Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2126664
O. Marchenko
ABSTRACT This article addresses the famous 1910 debate between Vladimir F. Ern and Semyon L. Frank centered around the problem of identifying the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy. The debate was a continuation of Ern’s debates with Russian philosophers associated with the international journal Logos (Sergei I. Hessen, Fyodor A. Stepun, Boris V. Yakovenko, and others). The author shows that Ern’s understanding of an original Russian philosophy is organically related to his overall philosophical doctrine. As for Frank, his views during the 1910s on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy were different in nature. It is worth noting that in the 1920s articles written during his émigré period, Frank’s views on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy undergo a decisive change. Frank’s new ideas about Russian philosophy turn out to be extremely close to those of his late opponent, both on the whole and in the details. At the same time, Frank’s overall philosophical views do not undergo as dramatic a change and develop in a fully evolutionary mode. The author attempts to identify the reason for these changes.
{"title":"Vladimir F. Ern and Semyon L. Frank: A Dispute on the Distinguishing Features of Russian Philosophy","authors":"O. Marchenko","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2126664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2126664","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article addresses the famous 1910 debate between Vladimir F. Ern and Semyon L. Frank centered around the problem of identifying the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy. The debate was a continuation of Ern’s debates with Russian philosophers associated with the international journal Logos (Sergei I. Hessen, Fyodor A. Stepun, Boris V. Yakovenko, and others). The author shows that Ern’s understanding of an original Russian philosophy is organically related to his overall philosophical doctrine. As for Frank, his views during the 1910s on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy were different in nature. It is worth noting that in the 1920s articles written during his émigré period, Frank’s views on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy undergo a decisive change. Frank’s new ideas about Russian philosophy turn out to be extremely close to those of his late opponent, both on the whole and in the details. At the same time, Frank’s overall philosophical views do not undergo as dramatic a change and develop in a fully evolutionary mode. The author attempts to identify the reason for these changes.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"289 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45336215","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 : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2110789
Nigina R. Sharopova
ABSTRACT The philosophical manifestos of the past few decades involving attempts to go beyond constructs, discourses, and structures to the things themselves and a return to ontology and materialism often address the problems of the Anthropocene. Criticism of anthropocentrism and the introduction of the nonhuman into the focus of philosophy opened up new perspectives in solving the problems of idealism. This escape from the discursive aspect and the human factor, which is intended to break out philosophical projects to the outside, to what is on the other side of culture and language, to the planet, to matter, is accompanied by sequences of negations. Exploring the outer edge of philosophy, the periphery of culture, dark and marginal subjects, these authors try to construct a kind of anti-discourse, a nonphilosophy. In order to unlock the nonthinkable, what is being proposed to us is an exploration of objects that philosophical thought has heretofore ignored. The path to the nonhuman and nonthinkable lies through nonphilosophy. This article attempts to analyze such negations. It analyzes the function of negation by turning to psychoanalytic theory, in which the examination and modification of negation is one of the key themes. The principal mechanism of analysis is the modified logic of the psychoanalyst Jean Michel Vappereau. But the classical modifications of negation of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan are also considered. The article’s central question—how does one interpret the negation in a human’s turning to the nonhuman, of philosophy to nonphilosophy, of an act of thought to the nonthinkable—is resolved in two ways, which constitute the two sections of the article. The results of the analysis open up obscure ways of interpreting such philosophical manifestos.
{"title":"The Nonthinkable, the Nonhuman, the Nonphilosophical: On the Function of Negation in Posthumanism","authors":"Nigina R. Sharopova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2110789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2110789","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The philosophical manifestos of the past few decades involving attempts to go beyond constructs, discourses, and structures to the things themselves and a return to ontology and materialism often address the problems of the Anthropocene. Criticism of anthropocentrism and the introduction of the nonhuman into the focus of philosophy opened up new perspectives in solving the problems of idealism. This escape from the discursive aspect and the human factor, which is intended to break out philosophical projects to the outside, to what is on the other side of culture and language, to the planet, to matter, is accompanied by sequences of negations. Exploring the outer edge of philosophy, the periphery of culture, dark and marginal subjects, these authors try to construct a kind of anti-discourse, a nonphilosophy. In order to unlock the nonthinkable, what is being proposed to us is an exploration of objects that philosophical thought has heretofore ignored. The path to the nonhuman and nonthinkable lies through nonphilosophy. This article attempts to analyze such negations. It analyzes the function of negation by turning to psychoanalytic theory, in which the examination and modification of negation is one of the key themes. The principal mechanism of analysis is the modified logic of the psychoanalyst Jean Michel Vappereau. But the classical modifications of negation of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan are also considered. The article’s central question—how does one interpret the negation in a human’s turning to the nonhuman, of philosophy to nonphilosophy, of an act of thought to the nonthinkable—is resolved in two ways, which constitute the two sections of the article. The results of the analysis open up obscure ways of interpreting such philosophical manifestos.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"186 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49403764","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 : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2110791
Maksim D. Miroshnichenko
ABSTRACT This article reconstructs the theory of the Soviet-American psychologist Vladimir Lefebvre as part of the neocybernetic movement. In particular, I propose to explore such elements of his research of the 1970s—1990s as systemic vision; reflexive analysis; a search for holistic configuration and Janus cosmology; and the realization of neocybernetics. An interest in the reflexive structures of cognition and action led Lefebvre to an understanding of the limited nature of the world’s scientific picture. The conflicting objects he studied proved too complex for behavioral modeling and forecasting. Lefebvre therefore expanded the boundaries of the application of his formal theory of intelligence, relying on functionalist positions, which led him to the science-fiction narrative of “The Big Correction.” I contend that Lefebvre’s works not only propose an original Soviet version of the neocybernetics the 1970s but develop their own model of inhumanism long before it appeared on the scene of modern philosophy. Lefebvre’s formal theory, reinforced by thermodynamics and elements of Russian cosmism, builds cognitive behavior into the teleology of the Big Correction, which involves the idea of overcoming the heat death of the universe. The activity of cosmic intelligence, which Lefebvre equates with magnetic-plasma structures in the finished areas of the universe, is aimed at cooperation and prolonging the existence of life and the intellect.
本文将苏联-美国心理学家列斐伏尔的理论作为新控制论运动的一部分进行重构。特别是，我建议探索他在20世纪70年代至90年代的研究中的一些元素，如系统视野;反射性分析;对整体结构和Janus宇宙论的探索;以及新控制论的实现。对认知和行动的反身结构的兴趣使列斐伏尔认识到世界科学图景的有限性。事实证明，他所研究的相互冲突的对象过于复杂，无法进行行为建模和预测。因此，列斐伏尔扩大了他的智力形式理论的应用范围，依靠功能主义的立场，这使他产生了科幻小说《大修正》(the Big Correction)的叙述。我认为，列斐伏尔的著作不仅提出了20世纪70年代苏联版本的新控制论，而且在非人道主义出现在现代哲学舞台之前很久就发展了自己的非人道主义模型。列斐伏尔的形式理论得到了热力学和俄国宇宙主义元素的强化，将认知行为建立在“大修正”的目的论中，其中包括克服宇宙热寂的想法。宇宙智慧的活动，列斐伏尔将其等同于宇宙中已完成区域的磁等离子体结构，旨在合作并延长生命和智慧的存在。
{"title":"The Algebra of Cosmic Intelligence: Inhumanism and Cosmology in the Reflexive Neocybernetics of Vladimir Lefebvre","authors":"Maksim D. Miroshnichenko","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2110791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2110791","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reconstructs the theory of the Soviet-American psychologist Vladimir Lefebvre as part of the neocybernetic movement. In particular, I propose to explore such elements of his research of the 1970s—1990s as systemic vision; reflexive analysis; a search for holistic configuration and Janus cosmology; and the realization of neocybernetics. An interest in the reflexive structures of cognition and action led Lefebvre to an understanding of the limited nature of the world’s scientific picture. The conflicting objects he studied proved too complex for behavioral modeling and forecasting. Lefebvre therefore expanded the boundaries of the application of his formal theory of intelligence, relying on functionalist positions, which led him to the science-fiction narrative of “The Big Correction.” I contend that Lefebvre’s works not only propose an original Soviet version of the neocybernetics the 1970s but develop their own model of inhumanism long before it appeared on the scene of modern philosophy. Lefebvre’s formal theory, reinforced by thermodynamics and elements of Russian cosmism, builds cognitive behavior into the teleology of the Big Correction, which involves the idea of overcoming the heat death of the universe. The activity of cosmic intelligence, which Lefebvre equates with magnetic-plasma structures in the finished areas of the universe, is aimed at cooperation and prolonging the existence of life and the intellect.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"205 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46249244","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 : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2110794
N. Sosna
ABSTRACT Various writings of mixed genres, drifting between scientific treatises, mystical epiphanies, and prose fiction related to the school of “cosmism,” have been explored for more than fifty years, and the interpretations range from (religious) utopia to theories of sustainable development. The author discusses the question of whether “cosmism” is exclusively “Russian,” compares its general postulates with the techno-Cosmist approaches of the last ten years (including those involving fiction, such as by Eugene Thacker, and the more philosophical approaches, like that applied by Yuk Hui), and proposes clarifying how the Cosmists literally viewed the structure of the world and how they conceptualized its elements as contrasted with the interest of contemporary theorists in openness to planetary and cosmic horizons. The latter, often oriented to nuclear physics and fragmenting “reality” into stochastic agencies whose temporary couplings are formed by cutting and assembling procedures, can be reformulated from the “cosmist” perspective as gleaned in this case from the works of Valerian Murav’ev and Vladimir Vernadsky, with the aid of the categories of expansion and accomplishment.
{"title":"Elements of Anthropocosmism","authors":"N. Sosna","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2110794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2110794","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Various writings of mixed genres, drifting between scientific treatises, mystical epiphanies, and prose fiction related to the school of “cosmism,” have been explored for more than fifty years, and the interpretations range from (religious) utopia to theories of sustainable development. The author discusses the question of whether “cosmism” is exclusively “Russian,” compares its general postulates with the techno-Cosmist approaches of the last ten years (including those involving fiction, such as by Eugene Thacker, and the more philosophical approaches, like that applied by Yuk Hui), and proposes clarifying how the Cosmists literally viewed the structure of the world and how they conceptualized its elements as contrasted with the interest of contemporary theorists in openness to planetary and cosmic horizons. The latter, often oriented to nuclear physics and fragmenting “reality” into stochastic agencies whose temporary couplings are formed by cutting and assembling procedures, can be reformulated from the “cosmist” perspective as gleaned in this case from the works of Valerian Murav’ev and Vladimir Vernadsky, with the aid of the categories of expansion and accomplishment.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"244 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48312632","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 : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2110793
Dmitry F. Testov
ABSTRACT This article attempts to develop a theoretical approach to exploration of the environment, of intra-environmental information processes and mutually determinative relationships, and mode of being. Relying on the theoretical postulates of Gregory Bateson, the information theory of Claude Shannon, the concept of predictive processing, and Nikolai Ladovsky’s principle of economy of perception in architecture, the author seeks to show that the environment can act as an alternative mode to the subject for organizing experience. This interpretation of the concept of environment can serve as a foundation for constructing an optics of inquiry that is not human-centric but at the same time could remain an optics of human inquiry.
{"title":"Thinking Environments: In-Formation and Entropy","authors":"Dmitry F. Testov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2110793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2110793","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article attempts to develop a theoretical approach to exploration of the environment, of intra-environmental information processes and mutually determinative relationships, and mode of being. Relying on the theoretical postulates of Gregory Bateson, the information theory of Claude Shannon, the concept of predictive processing, and Nikolai Ladovsky’s principle of economy of perception in architecture, the author seeks to show that the environment can act as an alternative mode to the subject for organizing experience. This interpretation of the concept of environment can serve as a foundation for constructing an optics of inquiry that is not human-centric but at the same time could remain an optics of human inquiry.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"231 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42464806","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 : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2111150
N. Sosna
ABSTRACT Many of the theories that have been discussed in recent years are distrustful of the anthropological inroads or are openly hostile to them. The problems of the environment, global politics, and the discoveries of biology and medicine create a rich foundation for such attitudes. They are also manifested in the genres of comments that emanate from the domains of rigorous theory and science into the zones of unprovable projections, forecasts, and programs. Perhaps only media philosophy still dares to talk about the need for media anthropology. Yet how is it possible to try to determine what is human in such conditions—among conglomerations of particles (Whitehead-Latour) and entanglements (Barad), in the indiscernibility of the organic and the inorganic? What language can one still use to discuss it—the language of psychoanalytic loss, of scientific impartiality, of literary fiction? Through what concepts can one lay out the path—of function, of environment, of system? This article provides a brief summary of the selection of articles included in the present special issue. The authors of these articles attempt to talk about the human by unleashing this concept in their own way from a cosmic and universal perspective.
{"title":"The Era of Posthumanism","authors":"N. Sosna","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2111150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2111150","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many of the theories that have been discussed in recent years are distrustful of the anthropological inroads or are openly hostile to them. The problems of the environment, global politics, and the discoveries of biology and medicine create a rich foundation for such attitudes. They are also manifested in the genres of comments that emanate from the domains of rigorous theory and science into the zones of unprovable projections, forecasts, and programs. Perhaps only media philosophy still dares to talk about the need for media anthropology. Yet how is it possible to try to determine what is human in such conditions—among conglomerations of particles (Whitehead-Latour) and entanglements (Barad), in the indiscernibility of the organic and the inorganic? What language can one still use to discuss it—the language of psychoanalytic loss, of scientific impartiality, of literary fiction? Through what concepts can one lay out the path—of function, of environment, of system? This article provides a brief summary of the selection of articles included in the present special issue. The authors of these articles attempt to talk about the human by unleashing this concept in their own way from a cosmic and universal perspective.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"179 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46346468","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2085485
Nina B. Khaylova
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the origins and essence of the social ideal of the early-twentieth-century Russian liberal-centrists. We note the leading role played by a number of their most prominent representatives who determined the direction of the oldest liberal publications in Russia (the journal Vestnik Evropy and the newspaper Russkie Vedomosti) in shaping the unique quality of Russian liberalism, in forming the “core” of general liberal ideas about the future (beginning in the 1860s). The author establishes that the patriarchs of liberal centrism in the post-reform decades laid the foundations of the “new liberalism” in Russia and argues that it was the liberal-centrists who played the role of “custodians of the foundations” of Russian liberalism in the early twentieth century. The article describes the differences in the sociopolitical position defended by the liberal “center” ideologists and by the party-organizational and strategic-tactical views of the Cadets and the Octobrists. It emphasizes the significance of the psychological and moral–ethical standpoints of the liberal-centrists in the process of their political self-determination. The author shows the innovative character of ideas put forward by the representatives of the “centrist” wing of early-twentieth-century Russian liberalism. Those innovations are especially obvious in the field of party-building, and in the essential contribution to the development of education and to the development of church and religious issues as one of the key concerns in the process of reform. The author draws conclusions about the demand for the liberal-centrist social ideal both in the early twentieth century and in the present day.
{"title":"The Social Ideal of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Liberal-Centrists","authors":"Nina B. Khaylova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2085485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2085485","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the origins and essence of the social ideal of the early-twentieth-century Russian liberal-centrists. We note the leading role played by a number of their most prominent representatives who determined the direction of the oldest liberal publications in Russia (the journal Vestnik Evropy and the newspaper Russkie Vedomosti) in shaping the unique quality of Russian liberalism, in forming the “core” of general liberal ideas about the future (beginning in the 1860s). The author establishes that the patriarchs of liberal centrism in the post-reform decades laid the foundations of the “new liberalism” in Russia and argues that it was the liberal-centrists who played the role of “custodians of the foundations” of Russian liberalism in the early twentieth century. The article describes the differences in the sociopolitical position defended by the liberal “center” ideologists and by the party-organizational and strategic-tactical views of the Cadets and the Octobrists. It emphasizes the significance of the psychological and moral–ethical standpoints of the liberal-centrists in the process of their political self-determination. The author shows the innovative character of ideas put forward by the representatives of the “centrist” wing of early-twentieth-century Russian liberalism. Those innovations are especially obvious in the field of party-building, and in the essential contribution to the development of education and to the development of church and religious issues as one of the key concerns in the process of reform. The author draws conclusions about the demand for the liberal-centrist social ideal both in the early twentieth century and in the present day.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"167 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41863645","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2085482
S. L. Chizhkov
ABSTRACT The polemics between Boris Chicherin and Vladimir Solovyov are perhaps the most remarkable event in the intellectual history of Russian liberalism. These polemics elicited keen interest in the whole of society, not just among liberal circles. The arguments between the two thinkers occurred during the period when Russian liberalism was ascendant while at the same time transforming into social liberalism. The doctrinal basis of liberalism was stretched to the limit and began to lose its identity as a result. The arguments between the two thinkers reflected these circumstances to some extent. They were conducted on a very wide range of topics, including morality and its nature, personhood and its freedom and connection with society, law and the state, and the meaning of historical development. This article analyzes Solovyov’s notion of personal–social reality and his understanding of law as the bare minimum of ethics. The author approaches to Chicherin in terms of his ideas about the nature of personhood and its place in legal theory, as well as his doctrine of the relationship between law and morality, which he developed within his understanding of autonomous ethics.
{"title":"Law, Morality, and Personhood in the Philosophical–Legal Understandings of Boris Chicherin and Vladimir Solovyov: On the Philosophical Foundations of Russian Liberalism","authors":"S. L. Chizhkov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2085482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2085482","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The polemics between Boris Chicherin and Vladimir Solovyov are perhaps the most remarkable event in the intellectual history of Russian liberalism. These polemics elicited keen interest in the whole of society, not just among liberal circles. The arguments between the two thinkers occurred during the period when Russian liberalism was ascendant while at the same time transforming into social liberalism. The doctrinal basis of liberalism was stretched to the limit and began to lose its identity as a result. The arguments between the two thinkers reflected these circumstances to some extent. They were conducted on a very wide range of topics, including morality and its nature, personhood and its freedom and connection with society, law and the state, and the meaning of historical development. This article analyzes Solovyov’s notion of personal–social reality and his understanding of law as the bare minimum of ethics. The author approaches to Chicherin in terms of his ideas about the nature of personhood and its place in legal theory, as well as his doctrine of the relationship between law and morality, which he developed within his understanding of autonomous ethics.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"126 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48075482","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2085478
S. L. Chizhkov
ABSTRACT Why does the theory of law have such a significant role in Russian liberalism, and how is this related to the state of the legal system in Russia and to the public’s legal consciousness? This introduction outlines several issues facing liberalism in Russia, including the lack of a classical liberal school, the limited nature of reforms, the state of the legal system and the justice system, an anti-legalism that has taken shape and strengthened in the public consciousness, and other relevant concerns. A brief description of the articles included in this special issue follows.
{"title":"On Some Features of Russian Liberalism","authors":"S. L. Chizhkov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2085478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2085478","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Why does the theory of law have such a significant role in Russian liberalism, and how is this related to the state of the legal system in Russia and to the public’s legal consciousness? This introduction outlines several issues facing liberalism in Russia, including the lack of a classical liberal school, the limited nature of reforms, the state of the legal system and the justice system, an anti-legalism that has taken shape and strengthened in the public consciousness, and other relevant concerns. A brief description of the articles included in this special issue follows.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"94 ","pages":"89 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41277734","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2085484
V. Sharova
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the features of the intellectual and cultural environment in which the ideas of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century liberalism developed. Based on the assumption of liberalism as the “major ideology” created by the Enlightenment and, in that sense, a doctrine designed to “work” in any social and historical conditions, the author describes Russian liberalism as distinctive phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between the unique and the universal principles in Russian liberal philosophy and sociopolitical thought of this era. The article focuses on the influence that transformation of ideas and cultural life in turn-of-the-century Russia had on the representatives of liberalism: the then-urgent crisis of ideals at that time and the desire to identify new vectors for social development, radicalization of sentiments and reform projects, and so forth. The author also notes the reciprocal influence of ideas on the sociopolitical process. One of the key focuses of this article is the conceptual ideas of Orthodox renewal with the possibility of an ultimate synthesis of Christian and liberal ideas. This study should produce a fairly complete picture of the cultural and spiritual background of liberal thought in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
{"title":"The Cultural and Spiritual Dimension of Russian Liberalism at the Turn of the Nineteenth/Twentieth Centuries","authors":"V. Sharova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2085484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2085484","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the features of the intellectual and cultural environment in which the ideas of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century liberalism developed. Based on the assumption of liberalism as the “major ideology” created by the Enlightenment and, in that sense, a doctrine designed to “work” in any social and historical conditions, the author describes Russian liberalism as distinctive phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between the unique and the universal principles in Russian liberal philosophy and sociopolitical thought of this era. The article focuses on the influence that transformation of ideas and cultural life in turn-of-the-century Russia had on the representatives of liberalism: the then-urgent crisis of ideals at that time and the desire to identify new vectors for social development, radicalization of sentiments and reform projects, and so forth. The author also notes the reciprocal influence of ideas on the sociopolitical process. One of the key focuses of this article is the conceptual ideas of Orthodox renewal with the possibility of an ultimate synthesis of Christian and liberal ideas. This study should produce a fairly complete picture of the cultural and spiritual background of liberal thought in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"60 1","pages":"153 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45818005","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：