Russian socio-philosophical thought. Russian philosophy

The reform of 1861 was turning point, the line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants abolished the monopoly of the landlords on the exploitation of peasant labor, contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism both in industry and in agriculture. Conditions for the reforms of 1861. ensured the gradual transition of the feudal economy to the capitalist economy for the landowners.

Bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861. at the same time, it was also feudal; it could not have been otherwise, for it was carried out by the feudal lords. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861. led to the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, political system in reformed Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. The landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor compensation or bondage. Reform of 1861 retained the feudal estate system: the estate privileges of the landlords, the inequality of estates and the isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political domination of the landowners. Taking steps along the path of transformation into a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively invaded economic development countries, sought to use new processes to strengthen its position.

The reform of 1861 did not solve the problem of the final elimination of the feudal-serf system in the country. Therefore, the reasons that led to the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s. 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary denouement. The feudal nature of the reform of 1861, its duality and inconsistency gave particular urgency to the socio-economic and political conflicts in post-reform Russia. The reform "gave birth" to the revolution not only by preserving the survivals of serfdom, but also by the fact that, by "opening a certain valve, giving some boost to capitalism", it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought to eliminate these survivals. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who visited the city, at the factory, saw a lot and learned a lot.

post-war years. Supervision of the nuclear project of the USSR
After testing the first American atomic device in the desert near Alamogordo, work in the USSR to create its own nuclear weapons was significantly accelerated. The Special Committee was created on the basis of the GKO resolution of August 20, 1945. It included L.P. Beria (chairman), G.M. Malenkov, N.A. Voznesensky, B...

Coat of arms of Count Potemkin of Tauride, having the title of the Roman Empire Prince
Military upright quarterly divided shield; in the middle of the shield, a shield cut in two by a perpendicular line, on the right side of which there is a black and white chessboard, three in a row and four in length, having a chessboard, and on the left side of the Potemkin family name, a coat of arms, in a silver field emerging from a cloud in armor, with a sword ...

Russia in the 17th century: features of socio-political development. The growth of the state territory.
General characteristics. In the 17th century in Russia, the prerequisites for the reforms of Peter the Great were formed. In the economy, the importance of serf labor is increasing, the formation of a single all-Russian market and the geographical specialization of territories is being completed. V social life Zemsky Sobors are gradually losing their significance and an absolute monarchy is developing ...

VKontakte Facebook Odnoklassniki

However, Dmitry Medvedev intends to take an example from him

In Maoist China, it was not customary to directly criticize this or that politician. If the newspapers cursed "Empress Ci Xi" (the Manchu ruler late XIX- the beginning of the twentieth century, "famous" for endless losses in wars with Europeans and incredible corruption) - everyone knew that we are talking about the wife of "Chairman Mao" Jiang Qing. If, on the contrary, the official press suddenly, for no reason at all, began to scold Confucius, then the biggest shadow politician Deng Xiaoping was in trouble.

This old story came to my mind when I read about the solemn events dedicated to the abolition of serfdom in Russia. The official praise of the liberator Tsar Alexander II, as well as his reforms, his opposition to his predecessor (Nicholas I) reminded me of China. Indeed, the current president, Dmitry Medvedev, clearly compares himself to a reformist tsar. Vladimir Putin, obviously, gets the role of "Nikolai Palkin", as the "progressive public" insultingly nicknamed one of the greatest tsars in our history.

Speaking at the conference “Great Reforms and Modernization of Russia”, Dmitry Medvedev emphasized: “Today we are trying to develop our still imperfect democratic institutions, we are trying to change our economy, we are changing the political system. In fact, we are all continuing the course that was laid a century and a half ago. Moreover, I would like to draw attention to the fact that it was not fantasies about a special path for our country and not the Soviet experiment that turned out to be viable, but the project of a normal, humane system, which was conceived by Alexander II. And in the end, on a historical scale, it was he who turned out to be right, and not Nicholas I or Stalin.

The unexpected appeal of the president to the name of Alexander II is a beautiful gesture. Very often, politicians try to find forerunners and like-minded people in the past in order to demonstrate that their own program is rooted in the history of the country. For Dmitry Medvedev, this is extremely important. After all, until now he had argued that Russia had existed for only 20 years. And, consequently, he himself could only refer to the experience of Boris Yeltsin, hated by the people, opposing it to his immediate predecessor, Vladimir Putin.

References to the authority of Alexander II allow Dmitry Medvedev not to look like a blinkered liberal fanatic, in which his environment stubbornly positions him. It turns out that in the history of Russia, Medvedev has forerunners and cooler than Yeltsin.

But is Alexander II so good as an example of a successful reformer?

Let's start, perhaps, not with him, but with his father, Nicholas I. In the Soviet historical tradition, this emperor is usually insulted, considered a retrograde. Meanwhile, Nicholas I is our "Sun King", during whose reign the Russian Empire reached the peak of its power. At the same time there was an unprecedented cultural flourishing. The era of Nicholas I is associated with the names of Zhukovsky, Karamzin, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol. At the same time, Russia is strengthening its position as a pan-European leader. Perhaps, during this period, Russia is the second most influential European power after Britain, and, consequently, the world power.

Like Louis XIV, at the end of his reign, Nicholas I was forced to wage war with all of Europe. In 1854-1855. Russia was opposed by the most advanced European powers - Great Britain and France, which, with Piedmont and the Ottoman Empire that joined them, defeated Russia in the Crimean War. This brought to life the reforms of Alexander II. The golden age of the power of the Russian Empire is over.

The transformations of the tsar-liberator Alexander II are usually evaluated with approval. public opinion. He freed the peasants, carried out judicial, military and many other reforms. Established zemstvos. He greatly weakened the censorship that prevailed under Nicholas I. However, if we consider these reforms impartially, it turns out that he did not succeed in much. The main thing is that he could not solve the peasant question. Russia after his transformations remained an agrarian country. Peasants freed from serfdom were either obliged to pay ransoms for decades, or were attached to the land for many years as "temporarily liable". As a result, the redemption payments were finally abolished by the tsarist government only in 1907, and even then following the results of the First Russian Revolution.

Note that Japan, which began its reforms almost simultaneously with Russia, by the beginning of the 20th century had turned into a strong industrial power, which managed to single-handedly defeat Russia in the war in the Far East. Recall that 50 years earlier, this required the combined might of the great Western powers.

In short, the reforms of Alexander II were inconsistent and unsuccessful. He could not solve the basic problem of Russia - to build a modern society, industrial capitalism. Russia paid for this in the 20th century with a bloody revolution and terror. Industry and modern society were created by Stalin.

But it was precisely against Stalin that Dmitry Medvedev spoke out in his speech. It turns out a paradox: it was the reforms of Alexander II that gave rise to the coming to power of Joseph Vissarionovich, but the tsar-reformer is opposed to Stalin, while he was one of his forerunners.

The experience of all industrial countries shows that it is impossible to create a modern economy by simply mindlessly copying the experience of advanced countries. Any state following the path of industrialization must rely on its own experience, its own tradition, and find grounds for reforms in its own culture and religion. If these foundations are discarded, then this always leads to a crisis and the collapse of any most beautiful-hearted transformations.

What is far to go - the reforms of Boris Yeltsin ended unsuccessfully, and after all, he, following Alexander Yakovlev, sought to "break the back of Russia." The ridge may have been broken, but no healthy society did not occur. Which is not surprising: if a person’s back is broken, it will turn out to be a paralytic.

Great Britain - the first country in which the industrial revolution took place - carefully preserves its traditions. The same can be said about Japan. Modern China has carried out unprecedented market reforms, relying on the structures of the Communist Party created in the previous era and, it would seem, completely unnecessary for capitalism.

Only Russia still wants not to rely on tradition, but to reject it. Dmitry Medvedev himself emphasizes that “it was not fantasies about a special path” for Russia that turned out to be viable, but the “project” of Alexander II.

Mr President! The “project” of Alexander II failed both from a historical point of view, because the grandson of the liberator tsar ended his days in the Ipatiev House, and from a personal point of view: the emperor was killed by Narodnaya Volya terrorists.

If the history of Alexander II teaches anything, it is only that any consistent reform must be based on tradition, on custom, on a special path. If there is no support, it is doomed to inconsistency, rejection by society and, in the end, to collapse.

If Dmitry Medvedev seriously takes Alexander II as a role model, he must remember that historically the tsar lost and not repeat his mistakes. Reform without reliance on national tradition is ineffective and harmful. The next round of "liberal" reforms in the style of Boris Yeltsin will inevitably end in defeat, because it will be rejected by society. However, modern liberal reformers are not willing to learn this lesson of history.

The reign of Alexander 1 can be divided into three stages:

1801-1812 reform period ( Decree on free cultivators 1803: landowners were allowed to free peasants; liberal reform policy, formation secret committee: reforms of the public administration system: 1. Education of ministries; 2. Senate is the highest judicial and controlling body; 3. State Council (1810) legislative body under the emperor); education: the opening of a university, a network of cadet corps is being developed, the opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum for the training of officials of the highest rank (1811).)

1812-1815 Patriotic War and overseas trips
Invasion on 06/12/1812, the balance of forces was 640 thousand (fr) - 230 thousand (rus), in August M.I. was appointed commander-in-chief. Kutuzov, Borodino 09/26/1812, Leaving Moscow Tarutino world. Partisan warfare (Davydov, Figner); December 1812 exile of Napoleon.
It is important to note that Barclay de Tolly (a monument on a par with Kutuzov) played an important role in this war (in particular, in the Battle of Borodino).

1815 Vienna agreement. Peace in Europe.

1815-1825 Cancellation of reforms. After the war 12 years: Removal of M.M. Speransky, New confidant - A.A. Arakcheev, the creation of military settlements (!); censorship is intensifying, the Chuguev Uprising (anti-government speech in June - August by the military settlers of the Chuguev Lancers Regiment, caused by a cruel regime and hard labor conditions in military settlements. Covered the territory from us. St. 28 thousand people. The rebels demanded the abolition of settlements and return to the peasants the lands taken from them.Brutally suppressed by the tsarist troops (2 div. with artillery).2 thousand participants were arrested, over 300 people were brought to military court, corporal punishment. 1819), Speech of the Semyonovsky regiment against the Arakcheev authorities (1820) It ended with the reorganization of the regiment., The formation of the noble opposition (secret societies). Historians call the initial period of the reign of Alexander I until 1812 "the era of liberalism". Having come to power, Alexander I returned to the nobility the privileges abolished by his father Paul I, and adopted a number of decrees that made him popular among the nobility. It should be noted that Alexander I had to resolve issues that were extremely painful for Russia: the peasant issue and the issue of reforming the state administration apparatus. For all the complexity and inconsistency of the personality of Alexander I and his policy, it is difficult to doubt the emperor's desire to implement liberal reforms in Russia, the basis of which was to be the granted constitution and the abolition of serfdom. However, the implementation of the plans was not destined to come true. To explain this, they put forward different versions. It is necessary to indicate the most important: - in the overwhelming mass of the nobility did not want liberal reforms. Unsupported by the ruling class, the reform projects proved unviable; - in carrying out reforms, Alexander I could rely only on a very narrow circle of senior dignitaries and individual representatives of the nobility. Alexander I could not ignore the opinion of the majority of the nobles, fearing a palace coup; - the inexperience of the reformers, the insufficient thoughtfulness of the transformations, the lack of a social basis for reforms, in the end, could lead the country to chaos, disintegration and

Russian philosophical thought has been developed for a long time within religious beliefs. Metropolitan Hilarion's "Sermon on Law and Grace" (11th century) was the first known monument of religious and philosophical thought. This work is addressed to the future of Russia. The theme of the "Word" is the theme of the equal rights of peoples, sharply opposed to the medieval theories of God's choice of only one people, the theories of a universal empire or a universal church. Hilarion points out that by the Gospel and baptism God "saved all peoples", glorifies the Russian people among the peoples of the whole world and sharply polemicizes with the doctrine of the exclusive right to "God's chosen people" of only one people.

In the 15-16 centuries, the rise of the Russian state with its center in Moscow was facilitated by a theory that proclaimed Moscow the third Rome, according to which the entire history of Christianity was reduced to the history of three Romes - the first, destroyed by Catholicism, the second Constantinople, which fell victim to Uniatism, and the third Moscow, which was declared inaccessible to heresy stronghold of Orthodoxy. Thus, the task of creating the Russian state became world-historical, put in connection with the task of saving all mankind, the redemptive mission of Christianity. This theory arose at the end of the 15th century (Metropolitan Zosima, 1492), and it was substantiated by Philotheus, an elder of the Pskov monastery. In the Epistle to the Grand Duke Vasily III, Philotheus wrote: "Keep and listen, pious king, to the fact that all the Christian kingdoms have converged into one of yours, that two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, but there will be no fourth." (// Monuments of literature Ancient Russia: The end of the XV - the first half of the XVI century. M., 1984. S. 441).

Until the 19th century, secular philosophizing in Russia was a sporadic phenomenon: individual philosophizing minds (for example, M.V. Lomonosov, G.S. Skovoroda, A.N. rain.

Actually, Russian philosophy as a cultural phenomenon arose and developed only in the 19th century.

Compared with the philosophy of other European countries, Russian philosophy is a later phenomenon. This, in particular, is due to the fact that Russia joined the world channel of culture and civilization later than other peoples of Europe. Only at the beginning of the XVIII century. Peter I opened a "window" to Europe. Then for a long time Russia digested different influences from Holland, Germany, France, England, and only in the 19th century did it begin to free itself from foreign influence and began to speak with its own voice, became completely independent. Russian poetry appeared (A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov), ​​prose (Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy), music (Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rachmaninov, Scriabin), painting (Repin, Surikov, Vasnetsov ). Great scientists appeared (N. I. Lobachevsky, D. I. Mendeleev), inventors (Yablochkov, A. S. Popov). And it all appeared in the 19th century. If we take specifically the philosophy of Russia, then in this area there were no outstanding successes, as in science or in art. For almost the entire 19th century, Russian philosophers did not speak in their own voice, but tried to reproduce various Western philosophical concepts and teachings, mostly Germans. There was an adoration for Hegel, a fascination with Schopenhauer...

In general, Russian philosophy of the pre-October period was characterized by human-centrism or ethicocentrism. She discussed the problems of human existence, life and human relationships, by what standards a person should live. This is her strength and weakness at the same time. The weakness is that its subject was limited (remember: philosophy consists of three parts: the doctrine of the world; the doctrine of man and society; and the doctrine of various forms-methods human activity).

The strength, the value of Russian philosophy lies in the fact that it built its ideas about man and society on the basis of literary criticism, analysis of artistic culture, literature, painting, music, i.e. Russian artistic culture was the empirical basis of Russian philosophy. This is her main merit. Western philosophy focused mainly on the natural sciences, and Russian philosophy - on Russian literature, on the analysis of situations, images that Russian artistic culture gave. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, two titans of Russian culture, were philosophizing writers, and their literary creations provided food for thought for many philosophers.

The main discussions unfolded between materialists and idealists, Slavophiles and Westernizers.

It must be borne in mind that in tsarist Russia the church was not separated from the state, and the law of God was taught as obligatory in all gymnasiums and schools. The rejection of religion for a Russian person was tantamount to a moral feat. Therefore, few dared openly break with religion and the church. Nevertheless, in nineteenth-century Russian philosophy, science-oriented materialism became a powerful mental movement. V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. G. Chernyshevsky, D. I. Pisarev, G. V. Plekhanov are the pillars of Russian materialism.

Nevertheless, state support for religion and the church has done its job. In philosophy, the religious-idealistic direction prevailed, that is, there were much more idealist philosophers than materialist philosophers. These are P. Ya. Chaadaev, and Slavophiles, and V.S. Solovyov, and N. A. Berdyaev, and many others.

It is necessary to mention one more philosophical direction, very peculiar, non-traditional. This cosmism (N. F. Fedorov, N. A. Umov, K. E. Tsiolkovsky, V. I. Vernadsky, A. L. Chizhevsky).

These are the general considerations concerning Russian philosophy of the 19th and first decades of the 20th centuries.

Westernizers and Slavophiles

30s - 40s XIX century were marked by a discussion between Westerners and Slavophiles . The dispute is about the ways of Russia's development, about whether Russia should develop as an original country with its own culture, or whether it should absorb the achievements of European culture and focus on Western values. In this dispute, both sides were right and wrong. Of course, Russia must preserve its originality, there should not be a common "standard". But the fear of the Slavophiles that Russia will lose its peculiarity is not justified. On the other hand, Westerners absolutized the moment that Russia is part of humanity and should be like everyone else. Imitation of Western models is not good in all cases. This is one of the shortcomings of the Westerners' position. The dispute between Slavophiles and Westernizers is historically resolved by a synthesis of both approaches. Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A. S. Khomyakov, Aksakov brothers; Westerners - P.Ya. Chaadaev, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen.

Differences between the Slavophiles and the Westernizers were also in their views on the relationship between collectivity and individuality. The Slavophils represented the people as an organism, as a single being. For them, every Russian is a part of the people and must subordinate his interests and desires to the interests of the people. The Slavophiles were then replaced by populists. The Slavophils preached collectivism, communal life, Orthodox ideology, which should underlie the national life of Russian society. This eventually resulted in the Bolshevik doctrine. There, too, collectivism was put in the first place. Everything should be shared. And the Westerners were individualistic. They argued that Russian society should move towards the development of liberal values.

P.Ya. Chaadaev

The first Westerner, Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794-1856), subjected the social system of Russia to crushing criticism, arguing that the Russians had not made any contribution to the development of mankind. The tsar declared Chaadaev crazy and for 7 years the philosopher was observed by a psychiatrist. (Recall: our great poet Pushkin was friends with Chaadaev and not just friends, but dedicated his poems to him and wrote poetic messages). Chaadaev's first philosophical letter, published in 1836, contained an extravagant interpretation public life that time. Chaadaev absolutized its shortcomings. “About us,” he wrote in his first philosophical letter, “it can be said that we constitute, as it were, an exception among peoples. We belong to those of them who, as it were, are not part of humanity, but exist only to teach a great lesson to the world. And, of course, the instruction that is destined to give us will not pass without a trace, but who knows the day when we will find ourselves among mankind, and who will calculate the disasters that we experience before the fulfillment of our destinies? He suggested replacing Orthodoxy with Catholicism, believing that Catholicism brings culture and progress... In many ways, Chaadaev was right - at that time Russia had not really given the world anything yet. Until the 19th century, it did not really show itself on the world stage, except in the military field. Toward the end of his life, Chaadaev softened his position.

Necessity and chance

philosophy dialectic necessity contingency

1. The specifics of Russian philosophy, its main forms and historical stages

Russian philosophical thought is an organic part of world philosophy and culture. Russian philosophy addresses the same problems as Western European, although the approach to them, the ways of understanding them were deeply national character.

The famous historian of Russian philosophical thought V.V. Zenkovsky noted that philosophy found its own ways in Russia - "not alienating the West, even learning from it constantly and diligently, but still living with its inspirations, its problems ...". In the 19th century "Russia has entered the path of independent philosophical thought." Further, he notes that Russian philosophy is not theocentric (although it has a strong religious beginning) and not cosmocentric (although it is not alien to natural philosophical quests), but, above all, anthropocentric, historiosophical and committed to social problems: “it is most of all occupied with the theme of man, of his fate and ways, about the meaning and goals of history. These same features of Russian philosophical thought were also noted by such researchers of Russian philosophy as A.I. Vvedensky, N.A. Berdyaev and others.

Despite the fact that Russian philosophical thought is represented by the most various directions, orientations and schools, in solving philosophical problems it was dominated by a pronounced moral attitude, a constant appeal to the historical destinies of Russia. Therefore, without mastering the domestic spiritual heritage, it is impossible to understand the history and soul of the Russian people, to comprehend the place and role of Russia in world civilization.

Philosophy in Russia arose late compared to other countries. Reasons for this:

) The dominance of pagan culture in Russia and the fragmentation of human communities, the atomization of life.

) Lack of stable ties with established world cultures.

The formation of philosophical thought in Ancient Russia dates back to the 10th-12th centuries - the time of deep socio-political and cultural changes in the life of the Eastern Slavs, due to the formation of the ancient Russian state - Kievan Rus, the influence of Byzantine and Bulgarian cultures, the emergence Slavic writing and the adoption of Christianity by Russia. These factors created favorable conditions for the emergence of ancient Russian philosophy.

First stage in the development of Russian philosophical thought is associated with the appearance of the first literary works containing original philosophical ideas and concepts. The chronicles, "teachings", "words" and other monuments of Russian literature reflected the deep interest of Russian thinkers in historiosophical, anthropological, epistemological and moral problems. During this period, it develops due to the type of perceived together with Christianity philosophical tradition a peculiar way of philosophizing, characterized by V.V. Zenkovsky as “mystical realism”. The most significant works of this period include Hilarion's The Tale of Law and Grace, Nestor's The Tale of Bygone Years, Kliment Smolyatich's Epistle to Thomas, Kirill Turovsky's The Word of Wisdom and The Parable of the Human Soul and Body, Teaching" by Vladimir Monomakh, "Message to Vladimir Monomakh" by Metropolitan Nikifor, "Prayer" by Daniil Zatochnik.

The next stage in the development of ancient Russian philosophy covers the XIII-XIV centuries - the time of the most severe trials caused by the Tatar-Mongol invasion. The enormous damage inflicted on Ancient Russia, however, did not interrupt the cultural tradition. The centers of development of Russian thought remained monasteries, in which not only the traditions of the spiritual culture of Russia were preserved, but work continued on translating and commenting on Byzantine philosophical works. Among the monuments of Russian thought of this period, the most significant in terms of ideological content are the “Word about the destruction of the Russian land”, “The legend of the city of Kitezh”, “Words” by Serapion of Vladimir, “Kiev-Pechersk patericon”. The themes of spiritual fortitude and moral perfection were the most important for Russian thought of this period.

A new stage in the development of Russian philosophy covers the period from the end of the 14th to the 16th centuries, characterized by the rise of national self-consciousness, the formation of a Russian centralized state, and the strengthening of ties with the Slavic south and the centers of Byzantine culture.

Hesychasm, a mystical direction in Orthodox theology that arose on Mount Athos in the 13th-14th centuries, rooted in the moral and ascetic teaching of Christian ascetics of the 4th-7th centuries, had a significant impact on Russian philosophical thought of this period. The hesychast tradition in Russian thought is represented by the teachings and activities of Nil Sorsky, Maxim the Greek and their followers.

An important place in the spiritual life of Muscovite Rus was occupied by the controversy between the Josephites and non-possessors. First of all, the ideological struggle of their spiritual leaders - Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky, which embraced such deep moral, political, theological and philosophical problems as a social service and vocation of the church, ways of spiritual and moral transformation of the personality, attitude towards heretics, the problem of royal power and its divine nature.

One of the central places in Russian thought of the XV-XVI centuries. occupied the problem of state, power and law. The view of the Moscow Orthodox kingdom - Holy Russia - as the successor of Byzantium, called to fulfill a special historical mission, was reflected in the historiosophical concept "Moscow - the third Rome" formulated by the elder Philotheus. The problems of power and law were leading in the controversy between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky; the works of Fyodor Karpov and Ivan Peresvetov, who defended the ideas of strengthening autocratic rule, are devoted to them. The problems of man, moral perfection, the choice of ways of personal and public salvation were the focus of attention of the outstanding Byzantine humanist-educator Maxim the Greek, whose philosophical work was the greatest achievement of Russian medieval philosophy.

A significant influence on the spiritual life of Russian society in the XV-XVI centuries was exerted by heretical teachings associated with the European reformation-humanist movement. The most prominent representatives of Russian freethinking were Fyodor Kuritsin, Matvey Bashkin, Feodosia Kosoy.

The final stage in the development of Russian medieval philosophy is characterized by contradictory processes of the formation of the foundations of a new world outlook, a clash of traditional spiritual culture with the growing influence of Western European science and enlightenment. The most significant figures of Russian thought of this period are Archpriest Avvakum, a successor and strict zealot of the spiritual traditions of ancient Russian culture, and Simeon Polotsky and Yuri Krizhanich, who oppose him, are conductors of Western European education and culture. The most important topics of their reflections were man, his spiritual essence and moral duty, knowledge and the place in him of philosophy, problems of power and the role of various social strata in the political life of society. significant role in the distribution philosophical knowledge played the largest centers of education and culture - Kiev-Mohyla and Slavic-Greek-Latin academies, which taught a number of philosophical disciplines.

The beginning of the 18th century was the final period in the history of Russian medieval philosophy and the time of the emergence of the prerequisites for its secularization and professionalization, which laid the foundations for a new stage in the development of Russian thought.

When characterizing the features of the development of philosophy in Russia, it is necessary, first of all, to take into account the conditions for its existence, which, in comparison with Western European ones, were extremely unfavorable. At a time when German universities have their own philosophical systems I. Kant, V. Schelling, G. Hegel and other thinkers freely expounded, in Russia the teaching of philosophy was under the strictest state control, which did not allow any philosophical freethinking for purely political reasons. The attitude of state power to philosophy is clearly expressed in famous saying trustee of educational institutions Prince Shirinsky-Shikhmatov "The benefits of philosophy have not been proven, but harm is possible."

Until the second half of the 19th century. philosophical problems were mastered in Russia mainly in philosophical and literary circles outside the official structures of education, which had a double-edged effect.

On the one hand, the formation of Russian philosophy took place in the course of a search for answers to the questions that Russian reality itself posed. Therefore, it is difficult to find a thinker in the history of Russian philosophy who would be engaged in pure theorizing and would not respond to burning problems.

On the other hand, these same conditions led to such an abnormal state for philosophy itself, when, upon perception philosophical teachings political attitudes acquired dominant importance, and these teachings themselves were evaluated primarily from the point of view of their "progressiveness" or "reactionary", "usefulness" or "uselessness" for solving social problems. Therefore, those teachings that, although they did not differ in philosophical depth, but answered the topic of the day, were widely known. Others, who later made up the classics of Russian philosophy, such as the teachings of K. Leontiev, N. Danilevsky, Vl. Solovyov, N. Fedorova and others, did not find a response from contemporaries and were known only to a narrow circle of people.

When characterizing the features of Russian philosophy, one must also take into account the cultural and historical background on which it was formed. In Russia, in the course of its history, there has been, as it were, an interweaving of two different types of cultures and, accordingly, types of philosophizing: rationalistic, Western European and Eastern, Byzantine, with its intuitive worldview and lively contemplation, included in Russian self-consciousness through Orthodoxy. This combination of two different types of thinking runs through the entire history of Russian philosophy.

The existence at the crossroads of different cultures largely determined the form of philosophizing and the problems of Russian philosophy. As for the form of philosophizing, its specificity was successfully defined by A.F. Losev, who showed that Russian philosophy, in contrast to Western European philosophy, is alien to the desire for an abstract, purely rational systematics of ideas. In a significant part, it "represents a purely internal, intuitive, purely mystical knowledge of being."

From the content side, Russian philosophy also has its own characteristics. It presents to one degree or another all the main areas of philosophical thinking: ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of history, etc. However, there are also leading themes for her. One of them, which determined the very specifics of Russian philosophy, was the theme of Russia, the comprehension of the meaning of its existence in history. The formation of Russian philosophical thought began with this topic, and it remained relevant throughout its development.

Another leading theme was the theme of man, his fate and the meaning of life. Increased attention to the problem of man determined the moral and practical orientation of Russian philosophy. A feature of Russian philosophical thinking was not just a deep interest in moral issues, but the dominance of a moral attitude in the analysis of many other problems.

The original Russian philosophy in its innovative searches was closely connected with the religious worldview, behind which stood centuries of spiritual experience in Russia. And not just with the religious, but with the Orthodox worldview. Speaking about this, V.V. Zenkovsky notes that “Russian thought has always (and forever) remained connected with its religious element, with its religious soil.

Currently priceless spiritual experience, extracted by Russian philosophy, acts as a necessary basis for spiritual rebirth and the construction of a moral, humanistic world.

Thus, the main stages in the development of Russian philosophy:

) 10th-17th centuries - the period is characterized ethical philosophy. Philosophical teachings. philosophy of unity. Philosophy reflects the connection between secular and spiritual life.

) 18th - ser 19th centuries - given period characterized by attempts to borrow Western philosophy and at the same time, the birth of the natures of philosophy (philosophy of nature) in the person of Lomonosov.

) The middle of the 19th and the first 3 decades of the 20th century. This period is characterized higher development Russian philosophy ("golden age").

Let us briefly formulate the general formal features of Russian philosophy:

Russian philosophy, in contrast to European, and most of all German philosophy, the desire for an abstract, purely intellectual systematization of views is alien. It represents a purely internal, intuitive, purely mystical knowledge of the existent, its hidden depths, which can be comprehended not by means of reduction to logical concepts and definitions, but only in a symbol, in an image through the power of imagination and inner vital mobility.

Russian philosophy is inextricably linked with real life, therefore it often appears in the form of journalism, which originates in the general spirit of the times, with all its positive and negative sides, with all its joys and sufferings, with all its order and chaos.

In connection with this "liveness" of Russian philosophical thought is the fact that fiction is a storehouse of original Russian philosophy. In the prose writings of Zhukovsky and Gogol, in the works of Tyutchev, Fet, Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Maxim Gorky, the main philosophical problems are often developed, of course in their specifically Russian, exclusively practical, life-oriented form. And these problems are resolved here in such a way that an open-minded and knowledgeable judge will call these solutions not just "literary" or "artistic", but philosophical and ingenious.

The basis of Western European philosophy is ratio. Russian philosophical thought, which developed on the basis of Greek Orthodox ideas, in turn borrowed in many ways from antiquity, puts the Logos at the foundation of everything. there is a human property and peculiarity; Logos is metaphysical and divine.

So, Russian original philosophy is an ongoing struggle between the Western European abstract ratio and the Eastern Christian, concrete, divine-human Logos and is an unceasing, constantly rising to a new level comprehension of the irrational and secret depths of the cosmos by a concrete and living mind.

Russian original philosophy gave Russia brilliant thinkers, in Russian philosophy, which is under Western influence and is characterized by extreme barrenness (it almost does not go beyond the theory of knowledge), there are also many gifted personalities. It is to be hoped that the representatives of borrowed philosophy will say goodbye to abstractness and barrenness and recognize the great Russian problem of the Logos.

The most prominent representatives in Russian philosophy were:

within the framework of religious idealism: Vladimir Solovyov, Sergei Bulgakov, Pavel Florensky, Nikolai Berdyaev;

within the framework of cosmism: Tsiolkovsky, Fedorov;

within the framework of mysticism: Shestov;

within the framework of the philosophy of freedom: Berdyaev;

within the social-critical: Kropotkin and M. Bakunin;

Thus, the Russian philosophy of this period was quite diverse and mostly idealistic in various forms.

Dialectics - the doctrine of universal connection

Dialectics (Greek dialektike techne - the art of conversation) is the theory and method of cognition of reality, the doctrine of universal connection and development.

Initially, the term dialectics was revealed as "the art of arguing." The dialogue of Socrates was built on the principle of dialectics. Already in antiquity, a dialectical approach to the world was taking shape.

The modern content of dialectics is not limited to its original meaning, but is revealed as a doctrine of development and universal connections; reflects the subsequent stages in the development of ideas about the development of the world.

The empirical observations of the ancients revealed one of the essential characteristics of the world - inconsistency.

It was noticed that in the process of development, objects and phenomena turn into their opposite, which testified to the presence in them of opposite, mutually exclusive, multidirectional tendencies of development. The contradiction contained in the subject itself was considered as a source of movement, development.

These ideas are most clearly and fully expressed in the philosophy of Heraclitus. A significant role in the development of dialectical views was played by Zeno of Elea, who deeply understood the inconsistency of movement through the ratio of discontinuous - continuous, finite - infinite (Zeno's aporias). Plato considers dialectics as a method of cognition, which, through the separation and connection of concepts (analysis, synthesis), helps to comprehend ideas, promotes thought from lower to higher concepts. Despite the fact that Aristotle associated only hypothetical, probabilistic knowledge with dialectics, his theory of the interaction of form and matter largely contributed to the further development of ideas of development.

On the whole, ancient Greek thinkers were able to rise to the realization of the universal inconsistency of being as one and many, constant and changing.

The solution of this problem on the basis of dialectics has become one of the main tasks ancient philosophy.

The dialectical ideas of Hellas were accepted by the thinkers of the Middle Ages. The concepts of Plato (Neoplatonism), Aristotle, reworked in accordance with the principles and postulates of monotheistic religions, played a significant role in the further development of dialectics. During this period, the main attention was paid to the formal meaning of dialectics, it performed the function of operating with concepts, was actually ousted from the sphere of being.

Subsequent philosophical epochs contributed to the development of dialectics. In the works of N. Kuzansky, J. Bruno, R. Descartes, G. Leibniz, B. Spinoza, J.J. Rousseau, D. Diderot developed the ideas of the unity and struggle of opposites, the development of the world, the interconnection of necessity and freedom, the universal and necessary connection of matter and motion, the integrity of the Universe, and others.

A new stage in the development of dialectics is associated with German classical philosophy and, mainly, with the teachings of Hegel, who created one of the first classic models dialectics of modern times. Hegel developed the basic laws and categories of dialectics from an idealistic point of view.

The middle of the 19th century was marked by such discoveries in the field of natural science that made it possible to consider the world dialectically. Nature is the stone of dialectics.

Hegel's doctrine of development and interconnection was inherited by dialectical materialism. From the point of view of materialistic dialectics, it is not concepts that develop, but surrounding a person peace. Concepts are a reflection of the world, without being independent.

Basic principles of materialistic dialectics:

the principle of development - lies in such an approach to the world, in which it is considered as a system in a state of constant development

the principle of universal connection - there are no phenomena and processes in the world that would not be connected with each other, and this connection can be of a different nature.

The founders of materialistic dialectics, Marx and Engels, true value Hegelian philosophy was seen in the fact that it fundamentally denied the final nature of the results of people's thinking and activity. Truth was presented not as a system of unchanging dogmatic statements, but, on the contrary, it reflected a long historical path of development of knowledge.

In the same way, according to the philosopher, the situation is in the field of practical action. Each stage in the development of society is determined by the epoch and the conditions to which it owes its origin. But each state of society gradually gives rise to new conditions leading to further social transformations.

For dialectical philosophy there is nothing unconditional, once and for all established. On everything, she sees the seal of inevitable death in the continuous process of destruction and emergence, the endless ascent from lower to higher levels.

The classics of dialectical materialism, having studied the teachings of Hegel, formulated the doctrine of laws and categories.

They began to express not the self-development of the Absolute Spirit, but the development processes taking place in various fields material and spiritual world.

Law is a reflection of a certain connection between phenomena, objects, processes. The connection is internal, essential, repetitive, necessary connection between phenomena and objects of the material world. Laws can be very different. Private (specific) laws are used in a limited area of ​​activity. The scope of application of the laws of dialectics is practically unlimited. They find manifestation in nature, society, human consciousness.

Consider the Laws of Dialectics:

The law of unity and struggle of opposites reveals the problem of the source, the cause of development. There was a theory of the first idea, the first impulse, but in the end these ideas led to God. Dialectics recognizes self-development and self-movement, i.e. each object of the world develops not due to any external causes, but due to the presence of opposite processes in itself.

The law of mutual transition of quantitative and qualitative changes - reveals the mechanism dialectical development, i.e. answers the question: how, in what way development occurs in nature and in human consciousness. According to this law, development occurs through gradual quantitative changes, and then an abrupt transition to a new quality.

The law of negation shows the direction of development. According to this law, development is a process of endless denials, as a result of which progressive development occurs from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.

These three laws of dialectics sufficiently reveal the principle of dialectical development, embracing it from all sides. Each of the laws is formulated through a number of categories. To understand the law means to reveal the concept of those categories through which this law is revealed.

First law: identity, difference, contradiction, opposition.

Identity - coincidence, similarity of one object to another or states of the same object in relation to each other. There is identity, which always includes the development of identity, brings it into a state of opposition. The relationship between them constitutes a dialectical contradiction.

A dialectical contradiction is such a relation of opposite moments within a system that makes it (the system) self-moving and which manifests itself through the interdependence of these moments and at the same time their mutual negation.

The unity of opposites, as a rule, is temporary, transient, and the struggle of opposites is absolute in the sense that more and more new opposites arise in relation to each other.

The world is made up of opposites. Let us single out the stages of development of the dialectical contradiction:

the birth of a difference between opposites;

expansion of opposites. Polarization of the parties within a single whole;

his permission.

The second law: quality, quantity, measure, leap - a form of transition from one quality to another.

Third law: It is necessary to find out the very essence of dialectical negation

A special place in dialectics is occupied by the so-called. pair categories, which, as it were, complement the basic principles of dialectics, concretize these principles. Such categories are: individual and general, cause and effect, content and form, essence and phenomenon, necessary and accidental, possible and actual. These concepts do not belong to the sphere of the concept of the world, but to the world itself.

Due to its universality, the dialectical method is applicable not only in scientific knowledge. It also works on the everyday level. Let us recall the popular saying of Heraclitus: "It would not be better for people if all their desires were fulfilled." And in fact, imagine yourself for a second in the place of Dunno in the Sunny City with magic wand in hand. How long would we enjoy such power? Probably not. And then we will certainly be overcome by deadly longing - there will simply be no need to live, all desires and aspirations will lose all meaning. Life exists only where there is a tension of contradiction between desires and the possibilities of their fulfillment, i.e. the same dialectic.

Thus, dialectics is a deep and heuristic way of describing and studying reality. Its initial postulate - the recognition of the self-development of the material world as a consequence of the formation and resolution of contradictions - received serious reinforcement and concretization in the ideas of synergetics in the second half of the 20th century - the theory of self-organization of complex systems.

Necessity and chance

Necessity and chance, correlative philosophical categories, expressing the types of connection, which are determined by the essential and attendant factors.

Need:

thing, phenomenon in their general regular connection; a reflection of predominantly internal, stable, repetitive, universal relations of reality, the main directions of its development:

expression of such a stage of the movement of knowledge into the depths of the object, when its essence, law is revealed;

a method of transforming a possibility into reality, in which in a certain object under given conditions there is only one possibility that turns into reality.

Accident:

reflection mainly of external, insignificant, unstable, single connections of reality;

expression of the starting point of the knowledge of the object;

the result of crossing independent causal processes, events;

a form of manifestation of necessity and an addition to it.

Necessity is expressed by the main, regular causes of the process, is completely determined by them in this respect, is characterized by strict unambiguity and certainty, often by inevitability, prepared by the entire previous course of development of phenomena. Necessity is not reduced to inevitability. The latter is only one of the stages of its development, one of the forms of its implementation.

Chance is just as causally conditioned as necessity, but differs from it in the peculiarity of its causes. It appears as a result of the action of distant, irregular, inconsistent, insignificant, small causes or the simultaneous impact of a complex of complex causes, characterized by ambiguity, the uncertainty of its course.

One and the same set of causes can cause the necessary processes at one structural level of matter, in one system of connections, and at the same time cause accidents at another level or in another system of connections.

These or those phenomena, being the realization and development of the essence, are necessary, but in their singularity, uniqueness, they act as accidental. In other words, necessity is something that must necessarily happen under given conditions, while chance has its basis not in the essence of the phenomenon, but in the impact of other phenomena on it, this is something that may or may not be, it can happen in such a way, but it can happen otherwise.

With a metaphysical, rational-empirical approach to the interaction of phenomena, their development, a person faces an insoluble contradiction. On the one hand, all phenomena, events, etc. arise under the influence of some cause, and, therefore, they could not have arisen. On the other hand, their appearance depends on an infinite number of various conditions under which a given cause operates, and their unpredictable combination makes such an appearance optional, accidental.

Not being able to resolve this contradiction, metaphysical thinking comes either to fatalism, in which any event is initially predetermined, or to relativism and indeterminism (Determinism and indeterminism), in which events ultimately turn into a chaos of chance. In both cases, expedient human activity turns out to be meaningless.

Necessity and contingency in their internal interrelation can be comprehended only on the path of a dialectical understanding of the development process as becoming in unique forms of single events on the basis of a certain way of resolving the initial contradiction. Any process is a resolution in space and time of some previously matured contradiction.

The contradiction, since it has matured, must be resolved with necessity, but the form of this process can be different and random in its uniqueness, since. at the moment and under the given conditions, many take part in it. events and phenomena born on a wider or other basis. Thus, the need, i.e. a way of inevitable resolution of the contradiction, makes its way through randomness, and randomness turns out to be “an addition and a form of manifestation” of necessity (K. Marx, F. Engels. Collected Works. vol. 39, p. 175).

The task of expedient human activity in this case is to correlate a variety of single, random events, circumstances with their common basis and, highlighting ways to resolve contradictions, change these circumstances. Marxist philosophy proceeds from the fact that in any event one can single out essential (necessary) and non-essential (random) properties.

Necessity and chance are dialectical opposites that do not exist without each other. Necessity, the necessary basis of phenomena, which determines the course of development in nature and society, is always hidden behind chance.

The task of science is to uncover random connections phenomena their necessary basis. Science, says Marx, ceases where the necessary connection is no longer valid. No matter how complex this or that phenomenon may be, no matter how many accidents its development depends on, it is ultimately governed by objective laws, inevitability. Dialectical materialism helps to understand not only the connection, but also the mutual transitions of necessity and chance. Thus, Marx revealed this side of the dialectic of necessity and contingency, showing the development of the forms of value in Capital.

modern science enriches dialectical-materialistic conclusions about the essence of necessity and chance with new data, for example, the theory of Probability, Statistical and dynamic regularity.

Bibliography

1.Alekseev P.V. Philosophy: textbook / P.V. Alekseev, A.V. Panin. - M.: TK Velby, 2005. - 608 p.

.Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian Philosophy. T.1. Part 1. / V.V. Zenkovsky. - M.: Phoenix, 2004. - 544 p.

.Losev A.F. Russian Philosophy: Essays on the History of Russian Philosophy / A.F. Losev. - Sverdlovsk: Izd.Ural. un-ta, 1991. - S. 67-71.

.Philosophical Dictionary/ Ed. I.T.Frolova. - M.: Politizdat, 1981. - 445 p.

.Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary/ Ed. L.F. Ilyichev, P.N. Fedoseev, S.M. Kovalev and others - M .: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1983. - 840 p.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.