Speaker: Serbinenko Vyacheslav, Russian State University for the Humanities, Russia, Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Section of the History of Russian Philosophy, Department of Philosophy
Topic: The Russian Idea in the Past and Always
Topic: The Russian Idea in the Past and Always
Abstract
The speech, first of all, is about the views of various thinkers (Dostoevsky, Solovyev, Berdyaev) who directly used the concept and symbol of the ”Russian idea” to describe Russia's historical destiny and challenges in terms of metaphysics. The differences between their viewpoints were considerable. But the variety of approaches and ideas in Russian philosophy (as in any other serious philosophical tradition) is not a weakness but a reasonably necessary feature of the live philosophical process.
It is the ability of the Russian thought to genuinely understand concepts philosophically and to engage in a dialogue that makes it attractive at a different period in history. The basic example is the polemics of N. Berdyaev with the Eurasians (see journal “The Way”, 1925-1926). That dispute was both fundamental and tough. But, nevertheless, it was a philosophical dialogue and not a senseless exchange of ideological invectives.
So, both the viewpoints of Berdyaev and his opponents from the Eurasian side are valuable (L. Karsavin and G. Florovsky).
The speech, first of all, is about the views of various thinkers (Dostoevsky, Solovyev, Berdyaev) who directly used the concept and symbol of the ”Russian idea” to describe Russia's historical destiny and challenges in terms of metaphysics. The differences between their viewpoints were considerable. But the variety of approaches and ideas in Russian philosophy (as in any other serious philosophical tradition) is not a weakness but a reasonably necessary feature of the live philosophical process.
It is the ability of the Russian thought to genuinely understand concepts philosophically and to engage in a dialogue that makes it attractive at a different period in history. The basic example is the polemics of N. Berdyaev with the Eurasians (see journal “The Way”, 1925-1926). That dispute was both fundamental and tough. But, nevertheless, it was a philosophical dialogue and not a senseless exchange of ideological invectives.
So, both the viewpoints of Berdyaev and his opponents from the Eurasian side are valuable (L. Karsavin and G. Florovsky).