Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:20:52.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herzen or Kierkegaard?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

E. Lampert
E. Lampert*
Affiliation:
Department of Russian Studies, University of Keele, Staffordshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 210 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 My limited acquaintance with Kierkegaard's work accounts also for the fact that, whatever similarities there may or may not be between his and Herzen's “philosophy of existence,” the merit of detecting them in my own discussion of Herzen (in Studies in Rebellion) belongs to Mr. Davison, not to me. I was unaware of such similarities before he drew my attention to them.

2 Mr. Davison cannot be serious in making Herzen dismiss revolution as a mere “bloody battle cry.” But the tendency is familiar among Western writers on Herzen. I would remind Mr. Davison of Herzen's own words addressed to Mazzini (letter of September 13, 1850) and specifically referring to “Omnia mea mecum porto” in From the Other Shore: “What I demand,” he wrote, “what I preach is a complete break with incomplete revolutionaries: they reek of reaction two hundred yards away.“

3 It should be noted that the term “science” (nauka) among Herzen's Russian contemporaries was used primarily with reference to Hegelian philosophy or to philosophy in general. It did not necessarily denote “natural science.“