Semyon Frank opposed the Neo-Kantian School and admitted the real existence of the objects of cognition. He treated ontologism as essential to the entire movement of Russian religious philosophy. For Frank, one can only know about something thanks to the absolute, which exists prior to the knowing subject. Ontologism, affirming the priority of being over cognition, has a great significance not only for metaphysics and epistemology, but also for the philosophy of religion. In particular, Frank taught that the most privileged (...) mode of cognition of God is intuition, an immediate experience of God or faith. Intuition is at the heart of the ontological proof, which can be found in St. Anselm, Descartes, and Frank himself. Frank dedicated a number of articles to this topic: “K istorii ontologicheskogo dokazatel’stva”, “Ontologicheskoe dokazatel’stvo bytiya Boga”, as well as texts recently discovered at the Bakhmeteff Archive, including “Dokazatel’stvo bytiya Boga”. In this way, Russian ontologism leads to a new interpretation of the traditional ontological proof, one which acknowledges the existence of God, not on the basis of arguments resting on His definition, but on the basis of the intuitive recognition of His being. (shrink)

The book brings forth a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between science and faith in Russian religious thought.

The article contains a comparative analysis of the thought of Russian émigré philosopher Semen Frank and one of the most prominent representatives of process philosophy and theology Charles Hartshorne. Among the points of convergence, their integral vision of reality was pointed out. Frank’s and Hartshorne’s approaches to the question of cognition of God were considered, with special attention paid to their interpretation of the ontological proof. Hartshorne was familiar with Russian thought and even wrote reviews on Zenkovsky and Lossky’s classic (...) books on the history of Russian philosophy, where he mentioned Frank more than once. One cannot speak of the two thinkers’ influence on each other, but rather of a common philosophical heritage going back to Plato. (shrink)

Peter Chaadaev (1794-1856) is rightfully considered to be one of the forerunners of modern Russian philosophy. There is a famous scene from his life that may help us to understand both his own thought as well as the whole subsequent tradition of Russian religious philosophy. When Chaadaev finished his studies of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he crossed out the title on the cover and wrote beneath it Apologete adamitischer Vernunft (An Apology for Adamic Reason). Russian religious philosophy was supposed (...) to be a critique of such secular reason. In this book we seek a contemporary interpretation of Chaadaev's thought and its influence. Our authors, including such scholars as Andrzej Walicki and Boris Tarasov, investigate his views on religion, society, history, politics, and Russian fate. Chaadaev turns out to be a crucial figure who continues to influence Russian religious philosophy to this day. ""Nicolas Berdiaev credited Chaadaev with 'the awakening of independent original Russian thought.' Indeed, his main themes have ever since been at the center of Russian philosophy. As a Christian philosopher Chaadaev cherished love of truth over love of fatherland, which, he said, 'feeds national hatreds' and 'sometimes covers the earth with mourning.' This volume is an important contribution to the study of his enduring legacy, for Russia and the world."" --Randall A. Poole, Professor of History, College of St. Scholastica ""Modern Russian religious thought begins with Chaadaev. While his output was small, its impact was far-reaching. Khomiakov, Kireevsky, Herzen, Soloviev, Berdiaev and many others were indebted to Chaadaev in one way or another. He merits the careful attention the authors of this volume devote to him."" --Paul Valliere, Professor Emeritus, Butler University Artur Mrowczyński-Van Allen is Professor at the International Center for the Study of the Christian Orient and Instituto de Filosofia ""Edith Stein,"" Granada, Spain. He is the author of Between the Icon and the Idol: The Human Person and the Modern State in Russian Literature and Thought (Cascade, 2013). Teresa Obolevitch is Professor at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, Poland. Recently she published La philosophie religieuse russe (2014) in French and Semen Frank: Shtrikhi k portretu filosofa in Russian (2017). Pawel Rojek is Assistant Lecturer at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. (shrink)

Post-secularism is the fundamental evidence of the end of modernity. Modernity, as sleeping reason in Francisco Goya's painting, realizes that, although it thought that it was awake, it was producing monsters. We try to analyze post-secular philosophy from the point of view of Russian religious thought. We believe that such philosophers as Vladimir Soloviev, Pavel Florensky, Sergey Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Georges Florovsky, and Semen Frank may be helpful for understanding and overcoming post-secular order. Their unique views on the relations between (...) religion and philosophy, science, and social life are apparently missing in the current Western debates. It seems to us that Russian religious philosophy becomes surprisingly up-to-date and attractive in the contemporary world. We hope that the present volume will be a significant step forward in the inclusion of the heritage of Russian religious philosophy in contemporary debates. (shrink)

Prince Evgenii Trubetskoi, one of Russia’s great philosophers, exemplified what was best in the Russian religious-philosophical tradition. His lifelong pursuit was “integral knowledge.” This ideal affirmed that faith was integral to reason and that inner experience, and not just external sensory experience, offered truthful testimony to the nature of reality—precisely contrary to the reductive positivism and scientism of Trubetskoi’s day and ours. Following Vladimir Soloviev he developed the concept of Bogochelovechestvo —the free human realization of the divine principle in ourselves (...) and in the world —and found in it the very meaning of life. Trubetskoi strikingly combined religious philosophy with an unwavering commitment to the main principles of liberalism: human dignity, freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and human perfectibility. He worked tirelessly for a liberal, constitutional Russia. This is the first book in English devoted to Evgenii Trubetskoi’s life and thought. It includes a comprehensive introduction, six chapters on his religious-philosophical worldview, and six chapters on an area of religious studies that he inspired—the philosophy of the icon. (shrink)

In Russian culture, there was neither Scholasticism nor Renaissance, and the problem of faith and reason was formulated, most of all, on the ground of Patristic tradition. This collection of essays explores various dimensions of this alternative Russian account. The book shows the peculiarities of the Orthodox interpretation of faith. It traces the interrelations between Eastern and Western thinkers, and it investigates the heritage of Russian religious philosophy, with a special attention to Pavel Florensky, Sergius Bulgakov, and Georges Florovsky. *** (...) Librarians: ebook available on ProQuest and EBSCO [Subject: Philosophy, Religious Studies, Russian Studies]. (shrink)

The trial of Galileo remains a representative example of the alleged incompatibility between science and religion as well as a suggestive case study of the relationship between them from the Western historical and methodological perspective. However, the Eastern Christian view has not been explored to a significant extent. In this article, the author considers relevant aspects of the reception of the teaching of Copernicus and Galileo in Russian culture, especially in the works of scientists. Whereas in prerevolutionary Russia Galileo was (...) considered a symbol of the unity of science and religion, in the Soviet period his name and especially his trial was largely used for atheistic propaganda purposes. The author discusses the most recent debate in the Russian Orthodox milieu. The second part is dedicated to the presence of Galileo in Russian religious philosophy, especially in the thought of Gregory Skovoroda, Ivan Kireyevsky, and Sergey Glagolev. Finally, the relation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the teaching of Galileo is considered. (shrink)

Between the Orthodox Russian Church and modern science were not any serious conflicts. For examples, in XVII century students of Academy of Kiev-Mohyla studied heliocentric system of Copernic and doctrine of Galileo. In 1724 According to the project of Leibniz Tsar Peter I founded Russian Academy of Science in St-Petersburg. There worked D. Bernoulli and L. Euler. The Russian philosophical though presents an attempt of accord of science and theology.

Semën Frank (1877–1950) considered the Universe as the “all-unity.” According to him, everything is a part of the all-unity, which has a divine character. God is present in the world, but his nature is incomprehensible. In this article I analyze two consequences of Frank’s panentheistic view of the relation between science and theology. Firstly, the limits of scientific knowledge allow recognition of the mystery of the world and the transcendence of God. Secondly, Frank claimed that nature is a “trace” of (...) God and the manifestation of the absolute reality, i.e. the all-unity. As a result, both science and theology lead to the knowledge of God, although we cannot understand His essence. (shrink)

The article presents Fr. Georgy Florovsky’s conception of a neo-patristic synthesis (developed by other orthodox theologians) and discusses some polemical aspects of this project. The neo-patristic synthesis is an approach to development of the patristic thought in the contemporary world and application it to the different branches of knowledge, including science. According to Florovsky science has an imperfect character, because to know the empirical world is possible only from the theological point of view. This position is shared by Alexei Nesteruk (...) who claims that the patristic solutions can be treated as a model for the issues of relationship between science and religion. In this way a postulate of the methodological independency of science is breached. We show that this position is also is not accordance with the patristic thought because the Fathers of the Church were very open towards to the intellectual heritage of their time. Although they stressed that secular knowledge is inferior to theology, nevertheless this statement should be taken in the broad historical context of the defense of Christianity. Eastern Christian attitude to science is very sensitive for the transcendence and takes into account the anthropological dimension. In the conclusion we admit that these aspects of the patristic approach can be useful for the reflection about relationship between science and religion, under the condition that they will not break the principle of the methodological naturalism. (shrink)

These are my comments on The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought at the ASEEES convention (Chicago, November 2022).

In _The Eastern Christian Tradition in Modern Russian Thought and Beyond_, Teresa Obolevitch elucidates the main philosophical and theological ideas of the Eastern Christian tradition of neo-patristic synthesis and considers them in comparative philosophical context.

In the article the assumptions are analyzed of V. S. Soloviov\\\'s (1853- 1900) metaphysics presented in his Criticism ofPrinciples. When forming a metaphysics Soloviov considers and subjects to criticism two theories: Hegel\\\'s extreme (in the Russian philosopher\\\'s term - \\\"abstract\\\") idealism, and the positivists\\\' radical empiricism. Soloviov perceives resolution of the difficulties seen in these theories in the conception of the so-called all-unity. According to this conception every being has its ontic foundation in the Absolute, which makes possible an inner (...) connection between all things on the metaphysical and, respectively, epistemological level. In the present study it was found that Soloviov\\\'s metaphysics is based on the following assumptions: (1) the thesis about the possibility of cognizing \\\'a thing in itself; (2) determining a close connection that occurs between the ontological and epistemological order; (3) the conviction that analysis of epistemological conception leads to the ontological \\\'truth about the thing\\\'. Acceptance of these propositions is connected with the Russian philosopher\\\'s religious beliefs concerning the existence of an ultimate foundation of reality, and his detailed critical-historical analyses are completely subjected to the aspiration to create a theist metaphysics on the basis of this Absolute principle, that is of God. (shrink)