Russian Philosophy of The 19th - Early 20th Century

Slavophiles and Westernizers. P. Ya. Chaadaev

It is appropriate to begin by noting that we will not delve into the contentious questions surrounding the genesis of Russian philosophy, particularly since, even among Russian specialists, there has long been no consensus regarding its beginnings. During Soviet times, it was common to trace the history of Russian philosophical thought back to Kievan Rus, considering the latter as the cradle of three fraternal nations. Even today, many Russian university textbooks present the history of Russian philosophy in this manner.

However, many Russian scholars date the emergence of philosophy in Russia to the 18th or even the 19th century. This includes Y. N. Kolubovsky (1863—?), who placed the gradual birth of Russian philosophy in the 18th century. A. I. Vvedensky (1865—1925) more precisely linked its origins to the establishment of Moscow University in 1755. A. F. Losev (1893-1988) similarly believed that philosophical interests in Russia awoke in the 18th century. E. L. Radlov (1854-1928) added that before the 18th century, the need for philosophy in Russia was minimal, and it was only in the 17th century that more systematic philosophical studies began in the schools of Kyiv and Moscow. G. G. Shpet (1878-1940) was perhaps the most categorical, claiming that the entire spiritual history of Russia, up to the mid-19th century, was marked by philosophical ignorance. N. O. Lossky (1870-1960) in his History of Russian Philosophy also begins his examination in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

All these positions should be approached critically, as the forms in which national philosophies exist can vary, and different scholars of philosophical thought may understand the essence of philosophy differently. We focus here on Russian philosophy of the period we have selected because the Ukrainian and Russian peoples developed alongside each other within the same state, and many representatives of these nations studied or worked in Ukrainian or Russian cities, contributing to the spiritual wealth of both nations.

Slavophiles and Westernizers. P. Ya. Chaadaev

The 1840s in Russia were marked by intense polemics between Slavophiles and Westernizers on a wide range of issues, including philosophy. As spiritual movements, both groups began to form in the 1830s, and the debates of the 1840s only demonstrated their maturity. Superficially, the disagreements centered on the relationship between Russia and Europe, but beneath this lay deeper questions about Russia’s historical fate and the pressing issues of Russian life. Those who emphasized Russia’s uniqueness and opposed the mechanical transplantation of philosophical and political ideas onto Russian soil formed the Slavophile camp. In their view, Europe, since the time of Rome, had gone down a misguided path. Conversely, those who believed that Western European culture was more advanced and that Russia should adopt its achievements were called Westernizers. Let us examine some representatives of both movements in the context of their philosophical positions.

Slavophiles

Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1806-1856). As was customary among the nobility at that time, Kireevsky spent his youth abroad, particularly in Germany, where he attended lectures by Schelling and Schleiermacher, saw Hegel, and visited lectures by Hegel’s students in Berlin. Upon returning to Russia, he founded the journal The European, which was closed after the second issue following the publication of his article The Nineteenth Century. He also published articles such as On the Character of European Enlightenment and Its Relationship to Russian Enlightenment and On the Necessity and Possibility of New Foundations for Philosophy. In his later years, he worked on a Course of Philosophy.

While still in the West, Kireevsky noticed what he perceived as a disconnect between the "heartfelt and intellectual convictions" of the Western intelligentsia. He developed the idea that the Russian mind and character were marked by "wholeness," a unity of all the "demands of the spirit," where "all individual powers merge into one living and integral vision of reason." He became deeply concerned with the problem of uniting faith and reason, concluding that this reconciliation could be achieved through the harmonious integration of all the spiritual forces of a person, including reason, feelings, and will. A person who achieves such spiritual wholeness gains the capacity for mystical intuition and access to suprarational truths about God.

From this perspective, Kireevsky offered a critical assessment of Western European philosophical development. The philosophical system he envisioned was to be created collectively, based on the foundations laid by the Church Fathers. His broader worldview also influenced his vision of societal life, where he idealized communal order. The unity of society (later conceptualized as sobornost) was possible only through the free submission of individuals to absolute values, which were imbued with religious significance.

Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860) graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics at Moscow University. From 1825 to 1828, he traveled abroad (France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria). After some time in the military, participating in the Russo-Turkish war, he retired and engaged in agriculture. In 1847, he visited Europe again, meeting Schelling. He wrote literary works and religious-philosophical essays, spending many years working on his unfinished Thoughts on Universal History.

Khomyakov shared many views with Kireevsky, particularly the belief that knowledge is achieved through whole reason, where faith and reason are harmoniously united. The aim of knowledge was the revelation of God. He developed the concept of the Church as an organic whole, whose fundamental principle was sobornost. Sobornost (communality) meant the collective nature of believers in their inner essence, where neither the patriarch nor the ecumenical councils were absolute bearers of truth. Sobornost expressed the unity of people (founded on shared love for God and His truth) and their freedom. Khomyakov used the term "Church" exclusively in reference to Orthodoxy.

Khomyakov's views on society and its history were closely linked to his religious and philosophical convictions. He explained the entire historical process as a struggle between two principles: the Aryan and the Kushitic. The first signified spiritual devotion to God, while the second (whose homeland was Ethiopia) represented submission to matter. The Aryan principle embodied freedom, and the Kushitic, necessity. The Aryan principle was characteristic of the Greeks, from whom it passed through Byzantium to Russia, while the Kushitic principle, originating in Africa, was inherited by Rome and persists in Western Europe to this day. Therefore, in Khomyakov's view, Western civilization was doomed.

Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) preserved the core ideas of his predecessors and gave finality to the Slavophile understanding of history. The central aspect of his philosophical-historical views was the theory of the state and the land. Here, the word "land" is not used in the agricultural sense but as a category expressing a certain independent principle of social life in the country, separate from the state. The state and the land are two engines of Russian history. The land is founded on the principle of moral duty and inner freedom, while the state relies on the principle of law.

Until Peter I's reforms, the land and the state existed in Russia independently and parallel, never mixing. Such coexistence was desirable for the future, as it represented Russia's uniqueness. Aksakov explained Russia's eternal tranquility, disrupted by Peter I, by the fact that the Russian people were not preoccupied with political ambitions and had no lust for power, which Peter tore them away from by alienating them from their native soil.

The ideas of Slavic nationalism were also embraced by Y. F. Samarin (1819-1876), and elements of Slavic thought can be found in the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, V. S. Solovyov, L. M. Tolstoy, and even in later thinkers, writers, and public figures in Russia.

Westernizers
The proponents of this movement included representatives of the circle of M. V. Stankevich (1813-1840), which at one point encompassed V. G. Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov, M. O. Bakunin, I. S. Turgenev, M. N. Katkov, and T. M. Granovsky. The members of this circle primarily studied German philosophy (Schelling, Hegel) and did not pursue any specific political agenda; however, as noted by O. I. Herzen, they were united by "a profound sense of alienation from official Russia and the milieu surrounding them." This circle existed until 1839 and contributed to the dissemination of German classical philosophy, the ideas of Enlightenment, and humanism in Russia.

Among the Westernizers were also representatives of the so-called Moscow circle, such as O. I. Herzen (1812-1870) and M. P. Ogaryov (1813-1877). The Westernizers believed that Russia, in its future development, should follow the path of the West and assimilate European science. They showed little interest in religious issues or any divine purpose attributed to Orthodox Russia. Some among them even became advocates of socialism. A figure who stood at the crossroads of Slavic nationalism and Westernization, from which both movements to some extent draw, was P. Y. Chaadayev. Therefore, let us first examine the peculiarities of his worldview.

Chaadayev, Pyotr Yakovlevich (1794-1856) studied at Moscow University and participated in the war of liberation against Napoleon. From 1823 to 1826, he lived abroad, meeting with F. Schelling and later corresponding with him. In 1829, he began writing his treatise "Philosophical Letters," completing it in 1831. In 1836, the journal "Teleskop" published the first letter from this treatise, after which persecution began against both the editor of the journal and the author. Chaadayev was declared insane, and the journal was closed. The first letter was only republished in 1906, and in the 1930s, an additional 2-5 letters were published abroad.

This unanimous attitude of the official authorities—from Emperor Nicholas I to the communist leaders of the Soviet Union—towards Chaadayev’s works can be explained by the fact that in the very first letter, he critically assessed Russia, praised the West, and emphasized that Russia seemed created to show other nations how not to live.

Chaadayev's worldview is fundamentally religious. He interprets being as the emanation of God or "a higher world consciousness" and divides it into three forms: material being (nature), historical being (the lives of people), and spiritual being. The latter form directly expresses the world's creative energy, while the other forms do so indirectly: nature reveals its ideal essence through the corporeal, and history expresses it through the lives and thoughts of people.

In knowledge, Chaadayev distinguished two paths:

1. the ordinary path, based on sensory and rational activity;
2. revelation, by which one attains knowledge of the general laws of being.

Herzen, Alexander Ivanovich graduated from the physics and mathematics faculty of Moscow University. From 1834, he was in exile. In 1842, he retired, and by 1847, he was in emigration, where he organized a free printing press and engaged in propagandistic struggles against the Tsar.

Herzen was not particularly interested in metaphysical questions, although he was well-versed in philosophy. His "Letters on the Study of Nature" hold the most philosophical significance. At the center of this work lies the problem of the unity of being and thought. Herzen criticizes idealism for detaching consciousness from its real foundation and dissolving nature in reason. At the same time, he critiques materialism, defining his own position as realism.

Herzen indicates that the material world exists in a constant state of interaction, movement, and development. The historical progression of nature culminates in humanity. Without humanity, he emphasized, nature would lack meaning. Consciousness completes nature; through human consciousness, nature becomes self-aware, and thus the history of thought is a continuation of the history of nature, with the laws of thought being the consciously recognized laws of being.

He critiques empiricism and rationalism as extremes, stressing: "Experience and reasoning are two necessary, true, and real degrees of the same knowledge."