“Philosophical steamer”: on the Paradigm of S.S. Khoruzhy

A. Ermichev
{"title":"“Philosophical steamer”: on the Paradigm of S.S. Khoruzhy","authors":"A. Ermichev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.140-150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the speech of S.S. Khoruzhy, published in 1990 in the “Literaturnaya Gazeta” under the title “Philosophical Steamer. How it was”. The metaphor he found has become popular and is actively used by modern critics of Soviet history. in 1922, S.S. Khoruzhy presented the expulsion of a group of Moscow and St. Petersburg intellectuals, among whom there were 13 philosophers, sociologists and jurists, as a spiritual catastrophe of Russia and even as the “end of Russian philosophy”. On the contrary, in the proposed article, this event is assessed as only a political action aimed at excluding from the public life of Soviet Russia all those who remained in the same unscientific ideological positions, defended the bourgeois values of university autonomy and freedom of speech, stating this in public speeches not understanding the new socio-political reality. The article emphasizes that the value confrontation in the public consciousness of Soviet Russia could turn into a political confrontation, which could threaten the country and the authorities with a new round of civil war. A parallel is drawn between the state of public consciousness of Soviet Russia in the 20s and the USSR in the 80s – early 90s of the twentieth century, when “glasnost” and “perestroika” became the beginning of the death of the USSR. The article challenges the thesis of S.S. Khoruzhy about the “end of philosophy” in Russia. It is argued that the establishment of the monopoly position of Marxist materialism and the exclusion of any non-Marxist philosophy from cultural life was simply the beginning of a new stage of Russian philosophy, forced to develop in its prescribed theoretical form. Meanwhile, thinkers of the Russian diaspora noted the presence of positive heuristic possibilities in Soviet philosophy, but in the absence of a philosophical dialogue they could not fully develop. The transformation of philosophy in Soviet history reminds the author of the time of Peter the Great, when one of the directions of European philosophy was given state patronage and Russian philosophical thinking left behind “love of wisdom” as a passed stage.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.140-150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article analyzes the speech of S.S. Khoruzhy, published in 1990 in the “Literaturnaya Gazeta” under the title “Philosophical Steamer. How it was”. The metaphor he found has become popular and is actively used by modern critics of Soviet history. in 1922, S.S. Khoruzhy presented the expulsion of a group of Moscow and St. Petersburg intellectuals, among whom there were 13 philosophers, sociologists and jurists, as a spiritual catastrophe of Russia and even as the “end of Russian philosophy”. On the contrary, in the proposed article, this event is assessed as only a political action aimed at excluding from the public life of Soviet Russia all those who remained in the same unscientific ideological positions, defended the bourgeois values of university autonomy and freedom of speech, stating this in public speeches not understanding the new socio-political reality. The article emphasizes that the value confrontation in the public consciousness of Soviet Russia could turn into a political confrontation, which could threaten the country and the authorities with a new round of civil war. A parallel is drawn between the state of public consciousness of Soviet Russia in the 20s and the USSR in the 80s – early 90s of the twentieth century, when “glasnost” and “perestroika” became the beginning of the death of the USSR. The article challenges the thesis of S.S. Khoruzhy about the “end of philosophy” in Russia. It is argued that the establishment of the monopoly position of Marxist materialism and the exclusion of any non-Marxist philosophy from cultural life was simply the beginning of a new stage of Russian philosophy, forced to develop in its prescribed theoretical form. Meanwhile, thinkers of the Russian diaspora noted the presence of positive heuristic possibilities in Soviet philosophy, but in the absence of a philosophical dialogue they could not fully develop. The transformation of philosophy in Soviet history reminds the author of the time of Peter the Great, when one of the directions of European philosophy was given state patronage and Russian philosophical thinking left behind “love of wisdom” as a passed stage.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“哲学轮船”:论霍鲁日的范式
本文分析了1990年在《文学报》上发表的题为《哲学轮船》的s·s·霍鲁日的演讲。它是怎样的?”他发现的这个比喻已经流行起来,并被苏联历史的现代评论家积极使用。1922年,S.S. Khoruzhy将一批莫斯科和圣彼得堡的知识分子(其中有13位哲学家、社会学家和法学家)驱逐为俄罗斯的精神灾难,甚至是“俄罗斯哲学的终结”。相反,在拟议的文章中,这一事件被评估为只是一种政治行动,旨在将苏维埃俄罗斯的公共生活排除在所有那些仍然保持同样不科学的意识形态立场,捍卫大学自治和言论自由的资产阶级价值观的人之外,在不了解新的社会政治现实的公开演讲中陈述这一点。文章强调苏俄公众意识中的价值对抗有可能转化为政治对抗,从而引发新一轮的内战威胁国家和政权。人们将20世纪20年代苏俄的公众意识状态与20世纪80年代至90年代初的苏联进行了比较,当时“公开化”和“改革”成为苏联灭亡的开端。本文对科鲁日关于俄国“哲学的终结”的论断提出了挑战。文章认为,马克思主义唯物主义的垄断地位的确立和文化生活中任何非马克思主义哲学的排斥,仅仅是俄国哲学一个新阶段的开始,它被迫按照规定的理论形式发展。与此同时,俄罗斯侨民的思想家注意到苏联哲学中存在积极的启发式可能性,但在缺乏哲学对话的情况下,他们无法充分发展。苏联历史上哲学的转变让作者想起了彼得大帝时代,当时欧洲哲学的一个方向得到了国家的资助,俄罗斯哲学思想留下了“爱智慧”作为一个过去的阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The First Edition of “The Justification of Good” (1897): Contemporaries’ Response. Part 4 The image of Philostratus in the works of K.K. Vaginov: experience of deconstruction “Real Deed of an Artist” and Philosophy of Art: Solovyev – Fyodorov – Chekrygin V.Y. Bryusov, N.F. Fedorov and the Fedorovians of the 1900s-1920s: The Question of Meaning and Goals of Art. Article one. What were Bryusov and Fedorov Arguing about in the House of Yu.P. Bartenev V.I. Lamansky. Historical letters on the attitude of Russian people to their tribesmen. The letter VI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1