Russian Religious Philosophy

The monograph examines the political ideology and philosophy of history of Constantine Leontiev (1831-1891), who was one of the most peculiar and original figures in the Russian literary and social circles of the 19th century. His life and writings were closely related to the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire, where he was a consul (1863-1874). The book consists of preface, four chapters with nine subchapters, conclusion, and bibliography. The first two chapters (The Charm of the Orient and The Image of the Balkan Middle-Class) are dedicated to the everyday life, customs, traditions, and character of the Balkan peoples. Special attention is paid to Leontiev’s comparative characteristics of the Balkan peoples and the study of their national and social psychology. The second part of the book (chapters National Policy vs Ecclesiastical Policy and Byzantism and the Future of the Balkans) examines Leontiev’s political views on the Eastern and Ecclesiastical Questions and his philosophy of history and social development. The most sizable part of the book is the subchapter of the Greek-Bulgarian Church controversy in which Leontiev’s position is presented in the context of the Russian ecclesiastical policy and the broader historical and ideological context of the time. Political theories and philosophical concepts of Constantine Leontiev are universal despite they are based on the Balkan realities and problems of the second half of the 19th century. This makes them highly valuable and productive for the study not only of the Balkan history, but for the understanding of the global history and social development. The main focus of the book is the Bulgarian matters in the writings of the Russian diplomat, which provide a great source for the study of Bulgarian social, political, religious, cultural history and ethnology. The research is interdisciplinary due to the personality and works of Leontiev himself. He was not just a diplomat and political thinker, but also a philosopher and novelist.

This paper is unpublished. It deals with Pavel Florensky’s socio-philosophical views that shaped during the first Russian revolution years and were elaborated in his later works. The principal theoretical divergence of Florensky’s attitude and the position of Christian socialists, as well as specific character of Florensky’s monarchism, are discussed here. Religious and philosophical grounds of his socio-political position are brought to light.

Cтатья посвящена историко-философскому анализу образа М.А. Бакунина в сочинениях философов русского зарубежья. В работе рассматривается генезис и причины формирования этого образа. Доказывается, что мистический анархизм и литературоведческие дискуссии вокруг творчества Ф.М. Достоевского в начале XX столетия послужили началом философской мистификации образа М.А. Бакунина.



Герасимов Н.И. М.А.Бакунин и философия русского зарубежья // Философские науки, №7, 2014, С.103-112

In this paper I take a closer look at Fr. Georges Florovsky’s original view on the relation between philosophy and theology. I argue that he tried to formulate an approach based on patristic experience and opposed to the dominating secular paradigm of philosophy. In some sense he wanted
to reverse the traditional account. As Teresa Obolevitch aptly suggested, he wanted to replace the  principle fides quaerens intellectum by the rule intellectus quaerens fidem. In that first default case the faith needs to be justified or proved by the reason, in the second, unobvious one, the faith has an absolute priority and illuminates itself the natural thought. According to Florovsky, philosophy should not attempt to ground the theology, formulating arguments for the existence of God or proving
the coherence of theism, but rather should accept theology as a fundamental premise and then develop a new, non-secular account for the old philosophical topics.

The concept of a constituent myth (aitiología) concerns the Genesis and sources of signifi cant events and phenomena in the history of culture, civilization and
social life, which are still remembered or at least do not cease to attract the attention of historians. But the term is also used to describe today’s situations, almost before our eyes, if they want to give importance and depth, pointing to their origins. In the history of Russian philosophy, only Chaadaev looks in this role as eff ectively and convincingly as possible. Th e article considers the parameters proving this position.

Понятие учредительного мифа (aitiología) касается генезиса и источников существенных событий и явлений в истории культуры, цивилизации и общественной жизни, о которых помнят до сих пор или которые, по крайней мере, не перестают приковывать к себе внимание историков. Но этот термин используется и для описания сегодняшних ситуаций, происходящих почти на наших глазах, если им хотят придать важность и глубину, указав на их истоки. В истории русской философии лишь Чаадаев выглядит в этой роли максимально эффектно и убедительно. В статье рассматриваются параметры, доказываю-щие это положение.

Ключевые слова: П. Я. Чаадаев, учредительный миф, «Философические пись-ма», западничество, славянофильство.

This is the title page and table of contents for *Solzhenitsyn and American Culture,* co-edited by David P. Deavel and Jessica Hooten Wilson. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2020.  You can order the book for 40% off from Notre Dame Press (https://undpress.nd.edu) using the code 14CEC20 through January 2021.

Links to reviews below!
An examination of Christianity in contemporary Russia. It begins with an overview of Orthodox Christianity before focusing on the distinctive aspects of Russian Orthodoxy and Russian Christianity. Explores different manifestations according to geographical variation; provides an overview of the history of Christianity in Russia; explores the history of the past century through the biographies of Russian Christians; the trajectory of Russian theology; and socio-political dimensions of Christianity since the collapse of communism.
Reviews:
https://brill.com/view/journals/jecs/74/3-4/article-p347_17.xml
https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=58133
https://readingreligion.org/9781451472509/understanding-world-christianity-russia/

In this article, I intend to give a short overview of an interesting theological detour: the Sophia-theory of modern and contemporary Russian orthodoxy. In fact, this theory was held by only a minority of theologians and the majority harshly rejected it. Although the Sophia-element had always been present in Christian and religious thought, this theory had its renaissance in the early 20 th century. Soloviev, Florensky and Bulgakov are the main representatives of the Sophia-theory; according to them this divine element has been present in the created world since the beginning of Creation. It is not clear, however, whether Sophia is a divine hypostasis or a created manifestation of the heavenly Father. This is the weakest point of the theory which is strongly related to Trinitarian theology, Christology and theological Anthropology. The latter reveals the aim of the Sophia-theory: the human person has life only in God because God possesses humanity through Sophia. After a brief presentation of the theory and the theology of the three orthodox theologians, I shall focus on their sophian theology of Creation. The paper ends by the critical comments of Lossky, Florovsky and others, which correspond to the Catholic view concerning the Sophia-theory.

This is a paper that I initially wrote during my master’s studies in the Netherlands and later published in the University of Exeter’s student theology journal called the Key. It constitutes a sketchy attempt to bring Nikolai Berdyaev and his understanding of freedom into dialogue with Augustinian Roman Catholic moral theology and its tendency to reject non-procreative premarital sex. It is divided into three sections. In the first section, I try to show how St. Augustine’s teaching on sexual morality has profoundly influenced the present-day Roman Catholic position on premarital sex. In the second section, I briefly discuss St. Augustine’s theological views on sexual intercourse and premarital sex. In the third section, I quickly present Berdyaev’s understanding of freedom, which I then use to propose a theologically inclusive way of viewing human sexuality and premarital sexual activities.

Автор статьи говорит о необходимости изучения духовно-академической философии религии в дореволюционный период и предлагает особую методологию изучения богословских работ для выявления их небогословского содержания. В статье показано, что духовно-академические мыслители могли рассуждать о сущности религии, о дисциплинарных границах философии религии и её методологии с небогословских позиций. Автор статьи критикует популярное мнение о бесполезности изучения духовно-академического наследия для развития современного религиоведения. В массиве духовно-академической философии религии современный религиовед может обратить внимание на анализ метафизических оснований методологии, использование целостного подхода и принципа взаимодополнительности. Изучаемые мыслители стремились преодолеть методологическую и метафизическую однобокость в философии религии через синтезирование различных дискурсов. В работах духовно-академических мыслителей также можно обнаружить философский анализ различных концепций религии и типологию данных концепций, анализ критики религии; интерес к вопросам антропологии и психологии религиозного опыта; рассуждения о природной способности человека к формированию религиозного опыта; анализ взаимоотношения структурных компонентов религиозного опыта; попытки классифицировать религии и выявить типы религиозного мировоззрения; интерес к структуре и проблематике религиозно-метафизических построений; рассуждения о критериях подлинности и деструктивности религиозного опыта; попытки выяснить сущностное взаимоотношение религии и смежных регионов бытия. В духовно-академической литературе автор обнаруживает установки, методы и концептуальные выводы, сходные с теми, что имеются в академическом религиоведении наших дней.
Abstract. The author speaks of the need to explore the spiritual and academic philosophy of religion in the pre-revolutionary period and offers a special methodology of studying theological works to identify their non-theological content. The article shows that the spiritual and academic thinkers could talk about the essence of religion, disciplinary boundaries of the philosophy of religion, and its methodology from non-theological perspective. The author criticizes popular opinion about the uselessness of studying spiritual and academic heritage for the development of contemporary religious studies. In the array of spiritual and academic philosophy of religion modern scholars can pay attention to the analysis of the metaphysical foundations of methodology, the use of a holistic approach, and the principle of complementarity. Studied thinkers sought to overcome methodological and metaphysical one-sidedness in the philosophy of religion through synthesizing different discourses. In works of spiritual and academic thinkers modern researchers can also found philosophical analysis of different concepts of religion and typology of these concepts; analysis of the critics of religion; interest in anthropology and the psychology of religious experience; reasoning upon the natural ability of man to the formation of religious experience; analysis of the relationship between the structural components of religious experience; attempts to classify and identify the types of religious worldview; interest in structure and problems of religious-metaphysical constructions; reasoning about the criteria of authenticity and destructiveness of religious experience; trying to figure out the essential relationship of religion and adjacent parts of being. In spiritual and academic literature the author finds paradigms, methods, and conceptual conclusions similar to those, which are available in the academic study of religion today.

Artykuł jest próbą uchwycenia poglądów najważniejszego współczesnego filozofa rosyjskiego Sergiusza Chorużego przez pryzmat jego krytyki myśli Pawła Florenskiego. Ten ostatni – geniusz i męczennik za wiarę (jak powszechnie się sądzi) – okazuje się być dalekim od głównej duchowej tradycji prawosławia, hezychazmu, podobnie zresztą jak większość religijnych filozofów rosyjskich Srebrnego Wieku. Tradycję t ę charakteryzuje bowiem energetyzm, a Florenskiego esencjalizm. Wspomniany energetyzm – pojęcie dość enigmatyczne z perspektywy kultury Zachodu – stanowi fundament własnej propozycji filozoficznej Chorużego. Choruży docenia, co prawda, twórczość Florenskiego, twierdzi jednak, że ma ona wartość tylko historyczną. Te i inne punkty zostały omówione w prezentowanym tekście.

It is well known that Pavel Florensky highly praised mathematics throughout his life. Let us take his letter of 12 November 1933 to his daughter Olga as an example: «Mathematics should not be a burden laid on you from without, but a habit of thought: one should be taught to see geometric relations in all reality and to discover formulae in all phenomena». But God is in the details,
the saying goes, so it is worth specifying Florensky’s ideas on the subject. In this paper, I will attempt to reconstruct the main strands of his rather ambitious project concerning mathematics.

This article discusses Tolstoy’s faith in the unity of its two aspects: as
the state of mind of its carrier and in terms of its content and the life
principles that flow from it. It is shown that at the same time and in
the same respect Tolstoy was the bearer of the faith and its investigator;
therefore, its adequate interpretation is possible only if the principles
established by him for himself are taken into account instead of
an abstract and outward interpretation of what faith should be. The
article considers, first, Tolstoy’s explanation of faith in various works,
letters, diaries, and the like during the last thirty years of his life; and
second, his distinctive expressions of faith along with discussions of
it. The article demonstrates the equivalence of Tolstoy’s state of mind
and the content of his faith, as well as its purely individual character.
The study concludes with a discussion of the significance of Tolstoy’s
understanding of faith for us today.

In Berdyaev’s notion of freedom the borders between theology and philosophy seem to fall down. The same existential concern for spiritual freedom is at the heart of both theology and philosophy. From the point of view of existential philosophy as Berdyaev understands it, only a theologically informed account of freedom, could do justice to the concept of freedom. But a freedom determined by God is not what Berdyaev had in mind as representing authentic freedom. It was necessary for him to reinterpret Jakob Boehme’s concept of Ungrund to arrive at a notion of uncreated freedom that both God and man share. But the articulation of this freedom, and an account of it within our fallen world could only be done as a philosophical pursuit. To arrive at the authentic understanding of spiritual freedom, that is theologically informed, Berdyaev believes that a philosophical rejection of erroneous views of freedom should take place. The articulation of the notion of freedom that does justice to the complexity of the existential situation of both God and man is not for Berdyaev a purpose in itself. The purpose is the arrival at a non-objectified knowledge of freedom that would inform a theologically committed existential attitude.

The article is dedicated to Myrrha Lot-Borodine who is considered to be the first female Orthodox theologian. Her pioneer studies in patristics, especially that concerning deification and Nicolas Cabasilas, initiated researches in this field in milieu of Catholic French thinkers. I also discuss the contribution of Lot-Borodine into the ecumenical movement of the 20 th century. Eventually, I pay attention to her attitude towards Russian religious philosophy.

Sergei N. Bulgakov’s sophiology is often regarded as a concept submerging human beings in a divine cosmos, where personal dignity makes no difference. I will argue that quite the opposite is true. Bulgakov’s vision meets all three conditions of a modern concept of Human Rights: Firstly, a person must be accepted in his or her autonomy and liberty. Secondly, a person must be accepted as a different, yet equivalent person. Thirdly, all human beings must be regarded as belonging to the same nature of humanity. These issues bridge the gap between Bulgakov’s philosophy of economy and his theological sophiology.

One of the most interesting parts of the theory of divine names proposed by the Athonite imiaslavtsy (onomatodoxes) is their theory of knowledge and doctrine of ideas, which were developed by Anthony Bulatovich. Bulatovich denied any pre-existence of the ideas but believed that they were created together with the creatures to made the created world knowledgeable and to allow to the rational creatures expressing of divine truths and, in particular, divine names. Thus, Bulatovich followed the Byzantine conceptual realism, which was the mainstream ontological view of the Fathers and, especially, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas.

The subject of beauty is timely for a world increasingly characterised by fragmentation and a diluted sense of meaning. In this space, it is worthwhile revisiting the work of the Russian émigré theologian Paul Evdokimov who reflected on the subject of beauty in his work "The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty". In addition to explaining the biblical and patristic basis of iconography, Evdokimov reflects on how icons relate to the subject of beauty more broadly. Ubiquitous references to Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Seraphim of Sarov - a recurring characteristic of Evdokimov's writings in general - are typical of his "applied" approach to theology. In doing so, the subject of iconography is linked to literature and modern spirituality, and the subject of beauty itself, offering a meditation on the theology of icons that is unique in comparison to other authors who have written on the subject.

The paper traces the origins and historical development of the Russian philosophical and ideological conception of Moscow as the Third Rome and its practical implementation in the Russian foreign policy in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. It focuses on the works of the two main representatives of the Russian Neo-Byzantine ideology – Constantine Leontiev and Ivan Sokolov. Both of them were strong proponents of Ecumenical ideology and monarchy. They promoted Orthodox unity under the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was a successor and custodian of the Byzantine cultural and religious tradition. Neo-Byzantism was universal and imperial ideology but the 19th century was an age of nationalism when national, not religious passions and values were up to date and determined state policy and public opinion. Greek and Bulgarian nationalism became the main hindrance to the Russian imperialistic ambitions in the Balkans and achieving Orthodox unity under Russian patronage. Special attention is paid to the period of the First World War when the ancient Russian dream of Constantinople was close to become true. The recent political developments in Europe and the Middle East are also examined in the light of Leontiev’s predictions of the future and his vision of Russia as a successor of the declining European civilization.

Russian religious thinkers are a fertile source for addressing the issue of the theologico-political problem in modern political thought. In the writings of authors such as Vladimir Soloviev, Nikolai Berdiaev, and Sergei Bulgakov, we can find samples of a theological understanding of secular modern political theories. Russian religious thought, in its singular quest for anthropological and metaphysical integrality, assumes a Christocentric character, as it allows to integrate the divine in humanity without being the latter devoured by the first one. With a transcendent horizon, free from the myth of secularism and the narrative of the Enlightenment, they reflect on all human affairs from a religious point of view. It is an approach to modernity from an outsider's point of view. Modern ideas broke in Russia as an external force, disruptive of the Slavic lifeworld and tradition. This gave them the conditions of possibility to perceive more easily its basic characteristics, problems and implications. Thus, they recognized the religious and theological implications of these ideas, avowedly secular, unlike their contemporary Western intelligentsia who view them as a gradual development of their own intellectual and social being. In this diagnosis, the thinkers mentioned above have the same master: Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. As said Ivan Karamazov, the greatest character of The Brothers Karamazov, "socialism and anarchism, transforming the whole of mankind according to a new order, it's the same damned thing [that the theological questions], the questions are all the same, only from the opposite end”. Dostoevsky acknowledged that despite the alleged neutrality or opposition of modern political theories to religion, religious and theological conceptions subsisted in a heretical form. The dissolution of the influence of Christianity in public life did not dilute the aspirations to fulfill the eschatological promises of Christianity, they were transferred to politics in the pursuit of its consummation in the immanence of history, attributing to the secular political sphere a power that according to orthodox Christian theology only God can accomplish. A text that gathers all these intuitions and thoughts of Dostoevsky in its most mature form is The Legend of The Grand Inquisitor, which had an important reception in Russian religious thinkers, allowing us to gather some of their reflections about the theological-political question. In this thesis, I propose to articulate the interpretations on this text offered by Soloviev, Berdyaev, and Bulgakov, along with some of Dostoevsky's parallel writings and thus exposing a shared vision on the theologico-political question with relevance for the post-secular scenario.

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky (1870–1965) adhered to an evolutionary metaphysics of reincarnation according to which the world is constituted of immortal souls or monads, which he calls “substantival agents.” These substantival agents can evolve or devolve depending on the goodness or badness of their behavior. Such evolution requires the possibility for monads to reincarnate into the bodies of creatures of a higher or of a lower level on the scala perfectionis. According to this theory, a substantival agent can evolve by being gradually reincarnated multiple times through a sort of process of metamorphosis from the level of the most elementary particles all the way up to the level of human beings or even higher. In “Ученiе Лейбница о перевоплощенiи какъ метаморфозѣ” (“Leibniz’s Doctrine of Reincarnation as Metamorphosis,” 1931), Lossky argues that the works of Leibniz contain scattered elements of such a systematic evolutionary doctrine of reincarnation as metamorphosis and he attempts to reconstitute this doctrine. The present article is intended as an historical introduction to the translation (published in the same journal issue) of Lossky’s “Leibniz’s Doctrine of Reincarnation as Metamorphosis.”

The present essay first presents an overview of Tolstoy’s normative expressivist philosophical aesthetics, narrowly construed; then the view is widened to include the moral-political framework within which proper artworks should fulfill their vital function. It concludes with some brief remarks on the influence of Tolstoy’s ideas on later thinkers.

This article examines Fr Sergii Bulgakov’s writings on the eucharist. It argues that these texts, written at critical junctures at the beginning, middle, and end of his career, constitute a “eucharistic horizon” against which one can envision continuity across Bulgakov’s wide-ranging corpus. Contrary to the scholarly narrative that Bulgakov abandoned his mission to justify Orthodox social action after his exile to Western Europe in the early 1920’s in the interest of building an abstract dogmatic edifice, this article argues that at the core of his thought lies a commitment to the importance of the material world and concomitantly an abiding commitment to collective social action within it. It is argued that the entirety of Bulgakov’s thought can be viewed a resource for restoring a spirit of collective Orthodox social action (as opposed to individual contemplation and ascesis alone) for the transfiguration of human and non-human creation: what Bulgakov called the “common task” of humanity.

The article is an attempt of understanding and interpretation of the icon symbolism. I assume that the most accurate is the symbolism of the icon as a window to eternity. It has the most comprehensive, general and so to say-supreme character in comparison to the others, more specific elements and aspects of icon symbolism. I also consider the alternative qualification of icon as a mirror. I show that the window symbolism best enables common understanding of the icon as one opening the spiritual world, completely different dimension of being, different horizon of existence.

Chciałbym podjąć się tu próby zrozumienia i interpretacji symboliki ikony. Zadanie to wydaje się ogromne, skomplikowane, przerastające ramy jednego artykułu, a i zapewne jednego autora; zdaje się świadczyć albo o pysze, albo o taniej lekkomyślności autora. W istocie jednak zamysł mój jest dość skromny i dający się pogodzić z moją sporą niewiedzą z zakresu historii ikony, całej subtelnej techniki i technologii jej tworzenia oraz pasjonujących i finezyjnych reguł interpretowania jej kreski, figurystyki, kolorystyki, kompozycji. Nie zamierzam więc porządkować, objaśniać, a tym bardziej dokonywać jakichś własnych rozstrzygnięć, dotyczących na przykład znaczenia poszczególnych barw, dotyczących sensu układu postaci czy też dotyczących określonej tematyki ikony. Nie będą mnie tu interesować poszczególne elementy czy aspekty ikony oraz ich geneza i moc symboliczna (daleko mi do uprawnienia, by wypowiadać się w tych kwestiach); obiektem zamysłu czynię ikonę jako całość, ikonę jako taką. Nie będą więc nas tu zajmować symbole w ikonie, ale symboliczność " całej " ikony; chodzić nam będzie nie o strukturę symboliczną ikony, ale o ikonę jako symbol.

Nietzsche leu esse ensaio em sua versão francesa em Nice, nos primeiros meses de 1888, imediatamente após os malfadados esforços empreendidos com vistas à produção de sua planejada obra Vontade de poder: ensaio de uma transvaloração de todos os valores, e que haviam resultado finalmente no abandono deste projeto por parte do filósofo. Nos fragmentos póstumos 11 [236] a 11 [282] de novembro de 1887 - março de 1888, o filósofo resume, toma notas, copia e traduz diversas passagens de Ma Religion, e, em alguns momentos, faz esboços e tentativas de interpretação das idéias expostas na obra. Esse material serviu como base para diversos elementos da crítica ao cristianismo feita em O Anticristo.

Аннотация. В статье речь пойдет о варианте тринитарной онтологии проф. прот. С.Н. Булгакова, изложенном в не публиковавшихся ранее разделах «Глав о Троичности». Текст представляет собой черновую рукопись с множеством правок и датируется 1925 г. Эта датировка позволяет соотнести первоначальную редакцию текста «Глав» со статьей «Ипостась и ипостасность» (1924, опубл. в 1925), и рассматривать «Главы» как своеобразно�� расширение и продолжение концепции, которая была изложена в пражской статье. В «пропущенных "Главах"» содержится булгаковская тринитарная и софиологическая модели, переходные от «Ипостаси и ипостасности»-к тем онтологическим моделям, которая известны нам по «Агнцу Божиему». В частности, здесь Булгаков отказывается от концепции «ипостасности» как «способности к самоотданию» в пользу концепции Софии-unum, и от паламитского влияния в пользу триадологии свв. Афанасия Великого, Василия Великого, Григория Богослова, Иоанна Дамаскина и др. Отдельные сюжеты «пропущенной Троичности» связаны с философией пола и философией языка.
Ключевые слова: тринитарная онтология, софиология, С.Н. Булгаков, ипостасность, ипостась, субъект, философия пола, философия языка, психоанализ

Wassily Kandinsky’s life-long adherence to Orthodox Christianity was a driving force in his exploration of non-objective painting. Under the influence of the Russian Neo-Christian thinkers who aimed to revitalize Orthodox theology at the turn of the twentieth century, Kandinsky sought to imbue new vigor into art that could be simultaneously modern and Christian. While Kandinsky’s early works with overtly Christian themes of 1908–14 have received ample scholarly attention, this study explores religiosity inherent in Kandinsky’s art and writing produced after the First World War. By juxtaposing Kandinsky’s painting Fröhliche Struktur and the Eastern Orthodox icon The Ladder of Divine Ascent , this paper proposes that the kinship between his images and the Orthodox tradition of icon painting is in spiritual revelations that they are purposed to communicate. To gain a better understanding of Kandinsky’s non-objective oeuvre, it therefore helps to recognize the religious truths that the artist strove to impart in his works.