Семён Франк, Лев Карсавин и евразийцы
This chapter examines the personal and ideological contacts between members of the Russian émigré Eurasianist movement and representatives of the so-called “Conservative Revolution” in late Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s both movements professed similarly strong anti-Western and anti-democratic ideas. Yet, so far it has been little known that these groups and their members also had actual organizational contacts and direct personal interactions. Introducing new archival evidence from the Eurasianists’ personal papers, this chapter reveals that in the early 1930 Eurasianists indeed strove to forge a strategic alliance with several German rightist movements, such as “Gegner” (led by Harro Schulze-Boysen), “Die Tat” (led by Hans Zehrer), “Schwarze Front” (led by Otto Strasser) and “Widerstandsbewegung” (led by Ernst Niekisch). The Eurasianist A.P. Antipov met representatives of these groups in early February 1932, when he officially represented the Eurasianist movement at the “European Youth Congress” in Frankfurt organized by the French non-conformist Alexandre Marc and his group “Plans.” Following this event, some German “conservative revolutionaries,” in particular Schulze-Boysen, intensified their contacts and exchanged letters and programmatic statements with individual Eurasianists. By then, the Eurasianists had become part of an international, pan-European network of non-conformist groups in search of a “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism, between “left” and “right.”
The authors consider a very common (in Russia) kind of ideology of the “special path”. This ideology uses the idea of a special Russian civilization as a proof of the impossibility of full democratic development of Russia. The authors present a panorama of contemporary political forces which use, in one way or another, a new kind of nationalism — the civilizational nationalism — as well as analyze the causes and possible consequences (for Russia) of the growing interest of various political forces to such nationalism.
The article devoted to the evolution of P.P. Suvchinsky’s political views during his participation in the Eurasianist movement in 1920s. His role in so-called “the Clamar schism” is especially underlined. This “schism” was especially inspired by theoretical, not only organisational contradictions. The separation of Leftist Eurasianist from the “Right wing” was affected by the radicalization of Souvchinsky’s pre-Eurasianist views and also by the refusal of supremacy of religion in the public life. Besides, Souvchinsky also had started avoiding problem of the “East” and underlined the role of the “West”. Despite to the “Rightwing” of Eurasianism, Souvchinsky rejected Eurasianism as a dogmatic, formulated at the beginning of 1920s. He characterized Eurasianism as a multitude of ideas, which could be changed during the time. Afterwards, N.S. Trubetskoy characterised these Suvchinsky’s views as “aestetisation” of political position, usage of ideas as a palette for someone’s drawing. Previously, Souvchinsky interpreted “Ideology” in “Ideocratic way”, as a strict system of ideas, which dominated over the everyday activity. He grounded “Ideology” in the historical context, this mood inspired him to the legitimisation of status quo in the USSR. Pro-Soviet problematic, asserted by Suvchinsky, was consequently of special interest in the writings of “Right-wing” Eurasianists during the first half of 1930s.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.