{"title":"Wholeness and totalitarianism","authors":"Vladimir Marchenkov","doi":"10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This brief paper is a polemical response to Mikhail Epstein’s review of the <i>Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought</i>, and especially to his claim that the widely acknowledged tendency of Russian philosophy towards holistic thinking is akin to political totalitarianism, not to say its underlying cause. My argument is that philosophical and political or ideological thought are fundamentally different in their nature and purpose, and cannot be usefully identified with one another as Epstein does. Epstein’s claim is, I argue, a manifestation of the modern outlook at large, incapable of grasping the difference and, worse, offering precisely the opposite of a solution to the problems posed by totalitarianism.</p>","PeriodicalId":43055,"journal":{"name":"Studies in East European Thought","volume":"190 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in East European Thought","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This brief paper is a polemical response to Mikhail Epstein’s review of the Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought, and especially to his claim that the widely acknowledged tendency of Russian philosophy towards holistic thinking is akin to political totalitarianism, not to say its underlying cause. My argument is that philosophical and political or ideological thought are fundamentally different in their nature and purpose, and cannot be usefully identified with one another as Epstein does. Epstein’s claim is, I argue, a manifestation of the modern outlook at large, incapable of grasping the difference and, worse, offering precisely the opposite of a solution to the problems posed by totalitarianism.
期刊介绍：
Studies in East European Thought (SEET) provides a forum for impartial scholarly discussion of philosophical thought and intellectual history of East and Central Europe, Russia, as well as post-Soviet states. SEET offers a venue for philosophical dialogue in a variety of relevant fields of study. Predominantly a philosophical journal, SEET welcomes work that crosses established boundaries among disciplines whether by bringing other disciplines to respond to traditional philosophical questions or by using philosophical reflection to address specific disciplinary issues.
The journal publishes original papers by scholars working in the field without discriminating them based on their geographical origin and nationality. The editorial team considers quality of work to be the sole criterion of publication. In addition to original scholarly essays, SEET publishes translations of philosophical texts not previously available in the West, as well as book reviews.
* A forum for scholarly discussion on philosophical thought and intellectual history of East and Central Europe, Russia, and post-Soviet states
* Includes analytic, comparative, and historical studies of thinkers, philosophical and intellectual schools and traditions
* In addition to original papers, publishes translations and book reviews
* Although formatting is not crucial at the review stage, authors are strongly advised to refer to the Submission Guidelines of SEET to which articles accepted for publication must conform
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
