CC BY
11
Перспективы Науки и Образования
Международный электронный научный журнал ISSN 2307-2334 (Онлайн)
Адрес выпуска: pnojournal.wordpress.com/archive20/20-02/ Дата публикации: 30.04.2020 УДК 378.147.31
Р. М. Рупова
Специфика преподавания истории русской философии ХХ века в высшей школе
Как показывает анализ учебных программ высшей школы, курс истории русской философии обычно завершается рассмотрением метафизики всеединства, развитой в трудах Вл. Соловьева, и ее преломлений в философских системах мыслителей Серебряного века. Автор имеет целью показать, что Серебряный век не был заключительным аккордом, и отследить дальнейшее развитие русской мысли - той её линии, которая органически продолжала философские поиски и открытия, состоявшиеся в дореволюционный период в России. За последние несколько десятилетий, когда, в силу радикального изменения российской социально-политической ситуации, открылся широкий доступ к зарубежным источникам, было осуществлено множество переводов и переизданий философских текстов русской эмиграции, что позволило реконструировать пути русской мысли ХХ века вне России. Возникновение в Европе очага русской религиозной философии и труды таких мыслителей, как Г. Флоровский, В.Н. Лосский, И. Мейендорф, и других привели к тому, что русская философия вышла на новый уровень - идентификации себя как иной по отношению к Западу философской традиции, выстраиваемой на фундаменте восточного христианства. По мнению автора статьи, это развитие русской мысли должно быть отражено в учебных пособиях по философии для высшей школы.
Ключевые слова: курс истории русской философии, философия Серебряного века, религиозная философия, неопатристический синтез, философская мысль русской эмиграции, Парижская школа
Ссылка для цитирования:
Рупова Р. М. Специфика преподавания истории русской философии ХХ века в высшей школе // Перспективы науки и образования. 2020. № 2 (44). С. 171-178. сЬк 10.32744/р$е.2020.2.14
Perspectives of Science & Education
International Scientific Electronic Journal ISSN 2307-2334 (Online)
Available: psejournal.wordpress.com/archive20/20-02/ Accepted: 4 January 2020 Published: 30 April 2020
R. M. Rupova
The specifics of teaching the history of Russian philosophy of the twentieth century in higher education
As an analysis of higher education curricula shows, the course of the history of Russian philosophy usually ends with a consideration of the metaphysics of unity, developed in the writings of Vl. Solovyov, and its refractions in the philosophical systems of thinkers of the Silver Age. The author aims to show that the Silver Age was not the final chord, and to track the further development of Russian thought - that line that organically continued the philosophical searches and discoveries held in the pre-revolutionary period in Russia. Over the past few decades, when, due to the radical change in the Russian socio-political situation, wide access to foreign sources was opened, many translations and reprints of philosophical texts of the Russian emigration were carried out, which allowed us to reconstruct the ways of Russian thought of the twentieth century outside Russia. The emergence in Europe of the center of Russian religious philosophy and the works of thinkers such as G. Florovsky, V.N. Lossky, I. Meyendorf, and others led to the fact that Russian philosophy has reached a new level - identifying itself as a different philosophical tradition in relation to the West, built on the foundation of Eastern Christianity. According to the author of the article, this development of Russian thought should be reflected in textbooks on philosophy for higher education.
Key words: history course of Russian philosophy, Silver Age philosophy, religious philosophy, neopatristic synthesis, philosophical thought of Russian emigration, Paris school
For Reference:
Rupova, R. M. (2020). The specifics of teaching the history of Russian philosophy of the twentieth century in higher education. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania - Perspectives of Science and Education, 44 (2), 171-178. doi: 10.32744/pse.2020.2.14
Introduction
tudying the history of Russian thought in higher education contributes to the
formation of the worldview foundation among students, the activation of their
own ethical and spiritual self-determination. This is an educational factor, for
"education in both the broad and narrow sense of the word is always carried out on the basis of culture" [11, p. 27]. Domestic culture in its diversity, including the philosophical search for the meaning of being, provides us with examples of deep understanding of the problems posed by human life in the world, its ancient and recent history. Tracking and understanding the dramatic path of Russian philosophy increases the personal potential of students, strengthens creative "personality characteristics significant for professional growth to the extent of their dominance in the personality structure" [16].
But, as the analysis of the curriculum of higher education shows, the presentation of material on the history of Russian philosophy is usually interrupted by the consideration of the metaphysics of unity - the doctrine developed in the writings of Vl. Soloviev -and his refractions in the philosophical systems of thinkers of the Silver Age. Students are invited to study the works of such philosophers of the early twentieth century, as V.V. Rozanov (1856 - 1919), L.I. Shestov (1866 - 1938), S.N. Bulgakov (1871 - 1944), N.A. Berdyaev (1874 - 1948), S.L. Frank (1877 - 1950), P.A. Florensky (1882 - 1937), L.P. Karsavin (1882 - 1952), I.A. Ilyin 1883 - 1954), A.F. Losev (1893 - 1988).
Indeed, these thinkers quite fully represent the period of the Silver Age of Russian thought. However, this is currently not enough. After the Revolution of 1917, which have limited of this period, Russian thought did not cease to exist, but developed already under very special conditions.
Consider a number of modern textbooks and manuals currently used to study the history of Russian thought. In the textbook for universities Shaposhnikova L.E. and Fedorova A.A. "The History of Russian Religious Philosophy" M.: Higher School, 2006 [22], we see that N.A. Berdyaev is represented as the final figure expressing the main ideas of Russian religious and philosophical thought. In the textbook Ermishina O.T. "Philosophy of Religion. Concepts of Religion in Foreign and Russian Philosophy", published in 2009 [3], the thinker that was completed the development of Russian philosophy was A.F. Losev. Further, after the break, S.S. Averintsev. Of course, the study book also examined the work of the philosophers mentioned above. The most complete of textbooks: History of Russian philosophy: ed. M.A. Maslin. (M., 20013). The section devoted to Russian religious philosophy ends with the chapter "Philosophy of the "Higher Synthesis" A.F. Loseva" [5]. A rare exception is the textbook K. Vedenko "History of religious philosophy", published in Rostov-on-Don in 2015 [2]. It has an additional section on "Modern neopatristics and neopalamism". The author of this article aims to justify the need in modern higher education to teach Russian philosophy, of taking into account its development throughout the entire 20th century. The Silver Age was not the final chord, and in the materials of the humanitarian cycle it is necessary to monitor the further development of Russian thought - that line that organically continued the philosophical searches and discoveries that took place in the pre-revolutionary period.
_Materials and methods
The construction of a curriculum in accordance with the educational standards of higher education requires taking into account modern scientific research on the studied issues.
Over the past few decades, when, due to the radical change in the Russian socio-political situation, wide access to foreign sources was opened, many translations and reprints of philosophical texts of the Russian emigration were carried out, which made it possible to reconstruct the ways of Russian thought of the twentieth century outside Russia. The completeness and validity of the coverage of the issues we are considering is achieved through the use of the retrospective analysis method. The historical and philosophical approach to Russian intellectual culture allows us to establish genetic connections between systems and concepts, to track the vectors of development of philosophical thought, its internal logic.
_The results of the study
As noted by G.N. Kuzmenko: "A characteristic feature of traditional social sciences and humanities, that is, sciences that have a long history, is an appeal to their past" [8]. The reconstruction of the path of Russian philosophy makes it possible to reproduce a sketchy picture of its formation and development.
V.V. Zenkovsky, historian and witness of the Russian philosophical process of the twentieth century, noted that "independent creativity in the field of philosophy, or rather, the first beginnings of it, we find in Russia only in the second half of the XVIII century, in the XIX century begins an era of intense, increasingly flaring philosophical movement, which determined the path of philosophy in Russia. However, it would be a great mistake to think that until the second half of the 18th century philosophical requests were alien to the Russian mind - in reality they ... usually found their solution in the religious worldview" [4, p. 17]. From its very first manifestations, Russian philosophy was formed under the influence of two determining factors: Russian culture in all its multidimensionality and European philosophy. The first of them gave the basis for its originality, influenced the problems and internal tasks. Thanks to the second, a situation arose where Russian philosophy came into close contact with highly organized Western thought, equipped with a developed categorical apparatus and methodology - due to the fact that the age of European philosophy has exceeded two millennia. In this case, a certain dependence inevitably arises from a more developed tradition. Moreover, "such a dependence never remains purely technical, for there are simply no "technical means" separate from the semantic content in philosophy. As a result, the means of expressing the new tradition inevitably come into conflict with its origins and objectives, and internal tensions arise in its depths - the eternal strife of new wine and old furs. The outcome of the conflict can be only one. A new train of thought will create its own language, its adequate forms and methods" [19, p. 76]. We note this fact, which is important for the didactic purposes of the humanitarian cycle of higher education - that fact that Russian thought is characterized by its conceptual design is not so much in the form of philosophical systems, but a large proportion of it always made up in the form of literature, poetry and journalism. "In our mental development," as wrote about this N.G. Chernyshevsky in middle of XIX century, literature plays a more significant role than French,
German, English literature in the mental development of its peoples... Our literature still concentrates almost all of the entire mental life of people, and therefore it expresses to such interests that in others countries express by institutions of other spheres of mental activity ... Our literature has some encyclopedic meaning, already lost by the literature of more enlightened peoples" [21, p. 789].
In the first half of the 19th century, the most prominent representatives of the philosophical and conceptual design of Russian thought were the Slavophiles, who set themselves the task of expressing Russian identity. The acuteness of the philosophical request of time was expressed by A.S. Khomyakov: "What is the purpose of this long unrecognized tribe, apparently condemned to some passive role in history? How to attribute his isolation and incomprehensible structure of his life ... - whether it is by its nature incapable of independent development and it's only intended to serve as a reserve material for renewing the impoverished forces of the advanced peoples, or the fact that the rudiments of a new enlightenment are stored in it, which time is not comes yet, but only after the exhaustion of the beginnings that are now use by mankind?" [17, p. 535].
This shows that the problem of the need for philosophy was wider than the academic frameworks. The Slavophiles so painfully and acutely felt the backwardness of Russia from the West that the issues of Slavic identity always gained ideological, political, sociocultural significance. In this confrontation, Westerners were much less original, offering Russia a way to imitate, copy Western sociocultural models. For the Slavophiles, who appealed to the national religious and cultural tradition, the task arose to explicate this tradition itself, to carry out its socio-philosophical analysis, to prove its vitality and superiority. This was a creative task, since the Slavophiles in their historiosophical models proceeded, rather, from their ideal, than from the reality of Ancient Russia. As G. Shpet, who was in his views diametrically opposed to the Slavophiles, wrote: "Slavophile problems are the only original problems of Russian philosophy, no matter how they are solved" [23, p. 37]. It is no accident in this context, the remark of A.S. Pushkin: "Russia never had anything in common with the rest of Europe ... its history requires a different thought, a different formula ..." [13, p. 284].
In the confrontation between the Slavophiles and the Westerners, the Westerners won a historic victory, but not at all because their concept was more true or more original - the secondary and imitative nature of their approaches is incomparable with the program of their opponents, whose high tasks were combined with the uncertainty of ways of solving them. At the same time, the Slavophile legacy remains relevant on all the further paths of Russian history - Russian thought repeatedly returned and rethought it. This is due to the fact that A.S. Khomyakov posed a problem that is described by a dichotomy: Westernization - the path of national identity, which is extremely significant for many countries of the world.
Giving a brief outline of the history of Russian thought, attention should be paid to the period of the Golden Age of Russian culture, the key figure of which was A.S. Pushkin. We can call this period West-East synthesis: "The successful conversion of "alien" into "one's own", borrowed into organic and creative meant that the leading role in the synthesis was played by their own, authentic principles - the experience of Russian history, mentality, Orthodox spirituality. ... We can assume that in its large structure, Russian synthesis was a synthesis of: Eastern Christian discourse - the experience of Russian historical being -secularized culture of the West" [18, p. 38].
To understand the Russian philosophical process in the twentieth century, an important figure is V.S. Soloviev (1853 - 1900). Under his influence, the very type of Russian philosophizing changed and domestic thought moved to a new stage. It was thanks to the
works of V. Solovyov that Russian thought was equipped with the professional arsenal of Western philosophy, which allowed it to express its own content and reach a new level. In the context of Western philosophy, V. Solovyov's system echoed the search for a renewal of European thought, which was characterized by criticism of positivism, sociocentrism, and philosophical rationalism. They are opposed by the concept of all-unity, which implies ecumenism in religion, the idea of building theocracy and morality as a philosophical category and the basis that defines life. At the same time, it is not the concept of all-unity in itself, but its combination with the idea of Sophia-Wisdom, which inspired all the work of V. Solovyov, characterizes the uniqueness of the philosopher in the history of Russian thought. The role of the philosopher is especially great in the tragic experience of history, in laying new paths of religious consciousness and, to a very large extent, in laying the foundation of Russian religious thought of the twentieth century. The role of Soloviev's thought will be fully understood if you look at it through the prism of the era of the Silver Age coming after him: "It is impossible to imagine a closer connection, a more complete, intimate historical and cultural coincidence than Vladimir Solovyov - and the Russian religious and philosophical renaissance" [20, p. 157].
Starting its movement from V. Solovyov, Russian religious philosophy more and more passed to the soil of the Orthodox tradition. At the beginning of this process are Pavel Florensky, S.N. Trubetskoy (1862 - 1905), Sergiy Bulgakov - they combined Orthodoxy with one or another of its author's transformations. In the middle and second half of the twentieth century, this line was continued by thinkers who developed Orthodox thought in the strict spirit of the patristic tradition. This is prot. George Florovsky (1893 - 1979), V.N. Lossky (1903 - 1958), prot. Alexander Shmeman (1921 - 1983), prot. John Meyendorf 1926 - 1992).
The discussion of the results
Understanding the vector of development of Russian philosophy can significantly facilitate the processes of its teaching in higher education. If we try to qualify Russian thought from the point of view of the main routes of European philosophy, the V. Solovyov's metaphysics of all-unity fits into the channel of ancient Platonism and Neoplatonism. The development of Russian philosophy that followed V. Solovyov went the way of creating his own philosophical tradition. To achieve this goal, careful study and thought over of Orthodoxy, which is a culture-forming religion for Russia, was required. At the same time, Western European thought, from which philosophical tools were borrowed, was already perceived as an obstacle to new philosophical tasks, now it was necessary to overcome its influence. Thus, the systems of I. Kant, G. Hegel, F. Nietzsche, C. Marx, O. Comte and others were rethought in Russian Philosophy as a result, the philosophers of the Silver Age, although supplementing their systems with elements of Christian discourse, but didn't fit into the patristic tradition in any way according to the important line of Christian cosmology, which states that created being can not connect with God in essence, but only in energy. The metaphysics of all-unity, which does not take this principle into account, is thus just a variation of Hellenistic idealism. A.F. Losev designated the philosophical approach carried out by himself and other Russian thinkers, his contemporaries, as "Christian Neoplatonism." This characteristic of the Silver Age philosophy defines it in the coordinates of the world philosophical process.
The First World War, the battles of which took place on the inhabited European expanses, the Revolution, the tragedy of forced emigration - all this created the feeling of an abyss widening underfoot. In Paris, among Russian thinkers, mostly expelled from Russia on the famous "philosophical ship", the St. Sergius Theological Institute (1925) was created, which became the center of Russian thought outside of Russia. The Paris school accumulated the most important intellectual processes of Russian emigration, created an environment for the further development of Russian philosophy, which was impossible in Russia during this period [15, p. 169]. A mutually enriching dialogue of eastern and western discourses took place in this environment. But the main thing is that there was a new discovery of Orthodox theology, significant efforts were made to interpret it in the language of modern philosophical thought. And Russian philosophy has found a new way in emigration, defined by a new ontology that is different from all the philosophical systems prevailing in the West. At this historical moment, a call was made by G. Florovsky: "forward, to the Fathers!", which became the key formula for neopatristic synthesis (1936). Not only Orthodox theologians turned to the patristic heritage, but also philosophers, as well as representatives of other Christian denominations. There was a new discovery of the patristic heritage. Depth attention to palamism, the mystical-ascetic tradition of Christianity, was in the writings of Bishop Vasily (Krivoshein) [1], V.N. Lossky [9], who performed a rigorous analysis of the theology of energies of St. Gregory Palamas, Archimandrite Kiprian (Kern) [6], Archpriest John Meyendorf [10], who carried out extensive work on the historical reconstruction of Byzantine Hesychasm and Palamite theology [14]. These works, which have become classics, were in line with the proclaimed by Prot. George Florovsky appeal. Together, they laid the foundation for a new stage in Russian philosophy, in which the mystical-ascetic tradition of the Eastern Church was understood as a phenomenon of paramount importance.
In exile, Russian philosophy continued to develop its originality in ontology - "the doctrine of being, its universal foundations, methods and laws of its existence and development" [12] - and came to the creation of a new philosophical system, that was different from all of the philosophical systems existing in the West. This qualitatively new transition, which has occurred in the emigrant post-revolutionary situation, remains outside the scope of the training courses.
Conclusion
Thus, in the presented article, the stated problem of teaching the course of the history of Russian philosophy in higher education was solved. It analyzes standard textbooks and teaching aids, and also, on the basis of historical and philosophical texts published in recent decades, shows the path of development of Russian thought in emigration. From these texts it follows that the emergence in Europe of a center of Russian religious philosophy and the works of such thinkers as G. Florovsky, V.N. Lossky, I. Meyendorf, A. Schmemann led to the fact that Russian philosophy has reached a new level - identifying itself as different from the Western philosophical tradition. Its foundation is Eastern Christianity, i.e., an ontology different from the West. This is a huge contribution of the Russian diaspora to Russian identity and philosophical self-determination. It was the fruit of the domestic philosophical process, which over two centuries has gone the path of many centuries.
REFERENCES
1. Vasily (Krivoshein), bishop. The ascetic and theological teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. Journal "Alpha and Omega", 1995, no. 3 (6). Available at: http://aliom.orthodoxy.ru/arch/006/006-krivosh.htm (accessed 11.16.2019). (in Russ.)
2. Vodenko K.V. The history of religious philosophy: a textbook / K.V. Vodenko, S.I. Samygin. Rostov on Don, Phoenix Publ., 2015. 252 p. (in Russ.)
3. Ermishin O.T. Phi "Osofia of religion. Concepts of religion in foreign and Russian philosophy. Tutorial. Moscow, PSTGU Publ., 2009. 224 p. (in Russ.)
4. Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy. Moscow, Academic Project Publ., Rarity, 2001 (in Russ.)
5. History of Russian philosophy: textbook / ed. M.A. Olive. 3rd ed. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2013. 640 p. (in Russ.)
6. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. Kiev, 2006.434 р. (in Russ.)
7. Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and aesthetics. Moscow, Art Publ., 1979. 439 р. (in Russ.)
8. Kuzmenko G. N. The problem of relevance of the ancient heritage in the socio-humanitarian knowledge (in terms of pedagogy). Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania - Perspectives of Science and Education, 2019, vol. 39 (3), pp. 10-19. doi: 10.32744/ pse.2019.3.1(in Russ.)
9. Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Lossky V.N. The vision of God. Moscow, 2006. рр. 111-454 (in Russ.)
10. 10 Meyendorf I., archpriest. Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. Saint-Petersburg, 1997.480 р. (in Russ.)
11. Melikov I.M., Gezalov A.A. The dialogue of cultures and the culture of dialogue: conceptual foundations. Questions of philosophy, 2014, no. 12, pp. 24-35. (in Russ.)
12. Otyutskiy G.P. Management Philosophy: Ontological Problems. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 2019, vol. 8, issue 4, November, pp. 3534-3538.
13. Pushkin A.S. About the second volume of "History of the Russian people" N.A. Field // A.S. Pushkin. Collected Works in 10 vols. Vol. 6. Moscow, 1976. (in Russ.)
14. Rupova R.M. Neopatristic synthesis as a religious-philosophical course of the XX - XXI centuries: religious studies-anthropological analysis. Diss. Doctor of Philosophy. Moscow, 2019. p. 239. Available at: https://www.ranepa.ru/docs/dissertation/rupova-r-m-dissertation.pdf (accessed 08.03.2019). (in Russ.)
15. Rupova R.M. Religious and philosophical ideas and ecclesiastical education of the Russian émigré community [Text] / K.V. Birukova, R.M. Rupova, O.A., Evreeva, L.I. Bystrova, G.P. Otutskiy. European Journal of Science and Theology, 2016, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 165-180.
16. Suvorova E. V., Andreeva O. V., Emets T. V. Professional and personal potential and parameters for assessing its development. Perspectives of science and education, 2019, np. 3 (39), pp. 88-100. doi: 10.32744 / pse.2019.3.7(in Russ.)
17. Khomyakov A.S. Compositions. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1994. (in Russ.)
18. Khoruzhiy S.S. Genesis of the philosophical process in Russia // S.S. Khoruzhiy. Experiences from the Russian spiritual tradition. Moscow, Institute of St. Thomas Publ., 2018. pp. 31-78. (in Russ.)
19. Khoruzhiy S.S. About the old and the new. St. Petersburg, Aletheya Publ., 2000. 447 p. (in Russ.)
20. Khoruzhiy S.S. Crossroads of Russian sophiology // S.S. Khoruzhiy. About the old and the new. Saint-Petersburg, Aletheia Publ., 2000. pp. 141-168.
21. Chernyshevsky N.G. Selected philosophical works. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1950. (in Russ.)
22. Shaposhnikov L.E. and Fedorov A.A. History of Russian religious philosophy. Textbook for High Schools. Moscow, Higher School Publ., 2006. 447 p. (in Russ.)
23. Shpet G.G. Essay on the development of Russian philosophy. Prague, 1922. (in Russ.)
Информация об авторе Рупова Розалия Моисеевна
(Россия, Москва) Доктор философских наук, доцент кафедры Теологии Российский государственный социальный университет E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5242-2921
Information about the author
Rozaliya M. Rupova
(Russia, Moscow). Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Theology Russian State Social University E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5242-2921
