Dependence on Western influence or absolute originality? Dispute on the integral image of Russian philosophy

Abstract

The article deals with the criticism of I. I. Evlampiev’s works on the history of Russian philosophy contained in A. F. Zamaleev’s article “‘Mystics’ and ‘God’s fools’ in Russian philosophy (polemical notes)”. It is shown that the author of the article incorrectly opposes the Russian philosophy of Western philosophy. Denying the influence of the German mystical tradition on Russian philosophy A. F. Zamaleev mistakenly attributes to German philosophers a strict monism and as an important advantage of Russian philosophy recognizes the strict dualism of metaphysical conceptions. In fact, all philosophers of the 19th — early 20th century considered it necessary to combine monism with dualism; S. L. Frank even came up with a special term for such a combination of “antinomistic monodualism”. It demonstrates the essential dependence of Russian philosophy on 19th century German philosophy, especially with regard to ideas about man. The model of understanding the history of European philosophy is grounded according to which two trends — empiricism and mysticism — resisted in history, and mysticism is a much more correct and deep tradition, suggesting that in the world and man there is an infinite depth inaccessible to rational knowledge. This tradition was most fully revealed in German idealism of the beginning of the 19th century and the nonclassical philosophy of the end of the century (A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, A. Bergson), Russian philosophy of the late 19th — early 20th century also tended to this tradition. It is proved that the term “religious renaissance”, which is often used to characterize Russian philosophy of the early twentieth century, is counterproductive, leads away from a correct understanding of the main thing in Russian thought.