The Petrine-Pushkinian era lasted no more than two hundred years. It originated at the Battle of Poltava, where Russian troops first showed themselves not just equal to the Swedes, who were otherwi...

The author examines the key philosophical problem of theodicy and freedom as it was first formulated by Fyodor Dostoevsky and later developed by Nikolai Berdyaev.

The author examines Herzen's political outlook as reflected in his journal Kolokol and discusses his relationships with other revolutionary and reformist Russian thinkers of his time.

Книга является едва ли не первой попыткой отрефлектировать, как происходило становление философского самосознания в России.

Можно ли сказать, что в центре христианской культуры лежит искушение - как о том свидетельствуют в евангельских повествованиях искушения Христа Дьяволом? Так, кажется, думает Достоевский, который - в особенности в «Братьях Карамазовых» - стремится показать, что именно невинные становятся жертвами дьявольских козней. Такова для него и ситуация русского народа, который он идеализирует, противопоставляя его интеллигенции. В реальности, как показывает недавняя история, эта претензия на «невинность» русского народа была лишь фантазмом Достоевского. La tentation serait-elle au centre de la culture chrétienne comme (...) le donneraient à penser les tentations du Christ par le Démon que racontent les évangiles ? C’est ce que semble croire Dostoïevski qui, en particulier dans Les frères Karamazov, s’efforce de montrer que ce sont justement des innocents qui sont soumis à ces manoeuvres démoniaques. Telle serait, d’ailleurs, d’après lui, la situation du peuple russe, qu’il idéalise en l’opposant à l’intelligentsia. En réalité - l’histoire récente l’a montré - cette prétendue « innocence » du peuple russe n’était qu’un fantasme de Dostoïevski. Is temptation at the center of Christian culture, as suggested by the temptations Christ had been exposed to by the Devil, according to the Gospels? This is what Dostoyevsky seems to believe, most notably in The Brothers Karamazov, in which he aims at showing that only innocent people are subject to these demonic maneuvers. This would also be, according to him, the situation of the Russian people, which he idealizes, contrasting it to the intelligentsia. In fact, recent history has shown that this alleged « innocence » of the Russian people was a fantasy of Dostoyevsky. (shrink)

In this article, the author examines the work of Boris Pasternak, primarily his novel Doctor Zhivago, in the context of his Marburg experience and Kantian ideas as the basis of his moral-aesthetic...

The debates now in progress about the interactions of science and art compel one involuntarily to recall that such discussions have been held more than once and were, a long time ago, perhaps no less heated. It suffices to cite virtually at random certain statements of Pisarev, for example , for us to see, as in a cloudy mirror, both today's advocates of scientism and the romantics of art. Does this mean that all we need is to bear in mind (...) the wise words of the past in order to advance, as is believed by Iu. I. Kagarlitskii ? Obviously, that is not the case. The problem of the interactions of science and art is a philosophical one, not one of natural science; and the results achieved in debates of the past do not eliminate the questions of world view that constantly arise anew. Philosophy has no axioms such as exist in mathematics. It is therefore difficult to imagine that subsequent history has added nothing whatever to the understanding of past debates. Yet reference to these debates would appear to be essential today to clarify at least one of the factors of the problem we have posed. It might appear that this factor has been pointed to, but it has constantly been beclouded by the explanations of how science influences artists, and how art influences scientists who are at the same time artists, by references to the unity of the creative character of science and art, and so forth. In my opinion, it is essential, however, to emphasize that the very problematics of the interactions between science and art depend on the social and cultural environment within which they exist and are discussed. Turning to the past, we can see that science and art are not realms of activity handed down to humankind "since the creation of the world." They develop in the "body," if one may put it thus, of a specific socium, a specific culture. It would, of course, be absurd to conceive of any direct contact between science and art without the mediation of human beings, of society, of culture. Moreover, the debates themselves are determined by the level at which science and art are found within a given sociocultural space, by virtue of which analysis of these debates may provide data to the researcher for an understanding of the direction of social development. The RST influences all spheres of human activity, including the esthetic. Today, however, particularly in the West, there is a tendency to elevate the significance of the RST to an absolute, to explain many processes by its direct influence on social consciousness independently of the social conditions in which it occurs. Therefore, it would seem to be methodologically important for today's debates to demonstrate, on the basis of some concrete historical material, the connection between those shifts in social consciousness that sometimes explain the direct influence of progress in science and technology, on the one hand, and certain sociocultural conditions, on the other. (shrink)

Every one of us has been a participant these days in futile and endless conversations about the fact that in the past few years violence in our country has excalated to the limit or, more accurately, beyond all limits. No one remembers the nightmares concealed behind the bureaucratic term "mass repressions," when tens and hundreds of thousands of the country's inhabitants were sentenced to death and were exterminated on orders from the top, in a planned manner through "troikas." Human memory (...) is short, and everyday consciousness can only exist thanks to this forgetfulness. Yet it should not be difficult to recall that ten years ago it was no less dangerous to go out for a walk in the evenings. But the newspapers were silent then and crime statistics were secret. If we go back to the origins of the Soviet state, we will see even from the permitted literature of the time that the ferocity of the communist secret police and the White counterintelligence accompanied a deluge of lawlessness that a European can hardly imagine. Suffice it to say that the leader of the world's first proletariat state was accosted and robbed by bandits. (shrink)