems of dialectical and historical materialism, the methodology of philosophical research, and the theme of unity dialectics, logic and theory of knowledge. The name of the famous scientist P.V. Kopnin is associated with the latter, who not only outlined a new direction in philosophical knowledge, thereby defining the strategy of philosophical search in the 60s, but also organized a philosophical school that realized the philosophical potential in the development of epistemological problems of dialectical-materialistic philosophy.
The 70s were a time of active philosophical understanding of the scientific and technological revolution. The Institute of Philosophy in collective monographs analyzes the impact of the scientific and technological revolution on all spheres of human activity; the dominant topic is the study of ideological aspects of technological activity. V.I. Shinkaruk, Yu.A. Bogdanov, S.B. Krymsky, M.F. Tarasenko, V.P. Ivanov, M.A. Parnyuk develop a conceptual understanding of the categories “practice” and “activity”, present a new understanding human experience as a cultural and historical interpretation of subjective activity, explore categories in depth not only as forms of cognitive activity, but also as forms of worldview and forms of culture.
Based on the experience of ideological and socio-historical research of categories, philosophers, based on the material accumulated in psychology, linguistics, the history of technology and science, make a new contribution to the implementation of the program of categorical forms. An attempt is made to develop a general theory of ways to categorize reality, an exciting sphere of not only scientific, but also mass consciousness. The main idea in philosophical knowledge is the thought of the organic unity of the ideological and methodological functions of philosophy, of increasing the significance of philosophical research in the field of public life and social practice.
The philosophical culture of the Ukrainian diaspora is also characterized by the diversity of the problem field of research. It develops the philosophy of the national idea and in this context, philosophy is considered as a representative of national culture and history (D.I. Chizhevsky), in the spirit of the voluntarism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, a version of “integral nationalism” is proposed (D. Dontsov), interpreted in a religious-voluntarist aspect the phenomenon of the nation and the people (V.K. Lipinsky), the so-called “philosophy of happiness” is created (V. K. Vinnichenko). The philosophy of happiness or “concordism” raises a topic that worries people and humanity – the topic of happiness. Happiness is understood as a state of internal harmony following the achievement of balance between life values, which presupposes consistency between different spheres of existence, between the individual and the collective. Vinnychenko’s philosophy accumulates the problems of all Ukrainian philosophy; it contains echoes of the ideas of G. Skovoroda and P. Yurkevich, N. V Gogol and I. Franko, M. Drahomanov and T. Shevchenko. “The Philosophy of Happiness” reflects on the happiness of man and humanity, on the very main thing for which humanity exists.
Thus, domestic philosophy reflected the complexity and drama of the history of the ethnic group, showed the originality and originality of its own philosophical tradition through the unique interweaving of positions, concepts and schools, thereby presenting a unique version of philosophizing in world philosophical culture.
At the beginning of the 21st century, various philosophical schools are actively developing in Ukraine: the study of human philosophy: S. Krymsky (Kyiv), M. Popovich (Kyiv), the study of new methods of knowledge: synergetics -I. Dobronravova (Kyiv), systemic method - A. Uyomov, A. Tsofnas (Odessa), method of “holistic study” - I. Tsekhmistro (Kharkov).
The most notable publications touching on philosophical topics are the works of S. Pavlychko “The Discourse of Modernism in Ukrainian Literature”, G. Grabovich “The Poet as a Mythmaker”, O. Zabuzhko “Shevchenko - the Myth of Ukraine”, “Notre Dame d" Ukraine: Ukraine in the Conflict of Mythologies ”, works by G. Ilnitsky about the poetry of B.-I Antonich, T. Gundorova “Franco is not a mason”, Y. Polishchuk “The Mythological Horizon of Ukrainian Modernism”, P. Kralyuk “Remake”, and others.
Origins of U. f. belong to the period of Kievan Rus. Genetic, historical and territorial unity of Ukrainian and Russian. peoples were determined by the closeness of their spiritual culture, common philosophy. and sociologist. thoughts ; at the same time U. f. reflects specific features of the history of Ukraine, the struggle of the people. the masses against the centuries-old rule of the Polish, Austro-Hungarian and Tatar-Turkish invaders.
During the era of feudalism in Ukraine, as in other countries, religion occupied a dominant position. ideology People's protest of the masses against the social oppression of the feudal lords and the official ideology that justified it found expression in the spread in the 15th and 16th centuries. religious heresies, which were fed on Russian ideas. Strigolniks, "Judaizers", non-covetous people, Josephites. Reformed movement creativity in the fight against Catholicism and the so-called imposed by the Vatican. Union of Orthodoxy with Catholicism under the leadership of the Pope. Among the most interesting polemics. works of this era can be called “The Kazan of St. Cyril” by Stefan Zizaniy, “Apocrisis” by Christopher Philalethes, “Perestoroga” (anonymous), “Trenos” by Miletius Smotrytsky, “Polinode” by Zechariah Kopystensky, “The Scripture is common to all, living in the land of Lyadskaya”, “Scripture to those who have leaked from the Orthodox faith by an episcop”, “A riddle by a Latin philosopher”, “The beginnings of a wise Latin scholar with a stupid Rusyn” by Ivan Vyshensky, “Protestation” by Job Boretsky, “A new measure of the old faith”, “Five signs”, “The spiritual sword”, "Apollonov's Lute" by Lazar Baranovich, "Belotserkovskaya Conversation", "Old Church", "Foundations" by Ioannikiy Galatovsky, "Peace with God for Man", "On True Faith" by Innocent Gisel, "Logos" by Mikhail Andrella. These works are imbued with the spirit of protest against the Polish feudal lords; they theoretically substantiate the need for Ukrainian reunification. people from Russian state
Means. rise U. f. associated with the opening in 1632 of the first higher educational institution - the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium, transformed in 1701 into the Kyiv Academy. Among the most prominent professors of philosophy in the college are Joseph Kononovich-Gorbatsky, Innocent Gisel, Joasaph Krokovsky, Lazar Baranovich, F. Prokopovich, S. Yavorsky. The philosophy courses taught at the college were scholastic. character ; traditionally they were divided into three parts - logic, physics, metaphysics. Gradually, contrary to the original theological. installations, in philosophy. In college courses, a certain materialist makes its way. tendency, expressed in allegorical. biblical interpretation, deism and pantheism; In the important question for scholasticism about the essence of general concepts (universals), the Kyiv philosophers stood in opposition to the realism of Thomas Aquinas on the side of the nominalists Scott and Occam. F. Prokopovich in his philosophy. course promoted materialism. the ideas of Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, the systems of Galileo and Copernicus.
Further development of U. f. found its most complete expression in the works of the outstanding Ukrainian. 18th century philosopher, educator, humanist and democrat Skovoroda. Philosophy Skovoroda's views are contradictory. Standing in general on the objective-idealistic. positions, Skovoroda put forward materialistic. thesis about the eternity and increasability of matter. His understanding of God was more pantheistic than orthodox church. character; Skovoroda criticized the church. dogma and biblical "miracles". Materialistic the tendency is also noticeable in Skovoroda’s theory of knowledge; the idea of “self-knowledge”, which was given the center in Skovoroda’s epistemology. place, was based on the idea of man as a part of nature, subject to the general laws of the universe. Political Skovoroda’s ideal is a society based on universal labor, democracy and equality.
The emergence of capitalism in Ukraine. relations and the activation of anti-serfdom associated with this process. movements were caused in the 1st floor. 19th century rise of societies. life. Kharkov University opened in 1805, and Kiev University opened in 1834. Progressive scientists of this period V. N. Karazin, Rizhsky, Lodiy, Osipovsky, Lyubovsky, V. I. Lapshin, Maksimovich, A. I. Stoipovich, N. I. Kozlov, N. I. Khodnev, M. P. Shumlyansky and others advocated materialism in science and criticized idealism. systems, in particular Kant, Schelling, Oken.
In the 40s A revolutionary-democratic movement emerges in Ukraine. movement; its founder was an outstanding revolutionary. poet and thinker T. G. Shevchenko. In his productions he comes up with the idea of a people's cross. revolution, with a call for the overthrow of autocracy and serfdom. Shevchenko managed to rise to the level of materialism. understanding of nature, militant atheism, before the establishment of dialectical. ideas of endless diversity, variability and constant development of the material world. Remaining an idealist in explaining societies. phenomena, Shevchenko expressed a number of progressive ideas about the enormous role of material factors in the development of society.
Development of materialistic Philosopher thoughts in Ukraine in the 2nd half. 19th century occurred in the struggle with official idealism. philosophy, to one degree or another associated with neo-Kantianism, neo-Hegelianism and positivism (Gogotsky, Yurkevich, Grot, Kozlov, Klim Gankevich, V.V. Lesevich). The Russians played a major role in this struggle. scientists Sechenov, I. Mechnikov, N. A. Umov, A. O. Kovalevsky, N. N. Beketov, who worked in Ukraine for a long time. Outstanding Ukrainian scientist, prof. Kharkov University Potebnya defended the atomistic. theory of the structure of matter, with materialistic. positions developed the problem of the connection between language and thinking.
Of great importance for the development of U. f. 2nd floor 19th century had the spread of Marxism. A major role in the propaganda of Marxism (especially its economic theory) in Ukraine was played by certain representatives of the bourgeois-liberal intelligentsia (Sieber, Kaufman), as well as revolutionaries. populists (A. I. Zhelyabov, Y. V. Stefanovich, I. K. and V. K. Debogoriy-Mokrievich, L. G. Deich, I. F. Fesenko). During the same period, revolutionary-democraticism received further development. ideology in the person of such representatives as Franko, M. I. Pavlik (1853–1915), Grabovsky, Kotsyubinsky, Lesya Ukrainka. Developing in new historical conditions of the tradition of Shevchenko and Russian. revolutionary democrats, they sought to enrich these traditions of philosophy. ideas of Marxism. Franco carefully studied “Capital”, “Anti-Dühring”, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, and translated the 24th chapter of Marx’s “Capital” into Ukrainian. Lesya Ukrainka translated “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science” by Engels; A number of her articles are devoted to the presentation and promotion of the teachings of Marx and Engels on the class struggle and the principles of prolet. internationalism. P. Grabovsky and M. Kotsyubinsky showed a keen interest in Marxist teaching, whose close friendship with Gorky contributed to the rapprochement
Kotsyubinsky from the span. movement. Individual revolutionaries democrats (eg Kotsyubinsky) approached the Marxist position on the leading role of the proletariat in relation to the peasantry in the social revolution; At the same time, Ukrainian revolutionary Democrats did not accept the Marxist doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Russian influence revolutionary democracy, and subsequently Marxism, also affected philosophy. Ukrainian views revolutionary Democrats late 19th - early. 20th centuries The basis of their worldview is philosophy. materialism. They considered cognition as a complex process of reflection and processing in the minds of people, existing material objects independently of them. With materialistic Ukrainian positions revolutionary Democrats criticized various manifestations of idealism, as well as Ukrainian. bourgeois nationalism in the person of its representatives - P. A. Kulish, V. G. Barvinsky, E. N. Ogonovsky. Philosophy Ukrainian materialism revolutionary democrats were combined with militant atheism and dialectic. approach to natural phenomena. Franco, for example, viewed nature as an infinite variety of opposites, united by the action of uniform laws of ever-moving matter.
Ukrainian aesthetics revolutionary democrats was based on the principles of partisanship and nationality: revolutionary. the optimism of their creativity, the image of the people as the creator of history, the creation of new ones. heroes indicates penetration into Ukrainian. critical realism of the elements of the new creative work. method - the socialist method. realism.
To the revolutionary-democratic Such prominent Ukrainians also joined the camp. writers, journalists and societies. figures such as S. A. Podolinsky (1850–91) and O. Terletsky (1850–1902). Means. role in ideological life 2nd floor. 19th century in Ukraine played M.P. Drahomanov (1841–1895), who, while remaining in his social and political. views on the positions of petty bourgeois. liberalism and reformism, gained fame for its materialist propaganda. views on nature, atheistic. activities.
A new stage in the development of U. f. associated with the emergence of the Social-Democrats. circles, and subsequently the RSDLP. During this period, in Ukraine, as in Russia as a whole, there was a process of development and establishment of Marxist-Leninist philosophy as a theoretical one. foundations of the labor movement. In this regard, the works of Lenin and, first of all, his book “Materialism and Empirio-criticism” were of great importance. A major role in the dissemination of Marxist-Leninist philosophies. ideas were played by the Bolshevik organizations of Ukraine, led by Lenin’s associates I.V. Babushkin, V.V. Vorovsky, A.Ya. Parkhomenko, G.I. Petrovsky, F.A. Sergeev (Artem) and others.
With the victory of the Great October Socialist. revolution, Marxist-Leninist philosophy turns into an effective theoretical. weapons in the struggle to implement socialism. ideals, becomes methodological. the basis for the development of societies and natures. Sci. A network of institutes is emerging, in which the study, development and promotion of philosophy is carried out. foundations of Marxism-Leninism - dialectical. and historical materialism. In the 20–30s. Communists are being created in Ukraine. University named after Artema, Ukr. Institute of Marxism, All-Ukrainian. Association of Marxist-Leninist Institutes, Institute of Red Professors, Society "Militant Materialist-Dialectician", "Union of Militant Atheists", etc., which played a huge role in the development and propaganda of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the fight against the bourgeoisie. Philosopher movements and religions. ideology. Active propagandists of Marxism were such major party and government figures as G. I. Petrovsky, A. A. Skrypnik, S. V. Kosior, V. P. Zatonsky, A. G. Shlikhter, D. Z. Manuilsky.
Ukrainian philosophers Semkovsky, P. I. Demchuk, V. A. Yurinets, T. I. Stepovoy, G. Efimenko, A. A. Bervitsky, Ya. S. Bludov, Ya. S. Rozanov and others explore problems related with the structure and movement of matter, space and time, laws and categories of materialism. dialectics, Lenin's theory of knowledge, philosophy. questions of modern times natural sciences, produces dialectics. forces and production. relations, theory of classes and class struggle, national. question, etc. So. During this period, attention was paid to the analysis of Hegel's dialectics, the study of philosophy. legacy of Plekhanov, criticism of modern. bourgeois philosophy, exposing the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. nationalism and the ideology of fascism.
A new upsurge in the development of U. f. began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the elimination of the consequences of Stalin’s personality cult. During this period, special attention was paid to Ukrainian philosophers turn to the development of Lenin's philosophy. heritage, to study problems directly related to communist practice. construction, as well as with the development of modern natural sciences. Revitalization of philosophy. life in Ukraine finds its external expression in the meaning. increasing the number of published collective works, monographs, collections, organizing numerous. Philosopher conferences, sessions, symposia.
In the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, at the departments of philosophy of Kyiv, Lvov, Kharkov Universities, Philosophy. Philosophy is being developed in the departments of other universities in Ukraine. problems of building communism, materialistic. dialectics, issues of ethics, aesthetics, scientific. atheism, history of philosophy, history of philosophy. and sociologist. thoughts (in Ukraine, in particular), problems of scientific logic. knowledge.
Most means. work in the field of dialectics. materialism and philosophy. questions of natural science belong to Omelyanovsky, Kopnin, Shugailin, Kolodyazhny, Moskalenko, Enevich, P. S. Dyshlev, M. V. Popovich, Yu. F. Bukhalov; historical materialism - Fedorenko, N. A. Sherbin, I. E. Kravtsev, G. G. Emelyanenko; aesthetics - Kublanov, N.V. Goncharenko, V.A. Kudin, Perederia, atheism - Tancher, A.A. Avetisyan, A.A. Eryshev; history of philosophy - Ostryanin, M. Novikov, Nazarenko, Braginets, N. S. Shlepanov, Oleksyuk, Shinkaruk, V. E. Evdokimenko, I. P. Golovakha.
Lit.:Ukr. roar democrats. Social-political and philosopher views. [Sat. Art.], M., 1954; Vishensky I., Works, M.–L., 1955; Favorite social-political and philosopher made in ukr. roar democrats of the 19th century, M., 1955; Essays on the history of philosophy. and social-political thoughts of the peoples of the USSR, vol. 1–2, M., 1955–56; From the history of suspinal-political philosophical thought in Ukraine, K., 1956; History of philosophy, vol. 1–5, M., 1957–61 (vol. 1, pp. 650–54; vol. 2, pp. 396–403; vol. 4, pp. 208–37; vol. 5, pp. 358–661); From the history of vicious philosophical and political thoughts, K., 1959; A brief outline of the history of philosophy, M., 1960, p. 368–72; From the history of philosophical thought in Ukraine, K., 1963; The struggle between materialism and idealism in Ukraine in the 19th century, K., 1964; Drawing history of philosophy in Ukraine, K., 1966; Development of philosophy in Ukrainian PCP, K., 1968.
V. Evdokimenko. Kyiv.
Main schools of non-classical philosophy
Non-classical directions of philosophy fold up at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. In this era irrational mentalities are becoming particularly widespread due to the exacerbation of crisis symptoms in the development of society itself. In contrast to the philosophical classics, non-classical philosophers, often called irrationalists, proclaim primacy of the unreasonable principle(volitional, unconscious, emotional-sensual, intuitive, artistic-figurative, etc.) and make it the main characteristic of both the world itself and its worldview. It is the rationalism of classical metaphysics with its rigid logocentrism that has become since the end of the 19th century. the object of criticism from numerous strategies of the so-called "total criticism of reason", be it anti-rationalism F. Nietzsche and understanding psychology V. Dilthey, phenomenology E. Husserl and existentialism M. Heidegger, deconstruction J. Derrida and the concept of “the end of the Truth project » R. Rorty and others. Radical rethinking within the framework of non-classical concepts of philosophy of the 20th century. were subjected to and the main epistemological abstractions of classical rationalism, performance about truth, about the subject of knowledge or the so-called method of specifying subjectivity. The theoretical structure of the so-called reflexive consciousness developed by rationalism assumed that adequate knowledge of the world (the correspondent concept of truth) was possible only if it allowed the simultaneous grasping in the subject of the cognitive operation with the help of which he knows. At the same time, the “purity” and universality of consciousness, its privileged place in the world were emphasized in every possible way, thanks to which, in fact, the perception of absolute truth, which was initially of an objective nature, was achieved . Non-classical philosophy insists on the lack of objectivity in knowledge, on the opacity of being and the impossibility of “grasping” its essence, on the conventionality of scientific principles and the dependence of knowledge in general (including scientific knowledge) on the creative-constructive ability of the subject of knowledge. In non-classical philosophy we observe the disintegration of the traditional subject and all subject-object connections. Cognition loses its nature-centric character, where the object is passive, unchanging element of sensory given reality, instead the attention is shifted to human, culture, history, where the object is an actively acting subject. Thus, the cognitive process in non-classical philosophy of history is of a subject-subject nature, but even in the case when the object is of a natural nature, object and subject initially belong to each other, and the latter is thought of as always being inside, and not outside, the thinkable, thus introducing corresponding effects into cognition. Leading methodological techniques become not cognition and explanation through generalization and identification of cause-and-effect relationships (as in the classics), but understanding and interpretation, with the help of hermeneutic and phenomenological techniques, psychoanalytic techniques. One of the features of classical rationalism was also the recognition, along with the identity of being and thinking, of the identity of thinking and language; at the same time, language was assigned an exclusively intermediate place between thinking and the world. It was considered here as an ordinary, always, or almost always, controlled means of logical work, as an instrument with which one can display the whole world in a representation. Beginning with the works of Nietzsche and his many experiments with language, and especially in the 20th century, language will be viewed as something irrational and multi-layered, self-sufficient and self-appearing, i.e. acquiring independent significance. Accordingly, all philosophical problems are gradually transferred to the sphere of language and solved on the basis of an analysis of its means and expressions. Analyzing the contrast between the ideas of classical and non-classical philosophy, we should separately note the specificity of their consideration of socio-historical issues. The essence classical rationalistic approach can be briefly reduced to attempts to detect logic in the development of history itself, identifying certain regularities in it that indicate the true nature of man and thereby allowing us to build political, legal and moral institutions that correspond to this nature. Story appears in the following context: reasonable, natural, linear and necessarily progressive series, capable of undergoing human transformation. The transition to a non-classical type of philosophizing led to the abandonment of many of these presumptions, primarily the idea of social progress, identified with scientific and technological achievements, and the approval, as undeniable, of the idea about the fundamental impossibility of detecting logic in history due to the multidimensionality and uniqueness of its individual formations, where, along with the vertical vector of development, there is also a more complex one - horizontal, multi-plane, cyclical.
Existentialism (from Latin existentia - existence), or philosophy of existence, is perhaps the most popular direction of philosophy (and not only philosophy) of the mid-twentieth century. It has not lost its significance even now. Existentialism is characterized by a clear anti-scientist direction. This school is focused primarily on problems associated with man, the meaning of his existence in the modern world. However, the philosophy of existence does not represent some kind of monolithic, unified teaching. Each of its representatives created, as it were, their own special teaching. This is largely explained by the fact that among its representatives are the most famous writers and publicists of the twentieth century: J.-P. Sartre (1905 - 1980), A. Camus (1913 - 1960), G. Marcel (1889 - 1973), S. de Beauvoir (1908 – 1986). Existentialists also include N. Berdyaev, L. Shestov, K. Jaspers, O. Bolnov, N. Abanyano, K. Wilson and many other thinkers. Existentialism is often divided into atheistic and religious. But this division is quite arbitrary, since all representatives of this movement focus on existential problems common to them, first of all, the meaning of human existence in the world, and not just a person in general, but every individual. All existentialists talk about limitations of rational, including scientific thinking. Main They consider intuition, feelings and experiences of people as a means of understanding the world. One of the central themes of the philosophy of existence is the problem alienation and related problems of freedom, arbitrariness, violence, responsibility and guilt, chance and necessity. Existentialists emphasize the irrationalizability of the concept of freedom; moreover, some of them, in particular J.-P. Sartre, absolutize the irrational nature of freedom. Man, according to Sartre, is condemned to be free. He always oscillates between self-deception and his true being, however, in any case he is free. If a person is absolutely free, then he is also responsible for everything. Another important theme of the philosophy of existence is the theme of human communication, reciprocity or intersubjectivity. In existentialism, man initially acts as a social being. In alienated existence, for example, in a crowd, in a mass, everyone acts as the others do, following fashion, established patterns of communication, customs, and habits. Existentialists express protest against mass, tabloid culture, sanctimonious philistine morality. From the point of view of K. Jaspers, true, that is existential communication should reflect and ensure the connection of people in inner love. Considering human existence, each of the existentialist thinkers concentrates attention on some real side of it and gives it a detailed philosophical and socio-psychological analysis. The formation and development of existential philosophy was greatly influenced by the work of the greatest German thinker of the 20th century, M. Heidegger (1889 - 1976), who is usually attributed to the phenomenological school, but his philosophical system in its development went far beyond the framework of both phenomenology itself and existentialism . According to Heidegger, the first, fundamental question of philosophy is the question of being; it is no coincidence that his teaching is sometimes defined as fundamental ontology. The German thinker opposes the existentialist fascination with man with exclusive attention to the “dimension of being”, in the light of which a person for the first time only recognizes his calling - to be a “shepherd” of being. Significant themes in Heidegger's philosophy are the themes of technology, the world and language. He defines technology as the driving force of modern European history. She discovers one’s own being – “postav” – which is an attitude toward a continuous “exploratory establishment” of beings as objects for the potential disposal of these beings. "Postav" also rules the subject, which is drawn into its system as a necessary component. By organizing the world's being, the “postav” inevitably misses the existential truth, in the light of which the existing appears. But at the same time, “postav”, with unprecedented clarity, allows us to comprehend the truth as something that does not lend itself to its establishing activity. Heidegger values poetry and the word extremely highly. “Language is the house of being”. You need to listen to him, let him speak. The language continues to live in the works of great poets (Sophocles, Hölderlin, Rilke, Trakl), who “listened to the voice of being.” According to Heidegger, poets, not scientists or politicians, are at the forefront of humanity. The impoverishment of language, expressed in empty talk, clichés, chatter and swear words, shows the impoverishment of the essence of man. By reviving their language, people will achieve the fact that it will become the basis of a spiritual substance in which the nihilism of modernity will be eliminated. Without exaggeration, we can say that these and other ideas that make up M. Heidegger’s philosophical system, as well as the new philosophical terminology he created, were a strong impetus for the development of modern philosophical thought.
Hermeneutics (Greek hermeneutike - interpretation) - the theory of understanding texts and the art of interpreting their true meaning. It arose in ancient philosophy as the art of understanding the sayings of priests, oracles, and sages. In the Middle Ages, it served the skill of true interpretation of Holy Scripture and patristic literature. By the twentieth century, hermeneutics took shape as a direction in philosophy and the humanities, in which understanding is considered as a condition for understanding the historical existence of a culture, an individual, a social group, and society as a whole. In a narrow sense, hermeneutics is a set of rules and techniques for interpreting a text in a number of fields of knowledge - philology, jurisprudence, theology, etc. As a holistic theory and as a set of methodological techniques, hermeneutics is very relevant for modern philosophy, since the most important form of realization of philosophical knowledge is texts, a set of which constitute the general problem field of philosophy. A text is a multi-layered formation that contains many meanings, and one of the tasks of philosophy is precisely to search for these meanings and to be able to apply them to modern times. At the origins of the modern hermeneutic tradition are such thinkers as W. Humboldt (1710-1759), F. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), W. Dilthey (1833-1911), who formed general theoretical ideas about hermeneutics as the art of understanding the “other”, alien individuality, a different culture. Schleiermacher developed the most developed techniques for reconstructing meaning: since the goal of the hermeneut’s work is to get used to the inner world of the author through procedures for fixing the content and grammatical plan of the text, it is necessary to create conditions for empathy - feeling into the subjectivity of the author and the reproduction of his creative thoughts. Dilthey insisted on supplementing this method with a historical reconstruction of the situation in which the text arose (as an expression of a life event). In addition, Dilthey put forward the idea of understanding as a method of the spiritual sciences, in contrast to the explanation inherent in the natural sciences. He considers descriptive psychology to be the basis of hermeneutics, and history to be the priority science in which hermeneutics is revealed. The approach of M. Heidegger (1889-1976) is completely original. , which considers understanding as a way of being for a person, and understanding oneself as a characteristic of being, without which it slides into a position of inauthenticity. This understanding serves as the basis for any subsequent interpretation and creates the conditions pre-understandings both what already exists and possibilities. In Heidegger, understanding from a method of interpreting spiritual phenomena, in particular texts, turns into a specifically human attitude towards reality. The classic expression of hermeneutics are the ideas of the German philosopher G. Gadamer (b. 1900). Interpreting Heidegger, he noted that being understands itself through specific people and events - such being is a language, a tradition. The goal of the hermeneut’s work is to most fully identify the mechanisms of formation of one’s experience (prejudices) that tradition endows it with. Identification occurs through the practice of working with texts, through correlating their content with the experience of our time, through the practice of dialogue, in the process of which new meanings are born. Dialogue is at the center of Gadamer's hermeneutic approach, since all understanding is a product of mutual understanding. Interpretation of hermeneutics as generating new meanings in dialogue cultures, traditions, eras prevails in modern philosophical creativity. In the philosophy of the twentieth century, hermeneutics became not just a specific theory or method, but the principle of a philosophical approach to reality.
Phenomenology (i.e., the theory of phenomena or appearances) is a philosophical doctrine that seeks to describe events and actions as they are (appear to us, to our consciousness). Phenomenologists oppose the tendency to accept as real only what is described by the natural sciences. From their point of view, it is necessary to describe everyday things and events used by people as they appear in front of them. However, phenomenology does not oppose the natural sciences. She only criticizes the approach according to which reality can be “captured” exclusively by natural scientific concepts. The phenomenological tradition usually includes the teachings of such diverse thinkers as M. Heidegger, J-P. Sartre, M. Merleau-Ponty, A. Losev. The differences in the views of philosophers who are considered to be part of the phenomenological movement proper are often very large, but all of them were greatly influenced by the philosophical doctrine of E. Husserl, which served as the theoretical basis for the emergence of many modern concepts (including sociological and psychological). Representatives of this teaching in their works often describe simple life situations: grinding grain, forging a horse's shoe, writing a letter. All this is said as "life world", that is, about the world in which we live, with its everyday things and thoughts. It should be emphasized that phenomenology does not put forward the concept of the life world only as an alternative to the scientific concept. Just the lifeworld has cognitive priority. Sciences made possible by the lifeworld. Phenomenology describes not only phenomena, that is, everyday things, but also people's intentions, etc., as they are found in different contexts. From this perspective, knowing what we are doing is fundamental knowledge. This knowledge cannot be reduced to sense impressions. A specific person, as an actor, is directly involved in the activity. There is no absolute division into subject and object here. On the one hand, phenomena are such as things reveal themselves in a given situation. On the other hand, it is the consciousness of the actor during the duration of the action that guarantees its continuity and identity with itself.
Pragmatism - a philosophical school that arose in the USA, becoming in this country one of the most popular teachings of the first half of the twentieth century. The founder of pragmatism is considered to be the famous American philosopher, logician, mathematician and natural scientist Charles Pierce (1839 – 1914). The classics of pragmatism also include W. James (1842 – 1910) and J. Dewey (1859 – 1952). Pragmatism relates not only to philosophy, but also to other areas of human knowledge, for example, political science and pedagogy. Pragmatism arose from criticism of classical philosophy for its abstractness and isolation from the problems of a specific person. Its founders called on thinkers to address the issues that face people in various life situations. In its most general form, pragmatism can be defined as a philosophical view that sees the most vivid expression of human essence in action (Greek: pragma, praxis) and puts the value or lack of value of thinking depending on whether it serves action, life practice. Representatives of the philosophy of pragmatism identify the entire surrounding reality with experience. Philosophy, from their point of view, should help a person “move in the flow of experience” towards some goals he has set for himself. One of the central places in pragmatist theory is occupied by the concept truth. Pragmatism states that opinions are true if they turn out to be useful and therefore functional. In its most simplistic interpretation, this point could mean that what people call truth is something useful to their self-interest. A deeper interpretation involves understanding “functionality” and “usefulness” as something that “has proven itself to work”, that tested in daily life, scientific research and discussions. It should be noted that pragmatism, being most widespread in the United States, had and has many adherents in other countries. In Great Britain, similar ideas were propagated by F. Schiller, in Italy by G. Papini and others. Pragmatism developed dynamically throughout the entire period of its existence. In the twenties, C. Lewis proposed his version of pragmatism, and in the mid-twentieth century, W. Quine and G. Goodman came up with a unique synthesis of pragmatism and analytical philosophy. Towards the end of the century, the ideas of pragmatism were developed in the works of R. Rorty, J. McDermott and R. Bernstein.
Personalism – the philosophical tradition of “personal philosophy” (Latin persona – personality), which arose back in the 19th century. in Germany, which at the end of the same century received specific development in the works of American thinkers. Modern personalism, which is a fairly influential philosophical movement, is based mainly on the foundation of the French personalist school, the founder of which was Emmanuel Mounier (1905 - 1950). Besides him, the main representatives of the newest personalism are J. Lacroix, D. de Rougemont, P. Landsberg, J. Isar, M. Nédoncel, G. Madinier. In the 30s. XX century years, personalists sympathetic to the latest trends in Catholic philosophy came up with a program for the creation of a world-wide doctrine of the human personality as the main concern of earthly civilization. In its spirit and style of philosophizing personalism is close to existentialism. Its representatives also oppose rational comprehension of the world irrationalistic approach, viewing it as a reaction to the shortcomings of the existing form of rationality. In their opinion, the essence of philosophy should be the synthesis of faith with a new form of rationality. Many supporters of personal philosophy reinterpreted the problems of the Christian concept of man, trying to weaken its inherent dogmatism and introduce new content into it that corresponds to modern times. Personalists characterize the human personality, the main object of their philosophy, with three main dialectically related features. This exteriorization(self-realization of a person outside), interiorization ( the inner concentration of the individual, his spiritual world) and transcendence(going beyond natural cognitive abilities). Both exteriorization and interiorization, being in a deep relationship, are carried away by the movement of transcendence, aimed at the highest values - truth, beauty, goodness. Representatives of personalism emphasized the fundamental difference between philosophical thinking and scientific thinking. Thus, according to Jean Lacroix (1900 - 1986), philosophy, unlike science, cannot claim to be any reflection of reality; it is not at all associated with the search for objective truth. Philosophy from these positions is exclusively the internal creativity of the subject. Philosophy opposes science, as the category of the subjective is opposed to the category of the objective. Personalists, however, emphasize that subjectivity in philosophy is not psychophysiological subjectivity, it is a universal subjectivity, within the framework of which the subject, as a result of personal reflection, cognizes the universal laws of existence. The method of cognition itself is subjective, but not the knowledge that is obtained as a result of its application. It should be noted that the personalist concept, which was based on the teachings of E. Mounier, underwent a number of more or less significant changes during the twentieth century. In particular, it was revised by J.-M. Domenac, who sought to combine personalist ideas with the ideology of social reformism. And in the last decades of the twentieth century, the orientation towards social and philosophical teachings about post-industrial society prevailed in the personalist environment.
Main features of Russian philosophy
Russian philosophy– part of world philosophy, which has significant historical, substantive and ideological originality. The first experiments in Russian philosophizing date back to the ancient Kiev era and are associated with the adoption of Christianity in Rus'. Along with the evangelical doctrine, the main source and conductor of philosophical ideas on Russian soil is becoming patristics and, above all, the teachings of the Eastern Fathers of the Church. A rather complex theoretical and methodological problem is determining the specifics medieval Russian philosophy, the degree of its originality and independence. According to many researchers, this was the period of pre-national philosophy, "Prologue of Philosophy". Truly original national Russian philosophy appears only in the 19th century. Nevertheless, period from X to XVII centuries. cannot be thrown out of the history of philosophy in Russia. It was at this stage that the origins of its originality, the main conceptual structures, methods and models of reasoning, and key issues were laid, which allowed Russian philosophy to achieve in the 19th - 20th centuries. highest flourishing.
Initially, philosophy was interpreted by Russian scribes as kind of knowledge of God, sublime aspirations for Sofia–Wisdom of God, which formed a stable tradition for Russian philosophy of combining it with artistic and symbolic understanding of existence and formed the basis of Russian sophiology. Some features of ancient Russian culture become typical of Russian thought and further: lack of professional philosophy as such, on the one hand, and a pronounced the philosophy of the entire culture, with another; heightened religiosity and attraction to the living , figurative word, journalisticism and close intertwining with fiction, special interest in historical, moral and ethical issues. This is where the importance in the formulation of philosophical problems came from. Russian literature(N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, etc.), as well as the predominance or significant weight of freely written articles in the works of I.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky V.S. Solovyov, V.V. Rozanov and many others.
In modern times, for Russia - in the 18th century, in the context of the reforms of Peter I New trends are also emerging in the development of philosophy. This was the period of formation of the Russian secular(free from church influence) culture. Typical for this century was the so-called "Voltairianism", very consonant with the critical spirit of the era, its craving for change, which ultimately became one of the sources of ideological radicalism and nihilism of the 19th-20th centuries. Another trend was expressed in the desire to create a new national ideology, peculiarly based on ideas of humanism, science, education(M.V. Lomonosov, N.I. Novikov). Adjacent here anthropological teachings A.N. Radishchev and A.I. Galich. Anthropologism from now on it becomes a fundamental feature of Russian philosophy. At the same time, by the end of the century, mystical tradition(Paisiy Velichkovsky, Grigory Skovoroda), as well as Freemasonry tradition, which became the first reaction of Russian thought to the one-sided intellectualism of the European Enlightenment, and represents the turn of philosophy towards a personal search for the hidden meaning of life.
The time of birth of Russian national philosophy as a special type of philosophizing, fundamentally identifying himself as “other” in relation to Western philosophy, – first half of the 19th century The patriotic upsurge of the first quarter of the century, the need to comprehend the results of the transformations of the previous century in the context of mass familiarization with the European way of life and way of life, the desire to form a society of justice in Russia, and the assimilation of German philosophy became the motivation for the fact that Russian philosophy, starting with P.Ya. Chaadaeva, initially declares himself as philosophy of history with a central theme: "Russia and the West". It was the searches of P.Ya. Chaadaev, who attached special importance to the problem of rapprochement between Russia and the West on the basis of a common Christian culture, which, however, requires renewal, that laid the foundations precisely religious-metaphysical form interpretation of the question: what is the path of Russia and the Russian people in the world, is it the same as the path of the peoples of the West, or is it a completely special path? The Russian fate seems tragic and painful, and its future causes particularly intense publicistic discussions, setting the problematic field for all subsequent Russian philosophy, ideologically split into "Westerners" And "Slavophiles". However, there are many similarities between these ideologically opposing schools of thought, pointing to the unity of their national origins and the similarity of the original paradigms, dating back to the work of P.Ya.Chaadaev:
1) them genre specificity, especially in the first stages: in the form of free journalism or works of fiction that do not require rigid categorical and logical elaboration of the problem and at the same time open up extremely wide horizons for interpretation and philosophical reflection;
2) the diversity of categorical structures and trains of thought, initially focused on reconciliation and synthesis of reason, feeling, will, science, art, religion, one might say literal aspiration towards unity;
3) philosophical-historical and social-philosophical issues at the same time it turns out ontology, epistemology, anthropology and ethics, permeated if not religious content, like the Slavophiles, then at least religious pathos And irrational impulse serving a higher goal in outwardly atheistic directions, similar to Westernism;
4) the fundamental feature of both directions, as well as the subsequent national philosophical tradition, is a deep and original anthropologism philosophical thinking: ontology is essentially anthropology and vice versa. Hence such intense reflections in Russian philosophy about the meaning of life, about the purpose of man, focused on the salvation of the soul, on sacrifice, heroism as a condition for the salvation of the world.
5) both directions aroused equal interest the idea of conciliarity, which was filled not only moral and religious content and special national flavor, but received socio-political orientation to preserve the peasant community. The idea of “Russian community”, understood as community of fate and life of a united multitude of people, as a special moral principle of the Russian people, became structure-forming principle both the individual worldview and the social system.
Slavophilism - a movement of Russian social thought of the mid-19th century, occupying a special place in the development of Russian philosophy. Main representatives: I.V.Kireevsky, A.S.Khomyakov, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin and others. Slavophiles idealized Russian culture, emphasized the uniqueness and originality of Russia, its history and people. They emphasized the presence of Orthodoxy as a true Christian faith in the Russian people, who are destined to become the Messiah. It was in the works of A. Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky and others that the need of Russian culture to create an original national philosophy was clearly stated and its key problems, features, categorical structures were identified, and in the context of what later became traditional criticism of the “abstract principles” of Western rationalist philosophy. The main organizing principle of the philosophy of the Slavophiles was the doctrine of the integrity of the spirit as a fundamental principle of being, knowledge, ethics relationships between people, achievement with the help of a believing mind and loving creation of synthetic living knowledge, which should form the basis of both an individual worldview and a social system. This attitude is embodied in the concept conciliarity as a universal metaphysical principle of existence. Realizing the need of society for the formation of a new type of personality, the Slavophiles argued primacy of inner freedom in relation to the external, insisting that the existence of a community is necessary for the full existence of the individual, his moral principle, realizing "inner truth". This vision of the problem simultaneously led the Slavophiles to underestimation of legal regulation people's behavior. Moreover, the weakness of legal forms was seen as an advantage of Russian society, distinguishing it from Western society, which followed the path of atomization and “external truth.” This conviction simultaneously becomes the basis for deepening the idea of Russian messianism, the origins of which were laid back in the medieval period with the promotion of the idea “Moscow is the third Rome.”
Westernism – current of Russian social thought of the mid-19th century, actively opposing the “Slavophiles”. The most prominent representatives were A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, T.A. Granovsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky and others. Rejecting the arguments of the Slavophiles about chosenness, the uniqueness of the Russian people, they insisted on the need for Russia study Western experience and carry out reforms following the model of the most developed countries. They emphasized the backwardness of the Russian state. In this regard, Westerners extremely highly appreciated the activities of Peter I, which must be continued. They considered it necessary to replace the feudal-serf system in Russia with a bourgeois-democratic one. Nevertheless, the idea of Russian “community” (sobornost), as a unique identity, although in different contexts, was also characteristic of “Westernism” in its various tendencies. This topic was largely initiated by A.I. Herzen, when, having found himself in exile, he became bitterly disillusioned with the West with its “philistinism” and began a search in the direction of a philosophy that would combine Western advantages with Russian originality. Herzen's ideas served as the philosophical and ideological basis of Russian populism.
Second half of the 19th century. became time professionalization of philosophical creativity and the formation of original philosophical systems. In external terms, it was a period of coming to the fore positivism and materialism(finished in Russian Marxism, claiming to be scientific). In general, these trends did not possess significant philosophical novelty and originality of ideas, but they contributed to the intensification of philosophical discussions, because it was necessary to give a serious answer to their theoretical and practical principles. Russia is becoming a field for the most diverse currents of philosophical and social thought. Presented here anarchism(M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin), populism, positivism(P.L. Lavrov, V.V. Lesevich), materialism(N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev), neo-Kantianism(A.I. Vvedensky, G.I. Chelpanov, I.I. Lapshin), Marxism(G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Lenin, A.A. Bogdanov), conservatism(K.N. Leontiev). L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky stood out as not only great artists, but also profound philosophers who had the greatest influence among Russian thinkers, both on domestic and Western European thought of the 20th century. A truly original and fruitful line of philosophy develops within a framework that critically inherits the problems and traditions of the early Slavophiles, religious philosophy growing on an Orthodox basis: V.S. Solovyov, K.N. Leontiev, L.M. Lopatin, S.N. Trubetskoy, E.N. Trubetskoy and others.
The fundamental paradigm of philosophizing becomes that formulated by V.S. Solovyov metaphysics of unity, which puts the foundation of philosophy not on absolute ideas and other abstract entities, but concrete existence, which is based on understanding of existence as a living reality, as the life of a universal and integral organism. Philosophy of unity- one of the most significant teachings of Russian philosophy, the founder of which is V.S. Solovyov. This teaching, according to the author's intention, should become an alternative to rationalism and empiricism, which dominated European culture in the 19th century. Humanity needs to move to a higher level of knowledge capable of express the integrity and fullness of life the existence of a new person. The system-forming categories of new living, integral knowledge are the categories truth, goodness and beauty, exhaustive content of the idea of perfection. They are united by the principle “inseparability and non-fusion, the existence of everything in everything”. This principle ensures the stability of the logical core of integral knowledge, since the fundamental categories are determined through each other. The logical structure of integral knowledge V.S. Solovyov calls organic logic or mysticism, and the generation of new knowledge is free theurgy (divine action). The main idea of V.S. Solovyov is the idea God-manhood, which leads to an understanding of Christianity not only as a given, but also as a task addressed to human freedom and activity, aimed at uniting two natures, divine and human, in the theurgic process. Free theurgy is the creativity of humanity, in which it embodies its highest ideals, is art in its highest meaning and development. In the context of history, free theurgy appears as the doctrine of life, the existence of man and the cosmos in their organic integrity and development. It is addressed to a person who wants to overcome the imperfections of life and make his life fuller and more perfect. The world will become kind, reasonable and beautiful only for humans with a soul filled with goodness, intelligence and beauty. Solovyov calls such a world a church.
At the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. a new stage in the development of Russian philosophy begins. V.S. Solovyov’s system turns out to be a landmark in the history of Russian philosophy, as if it were a “standard” for all subsequent Russian thinkers, even if Solovyov’s ideas themselves were not accepted by them. Equally significant in terms of the nature of their influence on the philosophy and culture of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. turned out to be anthropological discoveries F.M.Dostoevs
Russian philosophical thought is an organic part of world philosophy and spiritual culture in general. At the same time, it is distinguished by national identity, and to a certain extent, uniqueness. The peculiarity of Russian philosophy is that it represents an element of the dialectical relationship between the individual and the general, which in turn is determined by the specifics of the sociocultural development of the first forms of Russian statehood and spirituality during the transition from the primitive communal type of society to the feudal one, from paganism to the Christian religion.
Philosophical knowledge in Kievan Rus, during the periods of the Mongol yoke and the centralized Moscow state, was fragmented, not independent and not systematized. But it existed, developed, and formed the basis for the formation of philosophy as a science in the 18th century. Subsequently, it was represented by a variety of directions, orientations and schools, which was due to the genesis of Russian philosophy and changing social conditions. In this context, the main ideological, methodological, epistemological, axiological principles were considered from the position of materialism, both Marxist and non-Marxist (Plekhanov, Herzen, Chernyshevsky), and idealism in secular (Vvedensky, Shpet) and religious (Soloviev, Berdyaev) forms. It should be noted that philosophical ideas were considered not only in the works of philosophers, but also in the works of outstanding representatives of world and domestic science (Lomonosov, Vernadsky, Tsiolkovsky, etc.), as well as artistic culture (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc.)
As in the entire system of world philosophy, in Russian philosophical thought materialism and idealism express the unity of opposites; they do not so much oppose each other as complement and enrich scientific philosophical knowledge.
There are alternative points of view on the formation and development of Old Russian culture as a whole, especially Old Russian philosophical thought. It seems that the process of the formation of philosophical thought in Ancient Russia (1X-13th centuries AD) was of a contradictory nature. The main ideological and theoretical factor in the formation of ancient Russian philosophical thought was Christianity. At the same time, the pagan heritage underlay the worldview of the broad masses, a kind of “folk philosophy.” If we take the culture of ancient Russian society as a whole, then pagan elements played a large role in it even after Russia adopted Christianity in 988.
The first Russian philosopher can be considered Metropolitan Hilarion of Kyiv (11th century), author of the famous “Sermon on Law and Grace.” Along with purely theological dogmas, the work contained actual philosophical ideas. These are the historiosophical provisions about a “two-stage linear” world history, based on the idea of changing the state of “Law” to the state of “Grace” along the path of humanity to metahistorical “eternal life”. From here the conclusion is drawn about the divine equality of “new peoples”, about the inclusion of the history of the Russian people in world history. Characteristic is Hilarion’s solution to the epistemological problems of “knowledge of God,” as well as people’s comprehension of the truth. He identifies two types of truth, corresponding to the Old Testament of the Bible (“Law”) and the New Testament of the Bible (“Grace”), and defends the position of theological rationalism. Many other church figures, monks, and princes also contributed to the development of Russian pre-philosophy.
Russian philosophy has been formed and developed over a number of historical eras, from the Middle Ages to the present. There are a number of stages in the history of Russian philosophy:
1. XI-XVII centuries. - the formation of Russian philosophy (pre-philosophy);
2. Philosophy in Russia in the 18th century;
3. The formation of Russian philosophy as a science - the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th centuries;
4. The philosophy of the “Silver Age” in Russia - the second half of the XIX - 20s. XX centuries;
5. Modern Russian philosophy - after the 20s. XX century
It should be noted that after 1917, domestic philosophy had two wings: foreign and domestic development of philosophy of the Soviet period.
First stage. XI-XVII centuries - Old Russian philosophy (philosophy of the pre-Petrine period or Russian medieval philosophy). Its features are: religious-Christian orientation; understanding of statehood and citizenship, the “symphony of authorities” - church and state, as well as fragmentation, lack of independent status. The philosophical understanding of the historical process, the place and role of Rus' in the world community is substantiated.
Second phase. XVIII century - historically connected with the Europeanization of Russia and the reforms of Peter I. The national idea of “Holy Rus'” is reincarnated into the idea of “Great Russia”. Philosophy gradually moves away from scholastic forms and becomes freer from the church, thereby beginning the process of secularization and enrichment of its content with scientific knowledge. The teaching of philosophy begins in the first domestic universities.
The first propagandists of the philosophical ideas of this period in Rus' were F. Prokopovich, G. Skovoroda, A. Cantemir and others. Prominent representatives of philosophical views were M.V. Lomonosov and A.N. Radishchev.
M.V. Lomonosov (1711-1765) - “the universal mind of Russia.” In Russian philosophy he laid the foundations of the materialist tradition and natural philosophy. He understood matter only as a substance, substantiated its structure, attributive properties, and patterns.
A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802) was the first to proclaim the idea of humanity not in the spirit of religious philosophy, but as the main core of secularized, secular social thought. He criticized the social existence of monarchical Russia.
Third stage. The end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century - Independent philosophical creativity is being established in Russia. It manifested itself primarily in the confrontation between Slavophiles and Westerners. The appeal to European philosophy became noticeable. One of the trends in Russian philosophy at the beginning of the 19th century. gravitated towards Schelling. Its representatives were D.M. Vellansky, M.G. Pavlov, A.I. Galich. There were supporters of the philosophy of Kant and French thinkers. However, the main discussions took place around the main problem of the time. It was associated with determining the paths of development of Russian culture. Early and later Westernism and Slavophilism, the doctrine of peasant utopian socialism, populism, anarchism, revolutionary and heterogeneous democracy, and monarchism offered various options for the development of Russia. Russian philosophy accumulated rich theoretical content and improved scientific research methodology.
Fourth stage. Second half of the 19th – 20s of the 20th century . The philosophy of this period was predominantly religious-Christian in nature, and anthropocentrism and humanism became the main directions of development. The stage is characterized by rapid and creative development of the main directions and types of domestic spiritual culture. It received the designation "Silver Age". Mature, fundamental philosophical systems emerge. Among the thinkers N.F. became famous. Fedorov, V.S. Soloviev, B.N. Chicherin, N.O. Lossky, N.A. Berdyaev and others. The development of natural science in Russia gave rise to another feature of philosophy - the emergence of Russian cosmism . The principles of philosophical research are affirmed: integrity, conciliarity, real intuition, “truth-righteousness”, positive unity, ethical personalism, nationality, sovereignty and others.
Russian philosophy achieved its greatest success in the 18th-20th centuries. Its characteristic features and characteristics were: 1) emphasis on anthropological issues; 2) the generally humanistic nature of philosophical concepts; 3) the presence of personal philosophical creativity of thinkers; 4) a combination of general philosophical, ideological, methodological, epistemological problems with axiological problems; 5) strengthening natural philosophical research, developing concepts of cosmism.
It should be noted that these features were inherent in the teachings of the majority of representatives of Russian philosophy, which once again emphasizes its integrity, unity combined with diversity of manifestation. This position is also typical for the study of more specific problems. It took place in the works of representatives of various directions of Russian philosophical thought: “the problem of the nature and structure of consciousness” (Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky, Solovyov), “the problem of the method of cognition” (Herzen, Lavrov), “problems of society and the state” (Herzen, L Tolstoy, Berdyaev), “the problem of culture” (Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky, Solovyov, Danilevsky, etc.). Many features and directions of development of Russian philosophy were integrated into humanism and anthropologism.
The philosophy of the “Silver Age” had a pronounced social activism. Theoretical problems were considered as a means of solving practical contradictions during the country's social transformations. Therefore, anthropology and humanism often acted as the fundamental methodological principles of any philosophical analysis. Thus, A. Herzen, solving the problem of the determinism of human behavior as a natural being and his free will as a social being, called this contradiction a “circle”, and saw the solution not in going beyond this “circle”, but in its secular anthropological and humanistic understanding. N. Chernyshevsky proceeded from the fundamental, integral nature of man, which resides in history and has a set of properties: selfishness, goodwill, hard work, the desire for knowledge, etc. These potential properties are realized in a certain social and historical context, which can be either favorable or not favorable for humans. However, the preservation of the eternal humanistic, spiritual “nature” of man guarantees progress in history. Thus, within the Russian tradition, secular anthropology was combined with the activity-based humanistic orientation of philosophical theory.
An activity-humanistic orientation also characterized Russian religious and philosophical anthropology, which, of course, was resolved primarily in the sphere of the spirit. Characteristic in this regard were the teachings and activities of the “wandering philosopher” and preacher G.S. who lived in Ukraine. Frying pans (1722-1794). He was called “the first philosopher in Rus' in the exact sense of the word” (V. Zenkovsky). His work had a great influence on the religious and philosophical ideas of the Eastern Slavs. Skovoroda's philosophical and ethical system was based on the interpretation of biblical texts, Christian-Neoplatonist ideas and norms of Christian morality. It included a wide range of problems: good, evil, justice, conscience, moral perfection, worship of God, humility, holiness, etc.
The integrating principles of this system were ideas about “affinity” and human happiness. Skovoroda proceeded from the existence of a general law of “affinity” as a kind of guarantor of the balance of nature, which includes the balance of various parts of existence: things, objects and beings - from lower forms of life to forms of the state. A person acquires this “affinity” as a result of reasonable creative activity and personal improvement. It is the universal law of a happy human life. Biblical principles help in mastering the law, as well as self-knowledge, which he explained anthropologically.
At the same time, considering a person as a philosophical problem, Skovoroda, as it were, staged a kind of philosophical and religious experiment, modeling the type of corresponding behavior. It is embodied in the personal religious and moral experience of G. Skovoroda himself, when his philosophical teaching was organically connected with his personal life.
The active nature of Russian religious philosophical anthropology is also represented in the works of N. Fedorov, Vl. Solovyov and other thinkers. Philosophy was considered by them as “the philosophy of the creative spirit”, the philosophy of values, “sacred things” and love. The interpretation of Vl. Solovyov’s famous formula F.M. Dostoevsky “beauty will save the world.” Beauty as a criterion of artistry is included in his fabric of life, real existence. There is a certain commonality with the aesthetic ideas of N.G. Chernyshevsky.
Elements of the concept of Vl. Solovyov are interconnected. Thus, the concept of “conciliarity” expresses the unity of the general (social) and the individual (individual). Man himself is perceived as both an individual and a universal creation. This was the kind of person he was, according to Vl. Solovyov, before he became isolated from the eternal unity of divine life. After the Fall of man, a complex process of separation of the human principles of life from the universal divine begins.
Within the framework of cosmism, the idea was put forward of the universal involvement and cosmic responsibility of man while preserving his individuality. Russian philosophy presents a stable tendency to overcome extreme anthropologism, which elevates man above other types of being. This position has important methodological significance for the analysis of our society, which is experiencing a spiritual crisis.
There is a very great difficulty in defining the national type, the national individuality. It is impossible to give a strictly scientific definition here. The secret of any individuality is recognized only by love, and there is always something incomprehensible to the end, to the last depth.
N. Berdyaev
The history of philosophy, despite its universal character, tells us about the dialogues of different philosophical schools, different cultures, and about the influence of the characteristics of a particular country or people on philosophical thought. Thinkers from different countries posed similar questions: about the meaning and purpose of human life, about the principles of existence, about what is good and evil, but the answers to them were different and depended not only on the personality of the philosopher himself, but also on that cultural, national environment in which he worked. It is very difficult to confuse the work of an ancient Greek thinker with an ancient Chinese treatise or to mistake the text of a French author for the work of a German philosopher. Any philosophical system is nationally colored: each national philosophical tradition has its own “voice”, which is manifested in the characteristic features of the problems and means of solving philosophical issues, in the specifics of connections with other cultural phenomena, etc.
Multinational character
Philosophical thought on the vast territory of Russia, of course, cannot be reduced to just one tradition, to one “line of development.” This is an extremely complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It includes the works of outstanding thinkers who cannot be attributed to one philosophical tradition. A variety of cultural influences are intertwined in their work. Outstanding Russian thinker Pitirim Sorokin(1889-1968) rightly noted that “since the emergence of the Russian nation, its unity... has always been based on racial and ethnic diversity... The Eastern Slavs were a mixture of various Indo-European and Aryan racial lines with a noticeable addition of Ural-Altai branches Mongolian, Turkic and Finnish peoples. Since then... the diversity of Russian peoples has increased even more.” This greatly contributed to the progress and growth of Russian culture.
Late start
Russian philosophy as a special sphere of the spiritual life of society developed relatively late. According to an outstanding Russian thinker Gustav Gustavovich Shpet(1879-1937), the history of our philosophy “began with Peter, but proceeded in the darkness of public philosophical consciousness. Only towards the end of the second century after Peter did it begin to get light, individual and lonely peaks began to glow with golden light, minds began to wake up and scattered to work. This is the history of Russian philosophy...” Perhaps Shpet is too categorical, denying Russian culture before the 18th century. in a philosophical status.
Philosophical ideas were organically included in ancient chronicles and literary works; Russian painting (especially icon painting) was surprisingly philosophical. But only by the 18th century. philosophy in Russia develops as an independent form of spiritual exploration of the world. At this time, Western European philosophy already had a rich past, which included great antiquity, refined medieval scholasticism, Renaissance humanism, and educational ideas. Russia, creating its own original philosophical tradition, could not avoid apprenticeship. Many ideas and themes in Russian philosophy were borrowed, for example, the Russian Enlightenment was clearly influenced by the French, socialist theories in Russia, as a rule, had Western roots, etc. But Russian philosophy as a whole did not remain studentish, it was able to create a precious a fusion of free and original creativity and traditions of world philosophical thought. What is characteristic specifically of Russian philosophy? Does it have its own themes, distinctive features?
Social orientation
Apparently, the most important feature of philosophical thought in Russia is the close attention of philosophers to social issues. Almost all Russian thinkers in their philosophical constructs gave “recipes” for remaking society and built some kind of model for the future development of the country. This feature was largely associated with the specifics of the historical path of Russia, which did not fit completely into either the Western or the Eastern scheme of changing formations. Russia has always been a problem for itself. Moreover, the question was raised not only about real Russia and its place in the world, but also - with much more passion - about what kind of Russia must be. The country clearly lagged behind Western Europe in the development of civilization, life, and law. All this could not but raise questions for the Russian intelligentsia about what path Russia should take in its development, what social transformations are necessary to remake the “vile Russian reality” (in the words of V. G. Belinsky), what future Russia should strive for . There is no history that cares so much about tomorrow as Russian history, G. G. Shpet aptly noted. Therefore Russian philosophy utopian, looking to the future, she is looking for Russia’s place in this universal future. In this regard
N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “Russians, in their creative impulse, are looking for a perfect life... Russian emotional revolutionism was determined... by intolerance of reality, its untruth and ugliness.”
Projects for social transformation were given in a variety of ways: from passionate calls for a popular revolution and socialist reorganization of society to religious utopias of universal brotherhood and Christian love, striking in their moral purity and beauty. But, despite the dissimilarity of the “diagnoses” of social diseases in Russia and the even more obvious discrepancy in the “recipes” for their treatment, almost all Russian thinkers did not ignore the problems associated with the present and future of Russia, almost all tried to give their own guidelines for its development. Therefore, Russian philosophy is philosophy addressed to questions about the meaning of history and Russia’s place in it, This is a socially active philosophy, associated not only with the knowledge and description of the world, but also with changing it.
Popular worship
Another distinctive feature of the Russian philosophical tradition, closely related to the first, was named by N. A. Berdyaev "popular worship". What does this mean? The Russian intelligentsia has always had a painful sense of “duty to the people”: the populist, scientist and philosopher P. L. Lavrov figuratively compared the intelligentsia with a flower that grew out of the mud: for them to receive an education and the opportunity to engage in creative intellectual work, the common people had to pay a terrible price - with its darkness, ignorance, downtroddenness. This means, Lavrov draws a conclusion typical of a Russian intellectual, “we owe the people and are obliged to repay this debt,” by doing everything possible to promote enlightenment and change their way of life. The Russian intelligentsia, N.A. Berdyaev also wrote, “opposed itself to the people, felt its “guilt” before the people and wanted to serve the people. The topic of “intelligentsia and people” is a purely Russian topic, little understood by the West.” Such sentiments, widespread in Russian society, led to “people-worship.” Any idea, thought, system had to be “tested for strength”, assessed from the point of view of contributing to the liberation of the people.
Of course, this approach to the assessment of philosophical systems speaks of the humanistic tradition of Russian philosophy, its democracy and moral pathos. But any medal has two sides. The downside of this “worship of the people” was the underestimation by the Russian intelligentsia of many great philosophical systems and ideas due to their “neutrality” in relation to the struggle to solve social problems. As a result of evaluating philosophy not from the point of view of its epistemological value (whether it is true or not), but from the position (even humane and progressive!) of “usefulness” to a particular stage of the liberation movement, the Russian intelligentsia was often captivated by mediocre and unoriginal philosophers only because because their ideas could be interpreted in the spirit of social change. Conversely, original and interesting philosophical systems were discarded and rejected only because such an interpretation seemed impossible. The already mentioned N.A. Berdyaev in this connection noted with bitterness (somewhat exaggerating) that the Russian intelligentsia I never understood philosophy, since she approached it purely utilitarianly, not as free creativity, which has relative independence and internal logic of development, but as a theory that has only applied significance for the cause of social transformation of Russia.
The place of ethics in philosophical concepts
This state of affairs is closely connected with another feature of Russian philosophical thought - its ethical orientation. German Marxist Rosa Luxemburg called Russian literature "educational and painful." We think this characteristic can also be attributed to philosophy. Russian philosophy is “educational” and painful at the same time; it is characterized by a moral starting point in all theories and constructions. For Russian thinkers philosophical creativity takes on the character of moral preaching. A striking example here can be the works of L.N. Tolstoy, who not only built his philosophy by trying to provide a theoretical basis for moral norms, but also made the plot of his artistic works dependent on the educational function of art. If Anna Karenina cheated on her husband, then, from Tolstoy’s point of view, she simply could not live her life happily. Of course, this interpretation of Tolstoy’s works is a gross simplification. But analyze the fates of the heroes of his novels - you will understand that there is a moment of truth in this simplification. It is obvious that for Russian thinkers, even if they did not write special works on ethics (which, by the way, was rare), morality was the starting point. If Western European philosophy is characterized by an attitude towards ethics as a kind of “superstructure” over ontology, epistemology, philosophy of history, as a conclusion from these areas of philosophical knowledge, then Russian thinkers put ethics at the very foundation of systems, they see in it the foundation of their philosophizing. This idea can be explained by a typical example of the solution of epistemological problems by N.A. Berdyaev, L.I. Shestov and many others: they made his ability to understand the world directly dependent on the moral qualities of a person: the world is revealed only to a morally integral, spiritual personality. Therefore, the very concept of truth is for them not only an epistemological, but also an ethical category. Due to such a moralistic orientation, Russian philosophy, as already noted, has always gravitated towards social issues, towards a moral assessment of its attitude towards the people.
Dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles
Another very important moment in the development of Russian philosophy was the struggle between Westernism and Slavophilism in the spiritual life of Russian society. The historical fate of Russia refutes the schemes that establish rigid boundaries between the cultural and historical areas of the West and the East. Eurasian situation the country acquired symbolic significance for national identity. The struggle between Westernism, at the origins of which was P. Ya. Chaadaev, and Slavophilism, associated primarily with the names of K. S. Aksakov, A. S. Khomyakov and I. V. Kireevsky, became a constant factor in the development of Russian philosophy and culture. Calls from Westerners to introduce Russia to the fruits of Western culture and civilization, to take the European model of development as a model for our country sometimes took extreme forms of denying the value of everything Russian and neglecting the country’s past. Such extreme Westernism (which, unfortunately, has not been eliminated even today) in many ways itself, “by contradiction,” gave rise to its opposite - Slavophile concepts of Russia’s originality, its special historical path and destiny. These were two mutually presupposing poles of Russian culture.
The dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles posed the problem of the relationship between different cultural traditions for Russian philosophy. The criticism of the West by the Slavophiles was largely a protest against Eurocentric ideology, which limited the diversity of spiritual experience of mankind and established the scheme of progress of Western civilization as the only possible model of historical development. It was from the Slavophile “soil” that the so-called "Russian idea" - the idea of a special world historical mission of Russia. The logic of the reasoning was approximately as follows: Russia is neither the East nor the West; it intricately combines both. This means that she can play the role of a force uniting humanity.
The ideological clash of two approaches to explaining the historical process helped develop specific themes of Russian philosophy: the “East - West” problem, interpretation of the meaning of Western European and Russian history, attempts to solve the “Slavic question”, justification of the “Russian idea”, etc. Many of these topics concern Russian society today. Apparently, the end to the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles has not yet been reached, although it has now taken the form of a discussion of various ways to reform society.
Philosophical and artistic complex
Russian philosophy is also characterized by such a phenomenon in the spiritual life of society as philosophical and artistic complex. What does it mean?
The fact is that, as we already said in the first chapters of the textbook, philosophy acts as a kind of ideological reproduction of culture. Man, who is the object and subject of philosophical consciousness, exists in a cultural “space”, in a world that he managed to warm and change. Therefore, philosophy is a kind of complex characteristic, "the quintessence of the culture of its time"(K. Marx). Philosophy “grows” from culture, drawing its themes from it, but philosophy itself influences culture, including artistic culture, embodying its findings and discoveries in it, putting its problems into artistic form. History knows many examples of solving inherently philosophical problems through artistic means. Beethoven's music or Durer's painting, "Hamlet"
Shakespeare or Goethe's Faust rightfully belong to philosophical and artistic works, because they pose purely philosophical questions, but the answer is given through the means of art.
At all times, philosophy and artistic culture were very closely connected, they always had a lot in common - general questions about the meaning and purpose of human life, common tasks of spiritual influence on a person, a common way of existing in the unique creativity of a unique personality of a philosopher or artist. This allows us to say that philosophy, along with cognitive, worldview, methodological and other functions, also has artistic, aesthetic, and emotional functions. Philosophy has always been perceived as a means for self-expression, individual improvement, self-knowledge, etc. But although this is characteristic of every philosophy, the degree of its interpenetration with artistic culture varies. About the subtlest the permeation of almost all Russian literature and all art with philosophical issues and “anxiety” (G. Florovsky) were spoken by many Russian thinkers. And at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. formation is taking place a holistic community of philosophy and artistic culture, when the line between them becomes conditional, mobile, and sometimes difficult to define, which indicates the formation of a philosophical and artistic complex.
In Russian history, the 19th century is a period of incredibly intense development of the self-awareness of society, which was distinguished by the desire to philosophically comprehend all the phenomena of reality. This century is distinguished by a literal fascination with philosophical terminology and problematics. For Russian intellectuals of that time, the entirety of life was subject to philosophical interpretation, and therefore any fact of life could be theoretically comprehended and turned into a problem. Philosophy was at that time a mandatory component of education, philosophical articles and ideas found their fans not only among professionals (who, by the way, were few), philosophical terminology was used even in personal letters, the ideas of Hegel, Schelling, V.S. Solovyov were discussed in circles and salons, on the pages of magazines and newspapers. Philosophy became an integral part of the spiritual life of Russian society of that time, entered the flesh and blood of its culture.
Particularly characteristic in this sense is the Silver Age of Russian culture, the so-called Russian religious and philosophical renaissance beginning of the 20th century The religious and philosophical quests of that time, based on the ideas of F. M. Dostoevsky and V. S. Solovyov, were not isolated from the general flow of culture. Philosophy had a very close connection with the art of that time. Even the search for a social ideal within the framework of the philosophy of history often took on an artistic character. The musical creativity of composers A. N. Scriabin, I. F. Stravinsky, the paintings of artists K. A. Somov, L. S. Bakst carried an enormous ideological charge, went in the same direction of cultural renewal, grew from the same soil that and religious philosophy of the time.
The “kinship” of philosophical ideas and artistic creativity is especially obvious in poetry Russian symbolism. Andrei Bely, Vyacheslav Ivanov, K. D. Balmont, V. Ya. Bryusov, D. S. Merezhkovsky, A. A. Blok inextricably intertwined a philosophical idea and artistic form in their works. Russian symbolism emerged at the turn of the century both as an artistic and poetic movement and as a philosophical movement. He set himself the task of creating a new irrationalistic philosophy, a new doctrine of man (“new humanism”) through the means of art. Most of the works of these poets were of a philosophical and conceptual nature, and their creators were philosophically minded artists. It is not for nothing that even the famous poems about the Beautiful Lady of Blok are not so much love lyrics as discussions about Sophia-wisdom - the central concept of religious philosophy of that time. Thus, the domestic philosophical tradition is characterized by close interaction and interpenetration with Russian artistic culture, which led to formation in the country at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. philosophical and artistic complex.
Extreme positions in the assessment of religion
Another feature that distinguishes Russian philosophy is close attention to religious issues. For a long time during the Soviet period of history, Russian philosophy was viewed as predominantly materialistic in essence and revolutionary in orientation. This led to a careful and thoughtful study of the philosophy of A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, P. L. Lavrov and other thinkers of the revolutionary democratic trend, but also to the oblivion of such major religious philosophers as V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev or P. A. Florensky. Foreign historians of Russian philosophy were characterized by the other extreme: materialist philosophy was declared completely “student” in relation to Western philosophy, unoriginal, and the Russian tradition itself, the originality of Russian thought, was associated only with the religious-idealistic line of development.
It is obvious that the actual development of Russian philosophy is a process that presupposes a contradictory unity of materialistic and idealistic directions, real mutual influence, and a dispute between a variety of schools and movements. Nevertheless, both materialists and idealists rarely avoided issues related to faith, religion, and church, although they resolved them in completely different ways. And the rebel-atheist M. A. Bakunin with his conclusion that to recognize God means to recognize the slavery of man, and the passionate, fiery thinker N. A. Berdyaev, who saw the “divine spark” in man’s ability to create, despite the diametrical opposition of positions, raised questions related to religion in their philosophical heritage. This feature of Russian philosophy is apparently explained by the fact that for many years, until the 17th-18th centuries, philosophical ideas in Russia were not of a secular nature and developed mainly in theological literature.
In addition, the very Orthodox nature of Christianity in the country implied a close interpenetration of religious and philosophical problems. It is not for nothing that Orthodoxy is considered a “spiritual” form of Christianity, in contrast to politicized Catholicism. Attention to the problems of internal self-improvement and spirituality was largely a consequence of the political weakness of the Russian Orthodox Church, which depended on the state. This led to the fact that philosophical thought was highly developed in Orthodox theology, and many of the questions posed in it (about human freedom, about his moral nature and the meaning of life, about the relationship between rational knowledge and faith) gave impetus to the development of secular philosophy. Questions were asked, it was necessary to look for answers to them. Russian thinkers are often characterized by a kind of maximalism: either deep religiosity or convinced atheism. It is difficult to find a neutral, objectivist attitude towards matters of religious faith.
Of course, these characteristics do not exhaust the entirety of the Russian philosophical tradition. But even the features we have listed indicate the presence national specifics in philosophical quests, which is inherent, of course, not only in Russian philosophy, but also in the philosophical thought of any people. Philosophical consciousness reflects the specific historical destinies and spiritual experiences of peoples, and refracts in itself the characteristics of the national character.
Questions and tasks
- 1. What do they mean when they talk about “the problem of the origin of Russian philosophy”? What points of view exist on the issue of its beginning?
- 2. What characteristic features of the Russian philosophical tradition can you name?
- 3. What is a “philosophical-artistic complex”? When did it take shape in the history of Russian philosophy? What is characteristic of him?
- 4. In literature they often talk about the philosophy of N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky and other Russian writers. You studied their works at school. Try to guess what kind of philosophical views were inherent in them, whether they can be characterized as rationalism or irrationalism, materialism or idealism.
- 5. Using reference books, the Internet, and other publications, prepare a report about a Russian thinker and his philosophical views.
Khimki - 2012 ᴦ.
Time - 2 hours
Lecture
in the discipline "Philosophy"
TOPIC No. 5/1. “FORMATION AND MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT”
Discussed at PMK meeting No. 1 “___” September 2012 ᴦ. Protocol No. 1.
For full-time and part-time study
I. Training and educational goals:
1. Understand the content of the basic stages of the formation, formation and development of Russian philosophy.
2. Determine the content and specifics of domestic philosophizing.
3. Determine the range of basic problems in Russian philosophy and their ideological solution.
4. Instilling personal responsibility in students for high academic results at the academy.
II. Educational and material support:
2. Literature exhibition
III. Calculation of study time:
IV. Organizational and methodological instructions:
When studying a topic, it is extremely important to reveal the content of Russian philosophical thought, its origin, stages of formation and development, as well as the range of basic problems and their ideological solution in the conditions of Russian society.
“FORMATION AND MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT”
Domestic (Russian - as a synonym) philosophy is part of the philosophical culture of mankind. It is closely connected with world philosophy, but at the same time it has significant originality. Russian philosophy has a centuries-old history, the development of which did not follow a straight, continuous line. Its significant milestones are associated with the stages of development of Russian statehood; in this regard, it is quite natural to talk about the Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg periods of the development of Russian philosophical thought. In terms of content, Russian philosophy is distinguished by a wide variety of movements and schools that have different, sometimes opposite, directions. In this regard, we can distinguish religious and atheistic, materialistic and idealistic, conservative and liberal-radicalist, mystical and rational-logical, intuitive and positivist directions of Russian philosophical thought. This chapter examines periodization and features, as well as the most significant trends in structural, logical and content terms that determine the specificity and originality of Russian philosophy.
Considering the history of the development of Russian philosophical thought, we can identify several reasons for its periodization. The chronology of world history can serve as such a basis. In this regard, we can talk about Old Russian philosophy, Russian philosophy of the Middle Ages, Modern times, etc. At the same time, there is an approach to the periodization of Russian philosophy taking into account not only temporal, but also spatial, natural and geographical factors (for example, philosophical thought North-Western Rus' XIV century). In some cases, Russian philosophy is considered in accordance with the development of national culture, highlighting, for example, the philosophy of the Silver Age. The Marxist tradition connects the stages of philosophy with the socio-economic formations within which it develops. Other bases for the periodization of Russian philosophy are also used. At the same time, it is more expedient to build its periodization in accordance with the stages of development of Russian statehood, noting, in cases of extreme importance, going beyond their limits. Taking into account these circumstances, we should focus on the common and most acceptable option, when the periodization of Russian philosophy includes the following stages:
– the prehistory of philosophy, including aspects of the mythopoetic and pagan-sacral complex of oral philosophizing of the ancient Russians until the 5th – 7th centuries;
– the formation of Russian philosophy within the framework of Kievan, Novgorod Rus and other principalities in the 8th – early 12th centuries;
– philosophy of the period of feudal fragmentation of medieval Rus' in the 12th – 14th centuries;
– philosophical thought of the Moscow period of Russian statehood in the second half of the 14th – 17th centuries;
– Russian philosophy of the St. Petersburg period of the 18th century;
– philosophical thought of the “Russian Renaissance” of the 19th – early 20th centuries;
– Soviet period of Russian philosophy (1917 – mid-80s of the XX century);
– the current stage of development of Russian philosophy.
A special period in the development of Russian philosophy is the philosophy of the Russian diaspora of the “first wave” from the early 1920s to the 1970s. The peculiarities of Russian philosophy emphasize its originality. When considering the characteristic features of Russian philosophy, it is extremely important to constantly take into account those general development trends that are characteristic of world philosophy. Manifesting itself under the influence of specific conditions, the general is capable of influencing the formation of the specific, determining the domestic historical and philosophical process. At the same time, various directions and schools of Russian philosophical thought, interacting with each other and possessing distinctive features, at the same time have a number of common features. Let's list some of them.
First of all - ϶ᴛᴏ ontology of Russian thought, formed on the basis of ancient and Byzantine-Orthodox traditions. In contrast to the commitment of Western philosophy to a rational basis associated with the properties and characteristics of the human mind, Russian philosophical thought, thirsting for communication with the Absolute, according to A.F. Losev, considers the metaphysical divine Logos to be the basis of everything. This allowed Russian thinkers at all times to uniquely answer the most profound, general existential questions.
The next feature of Russian philosophy is its dislike of abstract thinking, concrete practical nature and the fight against the abstractness of “abstract principles”. In this sense, P.A. Florensky, considering the opposition between Russian and German classical philosophy, spoke about the vagueness of the latter. At the same time, he pointed out its fundamental inability to answer specific philosophical questions, characterizing the German classics as masters of avoiding specific answers, comparing their philosophy with a continuous howl in which there is not a single pure tone.
Artistic imagery how a feature of Russian philosophy manifests itself, starting with the specific multidimensional interpretation of the concept of Sophia - Wisdom. This central philosophical theme, running through the thousand-year history of Russian thought, has several artistic and semantic shades. Sophia is both the personification of philosophical wisdom, and a figurative temple, embodying the harmony and well-being of existence, and an iconographic plot of the interpretation of the “highest idea”, and a set of the deepest thoughts of philosophical theoretical sources, and a symbolically hidden interpretation of the path to achieving the highest wisdom.
Russian philosophy pays close attention to religious issues, which determines religious-Christian character a significant part of the creativity of domestic thinkers. While fulfilling one of the tasks entrusted to it to develop a comprehensive Christian worldview, domestic philosophical thought did not stand on a par with Western European thought. scholasticism. Based on the key tendency of striving to comprehend truth through the divine Logos, Russian philosophy avoided the fate of becoming a “handmaiden of theology”, operating primarily with categories of a rational, formal-logical nature.
Domestic thought systems are distinguished by independence, integrity And uncompromisingness, as well as consistent opposition to the philosophical schools of opponents, “frontal criticism” of their views. Moreover, this position is not an indicator of “general intolerance” or “indispensable denunciation” of an ideological opponent. It contains the desire to express and defend one’s position, to comprehend the truth, and not the desire to be similar and pleasing to the recognized authorities of “world philosophy.”
An important feature of Russian philosophy is its ethical-soteriological orientation. The moral starting point is highlighted in almost all Russian philosophical teachings. Having already formulated this direction in his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev wrote: “Christians are not confirmed by truth and grace, but are saved...”. The position about the indispensable morality of philosophy, its “spiritual wisdom” was developed in the works of Moscow Metropolitan Daniel. And Maxim the Greek noted in this regard that Christian philosophy “... is needed for the salvation of the soul.” These provisions of the founders of Russian philosophy were developed by their followers and determined one of the features of Russian philosophical thought.
Domestic philosophical thought is different historiosophical. History Wisdom Theme and the comprehension of its meaning runs through all Russian philosophy. Moreover, this feature of it is inextricably linked with eschatology - ideas about the end of times and the end of world history. This feature correlates with the very structure of Russian thinking, which did not stay in the “middle zones” of mastering existence and rushed to the “final limit.”
Social character Russian philosophy was expressed in the search for the optimal balance between the importance of the personal and social-collective principles in the social sphere. In Russian consciousness and Russian philosophy, consideration of basic problems occurs through the prism of sociality. Almost all Russian thinkers in their philosophical constructions created “projects” for the reconstruction of society, “models” of its future development. Moreover, according to A.F. Losev, it is sociality that is not only the “destiny” of Russian philosophers, but also “the deepest foundation of all reality, the deepest and most intimate need of each individual, this is what absolutely everything must be sacrificed for.”
The next feature of Russian philosophical thought is systematic worldview, cognition, as well as ways of expressing what is known. Formulating their philosophical views, Russian thinkers sought to reproduce the ideological achievements of Russian and universal culture within the framework of the system, which led to a comprehensive unification of ontology and epistemology with the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of being and knowledge. At the same time, anthropologism, closely related to personal personalism, forms the basis of the system-forming principle of Russian philosophy. This is the reality in connection with which almost all problems in Russian philosophy are considered. It should be emphasized that Russian philosophy is not simply based on the individual person, the bearer of biological, psychological, and social qualities. The value of a person as the main category of Russian philosophical thought lies primarily in his personal qualities.
Moreover, a number of Russian philosophical movements (for example, Slavophilism and Eurasianism) endow the sociocultural sphere and its individual elements with personal qualities: family, community, social groups, classes, people, state, as well as Russian culture. Examples in this regard are the introduced categories of “conciliar” and “symphonic” personality. The totality of such individuals, forming a special socio-cultural environment, contributes to the formation of individual personal qualities, as well as his involvement in harmonious social life.
An important feature that determines the specificity of Russian philosophical thought is recognition of the significance of the problems of Russian statehood, its spiritual nature, as well as the moral character of political power. This feature is also associated with the Byzantine tradition and runs like a red thread through the entire history of Russian philosophy. In this sense, the philosophical creativity of domestic thinkers develops through the doctrine of the “godly ruler” of Theodosius of Pechersk, the Josephite idea of a strong Orthodox state, the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” of the monk Philotheus, and subsequent philosophical teachings of a political and state orientation.
Domestic thought is associated with ideocratic character of Russian philosophical systems, commitment to researching problems related to the “Russian idea”, Russian mentality, Russian character, Russian patriotism. This feature is reflected in the philosophical heritage of various authors and passes through the depths of centuries from the birth of Russian philosophy to the present.
The listed characteristics do not exhaust the entirety of the Russian philosophical tradition, but they determine its specificity and the most important features that determine the appearance of Russian philosophy.
Loading...
