We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Russian philosophy was an important context for the development of Tolstoy’s thought and was also decisively shaped by it, especially after his religious conversion. In A Confession (1882), Tolstoy explained the process and inner dynamics of his newfound faith: how he eventually became convinced that the ideals that had driven his lifelong efforts at self-perfection and moral perfectibility entailed a higher divine reality. This idealist conception of faith had much in common with Kant’s moral theology and was a powerful stimulus to the further development of Russian philosophy, culminating in the so-called Russian religious-philosophical renaissance of the early twentieth century. The first part of this chapter focuses on Russian philosophy after 1880, when Tolstoy’s influence was greatest. The second part turns to developments earlier in the century, showing how Russian philosophy, especially the famous Slavophile–Westernizer controversy of the 1840s and the subsequent development of Slavophile religious thought, formed the context for Tolstoy’s thinking on the three problems that most preoccupied him: human dignity, the meaning of progress, and the foundations of faith.
One of the abiding questions in the discourse on the idea of Europe since the Enlightenment has been whether Russia belongs within European civilization, or is essentially Asiatic. Following Peter the Great’s attempts to Europeanize Russia at the end of the seventeenth and in the early years of the eighteenth century, culminating in the construction of St Petersburg as a European city, Russia’s relation to (the rest of) Europe became a hotly disputed question both within and beyond Russia when Peter Chaadayev published his Philosophical Letters (1826–31), in which he claimed that Russia lacked all the qualities of a European nation. This led to a long-lasting debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles in Russia, culminating in the profoundly Slavophile views of Fyodor Dostoevsky, who took issue in particular with the Westernizing views of Ivan Turgenev. Russia’s relation to Europe was also explored by Western European writers, including Germaine de Staël and Astolphe de Custine. This Western European vision of Russia was often profoundly negative, with Russia being seen as an Asiatic threat to Europe. Chapter 4 explores this enduring debate on Russia’s relation to (the rest of) Europe, one that continues to this day.
Chapter 1 deals with those pre-twentieth-century Russian thinkers who developed their views of personhood and of freedom in dialogue with Western philosophy, and articulated the broad framework for later liberalisms. With the exception of Boris Chicherin, the men discussed in this chapter did not self-identify readily as liberals, but their engagement with both the value of negative freedom enshrined in law, and the idea of a social, ethical project, provided a powerful legacy on which their successors drew. While the possibilities for political participation increased towards the end of the century, the engagement with liberalism during this period was largely an intellectual endeavour.
This chapter indicates the problems the Vagliano brothers encountered in Russia as foreign trading companies. Their businesses could be described as a kind of proto-multinational that carried out international accounting. Their cosmopolitanism affected the hinterland of Imperial Russia’s South, and the story of the confrontation of Mari Vagliano with Russia indicates the populist and nationalist reaction to perceived foreign economic influence. Vagliano’s trial, which shook all of Russia for several months, has been described as the biggest trial in the legal history of Russia. This chapter examines the relationship of Mari Vagliano with Russian businessmen, government, and intelligentsia. As with Onassis’s legal battle with American authorities decades later, Mari Vagliano faced down highly public accusations of fraud and tax evasion, emerging from the confrontation unscathed. Vagliano and Onassis were prime paradigms for the survival of Greek firms involved in the international shipping business. Powerful governments have attacked entrepreneurial elites of foreign origin during periods of increasing nationalism and xenophobia.
This chapter focuses on the complex historical relationship between the Westernizer-Slavophile dispute and the genesis of Russian philosophy. Aleksandr Herzen depicted the two camps of Westernizers and Slavophiles as grown inseparably together, but two-headed like the Roman God Janus. Although their debates eventually touched all the principal domains of their respective worldviews, a few key subjects were always at the center of their polemics: the theme of Russia, of its history and nationality; and the theme of personhood, especially personhood in relation to society. The approach taken in this chapter is to treat Slavophilism less in relation to modern western philosophy and more in relation to Eastern Orthodox religious thinking about the nature of human community and about the relationship between God and human nature. Slavophile tendencies predominated in the philosophical process, in the sphere of creative thought, whereas Westernizers’ ideas were influential in social processes and shaping popular consciousness.
Muscovites almost universally regarded the grand prince as anointed by God and thus as deserving obedience. The most consequential thinker of the Russian Enlightenment was Catherine the Great, whose Nakaz treated liberty as a crucial ingredient of just rule. Between 1789 and the early 1830s a distinctively Russian variant of conservatism began to emerge. After the turn of the century but especially between 1826 and 1855 Russian intellectuals focused on the historical, religious and philosophical problem of Russian national identity. The Slavophiles' chief adversaries were the so-called Westernisers, a loose knit network of intellectuals usually thought to include the literary critic Vissarion Grigor'evich Belinsky. The Great Reforms so altered Russian social and civil life as to radically affect subsequent political debates. Dostoevsky's conservatism was predicated on opposition to Western liberalism and socialism, on hostility to individualism and capitalism, on rejection of Catholicism and religious authoritarianism.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.