Philosophical polylogue

K.P. Pobedonostsev: autocracy as a personal interest or a result of immanent criticism of multiparty democracy?

Miša Đurković — 2025-06-30

The article examines the socio-political legacy of the famous Russian lawyer and statesman, Chief Pro¬secutor of the Holy Synod Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827–1907), and analyzes the reasons why he strongly advocated the tsar rule and autocracy in Russia. Usually, Pobedonostsev’s rejection of democracy and his active propaganda of monarchy and imperial autocracy are explained by the peculiarities of his personality, such as reactionism, backwardness, and even by his own selfish interests. The author of the article substantiates the thesis that Pobedonostsev was a widely educated person in the European context, who closely followed the development and problems of Western representative democracy. The author convincingly shows that Pobedonostsev’s reflections in this area were an organic part of the pan-European intellectual discussion about the necessity to change the democratic system in the era of mass parties. Thus, the article relies on and develops the approach of A.Yu. Polunov, who claimed that Pobedonostsev’s worldview had been formed under the strong influence of European political thought. Regarding Pobedonostsev’s views in the context of the tradition of Western criticism of liberal democracy, which were presented, in particular, in the works of Moisey Ostrogorsky, Hilaire Belloc and Robert Michels, published many years after the publication of the Moscow Collection, the author comes to the conclusion that the ideas of the Russian conservative thinker remain rather relevant today, since they contribute to a better understanding of the true, i.e. aggressive essence of the modern Western democracies, reveal the behind-the-scenes processes of dehumanization, cultural degradation and offer effective ways to counteract these tendencies.

“The life of ordinary people”: Mikhail Lifshitz and Igor Satz on good and evil

Aleksey S. Lagurev — 2025-06-30

The article, based on the analysis of archival materials of M.A. Lifshitz and his correspondence with the literary scholar and philosopher I.A. Sats, examines the moral and ethical aspects characteristic of the representatives of the “movement” in Soviet philosophy of the 1930s. Particular attention is paid to considering the desire of Lifshitz and Sats to find intermediary links in the chain connecting word and deed, i.e. Marxist science and revolutionary practice. A look at this “movement” of the thirties through the prism of its understanding of the philosophical ideas and socio-political positions of Socrates, D. Diderot and N.G. Chernyshev¬sky allows the author of the article to take a more specific look at the consequences that this desire had for the fate of its participants, and above all Sats, whose letters are the focus of the article. By referring to the materials of the Lifshits archive in the ARAS, the author of the article traces the connection between the peculiarities of the individual fate of the participants of the “movement” and their general theoretical, Marxist position in matters of ethics and the philosophy of history. It is shown that the participants of the “movement”, starting from the dialectical-materialistic view of the problem of good and evil, considered it from the point of view of the development and formation of free initiative of the individual and the community. Thus, what contributes to this process in the specific circumstances of the time, in their opinion, is what can be called good from an ethical point of view, and what hinders it is evil. It is concluded that, adhering to the historical, Marxist understanding of morality, both Lifshits and Sats defined it as the unification of the simplest, most ordinary, absolutely unremarkable persons by the power of honest, free comradeship.

Dialogue of cultures in N.A. Berdyaev’s philosophy of history

Elena E. Mikhailova — 2025-06-30

This article explores the dialogue of cultures in the philosophy of history of N.A. Berdyaev. The concept of culture in Berdyaev’s historiosophical thought is examined, where culture is seen as the preservation of traditions, the memory of the past, and the creation of new values. According to the Russian philosopher, the origins of culture are sacred, its origins are noble, and its achievements are symbolic, individual, and unique in nature. Berdyaev identifies the following periods of cultural development: or¬ganic (creative implementation of values) and critical (civilizational coarsening). It is noted that within organic culture, Berdyaev describes two developmental vectors – conservative and creative. This duality, he argues, accounts for the strength and resilience of culture. In Berdyaev’s historiosophy, the dialogue of cultures manifests in various forms. The most prominent is the encounter between East and West, specifically between Orthodox Russia and Catholic Europe. In Berdyaev’s terminology, the dialogue of cultures is characterized as the “mutual completion of the two experiences and the two paths”. Special attention is given to the fact that the idea of reconciling the two Christian religions originates from V.S. Solovyov. However, recognizing its significance, Berdyaev critically assessed the method of reconciliation proposed by Solovyov, namely the correction of theological dogmas. According to Berdyaev, it is necessary to free ourselves from cultural stereotypes and mutually explore the nature of religious and mystical experience in order to create a space for the encounter of cultures. He believed that Orthodox Russia, with its “messianic sensitivity,” was capable of bringing brotherhood of man and freedom of spirit to the world. It is concluded that at the beginning of the 20th century Berdyaev called for mutual recognition and enrichment of traditions.

Nikolai Vasilyev’s litigation about non-being

Grigory G. Dityatev — 2025-06-30

This article analyzes and reassesses the ideas of the outstanding Russian philosopher and logician, professor at Kazan University, N.A. Vasiliev (1880–1940). After reviewing the main interpretations of his work in the historical and philosophical literature, the author of the article argues that Vasiliev’s theoretical legacy should be considered not only in terms of the justification and development of non-Aristotelian logic, but also in a broader context, emphasizing the profound philosophical, primarily ontological, content of his concept. The article demonstrates that Vasiliev’s interpretation of contradiction as the basis of logical negation allowed him to develop a fundamentally new perspective on the ontological content of the concept of “non-being”. As a result, non-being began to be understood as a supplement to being, taken as a subject-contra¬diction. Vasiliev proposed an original interpretation of the dialectical form of contradiction – that is, one connected to objective reality – as non-being, which is the negative part of existence, concentrated in the acting subject. Thus, the author of the article insists that Vasiliev should be considered the founder of a new tradition of ontologizing non-being, significantly different from the Romantic tradition that became widespread in the modern era. He comes to the conclusion that Vasiliev’s scientific legacy remains of great importance for the development of the original Russian philosophical tradition, in particular Russian cosmism. It is noted that Vasiliev’s imaginary logic also has independent value, since it represents a convincing immanent criticism of Aristotle’s formal logic, an attempt to adapt it to the new, Newtonian-Cartesian picture of the world. Moreover, the concept of imaginary logic may be of use for contemporary political reflection, in particular for ideologists of Russian conservatism, as it helps to justify the spiritual and moral guidelines of society.

On the organic unity of man and the state in the work of I.A. Ilyin

Sergey A. Malinin — 2025-06-30

This article examines the evolution of Ivan Ilyin’s political views from conservative-liberal to monarchist, tracing their reflection in his doctrine of the unity of man and state. It is noted that initially, while discussing the fundamental tenets of Hegel’s philosophical worldview, Ilyin posed the question of the ability of the national spirit, upon which the state is founded, to create conditions for the harmonious and free development of the human being. Then, reflecting on the results of the Russian revolutions and summarizing the experience of contemporary history, he concluded that there was not and cannot be an automatic triumph of morality in the life of socio-political organisms, and that ensuring the personal development of man is possible only through the targeted work of the elite to educate the morality and legal consciousness of the masses. In the years preceding World War II, Ilyin published works in which he mythologized the mission of the aristocratic elite in world history and welcomed the emergence of fascism as a concrete historical form of the “eternal White movement”. He be¬lieved that this movement is a positive-aristocratic force in world history that enlightens people and leads them to a good goal. In the postwar period, the Russian thinker reflected extensively on the crisis of Western democracy and parliamentarism, which arose against the backdrop of rapidly growing mass activism all aver the world and resulted in the emergence of Bolshevik and National Socialist variants of totalitarianism, which, in Ilyin’s opinion, destroyed the eternal value foundations of human existence. The Russian thinker sets the task of forming a new Russian statehood and tries to prove that this process necessarily includes a period of harsh aristocratic dictatorship, which must grow on a corporatist-solidarist and constitutional-monarchist basis.

Radu Florescu as the father of Russian Draculology

Oleg N. Talmazan — 2025-06-30

The article emphasizes the fact that the cultural affiliation of authors (researchers, prose writers, philologists, essayists) largely determines their interpretation of the image of Vlad Dracula. Thus, English-language authors are mainly guided by the works of Kurt Treptow and Elizabeth Miller. As for the contemporary Russian philologists and essayists studying Dracula, they are largely dependent on the views of the Romanian historian Radu Florescu, despite the fact that this topic is comprehensively covered in the fundamental work of Ya.S. Lurye, published six years earlier than the book of Florescu. It is shown that direct references to the text of the Romanian historian and uncritical borrowings from it are found in the works by M.P. Odessky, T.A. Mikhailova, V.L. Gopman, F. Morozova, V.V. Erlikhman, and others. Russian prose writers such as E.V. Artamono¬va, S.S. Lyzhina and V. Zadunaisky are less influenced by Florescu’s assessments in their interpretations of Dracula, but his influence and indirect citations from his book are evident in their works as well. The author of the article stresses that Florescu’s work, however, is not a scholarly history or a biography of Vlad III Basarab. The Romanian scholar wrote his book in the USA and exclusively for the American reader: he wanted his work to become as successful a bestseller as that of B. Stoker. To this end, Florescu presented episodes from works of fiction and obviously fictitious political pamphlets as reliable historical sources. The result, however, was incredible: the fictional vampire novel first sparked a flood of similar works of popular culture and then began to influence historians, philologists, and professional resear¬chers. It is concluded that the real image of Dracula differs from that generally accepted in fiction and scientific literature.

Latin American and Russian philosophy and literature in dialogue

Edward V. Demenchonok — 2025-06-30

Unlike “cancel culture” and the hegemon’s mo¬no¬logism, the dialogue between Russian and La¬tin American philosophers asserts and exemplifies the normativity of intercultural dialogue. This article examines culturally embedded Russian and Latin American philosophies and their shared characteristics combining the national-spe¬¬cific and the universal. Russia and the countries of Latin America strive for independent development, which is expressed in their philosophical self-awareness. The dialogue between their philosophers is facilitated by common themes, such as freedom, national identity, relations with the hegemonic West, and war and peace. The article highlights the mutually benefi¬cial relationship between philosophy and literature, exemplified in the works by F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, V.S. Solovyov, M.M. Bakhtin, N.A. Berdyaev, A. Car¬pentier, G. García Márquez, and J.L. Bor-ges. It also analyzes the contributions of Latin American and Russian philosophers to intercultural philosophy, which ad¬vo¬cates recognizing the diversity of original cultures and their dialogical relations. This intercultural dialogue is an example of dia¬logical relations in politics within society and between nations. R. Fornet-Betancourt’s project of the intercultural transformation of philosophy is examined, as are the ideas of intercultural philosophy deve¬loped in the works of M.T. Stepanyants, A.V. Smirnov, V.A. Lektorsky, and others. The article considers the prospects for developing intercultural philosophy in connection with its ability to contribute to the ideological justification of the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order. An alternative to hegemon-centric dystopia is “new cosmopolitanism” as critical, rooted, democratic, dialogical, and transformative.

Later Wittgenstein, contextual realism, and the problem of the ideal according to E.V. Ilyenkov

Igor Е. Pris — 2025-06-30

The relevance of the philosophical heritage of the Soviet philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov is shown. It is argued that the concept of the ideal, developed by Ilyenkov from the standpoint of dialectical materialism, can be considered now from the point of view of contextual realism, one of the sources of which is the philosophy of the late L. Wittgenstein. In the article contextual realism is characterized as formal (minimal) realism (reality is primary, simply such as it is; the concept of reality is the primary explanatory concept; reality is primary in the metaphysical sense as well) and as formal categorical dualism of the real and the ideal (concepts, rules, norms, theories, meaning are ideal, not part of reality; the ideal, however, if it is not pseudo-ideal, objectively exists, is rooted in the real, i.e. has real, or contextual, conditions for its existence and application). It is concluded that Ilyenkov’s position adequately fits into the framework of contextual realism, since the Soviet philosopher always fought against dogmatism, while genuine, non-dogmatic realism is impossible without contextualism. The author of the article interprets contextual realism as a philosophy on the basis of which Ilyenkov’s understanding of the ideal can be corrected, deepened and developed. Along with this, through contextual realism it is possible, the author believes, to save dialectical materialism from dogmatism and actualize this teaching, supplementing it with Wittgenstein’s “therapeutic” method. In this case, supporters of dialectical materialism will have to take into account that contextuality is a fundamental epistemological and ontological property of reality and that the main question of philosophy, or the problem of the ideal, is never solved, but “ bsolute iccally” removed.

Prophecy through the past: A.I. Herzen’s Renaissance universalism

Vladimir Solovyov — 2025-06-30

The article draws attention to the cultural philosophy of A.I. Herzen, a thinker whose legacy is resonant with the astonishing accuracy of his prophecies in My Past and Thoughts. It is shown that Herzen’s firm ideological convictions were matched by a flexible mind, so that his adherence to Westernizers’ teachings did not prevent him from embracing the rational and deeply patriotic elements of Slavophile thought. The author stresses that Herzen’s broad intellectual horizons were harmoniously combined with his dialectical grasp of contemporary ideas, so balanced by reflection and skepticism that they precluded bsoluteism, dogmatism, and orthodoxy in his thinking and judgment. It is argued that the specificity of Herzen’s philosophical position lies in the fact that, on the one hand, he placed a high value on man in his picture of the world, emphasizing the unconditional priority of freedom and individual rights, and on the other hand, he turned to the study of nature, arguing the thesis that its inherent harmony and perfection can serve as a guide for social development and the solution of various problems. The article devotes special attention to the moral, ethical, and aesthetic aspects of the Russian thinker’s work, particularly his views on literature and art. It emphasizes that the aesthetic element was inherent in Herzen’s mental makeup to the same extent that he incorporated philosophy into his aesthetics, journalism, and literary work. It is concluded that the discursive nature of Herzen’s legacy, coupled with the highly artistic language of his philosophical works, represents not only a fascinating monument to Russian literature but also a personally charged, unique way of thinking and speaking, a signature of life – in other words, an invaluable cultural source of the era.

Lostology of Russian culture

Liang Zi — 2025-06-30

Throughout history, landscapes have not only shaped the physical world but also the cultural psychology of various countries. Among these landscapes, the forests hold a special position, particularly in Russia, where the vast and bound¬less nature is inseparable from the collective psychology of the Russian people. In Russian culture, the forest is not only a physical landscape but also a profound cultural and psychological symbol, reflecting a deep rooted “forest complex” in the national psyche of a heavily forested country. The phenomenon of “getting lost” in the Russian forest, a recurring motif in literature and folklore, transcends mere physical disorientation to become a metaphor for existential and spiritual exploration. By synthesizing insights from Russian literature and cultural narratives, this article examines how the forest serves as a liminal space where individuals confront their deepest fears, desires, and uncertainties, revealing themes of self-discovery, identity, and the tension between civilization and wilderness. Furthermore, it connects the symbolism of getting lost in the forest with contemporary social issues, such as environmental degradation and the existential disorientation of modern life, highlighting the enduring significance of the forest as a cultural archetype and its role in shaping the Russian psyche. Through an interdisciplinary approach, this article offers insights into the universal human experience of disorientation and its broader cultural implications, providing a understanding of the complex relationships between people and society, as well as between humanity and nature. In the forest, as in life, the paths we take are often uncertain, and the destinations we seek may remain forever out of reach. It is in the act of wandering, of confronting the unknown, that we find the possibility of our transformation and renewal.