Russian Religious Philosophy at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Slavophiles and Westernizers on the Paths of Russia's Development

According to the prevailing view, Russian philosophical thought primarily revolves around issues of ethics, politics, and religion. However, this position is not entirely accurate. Russian philosophers at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries engaged with a much broader spectrum of philosophical problems, including ontological, epistemological, aesthetic, historical, and social concerns. Naturally, all these issues were often illuminated by the somewhat mystical light of Christian doctrine. A significant number of Russian thinkers dedicated their lives to developing a comprehensive religious worldview, which is a defining characteristic of Russian philosophy. The profound impact of the development of Russian philosophy on the interpretation of the world in the spirit of Christianity speaks volumes; it has undoubtedly influenced the fate of civilization as a whole.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Russia underwent events whose historical weight rivals that of the modern era. In the school of great trials, the foundations of Russian statehood continued to form, while in dialogue with the broader European culture, Russian national consciousness strengthened, and the traits of the Russian character, the so-called "Russian spirit," became increasingly evident.

Slavophiles and Westernizers on the Paths of Russia's Development

The emergence of a distinctive Russian philosophy began with the formulation and contemplation of the question regarding Russia's historical destiny. In the heated debates of the late 1830s and 1840s about the role and place of Russia in world history, Slavophilism and Westernism took shape as opposing currents of Russian socio-philosophical thought.

The central problem around which the discussion revolved can be formulated as follows: Is Russia's historical path akin to that of Western Europe, with its uniqueness lying solely in its backwardness, or does Russia possess a distinctive path, and is its culture of a different type? In seeking answers to this question, alternative concepts of Russian history emerged: the Westernizers versus the Slavophiles.

The leaders of the Slavophiles—Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860), Ivan Vasilyevich Kireyevsky (1806-1856), Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860), and Yuri Fyodorovich Samarin (1819-1876)—advocated for a unique developmental trajectory for Russia. They posited that Russia has its own special path, shaped by its history, its place in the world, its vast territory and population, geographical positioning, and the distinctive traits of the Russian national character, often referred to as the Russian "soul."

Among these traits, they included: an orientation toward spiritual (religious) rather than material values, the primacy of faith over rationality, the paramount importance of collectivist motives—"sobornost"—and the willingness of individuals to integrate their activities into the collective endeavors of the community and the state.

The three foundational elements of Russia's unique historical path, according to the Slavophiles, were Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality, though they interpreted these differently than the official government ideology. Firstly, of these three elements, they considered Orthodoxy to be paramount, rather than autocracy (as held in the official government ideology). Secondly, and importantly, by "autocracy," they meant an exemplary autocratic monarchy—a set of ideal principles upon which the state should be based. These ideal principles, in the view of the Slavophiles, were not adequately embodied in Russian reality and, in many respects, were distorted, yet they could and should be rectified.

Furthermore, the term "Orthodoxy" gained interpretation as embodying the eternal truths of goodness, justice, mercy, and humanity. This essence was not equated with official Orthodoxy, let alone the practices of the Orthodox Church.

From the perspective of their constructed ideal, the Slavophiles sharply criticized both European and Russian realities. In the West, K. Aksakov wrote, the soul is suffocated, replaced by improvements in state forms, and conscience is supplanted by law. Conversely, A. Khomyakov, while critiquing Russian reality, noted its typical characteristics, such as illiteracy, injustice, banditry, sedition, oppression of the individual, poverty, disorder, ignorance, and debauchery.

Thus, when the Slavophiles spoke of a "special path for Russia," they did not mean the preservation of the existing social reality in Russia. Instead, they referred to adherence to certain social and moral values, which they regarded as traditional for Russia and antithetical to the values of Western European culture. Their primary task was to ensure that the best values of Russian culture manifested more fully in life.

The Westernizers, such as P. Chaadaev and A. Herzen, believed that there could not be an alternative path for Russia, one that diverged from that of Western Europe, capable of facilitating the development of both society and the individual. They harshly criticized not only Russian reality (a critique shared by the Slavophiles) but also the foundational aspects of social and spiritual life in Russia at that time, such as autocracy and Orthodoxy. Their primary objective was the education of the people, the establishment of democratic principles in existence, and the attainment of greater social and political freedom for individuals.

An orientation toward Western European civilization, a critique of the Orthodox Church, and a justification of the prioritization of the personal over the collective are already clearly evident in P. Chaadaev. At the same time, while criticizing the Church, P. Chaadaev deemed it necessary to preserve Christianity as the foundation of individual spirituality. A. Herzen leaned more towards materialism and atheism.

Despite all their differences, the Westernizers and Slavophiles shared many commonalities. What united them was a love for freedom, a love for Russia, and a commitment to humanism. They placed spiritual values at the forefront of their value scale, were deeply concerned with the issue of moral growth for the individual, and held a disdain for philistinism. From the entire system of Western European values, the Westernizers essentially sought to adopt only the orientation towards reason, science, and rational understanding of the world.

The Westernizers also maintained that Russia should not and could not blindly copy the Western European experience. By embracing the primary achievements of Western Europe, Russia would not replicate its negative aspects but would present to the world higher and more perfected models of social and spiritual life. The ideal of a moral individual shared by both the Westernizers and Slavophiles encompasses several fundamental traits: the moral individual is oriented toward high moral values and norms, aligning their behavior with them based on free will, without any external coercion.

The main principled difference between the Westernizers and Slavophiles stemmed from the question of what foundation could and should be followed toward the social and moral ideal: reliance on religion and faith, based on the history and traditions of the Russian people, or reliance on reason, logic, and science, and the transformation of social reality according to the advanced models of European life.

The development of these two distinct philosophical and ideological approaches to the transformation of social reality continued to resonate within Russian religious philosophy.