Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.140-150
A. Ermichev
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.
{"title":"“Philosophical steamer”: on the Paradigm of S.S. Khoruzhy","authors":"A. Ermichev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.140-150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.140-150","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114927694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.055-073
E. Takho-Godi, M. Lomonosov
The article is devoted to Vl. Solovyov’s aesthetic evaluation of K.M. Fofanov’s works, well-known poet of the 1880s–1900s. The reconstruction of V. Solovyov's perception of the poet's lyrics was carried out, due to the philosopher's lack of a separate work on K.M. Fofanov. It allowed to establish Fofanov's place in Solovyov’s hierarchy of the leading lyricists of the second half of the XIX century (A.A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, A.N. Maykov, Ya.P. Polonsky, A.K. Tolstoy, A.A. Fet) and reveal the connection between the aesthetic evaluation of Fofanov's creative work and the general attitude of the thinker to the decadent trends in the literary process of the 1890s. These trends distort the “eternal truth” and “universal meaning”and cause Solovyov’s rejection of other authors of this period (V.Ya. Bryusov, A.L. Volynsky, D.S. Merezhkovsky, N.M. Minsky, V.V. Rozanov, etc) as well as to identify the coincidences or discrepancies of Solovyov's position with contemporary literary criticism (N.M. Sokolov, N.N. Strakhov). For a holistic presentation of V. Solovyov’s aesthetic assessments of K.F. Fofanov’s lyrics it is necessary to take into account his views in such areas as ethics and historiosophy. It is shown that the rejection of Fofanov-the lyricist is also connected with his categorical protest against ethical and historical “decadence”, which, among other things, includes the newest “patriots” who, in their national, ethical and religious blindness, reached the apotheosis of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. This allows us to hypothesize that the aesthetic denial of Fofanov-the lyricist is associated in Solovyov's mind with the general process of diagnosing the “spiritual disease” of modern society, which makes itself felt in various forms (literary or social). This disease makes itself known also in a specific ideological division into “parties” in Russian society in the 1880s–1890s (apotheosis of Ivan the Terrible in the poems by A.N. Maykov in Katkov's “Russkij Vestnik”, as well as the patronage of Fofanov by A.S. Suvorin's “Novoe Vremia”). It is shown that Fofanov's lyrics seem to Solovyov to be one of the examples of substitution of concepts (a phenomenon characteristic of the epoch): Christ – superman, the idea of monarchy – tyranny, the Russian idea – Byzantinism, self –consciousness – narcissism, the higher sense – pretentious nonsense. It is no coincidence that Fofanov becomes the cult-figure of the ego-futurist Igor Severyanin, who, partly recognizing Fofanov's involvement in decadence, makes a step further from the “formulaic” and “banal” in Fofanov's poetry to the avant-garde cult of “the trivial”, blurring the distinction between “true” and “false”.
{"title":"V. Solovyov’s aesthetic assessments of K.F. Fofanov’s lyrics. Part 1","authors":"E. Takho-Godi, M. Lomonosov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.055-073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.055-073","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to Vl. Solovyov’s aesthetic evaluation of K.M. Fofanov’s works, well-known poet of the 1880s–1900s. The reconstruction of V. Solovyov's perception of the poet's lyrics was carried out, due to the philosopher's lack of a separate work on K.M. Fofanov. It allowed to establish Fofanov's place in Solovyov’s hierarchy of the leading lyricists of the second half of the XIX century (A.A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, A.N. Maykov, Ya.P. Polonsky, A.K. Tolstoy, A.A. Fet) and reveal the connection between the aesthetic evaluation of Fofanov's creative work and the general attitude of the thinker to the decadent trends in the literary process of the 1890s. These trends distort the “eternal truth” and “universal meaning”and cause Solovyov’s rejection of other authors of this period (V.Ya. Bryusov, A.L. Volynsky, D.S. Merezhkovsky, N.M. Minsky, V.V. Rozanov, etc) as well as to identify the coincidences or discrepancies of Solovyov's position with contemporary literary criticism (N.M. Sokolov, N.N. Strakhov). For a holistic presentation of V. Solovyov’s aesthetic assessments of K.F. Fofanov’s lyrics it is necessary to take into account his views in such areas as ethics and historiosophy. It is shown that the rejection of Fofanov-the lyricist is also connected with his categorical protest against ethical and historical “decadence”, which, among other things, includes the newest “patriots” who, in their national, ethical and religious blindness, reached the apotheosis of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. This allows us to hypothesize that the aesthetic denial of Fofanov-the lyricist is associated in Solovyov's mind with the general process of diagnosing the “spiritual disease” of modern society, which makes itself felt in various forms (literary or social). This disease makes itself known also in a specific ideological division into “parties” in Russian society in the 1880s–1890s (apotheosis of Ivan the Terrible in the poems by A.N. Maykov in Katkov's “Russkij Vestnik”, as well as the patronage of Fofanov by A.S. Suvorin's “Novoe Vremia”). It is shown that Fofanov's lyrics seem to Solovyov to be one of the examples of substitution of concepts (a phenomenon characteristic of the epoch): Christ – superman, the idea of monarchy – tyranny, the Russian idea – Byzantinism, self –consciousness – narcissism, the higher sense – pretentious nonsense. It is no coincidence that Fofanov becomes the cult-figure of the ego-futurist Igor Severyanin, who, partly recognizing Fofanov's involvement in decadence, makes a step further from the “formulaic” and “banal” in Fofanov's poetry to the avant-garde cult of “the trivial”, blurring the distinction between “true” and “false”.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"30 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120836048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.111-125
V. Darenskaya
The analysis of the influence of V. Solovyov’s sophiology on the spiritual path of S.N. Bulgakov and his formation as a philosopher and theologian is proposed. The experience of the “revelation of Sophia”, developed by the thinker into a philosophical and theological concept under the direct influence of the philosophy of V. Solovyov, is considered as the main factor of the spiritual evolution of Fr. Sergius. Using the method of existential analysis, the key events of S.N. Bulgakov’s spiritual path are revealed, which became the basis of his conceptual constructions. As a result of the analysis, it was found that based on their own experience of cognition of Sophia as a special dimension of created being, connecting it with the Creator, S.N. Bulgakov demonstrates the continuity of the development of Russian philosophy from V. Solovyov to the thinkers of the Silver Age. This allows us to speak about the key role of the revelation of Sophia of the Wisdom of God as one of the main elements of the Russian philosophical tradition of the XIX–XX centuries. It is shown that, according to this philosophical interpretation, sophiology conveys an important spiritual experience of human perception of the essence of the created world, not damaged by Original sin. It is noted that this aspect of spiritual experience has not been previously investigated within the framework of academic theology, which led S.N. Bulgakov to conflict with traditional academic theology, allowed S.N. Bulgakov to overcome the materialistic understanding of history. Based on the analysis of a number of modern approaches, the sophiology of Fr. Sergius is interpreted as a valuable theologumen for the modern Christian consciousness, which is the response of the Russian Orthodox mind to the dehumanization of the world, to the secular picture of the world that has developed within the framework of Modern science. An example of the “spiritual birth” of fr. Sergiy Bulgakov is considered as a vivid example of the influence of Vladimir Solovyov’s legacy, his spiritual experience and philosophical doctrine on the subsequent history of Russian philosophy.
{"title":"Solovyov’s Sophiology as the Main Factor of f. Sergiy Bulgakov’s “spiritual birth”","authors":"V. Darenskaya","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.111-125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.111-125","url":null,"abstract":"The analysis of the influence of V. Solovyov’s sophiology on the spiritual path of S.N. Bulgakov and his formation as a philosopher and theologian is proposed. The experience of the “revelation of Sophia”, developed by the thinker into a philosophical and theological concept under the direct influence of the philosophy of V. Solovyov, is considered as the main factor of the spiritual evolution of Fr. Sergius. Using the method of existential analysis, the key events of S.N. Bulgakov’s spiritual path are revealed, which became the basis of his conceptual constructions. As a result of the analysis, it was found that based on their own experience of cognition of Sophia as a special dimension of created being, connecting it with the Creator, S.N. Bulgakov demonstrates the continuity of the development of Russian philosophy from V. Solovyov to the thinkers of the Silver Age. This allows us to speak about the key role of the revelation of Sophia of the Wisdom of God as one of the main elements of the Russian philosophical tradition of the XIX–XX centuries. It is shown that, according to this philosophical interpretation, sophiology conveys an important spiritual experience of human perception of the essence of the created world, not damaged by Original sin. It is noted that this aspect of spiritual experience has not been previously investigated within the framework of academic theology, which led S.N. Bulgakov to conflict with traditional academic theology, allowed S.N. Bulgakov to overcome the materialistic understanding of history. Based on the analysis of a number of modern approaches, the sophiology of Fr. Sergius is interpreted as a valuable theologumen for the modern Christian consciousness, which is the response of the Russian Orthodox mind to the dehumanization of the world, to the secular picture of the world that has developed within the framework of Modern science. An example of the “spiritual birth” of fr. Sergiy Bulgakov is considered as a vivid example of the influence of Vladimir Solovyov’s legacy, his spiritual experience and philosophical doctrine on the subsequent history of Russian philosophy.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132417142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.025-042
N. Gryakalova
The article deals with the circumstances associated with the review of A.A. Blok (“Novyj Put’”, 1903, no. 5), devoted to the book “Gaplights” and Moods” (1903), published under the cryptonym E.I. To date, its author has not been identified. As a result of archival and source studies, the authorship was established: this is E.I. Arsenieva, wife of K.K. Arseniev, a well-known lawyer, literary critic, liberal figure, editor of the journal “Vestnik Evropy”, Solovyov’s correspondent. The article provides biographical information about the Arseniev family, including previously unknown ones. The charitable activities of Arsenieva and her daughter, the organizer of a women's community and a monastery, fit into the context of the social and Christian movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The paper presents information about the literary circle organized by Arsenieva, about its orientation on the spiritual heritage of Soloviev, as well as fragments of her correspondence with P.P. Pertsov and N.M. Minsky, which shed light on the circle of her contacts, as well as on the history of the emergence of Blok's review. In addition Arsenieva’s sketch “The Soul of the Poet-Philosopher (about V.S. Soloviev)” extracted from the book “Gaplights” and Moods” is published.
{"title":"Who owned the cryptonym E.I.? (On the review by A.A. Blok)","authors":"N. Gryakalova","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.025-042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.025-042","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the circumstances associated with the review of A.A. Blok (“Novyj Put’”, 1903, no. 5), devoted to the book “Gaplights” and Moods” (1903), published under the cryptonym E.I. To date, its author has not been identified. As a result of archival and source studies, the authorship was established: this is E.I. Arsenieva, wife of K.K. Arseniev, a well-known lawyer, literary critic, liberal figure, editor of the journal “Vestnik Evropy”, Solovyov’s correspondent. The article provides biographical information about the Arseniev family, including previously unknown ones. The charitable activities of Arsenieva and her daughter, the organizer of a women's community and a monastery, fit into the context of the social and Christian movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The paper presents information about the literary circle organized by Arsenieva, about its orientation on the spiritual heritage of Soloviev, as well as fragments of her correspondence with P.P. Pertsov and N.M. Minsky, which shed light on the circle of her contacts, as well as on the history of the emergence of Blok's review. In addition Arsenieva’s sketch “The Soul of the Poet-Philosopher (about V.S. Soloviev)” extracted from the book “Gaplights” and Moods” is published.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"158 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116111834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.151-168
V. Koroleva
The problem of the formation of the “Hoffman text of Russian literature” is considered on the material of the prose heritage of Ap. Grigoriev. In the novels “One of Many” (1846) and “The Other of Many” (1847) by Ap. Grigoriev the main features of Hoffmann poetics are highlighted, which manifest themselves in its entirety and are characterized by the common stylistics of these two authors (“destructive irony”), Grigoriev's appeal to Hoffmann's type of demonic hero (Imeretinov, Zvanintsev), dating back to Hoffmann's novel “Elixirs of the Devil”, as well as similar problems. It is noted that Ap. Grigoriev, following Hoffman, conceptualizes the problem of forcible influence on the personality of another as based on the idea of magnetism. similarities in the authors' treatment of the problem of the necrosis of human life (in Ap. Grigoriev) and the mechanization of life and man (by E.T.A. Hoffman) are noted by means of the example of the images in the stories of Ap. Grigoriev (Zvanintsev, Imeretinov) and the images-symbols of masks, dolls, automatons, puppets of E.T.A. Hoffman’s stories (“The Sandman”, “Automatons”, etc.). And, finally, attention is drawn to the fact that duality as one of the key problems of Hoffman's work is being developed in Grigoriev's novels (the “mirroring” of the twin heroes Zvanintsev – Vertebrae, Sevsky; Imeretinov – Chabrin). The results of the conducted research show a bright layer of Hoffmann intertext in the stories “One of Many” and “The Other of Many” by A. Grigoriev, which allows us to talk about the work of the Russian writer as a significant stage in the formation of the Hoffmann text (“supertext”) of Russian literature.
{"title":"“Hoffman complex” in the stories of Ap. Grigoriev “One of many” and “The other of many”","authors":"V. Koroleva","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.151-168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.151-168","url":null,"abstract":"The problem of the formation of the “Hoffman text of Russian literature” is considered on the material of the prose heritage of Ap. Grigoriev. In the novels “One of Many” (1846) and “The Other of Many” (1847) by Ap. Grigoriev the main features of Hoffmann poetics are highlighted, which manifest themselves in its entirety and are characterized by the common stylistics of these two authors (“destructive irony”), Grigoriev's appeal to Hoffmann's type of demonic hero (Imeretinov, Zvanintsev), dating back to Hoffmann's novel “Elixirs of the Devil”, as well as similar problems. It is noted that Ap. Grigoriev, following Hoffman, conceptualizes the problem of forcible influence on the personality of another as based on the idea of magnetism. similarities in the authors' treatment of the problem of the necrosis of human life (in Ap. Grigoriev) and the mechanization of life and man (by E.T.A. Hoffman) are noted by means of the example of the images in the stories of Ap. Grigoriev (Zvanintsev, Imeretinov) and the images-symbols of masks, dolls, automatons, puppets of E.T.A. Hoffman’s stories (“The Sandman”, “Automatons”, etc.). And, finally, attention is drawn to the fact that duality as one of the key problems of Hoffman's work is being developed in Grigoriev's novels (the “mirroring” of the twin heroes Zvanintsev – Vertebrae, Sevsky; Imeretinov – Chabrin). The results of the conducted research show a bright layer of Hoffmann intertext in the stories “One of Many” and “The Other of Many” by A. Grigoriev, which allows us to talk about the work of the Russian writer as a significant stage in the formation of the Hoffmann text (“supertext”) of Russian literature.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124152257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.169-178
A. Makarova
The article compares the interpretations of the prophetic role of F.M. Dostoevsky, proposed by the philosopher V.S. Solovyov and the theologian M.M. Tareev. The method of comparison between the writer and the prophet, which came from the literary tradition of romanticism, is transferred to the sphere of cultural studies and religious thought. The article analyzes the works of V.S. Solovyov “Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky” and M.M. Tareev “Dostoevsky as a religious thinker to clarify the interpretations of the prophetic function of the writer proposed in these texts, other texts of these authors are involved, revealing in more detail their ideas about the place and tasks of the prophet in the New Testament time and about possible carriers of this function in modern the church community. The article attempts to show that the discrepancies in the assessments of the prophetic role of F.M. Dostoevsky between V.S. Solovyov and M.M. Tareev are partly due to their ideas of the relationship between Christianity and culture. (Thus, the limitation of Dostoevsky to the framework of national Christianity, noted by M.M. Tareev, which makes it possible to compare him with the Old Testament prophets, is explained by the idea of the impossibility of combining the religious-moral and cultural-historical spheres in the theological writings of M.M. Tareev). The views of thinkers on the person being able to perform the function of prophet in the modern church community are also examined.
{"title":"F.M. Dostoevsky’s Prophetism in the Theological Conceptions of V.S. Solovyov and M.M. Tareev","authors":"A. Makarova","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.169-178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.169-178","url":null,"abstract":"The article compares the interpretations of the prophetic role of F.M. Dostoevsky, proposed by the philosopher V.S. Solovyov and the theologian M.M. Tareev. The method of comparison between the writer and the prophet, which came from the literary tradition of romanticism, is transferred to the sphere of cultural studies and religious thought. The article analyzes the works of V.S. Solovyov “Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky” and M.M. Tareev “Dostoevsky as a religious thinker to clarify the interpretations of the prophetic function of the writer proposed in these texts, other texts of these authors are involved, revealing in more detail their ideas about the place and tasks of the prophet in the New Testament time and about possible carriers of this function in modern the church community. The article attempts to show that the discrepancies in the assessments of the prophetic role of F.M. Dostoevsky between V.S. Solovyov and M.M. Tareev are partly due to their ideas of the relationship between Christianity and culture. (Thus, the limitation of Dostoevsky to the framework of national Christianity, noted by M.M. Tareev, which makes it possible to compare him with the Old Testament prophets, is explained by the idea of the impossibility of combining the religious-moral and cultural-historical spheres in the theological writings of M.M. Tareev). The views of thinkers on the person being able to perform the function of prophet in the modern church community are also examined.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125226194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.074-091
D.A. Shmelev
The later work of Vladimir Soloviev, more specifically his Three Conversations on War, Progress, and the End of World History, is considered as one of the origins of Alexander Kozhev's philosophy of history. The general characteristics of Kozhev's anthropological and historiosophic views and their comparison with the concept of history presented in Solovyev's Three Conversations are given. The comparative analysis of the views of both philosophers revealed eight conceptual points, which are presented in both historiosophic doctrine of the late Soloviev and in Alexander Kozhev's philosophy of history as well. The attention is drawn to the fact that both French thinker and Russian philosopher believe that post-historical state is characterized by the absence of wars and termination of existence of separate national states, replaced by supranational structures of government, which will later be abolished in favor of a single World Empire, based on radical egalitarianism. It is noted that both philosophers agree that the world after history is an undifferentiated culturally homogeneous space in which an apparent material prosperity coexists with a latent spiritual crisis characterized by primitivization of the man, disappearance of culture, domination of atheism, devaluation of Christian values. The emphasis is placed on the affinity between Kozhev's image of Napoleon and Solovyov's figure of the antichrist, whereas in both cases the question is about a personality who expansively imposes his individuality on the world, a subject who moves humanity by his actions into a posthistorical space by means of the establishment of the Total Empire. The main difference between Kozhev's historiosophical concept and Solovyov's is also considered. It consists in the fact that Kozhev's 'end of History' takes place in a purely secular dimension, while Solovyov, who stands on a religious position, leaves room for messianism. In summary, based on the many considered conceptual coincidences between Solovyov's and Kozhev's doctrines, we conclude the late Solovyov's work has influenced on Kozhev's historiosophy.
{"title":"Influence of the late works of Vl. Solovyov on A. Kozhev’s philosophy of history","authors":"D.A. Shmelev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.074-091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.074-091","url":null,"abstract":"The later work of Vladimir Soloviev, more specifically his Three Conversations on War, Progress, and the End of World History, is considered as one of the origins of Alexander Kozhev's philosophy of history. The general characteristics of Kozhev's anthropological and historiosophic views and their comparison with the concept of history presented in Solovyev's Three Conversations are given. The comparative analysis of the views of both philosophers revealed eight conceptual points, which are presented in both historiosophic doctrine of the late Soloviev and in Alexander Kozhev's philosophy of history as well. The attention is drawn to the fact that both French thinker and Russian philosopher believe that post-historical state is characterized by the absence of wars and termination of existence of separate national states, replaced by supranational structures of government, which will later be abolished in favor of a single World Empire, based on radical egalitarianism. It is noted that both philosophers agree that the world after history is an undifferentiated culturally homogeneous space in which an apparent material prosperity coexists with a latent spiritual crisis characterized by primitivization of the man, disappearance of culture, domination of atheism, devaluation of Christian values. The emphasis is placed on the affinity between Kozhev's image of Napoleon and Solovyov's figure of the antichrist, whereas in both cases the question is about a personality who expansively imposes his individuality on the world, a subject who moves humanity by his actions into a posthistorical space by means of the establishment of the Total Empire. The main difference between Kozhev's historiosophical concept and Solovyov's is also considered. It consists in the fact that Kozhev's 'end of History' takes place in a purely secular dimension, while Solovyov, who stands on a religious position, leaves room for messianism. In summary, based on the many considered conceptual coincidences between Solovyov's and Kozhev's doctrines, we conclude the late Solovyov's work has influenced on Kozhev's historiosophy.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116981959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.126-139
A. Khamidulin
The article changes the problem of verbalization of living knowledge in the philosophy of S.L. Frank. On the material of philosophical kids. Frank divides into two levels – reality and reality. It is revealed that the Russian philosopher understands the reality as the metaphysical, spiritual level of being with the inclusion of the supernatural world in faith in the concept of meaning, while the key figure of spiritual reality in the philosophy of S.L. Frank is God – the Absolute, possessing both personal and prepersonal izneme. It is distinguished by the presence of its own spiritual experience in S.L. Frank. is revealed from the fact that knowledge of the spiritual reality is possible due to living knowledge, knowledge-experience, the article reveals the ideas of expression, the transfer of living knowledge opened as a result of contact with the spiritual reality. It is noted that the interest of S.L. Frank to the proposed problem is fixed in the work of different years. The methodology of the Possible Verbalization of living knowledge throughout the Whole Frank is analyzed and systematized. It is concluded that according to S.L. For Frank, knowledge about the Absolute as the quintessence of living knowledge is not absolutely inexpressible, however, the verbalization of the strategy still turns out to be limited in the exceptionally strong otherness of the spiritual level of being. It is important that the evaluation of the results of living knowledge is possible thanks to verbalization: with the help of metaphor, apophatic and paradoxical, antinomic method, as well as with the help of poetry that rejects to the Absolute.
{"title":"The Problem of Verbalization of Living Knowledge in the Philosophy of S.L. Frank","authors":"A. Khamidulin","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.126-139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.126-139","url":null,"abstract":"The article changes the problem of verbalization of living knowledge in the philosophy of S.L. Frank. On the material of philosophical kids. Frank divides into two levels – reality and reality. It is revealed that the Russian philosopher understands the reality as the metaphysical, spiritual level of being with the inclusion of the supernatural world in faith in the concept of meaning, while the key figure of spiritual reality in the philosophy of S.L. Frank is God – the Absolute, possessing both personal and prepersonal izneme. It is distinguished by the presence of its own spiritual experience in S.L. Frank. is revealed from the fact that knowledge of the spiritual reality is possible due to living knowledge, knowledge-experience, the article reveals the ideas of expression, the transfer of living knowledge opened as a result of contact with the spiritual reality. It is noted that the interest of S.L. Frank to the proposed problem is fixed in the work of different years. The methodology of the Possible Verbalization of living knowledge throughout the Whole Frank is analyzed and systematized. It is concluded that according to S.L. For Frank, knowledge about the Absolute as the quintessence of living knowledge is not absolutely inexpressible, however, the verbalization of the strategy still turns out to be limited in the exceptionally strong otherness of the spiritual level of being. It is important that the evaluation of the results of living knowledge is possible thanks to verbalization: with the help of metaphor, apophatic and paradoxical, antinomic method, as well as with the help of poetry that rejects to the Absolute.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125622195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.092-110
F. Gayda
The question of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the Church in Russia during the period of large-scale socio-economic and political changes at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries (including the February Revolution of 1917) is considered. The relevance of the study is determined by the recent appearance of works devoted to the perception of the intelligentsia in the church environment. At the same time, the ideas of the intelligentsia about the Church in the scientific literature have not yet been fully disclosed. The study is based on journalism, office work (materials of the Religious-Philosophical Meetings and the St. Petersburg Religious-Philosophical Society), periodicals, and sources of personal origin. It is concluded that during this period, the intelligentsia in its own environment was already considered as a project parallel to the Church, which inevitably endowed the intelligentsia itself with the appropriate features (messiahism, sacrifice, eschatology, the cult of saints). At the same time, it is shown that the primary was not the spiritual, but the social and, in particular, the ideological role of the intelligentsia, which was reflected in the works of the populists (G.I. Uspensky, N.K. Mikhailovsky). It is shown that D.S. Merezhkovsky developed this tradition, but gave the intelligentsia a global and mystical sound. It is noted that the critics of this approach were V.A. Ternavtsev, A.A. Blok and Vyach. Ivanov in the 1900s; these thinkers spoke of the need for the intelligentsia to enter the Church. It is concluded that after the victory of the February Revolution of 1917, the intelligentsia began to implement their own project of transforming the church system on democratic grounds.
{"title":"Intelligentsia and the Church: the Issue of the Correlation of the Ideal and Spiritual in Leadership (late XIX – beginning XX centuries)","authors":"F. Gayda","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.092-110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2023.2.092-110","url":null,"abstract":"The question of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the Church in Russia during the period of large-scale socio-economic and political changes at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries (including the February Revolution of 1917) is considered. The relevance of the study is determined by the recent appearance of works devoted to the perception of the intelligentsia in the church environment. At the same time, the ideas of the intelligentsia about the Church in the scientific literature have not yet been fully disclosed. The study is based on journalism, office work (materials of the Religious-Philosophical Meetings and the St. Petersburg Religious-Philosophical Society), periodicals, and sources of personal origin. It is concluded that during this period, the intelligentsia in its own environment was already considered as a project parallel to the Church, which inevitably endowed the intelligentsia itself with the appropriate features (messiahism, sacrifice, eschatology, the cult of saints). At the same time, it is shown that the primary was not the spiritual, but the social and, in particular, the ideological role of the intelligentsia, which was reflected in the works of the populists (G.I. Uspensky, N.K. Mikhailovsky). It is shown that D.S. Merezhkovsky developed this tradition, but gave the intelligentsia a global and mystical sound. It is noted that the critics of this approach were V.A. Ternavtsev, A.A. Blok and Vyach. Ivanov in the 1900s; these thinkers spoke of the need for the intelligentsia to enter the Church. It is concluded that after the victory of the February Revolution of 1917, the intelligentsia began to implement their own project of transforming the church system on democratic grounds.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117111611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：