Pub Date : 2022-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2144679
Andrei A. Teslia
ABSTRACT Russian Marxism was fairly late to address building its own understandings of the Russian historical process. Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not have their own historiography of “Russian history” despite the fact that, beginning in 1918, they began more and more vehemently claiming not just total ideological control but also intellectual hegemony. A confrontation between “Marxist” and “non-Marxist” understandings arose. At the same time, the real disputes within the camp of Marxist historians came down to a confrontation between the versions of the historical process proposed by Georgi V. Plekhanov and Mikhail N. Pokrovskii back in the 1910s. This article broadly analyzes the disputes in the Marxist camp, from pressing political implications such as attitudes toward the state to the definition of the place of “historical facts” in theory and interpretation. We also demonstrate that it was, in fact, the understandings of Plekhanov, Leon D. Trotsky, and Pokrovskii that continue, both explicitly and implicitly, the legacy of Vasily O. Klyuchevsky’s historical schema and his understanding of the “state school,” a legacy that has remained unstudied until now.
{"title":"Disputes on the Marxist Understanding of Russian History: On One of the Theoretical Prerequisites for Creating the Soviet Union","authors":"Andrei A. Teslia","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2144679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2144679","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Russian Marxism was fairly late to address building its own understandings of the Russian historical process. Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not have their own historiography of “Russian history” despite the fact that, beginning in 1918, they began more and more vehemently claiming not just total ideological control but also intellectual hegemony. A confrontation between “Marxist” and “non-Marxist” understandings arose. At the same time, the real disputes within the camp of Marxist historians came down to a confrontation between the versions of the historical process proposed by Georgi V. Plekhanov and Mikhail N. Pokrovskii back in the 1910s. This article broadly analyzes the disputes in the Marxist camp, from pressing political implications such as attitudes toward the state to the definition of the place of “historical facts” in theory and interpretation. We also demonstrate that it was, in fact, the understandings of Plekhanov, Leon D. Trotsky, and Pokrovskii that continue, both explicitly and implicitly, the legacy of Vasily O. Klyuchevsky’s historical schema and his understanding of the “state school,” a legacy that has remained unstudied until now.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"418 - 426"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47431380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2144680
V. Makarenko
ABSTRACT This article raises the issue of using Russia’s transformations over the last three hundred years as material for creating a theory of bureaucracy that differs from Max Weber’s understanding of it. This issue is addressed using the understandings developed at the Rostov School of Political Sciences of the Southern Federal University (Russia), which is working out a conceptual apparatus for studying the Russian, Soviet, and post-Soviet bureaucracy in relation to the process of forming an opposition free from stereotypes of bureaucratic action, behavior, and thought. This kind of opposition could not have arisen in monarchical, Soviet, or post-Soviet Russia. The reasons for this are explained by a theory of bureaucracy that contains a reconstruction of Marx’s definition of bureaucracy as a social parasitic organism, a reflection of numerous social contradictions and the embodiment of political alienation. The article discusses the cognitive situation in contemporary Russia, ways for researchers to avoid the choice imposed by post-Soviet authorities, and the specific features of the genesis and structure of the assertion of police society in Russia.
{"title":"On the Problem of Developing a Theory of Russian Bureaucracy","authors":"V. Makarenko","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2144680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2144680","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article raises the issue of using Russia’s transformations over the last three hundred years as material for creating a theory of bureaucracy that differs from Max Weber’s understanding of it. This issue is addressed using the understandings developed at the Rostov School of Political Sciences of the Southern Federal University (Russia), which is working out a conceptual apparatus for studying the Russian, Soviet, and post-Soviet bureaucracy in relation to the process of forming an opposition free from stereotypes of bureaucratic action, behavior, and thought. This kind of opposition could not have arisen in monarchical, Soviet, or post-Soviet Russia. The reasons for this are explained by a theory of bureaucracy that contains a reconstruction of Marx’s definition of bureaucracy as a social parasitic organism, a reflection of numerous social contradictions and the embodiment of political alienation. The article discusses the cognitive situation in contemporary Russia, ways for researchers to avoid the choice imposed by post-Soviet authorities, and the specific features of the genesis and structure of the assertion of police society in Russia.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"407 - 417"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46614598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2174737
M. Bykova
Russia’s bloody war in Ukraine has drastically sharpened the question of the bitter confrontation between Russia and the West. Driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, this confrontation points to Russia’s ambition to regain the superpower status that its predecessor state—the Soviet Union—maintained for more than half of the last century. Furthermore, some experts argue that the current Russia–Ukraine military confrontation has its roots in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and that the concept of “the Russian world,” currently widely used to justify a geopolitical strategy based on the idea of Russian exceptionality, grew out of the humiliation Russia experienced in the wake of this disintegration. This idea is also echoed in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s series of reflective remarks on the topic. During his 2005 state-of-the-nation address, Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union “a major geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and “a genuine drama” for the Russian nation. More recently, in late September 2021, he evoked this idea again, claiming that the dissolution of the Soviet state is to blame for “what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine” and “what is happening on the borders of some other CIS countries.” It is not my goal here to examine the explanatory power of these and similar statements in relation to the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian war. Yet there should be no doubt that the Soviet era left a deep imprint on the self-conception of each of the former Soviet republics and their current, often difficult relationships. Even today, more than three decades after its official dissolution, the Soviet Union continues to cast a shadow on Russia and the world. This forces us to reflect upon the phenomenon of the Soviet Union, its origin and its development, making it an acute research topic worthy of serious philosophical discussion. The successor state to the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, was officially established on December 30, 1922, following a civil war that raged in Russia from 1917 to 1921. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR)—as it was officially called—appeared as the first nation in the world based on
{"title":"A Country That No Longer Exists Editor’s Introduction","authors":"M. Bykova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2174737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2174737","url":null,"abstract":"Russia’s bloody war in Ukraine has drastically sharpened the question of the bitter confrontation between Russia and the West. Driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, this confrontation points to Russia’s ambition to regain the superpower status that its predecessor state—the Soviet Union—maintained for more than half of the last century. Furthermore, some experts argue that the current Russia–Ukraine military confrontation has its roots in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and that the concept of “the Russian world,” currently widely used to justify a geopolitical strategy based on the idea of Russian exceptionality, grew out of the humiliation Russia experienced in the wake of this disintegration. This idea is also echoed in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s series of reflective remarks on the topic. During his 2005 state-of-the-nation address, Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union “a major geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and “a genuine drama” for the Russian nation. More recently, in late September 2021, he evoked this idea again, claiming that the dissolution of the Soviet state is to blame for “what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine” and “what is happening on the borders of some other CIS countries.” It is not my goal here to examine the explanatory power of these and similar statements in relation to the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian war. Yet there should be no doubt that the Soviet era left a deep imprint on the self-conception of each of the former Soviet republics and their current, often difficult relationships. Even today, more than three decades after its official dissolution, the Soviet Union continues to cast a shadow on Russia and the world. This forces us to reflect upon the phenomenon of the Soviet Union, its origin and its development, making it an acute research topic worthy of serious philosophical discussion. The successor state to the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, was officially established on December 30, 1922, following a civil war that raged in Russia from 1917 to 1921. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR)—as it was officially called—appeared as the first nation in the world based on","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"349 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46947388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2144675
S. Nikolsky
ABSTRACT Philosophical analysis of the Soviet Union as a phenomenon is relevant in light of the approaching centennial of its formation. The significance of this event derives from the Soviet Union’s enormous scale and historically, qualitatively unique formation that included many dozens of nations and nationalities. This formation replaced the equally enormous Russian Empire but arose not due to natural development but on its ruins, by the means of a European Marxism adapted to domestic conditions. Nowhere in the world have societies and states like the Soviet Union arisen spontaneously, while the Eastern European “people’s democracy” countries created after the Second World War repeatedly attempted to free themselves from the kinship and dominance of the Soviet Union and would disappear immediate with its collapse. In this article, the question of what the Soviet Union was in its project and reality is discussed in the following contexts: Marxist solutions to Russia’s agrarian question and their subsequent internationalization to create a “world union of workers and peasants” (V.I. Lenin); analysis of the principle of forced labor as the primary means of creating the “socialist working man”; the formation of the Soviet Union as a “quasi-federal” community of peoples “national in form, socialist in content”; and the forced inclusion of Eastern European peoples in the emerging “world Soviet Union” as “payment” for their liberation from fascism. This article justifies the claim that without analysis of the essential role of these ideas and phenomena, one could hardly expect to gain a holistic understanding of the nature of the Soviet Union.
{"title":"The Soviet Union in Its Project and Reality: Philosophical-Historical Notes","authors":"S. Nikolsky","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2144675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2144675","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Philosophical analysis of the Soviet Union as a phenomenon is relevant in light of the approaching centennial of its formation. The significance of this event derives from the Soviet Union’s enormous scale and historically, qualitatively unique formation that included many dozens of nations and nationalities. This formation replaced the equally enormous Russian Empire but arose not due to natural development but on its ruins, by the means of a European Marxism adapted to domestic conditions. Nowhere in the world have societies and states like the Soviet Union arisen spontaneously, while the Eastern European “people’s democracy” countries created after the Second World War repeatedly attempted to free themselves from the kinship and dominance of the Soviet Union and would disappear immediate with its collapse. In this article, the question of what the Soviet Union was in its project and reality is discussed in the following contexts: Marxist solutions to Russia’s agrarian question and their subsequent internationalization to create a “world union of workers and peasants” (V.I. Lenin); analysis of the principle of forced labor as the primary means of creating the “socialist working man”; the formation of the Soviet Union as a “quasi-federal” community of peoples “national in form, socialist in content”; and the forced inclusion of Eastern European peoples in the emerging “world Soviet Union” as “payment” for their liberation from fascism. This article justifies the claim that without analysis of the essential role of these ideas and phenomena, one could hardly expect to gain a holistic understanding of the nature of the Soviet Union.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"353 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43107893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2133869
H. Kusse
ABSTRACT Fyodor Avgustovich Stepun was one of the involuntary emigrants of 1922. 1 He became particularly well known in the Federal Republic of Germany through his autobiographical writings, which for him were a form not only of remembering, but also of philosophizing. The first section of this article is devoted to the topic of “Community and totalitarianism.” In various works in the 1920s and 1930s Stepun sought to identify the mental causes of Europe and Russia’s precipitous decent into totalitarianism. He saw these in the demonic absolutizing of one-sided worldviews as a primary factor. The counter-model for him was the concept of “all-unity,” as can already be found in Vladimir Solovyov. The second section is dedicated to the context of “Dialogue and culture.” Dialogicity is always the opposite of totalitarianism and is also founded in the concept of “all-unity.” The concluding section, entitled “Experiencing and remembering,” is devoted to Stepun’s autobiographical writings and his notion of “experiencing” (perezhivanie).
{"title":"The Multi-Sided World View of Fyodor Stepun","authors":"H. Kusse","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2133869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2133869","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Fyodor Avgustovich Stepun was one of the involuntary emigrants of 1922. 1 He became particularly well known in the Federal Republic of Germany through his autobiographical writings, which for him were a form not only of remembering, but also of philosophizing. The first section of this article is devoted to the topic of “Community and totalitarianism.” In various works in the 1920s and 1930s Stepun sought to identify the mental causes of Europe and Russia’s precipitous decent into totalitarianism. He saw these in the demonic absolutizing of one-sided worldviews as a primary factor. The counter-model for him was the concept of “all-unity,” as can already be found in Vladimir Solovyov. The second section is dedicated to the context of “Dialogue and culture.” Dialogicity is always the opposite of totalitarianism and is also founded in the concept of “all-unity.” The concluding section, entitled “Experiencing and remembering,” is devoted to Stepun’s autobiographical writings and his notion of “experiencing” (perezhivanie).","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"310 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44778633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126666
Julia B. Mehlich
ABSTRACT This article presents the understanding of Eurasianism as an expression of Russia’s essence in the works of N.S. Trubetskoi, P.P. Suvchinskii, P.N. Savitskii, and L.P. Karsavin. We use the cognitive category “historical collective individuality” for a more complete and deeper understanding of Eurasianism as a set of views and approaches, as well as a certain specialized social community of its representatives. The use of this category allows us to reveal Eurasianism as an area of ideas expressing the essence of Russia. N.S. Trubetskoi considers Russian-Turanian unity to be just such an expression of that essence; for P.N. Savitskii, it is the circle of “European and Asiatic/Asian cultures”; for P.P. Suvchinskii, Russia’s great testament is the unification of the people and the intelligentsia under the “all-resolving dome of the Orthodox Church”; and for L.P. Karsavin, Russia’s essence consists in its development as a Eurasian subject or a collective person. In addition, the category of historical collective individuality allows us to reveal Eurasianism as a “gold reserve of life” for Eurasians in exile. Thus, the unity of metaphysics and life sought in Russian philosophy is achieved. We draw conclusions about the historicity of the Eurasianist collective individuality.
{"title":"Eurasianism as “Revealing Russia’s Essence” and “Gold Reserve of Life”","authors":"Julia B. Mehlich","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126666","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article presents the understanding of Eurasianism as an expression of Russia’s essence in the works of N.S. Trubetskoi, P.P. Suvchinskii, P.N. Savitskii, and L.P. Karsavin. We use the cognitive category “historical collective individuality” for a more complete and deeper understanding of Eurasianism as a set of views and approaches, as well as a certain specialized social community of its representatives. The use of this category allows us to reveal Eurasianism as an area of ideas expressing the essence of Russia. N.S. Trubetskoi considers Russian-Turanian unity to be just such an expression of that essence; for P.N. Savitskii, it is the circle of “European and Asiatic/Asian cultures”; for P.P. Suvchinskii, Russia’s great testament is the unification of the people and the intelligentsia under the “all-resolving dome of the Orthodox Church”; and for L.P. Karsavin, Russia’s essence consists in its development as a Eurasian subject or a collective person. In addition, the category of historical collective individuality allows us to reveal Eurasianism as a “gold reserve of life” for Eurasians in exile. Thus, the unity of metaphysics and life sought in Russian philosophy is achieved. We draw conclusions about the historicity of the Eurasianist collective individuality.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"337 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47052830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126661
O. Ermishin
ABSTRACT This article is dedicated to Nikolai O. Lossky’s intuitivism and personalism and their significance in the context of Russian philosophy. The author demonstrates how Lossky’s study of Russian philosophy influenced his work and allowed him to take a second look at a number of philosophical issues, indicating ways to develop them further. As a result of his research, Lossky discovered ideas close to his own in the works of various other Russian philosophers. Lossky became especially interested in two authors, Vladimir S. Solovyov and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. He created interpretations that examined Solovyov’s philosophy and Dostoevsky’s works from the positions of intuitivism and personalism. The study of Russian thought Lossky undertook in his book History of Russian Philosophy gave him a strong impetus for developing his own philosophical views, which were aimed at bringing philosophy and religion into closer proximity.
{"title":"Nikolai O. Lossky’s Intuitivism and Personalism in the Context of Russian Philosophy","authors":"O. Ermishin","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126661","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is dedicated to Nikolai O. Lossky’s intuitivism and personalism and their significance in the context of Russian philosophy. The author demonstrates how Lossky’s study of Russian philosophy influenced his work and allowed him to take a second look at a number of philosophical issues, indicating ways to develop them further. As a result of his research, Lossky discovered ideas close to his own in the works of various other Russian philosophers. Lossky became especially interested in two authors, Vladimir S. Solovyov and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. He created interpretations that examined Solovyov’s philosophy and Dostoevsky’s works from the positions of intuitivism and personalism. The study of Russian thought Lossky undertook in his book History of Russian Philosophy gave him a strong impetus for developing his own philosophical views, which were aimed at bringing philosophy and religion into closer proximity.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"302 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43193593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126660
Julia B. Mehlich, Steffen H. Mehlich
Today, the centenary of the “Philosophy Steamer” does not feel like a hundred-year-old event. Most contemporaries learned about it little more than thirty years ago from Literaturnaia gazeta, which, in October 1988, began printing portraits of hitherto forbidden philosophers in a new column entitled “From the History of Russian Philosophical Thought.” The name “Philosophy Steamer” appears for the first time in articles of that title in the same journal by Sergei S. Horujy on May 9 and June 6, 1990. The author describes the events preceding the expulsion and the names of the actual philosophers who were expelled, a surprisingly small number, only nine in all. The name “Philosophy Steamer” would then come to refer to all the steamship passengers and, furthermore, anyone forced to leave the country and who disagreed with the authorities, not just philosophers, but also scholars, writers, community leaders, and those who, generally speaking, represented the intelligentsia. The “Philosophy Steamer” as a proper noun would become a symbol of the authorities’ intolerance toward dissent and the unwillingness of the dissidents to abandon their freedom of speech. In a brief annotation to his articles, Sergei Horujy writes about the expulsion of the country’s “greatest religious thinkers.” However, it seems the evolution of “Philosophy Steamer” as a proper name for the exiled intelligentsia became possible primarily because the designation “religious thinkers” allows for a broader interpretation, since they too represented philosophical idealism. This provided the grounds for attaching a more widespread designation to them: “religious-philosophical thinkers.”
{"title":"The “Philosophy Steamer.” A Dialogue Returns to Russia","authors":"Julia B. Mehlich, Steffen H. Mehlich","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126660","url":null,"abstract":"Today, the centenary of the “Philosophy Steamer” does not feel like a hundred-year-old event. Most contemporaries learned about it little more than thirty years ago from Literaturnaia gazeta, which, in October 1988, began printing portraits of hitherto forbidden philosophers in a new column entitled “From the History of Russian Philosophical Thought.” The name “Philosophy Steamer” appears for the first time in articles of that title in the same journal by Sergei S. Horujy on May 9 and June 6, 1990. The author describes the events preceding the expulsion and the names of the actual philosophers who were expelled, a surprisingly small number, only nine in all. The name “Philosophy Steamer” would then come to refer to all the steamship passengers and, furthermore, anyone forced to leave the country and who disagreed with the authorities, not just philosophers, but also scholars, writers, community leaders, and those who, generally speaking, represented the intelligentsia. The “Philosophy Steamer” as a proper noun would become a symbol of the authorities’ intolerance toward dissent and the unwillingness of the dissidents to abandon their freedom of speech. In a brief annotation to his articles, Sergei Horujy writes about the expulsion of the country’s “greatest religious thinkers.” However, it seems the evolution of “Philosophy Steamer” as a proper name for the exiled intelligentsia became possible primarily because the designation “religious thinkers” allows for a broader interpretation, since they too represented philosophical idealism. This provided the grounds for attaching a more widespread designation to them: “religious-philosophical thinkers.”","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"265 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45778850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126665
A. Kozyrev
ABSTRACT This article uses the personal diaries and memoirs of Archpriest Sergius (Sergei) Bulgakov to examine the circumstances of his expulsion from Bolshevik-occupied Crimea in late 1922. At the time, he was rector of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Yalta. The expulsion of Fr. Sergius was part of a large-scale operation to expel the humanist intelligentsia, who did not fit within the ideological contours of the new government. We will examine the political aspects of the condemnations of Fr. Sergius’s doctrine of Sophia, the theological development of which he began in exile. We will also examine aspects of Fr. Sergius’s attitude to monarchy and his belief in the “white tsar,” noting that Bulgakov’s position as an émigré could hardly be characterized as monarchical. Sophiology may be the political equivalent of ecclesiastical democracy, of faith in the ecclesiastical people and the Christian community, which was alien to the conservative monarchism of Orthodox believers abroad, centered in Serbia’s Sremski Karlovci. We will examine the circumstances of the church’s condemnation of Fr. Sergius, which took place against the context of canonical uncertainty, and we will touch upon some aspects of the contemporary reception of Sophiology in Russia in a political context (V. Bibikhin, O. Kirichenko).
本文使用谢尔盖·布尔加科夫大祭司的个人日记和回忆录来考察1922年底他被驱逐出布尔什维克占领的克里米亚的情况。当时，他是雅尔塔亚历山大·涅夫斯基大教堂的院长。驱逐Sergius神父是驱逐不符合新政府意识形态轮廓的人文主义知识分子的大规模行动的一部分。我们将研究的政治方面的谴责Fr. Sergius的学说索菲亚，神学的发展，他开始流亡。我们还将研究谢尔盖神父对君主制的态度和他对“白色沙皇”的信仰的各个方面，注意到布尔加科夫作为一个移徙者”的地位很难被描述为君主制。诡辩可能是政治上的教会民主，是对教会人士和基督教社区的信仰，这与以塞尔维亚斯雷姆斯基·卡尔洛夫奇为中心的国外东正教信徒的保守君主制是格格不入的。我们将研究教会谴责Fr. Sergius的情况，这发生在规范不确定的背景下，我们将触及在政治背景下俄罗斯当代接受诡辩的一些方面(V. Bibikhin, O. Kirichenko)。
{"title":"Two Condemnations of Sergei Bulgakov","authors":"A. Kozyrev","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126665","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article uses the personal diaries and memoirs of Archpriest Sergius (Sergei) Bulgakov to examine the circumstances of his expulsion from Bolshevik-occupied Crimea in late 1922. At the time, he was rector of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Yalta. The expulsion of Fr. Sergius was part of a large-scale operation to expel the humanist intelligentsia, who did not fit within the ideological contours of the new government. We will examine the political aspects of the condemnations of Fr. Sergius’s doctrine of Sophia, the theological development of which he began in exile. We will also examine aspects of Fr. Sergius’s attitude to monarchy and his belief in the “white tsar,” noting that Bulgakov’s position as an émigré could hardly be characterized as monarchical. Sophiology may be the political equivalent of ecclesiastical democracy, of faith in the ecclesiastical people and the Christian community, which was alien to the conservative monarchism of Orthodox believers abroad, centered in Serbia’s Sremski Karlovci. We will examine the circumstances of the church’s condemnation of Fr. Sergius, which took place against the context of canonical uncertainty, and we will touch upon some aspects of the contemporary reception of Sophiology in Russia in a political context (V. Bibikhin, O. Kirichenko).","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"322 - 336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45209070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126662
Julia B. Mehlich
ABSTRACT This article discusses development of the content of the concept “Philosophy Steamer,” which refers to the 1922 expulsion from Russia of a group of intelligentsia who sharply criticized the authorities. The author shows that the group of exiled philosophers was united both by their previous philosophical and social activity and by their joint activity as émigrés. She analyzes the concepts of “historical collective individuality,” “collective person,” and “communal person” introduced by Lev P. Karsavin in order to determine the holistic nature of this exiled social group and its characteristic self-consciousness, behavior, aspirations, and feelings (moods). Examining the event known as the “Philosophy Steamer” through the concepts listed above allows the author to cognize the historical, social, and cultural reality more broadly and productively. The article demonstrates that the concept of a collective person can also be applied to other social groups, thereby extending the methodology of human-studies cognition beyond the study of facts and statistical data.
{"title":"The “Philosophy Steamer” as Cognitive Category and Historical Collective Individuality","authors":"Julia B. Mehlich","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126662","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses development of the content of the concept “Philosophy Steamer,” which refers to the 1922 expulsion from Russia of a group of intelligentsia who sharply criticized the authorities. The author shows that the group of exiled philosophers was united both by their previous philosophical and social activity and by their joint activity as émigrés. She analyzes the concepts of “historical collective individuality,” “collective person,” and “communal person” introduced by Lev P. Karsavin in order to determine the holistic nature of this exiled social group and its characteristic self-consciousness, behavior, aspirations, and feelings (moods). Examining the event known as the “Philosophy Steamer” through the concepts listed above allows the author to cognize the historical, social, and cultural reality more broadly and productively. The article demonstrates that the concept of a collective person can also be applied to other social groups, thereby extending the methodology of human-studies cognition beyond the study of facts and statistical data.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"274 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48159498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：