Abstract
This article addresses the writing of the history of Russian philosophy from the first of such works—Archimandrite Gavriil’s Russian Philosophy [Russkaja filosofija, 1840]—to philosophical histories/textbooks in the twenty-first century. In the majority of these histories, both past and present, we find a relentless insistence on the delineation of “characterizing traits” of Russian philosophy and appeals to “historiosophy,” where historiosophy is employed as being distinct from the historiographical method. In the 1990s and 2000s, the genre of the history of Russian philosophy has grown increasingly conservative with regards to content, with histories from this period demonstrating an almost exclusive Orthodox focus. This conservatism, in turn, has contributed to widespread contention in recent years over the status of these philosophical textbooks—disagreements that often lead to either (1) further appeals to “historiosophical” methods; or (2) denials of the domestic philosophical tradition altogether, where the response to the query “Is there philosophy in Russia?” is emphatically negative. This article argues that the contemporary disputes over the development and preservation of the Russian philosophical canon are in many ways part of a larger debate over the roles of Orthodoxy and the history of philosophy in post-Soviet philosophical thought.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Even in the field of Slavic Studies, which is the location of most of the scholarship on Russian culture and intellectual life, rarely do we find work on philosophy proper. Vladimir Krasikov discusses the lackluster representation of Russian philosophy on the English-language internet in Russian Philosophy Today (2008). See Krasikov (2008): 234–260.
[“В Европе русскую философию воспринимают… с пожиманием плеч.”] All translations are mine unless otherwise noted.
Rylev then continues by noting that while Russian literature, art, science, film, and even the “Russian character” are more or less well-defined, the nature of Russian philosophy remains a mystery (Rylev 2009).
There are certainly important historical exceptions to this claim, such as Mikhail Bakunin, or Nikolai Berdjaev and Lev Shestov, who enjoyed popularity (especially in France) in the twentieth century surrounding an elevated interest in existentialism. For contemporary exceptions, we might turn to Vladimir Kantor, who was included among the list of twenty-five “great global thinkers” in 2005 in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, or Mikhail Ryklin, who was awarded the Leipzig Book Prize for Mutual Understanding in 2007.
By “philosophical map” I mean what is accepted as the “philosophical canon,” usually corresponding to what is taught in required courses to university students.
[“Время сейчас явно не философское, скорее, тусовочно-рыночное по своему духу и тону.”] .
[“2008 год скорее не продемонстрировал какие-то ‘тренды и направления,’ а явил собой великолепную иллюстрацию простого факта: в головах наших интеллектуалов, политиков и народонаселения продолжают жить и резвиться лишь самые дикие, буйные, несуразные, далекие от реальности фантазмы и представления.”].
In the name of manageability, I have made two important distinctions here. First, I am interested solely in the history of Russian philosophy and not the entire study of the history of philosophy in Russia (the latter has been extensively researched; the former has not). Second, in order to work with a manageable number of texts, I have limited myself only to those books that purport to be histories of Russian philosophy. This thereby excludes the overwhelming number of pedagogical texts found on the shelves of university bookstores, many of which focus on exam preparation by advertising themselves not just as textbooks, but as study guides, handbooks, definition lists, and even “cheat sheets” [špargalki]. In this regard, it also excludes specialized studies, for instance, Igor' Evlampiev’s History of Russian Metaphysics [Istorija russkoj metafiziki, 2000].
The book in question is Mikhail Maslin’s History of Russian Philosophy [Irf, 2008].
On Russian academic philosophy see Pustarnakov (2003).
Radlov also participated in the editing of the collected works of Vladimir Solov'ëv (1911–1914), about whom he wrote books in 1909 and 1911.
[“У русских нет вполне оригинальной философии, самостоятельной философской системы.”].
Beside’s Špet’s 1922 Sketch of the Development of Russian Philosophy, similar accusations can be found in Nikolai Berdjaev’s Cloudy Faces: Types of Religious Thought in Russia [Mutnye liki: tipy religioznoj mysli v Rossii, 1915–1922] and in Boris F. Egorov’s more recent book, Russian Utopias [Rossijskie utopii, 2007], in which he argues that the defining features of Russian philosophers are faith in utopia, hope in providence, and crippling laziness (what Nikolaj Dobroljubov coined “Oblomovščina” in 1859).
[“Первая—это преимущественный интерес к этическим вопросам, притом не теоретическим, а именно к применению этических теорий на практике… Вторая… состоит в любви к объективному, в отрицании субъективизма.”].
Eršov’s conception of philosophy here is linked to the Russian nation [natsija], as the development of philosophy in a particular country is dependent on the political policy, both foreign and domestic. See Eršov (1922, 66–67).
Restrictions on philosophy were repealed between 1850 and 1863, depending on the university.
We find this also in Špet’s History, in which philosophy is not limited to being the handmaiden of Orthodox theology—a position it would find itself in within émigré communities in the middle of the century.
[“… больше всего занята темой о человеке, о его судьбе и путях, о смысле и целях истории.”].
Here a productive comparison can be made to Henry Laurie’s history of Scottish philosophy, Scottish Philosophy in its National Development (1902). Although Laurie’s history clearly employs a Romantic model, in that the author consistently returns to stating his goal of “considering the philosophy of Scotland as a national development,” he does so exclusively by comparing Scottish philosophy with corresponding international philosophical dialogues: for instance, discussing Immanuel Kant as a critical response to David Hume, or tracing the influence of Thomas Reid on French spiritual thought. See Laurie (1902, 7). While James McCosh’s earlier The Scottish Philosophy (1874) does engage in identifying explicit “characterizing traits,” they are not essentialized, and thus we might identify them as more akin to those of the academic tradition of Russian philosophical historiography. For McCosh, these “characterizing traits” are Scottish philosophy’s: (1) employment of the method of observation; (2) view of self-consciousness as the instrument of observation; and (3) idea that, with the help of consciousness, one is able to come to know principles prior to and independent of experience (what Reid called “principles of common sense”). See McCosh (1974, 2–7).
[“философии истории, созданная как целостное постижение вариативности и преемственности конкретных исторических форм”].
Here we are reminded of Emanuel Swedenborg’s much earlier hints at post-religion in Angelic Wisdom About Divine Providence [Sapientia Angelica de Divina Providentia, 1764], where confessional differences are leveled by the commonalities between all religions (Swedenborg 1961, 358–361).
Florovskij left the Soviet Union before the dispatch of the steamer, moving first to Bulgaria in 1920, to Prague in 1926, and to New York in 1948.
It should be noted, however, that Florovskij’s history was regarded as extreme even within the context of émigré Orthodoxy. Its orientation to an idealized, pre-revolutionary past received staunch criticism from other philosophers abroad. In the 1937 article “Orthodoxy and Humaneness” [“Ortodoksija i čelovečnost'”], published in the émigré journal Path [Put'], Nikolaj Berdjaev, who was known for his own form of religious extremism during the later years of his life, condemned Florovskij’s history, suggesting that it would have been better titled the Waylessness of Russian Theology [Besputstvo russkogo bogosloviia]. Angry about the way he was portrayed in the book, Berdjaev accuses its author of being a “Romantic Byzantinist” and not a “Russian Christian”: “Florovskij describes Fr. S. Bulgakov and me [Berdjaev] up until the year 1917, but our most important books, those defining our world-view, were written after 1917. This is not right.” See Berdjaev (1937).
[“О. Г. Флоровский характеризует о. С. Булгакова и меня до 17 года, в то время как главные наши книги, определяющие наше миросозерцание, написаны после 17 года. Это неправильно.”].
[“Если уже нужно давать какие-либо общие характеристики русской философии, … то я бы на первый план выдвинул анmропоценmризм русских философских исканий. Русская философия … больше всего занята mемой о человеке, о его судьбе и путях, о смысле и целях истории.”].
[“Русские философы доверяют интеллектуальной интуиции, нравственному и эстетическому опытам, раскрывающим нам высочайшие ценности, но прежде всего они доверяют мистическому религиозному опыту, который устанавливает связь человека с богом и его царством.”].
[“издевательство над философской мыслью русского народа”].
No less biting in its criticism is Valerij Kuvakin’s Religious Philosophy in Russia [Religioznaja filosofija v Rossii, 1980], which studies Berdjaev, Bulgakov, Rozanov and others as examples of anti-intellectual bourgeois philosophy. See Kuvakin (1980).
[Один их величайших умственных успехов нашего времени в том состоит, что мы, наконец, поняли, что у России была своя история, нисколько не похожая на историю ни одного европейского государства.].
Here we should also note Andrei Sukhov’s tediously titled Russian philosophy. Path of Development. Sketches of Theoretical History [Russkaja filosofija. Put' razvitija. Očerki teoretičeskoj istorii], which appeared in 1989. Sukhov was the head of the sub-department for the History of Russian Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences (Moscow) between 1982 and 1992 and was influential in policy making. Another interesting text by Sukhov, though not structured as a history, is his Russian Philosophy. Particularities, Traditions, Historical Fates [Russkaja filosofija. osobennosti, traditsii, istoričeskie sud'by, 1995]. Here Sukhov vacillates between essentializing Russian philosophy and situating the tradition critically in the history of philosophy. That is, he makes comments about the “uniqueness” of Russian thought while also labeling some phenomena as products of a shared Western philosophical approach. See Sukhov (1995).
For comparison, Evlampiev spends only ten pages on Špet.
The entry for 6494 (986) begins on line 84:17, the philosopher’s first appearance is at line 86:8, and the philosopher’s speech begins at 87:23.
For more on this see Sekatskij (1994, 7–41).
[“Достоевский как метафизический мыслитель формировался в лоне христианства, а не гностицизма”].
[“Замечали ли Вы, читатель, сколько недоразумений, сколько разногласий возникает на
почве любви к русской философии”].
[“русская философия обращена отнюдь не только к собственной этнокультурной реальности, а ко всеобщим проблемам мировой философии”].
Khoružij was not present at the roundtable discussion but sent written comments on the volume for inclusion in Questions of Philosophy.
For a similar debate surrounding the 2000 publication of the New Philosophical Encyclopedia [Novaja filosofskaja entsiklopedija, 2000], see Vaganov (2001).
[“Предмет, что под именем РФ представлен нам … на самом деле, по Гоголю выражаясь,—ни то ни се, а черт знает что.”].
For Alexander Rybas’ use of this metaphor in a review of the X Historians’ Symposium of Russian Philosophy (2007), see Rybas (2008, 18). The first such horn orchestra was organized in 1751 by S.K. Naryškin and Ja. Mareš. Performances included anywhere between 91 and 300 copper hunting horns, each one emitting only one note. See Vertkov (1948). Horn orchestras are mentioned in Deržvin’s odes “Felitsa” (1792) and “Ruins” [“Razvaliny,” 1799], and of course in Lomonosov’s “On the Invention of Horn Music” [“Na izobretennie rogovoj myzyki”] (1753).
[“арена для идеологических бряцаний”].
By contrast, Alexander Broadie’s A History of Scottish Philosophy (2009) denies that “national philosophy” in this essentialized way can exist. Instead of offering characterizing traits of Scottish philosophy (except for the assertion that Scotland’s rich philosophical tradition testifies to a deep interest in abstract speculation), he instead poses the question, “What do we mean by ‘Scottish philosophy?’” His conclusion: “There surely cannot be anything Scottish about the question whether our powers of sense perception deliver up truths about the world, nor anything Scottish about the answer. That is surely incontestable.” See Broadie (2009, 2).
We see this same ritualistic repetition in ROSSPEN’s 118 volume Library of Domestic Social Thought [Biblioteka otečestvennoj obščestvennoj mysli, 2009–2010), about which Nikolaj Plotnikov remarked: “The library … includes a number of truly interesting volumes … But the majority of the volumes are fifteenth republications of the same old texts—texts that, in many cases, were already published better and more completely than planned in the Library.”
[Библиотека … содержит ряд действительно интересных томов …. Но основная масса томов представляет собой пятнадцатое переиздание одних и тех же текстов, причем изданных зачастую лучше и полнее, чем это планируется в БООМ.] See Plotnikov (2010).
References
Anašvili, V. (2008). Intellektual’nye itogi 2008 goda. Interview with Vitalij Kurennoi, Častnyj korrespondent. http://www.chaskor.ru/p.php?id=2368. Accessed December 31, 2008.
Benjamin, W. (1966). Theses on the philosophy of history. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations. Essays and reflections (pp. 253–264). New York: Schocken.
Berdjaev, N. (1937). Ortodoksija i čelovečnost’. Put’ 53(April–July 1937). http://www.krotov.info/library/02_b/berdyaev/1937_434.html.
Berdjaev, N. (1991). O russkoj filosofii. Ekaterinburg.
Berg, A. (2008). Ivan Lopukhin and the development of mystical historiosophy in late eighteenth-century Russia. In The yearbook of the “Gheorghe Şincai” Institute for Social Sciences and the Humanities of the Romanain Academy (Vol. XI, pp. 44–57).
Bobrov, E. (1899–1903). Filosofija v Rossii. Materialy, issledovanija i zametki, 3 vols. Kazan’: N.p.
Broadie, A. (2009). A history of Scottish philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Eršov, M. (1922). Put’ razvitija filosofii v Rossii. Vladivostok: N.p.
Evgrafov, V. (1971). Istorija filosofii v SSSR (Vol. 4). Moscow: Nauka.
Evlampiev, I. (2002). Istorija russkoj filosofii: Učebnoe posobie dlja vuzov. St. Petersburg: Aleteija.
Florovskij, G. (1982). Puti russkogo bogoslovija. Paris: YMCA.
Galaktionov, A., & Nikandrov, P. (1961). Istorija russkoj filosofii. Moscow: Izd-vo sotsial’no-ekon. lit-ry.
Galaktionov, A., & Nikandrov, P. (1970). Russkaja filosofija XI-IX vekov. Leningrad.
Gal’kovskii, D. (1995). Inoe. Khrestomatija novogo rossijskogo samosoznaniia (Vol. 3). Moscow: Agrus.
Gromov, M. (2008). Obsuždenie knigi ‘Russkaja filosofija: entsiklopedija.’ Voprosy filosofii.
Gromov, M., & Kozlov, N. (1990). Russkaja filosofskaja mysl’ X-XVII vekov. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo un-ta.
Gusejnov, A., & Lektorskij, V. (2009). Philosophy in Russia: History and present state. Diogenes, 56, 3.
Gutov, E. (1998). Istoriosofija. In Kemerov (Ed.), Filosofskaja entsiklopedija. Panprint, N.p. http://www.terme.ru/dictionary/183/.
Iovčuk, M. (1952). Ob istoričeskikh osobennostjakh i osnovnykh etapakh razvitija russkoj filosofii. In P. Pavelkin (Ed.), Iz istorii russkoj filosofii (pp. 3–66). Moscow: AN SSSR.
Ivanov, A. (2006). Negumanitarnaja epokha. In V. Kurrenoj (Ed.), Mysljaščaja Rossiia. Kartografija sovremennykh intellektual’nykh napravlenij (pp. 55–57). Moscow: Nasledie Evrazii.
Kareev, N. (2006). Filosofija istorii i istoriosofija. In L. I. Novikova & I. N. Sizemskaja (Eds.), Russkaja istoriosofija. Antologija. Moscow: Rosspen.
Kazin, A. (1994). Vvedenie v istoriosofiju Rossii. Sfinks, 1, 58–77.
Khoružij, S. (2008). Obsuždenie knigi ‘Russkaja filosofija: entsiklopediia.’ Voprosy filosofii, 9.
Kotsjubinskij, D. (1999). Teoretičeskie i metodičeskie voprosy istoričeskoj psikhologii. St. Petersburg: Limbus P.
Krasikov, V. (2008). Russkaja filosofija sevodnja. Moscow: Volodei.
Kurennoj, V. (2009). Soblazn tekhnologii. Pushkin, 1. http://www.russ.ru/pushkin/Soblazn-tehnologii.
Kuvakin, V. (1980). Religioznaja filosofija v Rossii. Moscow: Mysl’.
Kuznetsov, P. (2000). “Filosofija v Rossii…”. Knižnoe obozrenie “Ex libris NG” (15.06.2000).
Laurie, H. (1902). Scottish philosophy in its national development. Glasgow: J. Maclehose.
Losskij, N. (1994). Istorija russkoj filosofii. Moscow: Progress.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. A study in moral theory. South Bend, IN: U of Notre Dame P.
Masaryk, T. G. (1961–1967). The spirit of Russia. Studies in literature, history, and philosophy (Eden, Cedar Paul, Trans.) New York: Macmillan.
Maslin, M. (2008a). Istorija russkoj filosofii (2nd ed.). Moscow: Gruppa ACT.
Maslin, M. (2008b). Obsuždenie knigi ‘Russkaja filosofija: entsiklopedija.’ Voprosy filosofii.
Maslin, M. (Ed.). (2008c). Istorija russkoj filosofii. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola.
McCalla, A. (1998). A romantic historiosophy: The philosophy of history of Pierre-simon Ballanche. Boston: Brill.
McCosh, J. (1874). The Scottish philosophy. New York: R. Carter.
Peperzak, A. (1989). On the unity of systematic philosophy and history of philosophy. In T. Z. Lavine & V. Tejera (Eds.), History and anti-history in philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Plekhanov, G. (1925). In D. Rjazanov (Ed.), Istorija russkoj obščestvennoj mysli. Moscow: Gos. Izd-vo.
Plotnikov, N. (2010). Susal’naja arkhaika. Puškin (June 11, 2010). http://www.russ.ru/pushkin/Susal-naya-arhaika.
Podoroga, V. (2009, June). Commentary at critical thought in the 21st century conference, Moscow, Russia.
Prozorov, S. (2008). Russian postcommunism and the end of history. Studies in East European Thought, 60, 3.
Pustarnakov, V. (2003). Universitetskaja filosofija v Rossii. St. Petersbgurg: Izd-vo Russkogo khristjanskogo gumanitarnogo in-ta.
Radlov, E. (1912). Očerk istorii russkoj filosofii. St. Petersburg: N.p.
Radlow, E. (1890). Bericht über Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie in Russland. In Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie (Vol. 3, pp. 675–692). Berlin: N.p.
Rybas, A. (2008). On contemporary Russian philosophy. Landshaft, 1. http://www.pitt.edu/~lands/.
Rylev, K. (2009). Zamaročki russkoj filosofii. 250 let bezumstvu slavjanskoi mysli. Častnyj korrespondent. http://www.chaskor.ru/p.php?id=8956. Accessed August 6, 2009.
Šapošnikov, L., & Fedorov, A. (2008). Istorija russkoj religioznoj filosofii. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.
Schelling, F. W. J. (1927). In M. Schröter (Ed.), Werke (Vol. III). Munich: N.p.
Sekatskij, A. (1994). Opyt tekstologičeskogo analiza sovetskoj filosofskoj literatury 50-x godov. Sfinks 7–41.
Smirnov, I. (2009). Byvajut li bezidejnye epokhi? Paper presented at Intellektual’nyj jazyk epokhi: Istorija idei, Istorija slov conference at the Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia, February, 16–17, 2009.
Sukhov, A. (1995). Russkaja filosofija. Moscow: IF RAN.
Swedenborg, E. (1961). Angelic wisdom about divine providence (W. F. Wunsch, Trans.). New York: Swedenborg Foundation.
Swiderski, E. (1998, December). Culture, contexts, and directions in Russian post-Soviet philosophy. Studies in East European Thought, 50(4).
Tejera, V. (1989). Intellectual history as a tool of philosophy. In T. Z. Lavine & V. Tejera (Eds.), History and anti-history in philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tolstykh, V. (2008). My byli. Sovetskij čelovek kak on est’. Moscow: Kul’turnaja revoljutsija.
Vaganov, A. (2001, June). Internet ešče ne stal filosofije. Nauka v Sibiri, 25, 2311. http://szmn.sbras.ru/win/elbib/hbc/ article.phtml?nid=52&id=28.
Van der Zweerde, E. (1990). Recent developments in Soviet historiography of philosophy. Studies in Soviet Thought, 39(1), 1–53.
Van der Zweerde, E. (2009). The place of Russian philosophy in world philosophical history. A perspective. Diogenes, 56, 170–186.
Vertkov, K. (1948). Russkaja rogovaja muzyka. Leningrad: N.p.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.
Zamaleev, A. (2001). Novye issledovanija po russkoj filosofii. St. Petersburg: Letnii sad.
Zen’kovskij, V. (1991). Istorija russkoj filosofii. Leningrad: Ego.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DeBlasio, A. Writing the history of Russian philosophy. Stud East Eur Thought 63, 203–226 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-011-9145-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-011-9145-z