Неслучайный евразиец: Г.В. Флоровский в евразийском движении
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 provides a comparison of two intellectual accounts of experiences in the First World War – From the Letters of an Artillery Ensign (1918) by the Russian philosopher and writer Fjodor Stepun and The Storm of Steel (1920) by the German essayist Ernst Jünger. The aim of this article is to reveal similarities and differences between “optics” of Jünger and Stepun who are reporting one and the same event but deal with two different images of the Great War.
Since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, Russia’s support to the European far right—and to a variety of populist leaders more globally—has become a cornerstone of the West’s perception of Moscow as a “spoiler” on the international scene. The fact that Russia’s most fervent supporters are now to be found on the right of the ideological spectrum should not be a surprise. The European far right has always had Russophile tendencies, but these were obscured during the Cold War, when rightist politics were most of all anti-Communist. Entangled Far Rights traces the “intellectual romance” that existed between European far right groups and their Russian-Soviet counterparts during the twentieth century and accounts for their recent re-emergence.
This paper is aimed at exploring different interpretations of English revolutions (the Great rebellion of 1640s and the Glory revolution of 1688) in Chaadaev's first "Philosophical Letter", i.e. in its French original and in Russian translation published in 1836 in the Moscow review "Teleskop". First of all, this paper anasyses the discrepancies between two versions of Chaadaev's article, then Mikhail Velizhev reconstructs a possible reaction to its "English" fragments of Russian emperor Nicholas I basing on the hitherto unpublished archival materials (the excercise books of Nicholas dedicated to the English history).
The great age of Russian philosophy spans the century between 1830 and 1930 - from the famous Slavophile-Westernizer controversy of the 1830s and 1840s, through the 'Silver Age' of Russian culture at the beginning of the twentieth century, to the formation of a Russian 'philosophical emigration' in the wake of the Russian Revolution. This volume is a major history and interpretation of Russian philosophy in this period. Eighteen chapters (plus a substantial introduction and afterword) discuss Russian philosophy's main figures, schools and controversies, while simultaneously pursuing a common central theme: the development of a distinctive Russian tradition of philosophical humanism focused on the defence of human dignity. As this volume shows, the century-long debate over the meaning and grounds of human dignity, freedom and the just society involved thinkers of all backgrounds and positions, transcending easy classification as 'religious' or 'secular'. The debate still resonates strongly today.
An article from Mikhail Velizhev suggests a new interpretation of the rift between contexts that accompanied the creation and publication of Pyotr Chaadayev’s first «Philosophical Letter», as well as with the period in which the new political language Chaadayev used in his text was taking shape. The political language of French traditionalism had become fully consolidated in the political context of the Holy Alliance of European sovereigns; the ideology of this alliance was closely tied to one of the key texts of the Catholic tradition, Joseph de Maistre’s treatise «Du Pape». The foundational hypothesis of Velizhev’s article lies in the fact that, while actively using the language of the traditionalist-philosophers, Chaadayev was also reflecting upon the fate of the Holy Alliance.