Studies in East European Thought最新文献

In the secondary literature on Scriabin, it is not uncommon to come across the names of philosophers such as Nikolai Fyodorov, Vladimir Solovyov, and Nikolai Berdyaev. The present paper examines the shared characteristics between Scriabin’s philosophy and the ideas of such figures who are typically referred to as Russian Cosmists. In doing so, the paper illustrates what new insights we can gain by considering Scriabin from the perspective of Russian Cosmism. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Russian Cosmists’ significant influence on Scriabin’s philosophical ideas, the secondary literature rarely discusses this impact within the context of Russian Cosmism. The aim of the present paper is to remedy this oversight by (a) concisely defining what Russian Cosmism is, and (b) illustrating how Scriabin’s philosophy can be traced to Russian Cosmist ideas which were circulating in Russia when Scriabin was intellectually and artistically active.

This essay addresses one of the most concerning features of Russian thought: its claim to exceptionality. The author contends that the notion of Russian distinctiveness and exceptionality has reverberated consistently throughout Russian intellectual discussions. In contemporary Russia, these debates have heightened, often taking on a distinctly political character. The essay highlights the perilous consequences of believing in the exclusivity and superiority of one national tradition over others. Not only does this belief lead to national isolationism, negatively impacting the country’s intellectual culture and diminishing its vibrancy and creativity, but it also erodes the foundation for a critical attitude and self-reflection, essential aspects of philosophical inquiry. Russia needs an open philosophy that is seamlessly integrated into the global philosophical process and actively engages in constructive dialogue with other philosophical cultures. Achieving this goal requires breaking free from the longstanding belief in exceptionality that has cast a shadow over Russia’s state, culture, and thought for centuries.

The philosophy of Johannes Rehmke (1848–1930), also called “Rehmkeanism,” and the intuitivism of Nikolai Lossky (1870–1965) converge on essential doctrinal points. The Bulgarian philosopher Dimitar Mihalchev (1880–1967), who studied under Rehmke in Greifswald, became a promoter of the Rehmkean philosophy in Bulgaria. The points of convergence between Rehmkeanism and Losskyan intuitivism led Mihalchev to develop an interest in Lossky. He visited Lossky in Saint Petersburg in 1911 and mentioned the similarities between Rehmke and Lossky in 1914 in Forma i otnoshenie (Form and Relation). They also moved in the same circles in Prague, where Lossky, whom Lenin had expelled from Russia in 1922, had found refuge, and where Mihalchev had been appointed ambassador between 1923 and 1927. After his return to Sofia, Mihalchev invited Lossky to publish an article in his newly created philosophy journal, Filosofski pregled. Mihalchev would likely have seen in Lossky an ally in his endeavor of promoting Rehmkeanism in Bulgaria. Moreover, given the similarities between Rehmke and Lossky, Mihalchev had come to believe that Lossky had, just like himself, been influenced by Rehmke and that he developed his intuitivism under this influence. However, Lossky, who translated one of Rehmke’s books as a student and who admitted similarities between Rehmke’s philosophy and his own intuitivism, nevertheless denied having been influenced by him. The present article proposes a comparison of Lossky and Rehmke, and chronicles the interactions between Lossky and Mihalchev in their historical context.

This essay addresses one of the most concerning features of Russian thought: its claim to exceptionality. The author contends that the notion of Russian distinctiveness and exceptionality has reverberated consistently throughout Russian intellectual discussions. In contemporary Russia, these debates have heightened, often taking on a distinctly political character. The essay highlights the perilous consequences of believing in the exclusivity and superiority of one national tradition over others. Not only does this belief lead to national isolationism, negatively impacting the country’s intellectual culture and diminishing its vibrancy and creativity, but it also erodes the foundation for a critical attitude and self-reflection, essential aspects of philosophical inquiry. Russia needs an open philosophy that is seamlessly integrated into the global philosophical process and actively engages in constructive dialogue with other philosophical cultures. Achieving this goal requires breaking free from the longstanding belief in exceptionality that has cast a shadow over Russia’s state, culture, and thought for centuries.

The philosophy of Johannes Rehmke (1848–1930), also called “Rehmkeanism,” and the intuitivism of Nikolai Lossky (1870–1965) converge on essential doctrinal points. The Bulgarian philosopher Dimitar Mihalchev (1880–1967), who studied under Rehmke in Greifswald, became a promoter of the Rehmkean philosophy in Bulgaria. The points of convergence between Rehmkeanism and Losskyan intuitivism led Mihalchev to develop an interest in Lossky. He visited Lossky in Saint Petersburg in 1911 and mentioned the similarities between Rehmke and Lossky in 1914 in Forma i otnoshenie (Form and Relation). They also moved in the same circles in Prague, where Lossky, whom Lenin had expelled from Russia in 1922, had found refuge, and where Mihalchev had been appointed ambassador between 1923 and 1927. After his return to Sofia, Mihalchev invited Lossky to publish an article in his newly created philosophy journal, Filosofski pregled. Mihalchev would likely have seen in Lossky an ally in his endeavor of promoting Rehmkeanism in Bulgaria. Moreover, given the similarities between Rehmke and Lossky, Mihalchev had come to believe that Lossky had, just like himself, been influenced by Rehmke and that he developed his intuitivism under this influence. However, Lossky, who translated one of Rehmke’s books as a student and who admitted similarities between Rehmke’s philosophy and his own intuitivism, nevertheless denied having been influenced by him. The present article proposes a comparison of Lossky and Rehmke, and chronicles the interactions between Lossky and Mihalchev in their historical context.

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.