Who was the representative of Slavophilism. Who are the Slavophiles? IV. The religious factor in the teachings of the Slavophiles
Representatives of one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, who criticized the superficial imitation of the West, the blind borrowing of Western forms of social and cultural life, their direct transfer to Russian soil. The Slavophils considered Orthodoxy to be the basis of the identity of Russia and Russian culture, which, according to the Slavophils, being a direct successor of the traditions of Byzantine patristics, to a much greater extent than Western Catholicism and Protestantism, preserved the purity of the Christian faith. A distinctive feature of the thinkers united by the term "Slavophiles" was the combination in their work of Orthodoxy and Russian patriotism. “The combination of Orthodoxy and Russia is that common key point at which all the thinkers of this group converge” (Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian Philosophy. T. 1. Part 2. M, 1991. P. 6). The Slavophiles regarded Western and Russian civilizations as kindred, having grown from the same root (Christianity), like two branches of the same tree. Calling Western Europe a "country of holy miracles," they at the same time reproached the West for departing from genuine Christianity, for excessive rationalism, and for misunderstanding Russia. The term “Slavophiles” (literally, “Slav-lovers”) reflects only one side of the views of representatives of this direction - their sympathy for the Slavs, especially the southern ones (Serbs and Bulgarians), their urgent desire to strengthen the solidarity of the Slavic peoples. The main role in the development of the views of the Slavophiles was played by A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky. Prominent Slavophiles were K.S.Aksakov, Yu.F.Samarin, P.V.Kireevsky, A.I.Koshelev, I.S.Aksakov, D.A.Valuev, F.V. , A. F. Hilferding and others. The philosophical concept of the Slavophiles was based on the ideas of Eastern patristics, and at the same time connected with Western European philosophical thought, primarily with the philosophy of Schelling. The main thing in the philosophical teachings of the Slavophiles is the desire for integrity and unity, the search for ways to overcome all forms of fragmentation and division. In this regard, they developed the doctrine of specialness. According to the Slavophiles, the highest truth is given not only to the ability of logical thinking, but to the mind, feeling and will together, that is, to the spirit in its living integrity. Manifestations of sobornost and living integrity of the spirit of the Slavophiles sought to find in various phenomena of Russian history and culture. Among the Western European countries, they singled out England, in which, unlike the rest of Europe, the spirit of solidarity and healthy conservatism is the strongest. As positive examples created by Russian history, they emphasized the importance of the peasant community and the workers' artel. The spirit of integrity and unity of the community and the artel was determined by the main principle of internal organization - the principle of unanimity, and not by the principle of the majority, in which the Slavophils saw a deviation from catholicity. The Slavophils opposed serfdom, considering its existence as "an outrage on every right." The defining principles in the field of socio-political for the Slavophiles were the principles of class peace and "progress without surgical intervention", i.e., evolutionary progress. The Slavophiles opposed their views to the views of the Westerners, as well as to the spontaneous superficial imitation of Western models, neglect of their own history and culture, and nihilism.
Introduction
I. The direction of Slavophilism, its emergence and development
II. Slavophiles and Westernizers: common and different
III. The attitude of the Slavophiles to power
IV. The religious factor in the teachings of the Slavophiles
V. The attitude of the Slavophiles to the enlightenment of Russia
VI. Creativity and philosophical views of Russian Slavophiles
Conclusion
Bibliographic list
Introduction
The first decade of the 19th century, “the days of Alexander, a wonderful beginning”, then the epic of the Patriotic War of 1812, the successes of Russian politics in Europe, the sensational project of M.M. Speransky, the formation of secret societies and the expectation of social change - all this changed the "direction of the minds" of the public. For some time the role of the thinker paled before the role of the public figure. But after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising in 1825. and the reprisals of Nicholas I over its participants, it became obvious that there would be no changes for a long time. A period of harsh political reaction began, which caused a new turn in the change in the dominant social currents. Revived, and already with renewed vigor, interest in theoretical search, in the philosophical understanding of reality. Russia's attitude to Europe again became the dominant socio-philosophical thought.
In Russia, two streams of world history collide and come into interaction - East and West. The Russian people are not a purely European and not a purely Asian people. In the Russian soul, two principles have always fought, the eastern and the western. The most clear theoretical and socio-political formulation of these two trends received in the 40-60s of the XIX century. The first trend was represented by the Slavophiles, and the second by the Westerners. Westernizers and Slavophiles determined in disputes and defended their points of view on the past, present and future of Russia. This was the era of "excitation of mental interests." Granovsky, Herzen, Belinsky, Kavelin, Alexander Turgenev (brother of the Decembrist N.I. Turgenev, friend of N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Pushkin), Chaadaev defended their point of view in journal articles and salon disputes, as well as from university departments. , Ivan and Peter Kireevsky, Koshelev, Khomyakov, Samarin. They were prominent representatives of Westerners and Slavophiles.
The goal of all their efforts in public life was the creation of a great enlightened and original Russia. Their lives and aspirations were subordinated to this goal. A huge contribution to the awakening and development of social thought in Russia was made by the Slavophiles. These were special people, unusual in their spiritual qualities, aspirations, worldview, not only for descendants, but also for contemporaries. Therefore, the ideas of the Slavophiles deserve close attention.
I. The direction of the Slavophiles, its emergence and development
The time of the birth of Slavophilism is considered to be the winter of 1838-39, when in the literary salons of Moscow there was an exchange of messages between A.S. Khomyakov (“On the Old and the New”) and I.V. Kireevsky (“In response to A.S. Khomyakov”). In 1839 K. Aksakov wrote an article "On the basic principles of Russian history." Soon Y. Samarin joined the circle. A discussion began with Westerners, where V.G. became the main ideologist. Belinsky. By 1843-44. formed a Slavophil circle. In the midst of controversy 1844-45gg. Westernizers and Slavophiles shared the general principles of early Russian liberalism and maintained not only ideological but also friendly closeness. In 1845-47. attempts were made to create their own printed organ. The formation ended in 1848, when the events of the European revolutions seemed to confirm the correctness of the opposition between Russia and the West.
The second period of 1848-1855, the period of the most acute opposition of the Slavophiles to the bureaucratic government. Censorship forbids many articles of the Slavophiles, in 1848. Y. Samarin was arrested for "Letters from Riga" and I. Aksakov "For a liberal way of thinking." During this period, the Slavophiles Samarin, Aksakov, Koshelev made the first approaches to the practical development of plans for the abolition of serfdom.
The third stage began, relatively speaking, on February 19, 1855, on the day of the death of Nicholas I, and continued until February 19, 1861. (day of the abolition of serfdom). This was a period of active Slavophilism, when they believed in the possibility of an early realization of their ideals. Their main efforts were concentrated in two directions: participation in the preparation of the peasant reform and the conquest of Russian public opinion. In 1856 Slavophiles got the opportunity to publish their own journal "Russian conversation", where the last and most significant philosophical works of I.V. Kireevsky and A.S. Khomyakov. This stage ends earlier Slavophilism.
The fourth stage covers 1861-75. Of the early Slavophiles, only Yu.F. Samarin continued to develop the philosophical views of A.S. Khomyakov. By the mid-70s, disagreements in the circle regarding the role of Orthodoxy in the renewal of society, as well as disagreements on the Polish question, led to the disintegration of the circle. The debate revolved around the main problem: whether the freely creative will rules the world or the law of necessity. Questions were also discussed about what is the difference between the Russian and Western European Enlightenment - only in the degree of development or in the very nature of the enlightenment principles, and therefore whether Russia will have to borrow these principles from the West or look for them in Orthodox-Russian life. An important topic of controversy was the question of the attitude of the Orthodox Church to Latinism and Protestantism: is Orthodoxy just a primitive environment, called upon to become a soil for higher forms of religious worldview, or is it an intact fullness of revelation, which in the Western world is under the influence of Latin-Germanic ideas came to a bifurcation into opposite poles. Slavophilism ceased to exist as a special direction of Russian idealism, which developed ideas for the improvement of man and society in the context of Orthodox values.
But, there is no need to reduce this to the decline and degradation of the Slavophile doctrine. The main line in the development of late Slavophil opinions, assessments, beliefs, merging with other areas of the liberal movement on the basis of an indefinite program of zemstvo liberalism.
The central theme of the philosophical work of the early Slavophiles Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Aksakov, Samarin is the substantiation of the uniqueness of the history and culture of the Russian people. They saw originality in the combination of national consciousness and the truth of Orthodoxy. The Slavophiles said that Russian history, Russian way of life, national self-consciousness, culture as a whole have original life values and perspectives. The high moral potential of Russian culture, contained in Orthodoxy, should provide Russia and the entire Slavic people with a leading place in historical development. The Slavophils raised the question of the people as the driving force of history, the need to reassess the significance of pre-Petrine Russia, the peasant community, self-government, Zemstvo, the difference between national-folk and official-folk and official-autocratic Russia, about churching, the transformation of public life, about philosophy as theory of education and improvement of society.
The main positions of Slavophil philosophy, the rejection of the Western path of development through the creation of industry, class struggle and revolution, the rationale for the historical fate of the people in the context of national psychology and religion, and in this regard, the analogy of the original path of Russia through the strengthening of the community and the catholicity of the Orthodox Church, the rejection of reason as the last resort in the process of cognition, were declared "Domestic Notes".
II. Slavophiles and Westernizers: common and different
The dispute between the Slavophiles and the Westerners was a dispute about the fate of Russia and its recognition in the world. Both of them loved freedom. Both of them loved Russia, the Slavophiles like a mother, the Westerners like a child.
The Russian philosophy of history had first of all to resolve the question of the meaning and significance of Peter's reform, which cut Russian history, as it were, into two parts. This is where the collision first occurred. Is the historical path of Russia the same as that of the West, i.e. the path of universal human progress and universal civilization, and the peculiarity of Russia is only in its backwardness, or does Russia have a special path and its civilization belongs to a different type? The Slavophils believed in a special type of culture that arose on the spiritual soil of Orthodoxy. The reform of Peter and the Europeanization of the Petrine period were a betrayal of Russia.
Both systems of views came from one common source, contemporary Western European philosophical currents, and this fact left misprints on their polemics, and both of them in their constructions were based on some initial, albeit different, “beginnings”. As a result, they tried to approach the same problem, only from different angles, but the search for means of solving it led them to different sides of the barricades. There was also a common belief in the high historical vocation of Russia. Both those and others criticized the Nikolaev regime and serfdom, defended freedom of conscience, speech, and the press. Both were children of the Russian enlightenment of the 18th century, and both were influenced by the ideas of the Decembrists.
The main vector of controversy between Slavophiles and Westerners was the opposition "Russia - Europe" in connection with forecasting the future of the country. All of them were preoccupied with the future of Russia and anxiously assessed its present.
The classical Slavophiles did not have a complete denial of the West, they did not talk about the decay of the West (they were too universalists for this). But they built a doctrine about the uniqueness of Russia and its path and wanted to explain the reasons for its difference from the West. They mixed their ideal of Russia, their ideal utopia of a perfect order, with Russia's historical past.
The Westerners mixed their ideal of a better order of life for Russia with contemporary Western Europe, which by no means looked like an ideal state. And among the Slavophils, the Westerners had a remarkable element, they contrasted their dream with the unbearable reality of Nicholas. Both were wrong. Some did not understand the inevitability of Peter's reform for the very mission of Russia in the world, they did not want to admit that it was only in the era of Peter the Great that thought, and the word, and the thought of the Slavophils themselves became possible in Russia, and great Russian literature became possible. The Westerners did not understand the uniqueness of Russia, they did not want to recognize the painfulness of Peter's reform, they did not see the peculiarities of Russia. The Slavophils were among us the first populists, but populists on religious grounds. The Slavophils, like the Westerners, loved freedom and equally did not see it in the surrounding reality.
The Slavophiles strove for organicity and integrity. The idea of organicity was taken by them from the German romantics. Organicity was their ideal of a perfect life. They projected this ideal organicity into the historical past, in the pre-Petrine era, in the Petrine era, they could not see it in any way.
The Slavophiles oppose the integrity and organic nature of Russia to the bifurcation and dissection of Western Europe. They fight with Western rationalism, in which they see the source of all evils. This rationalism they trace back to Catholic scholasticism. In the West, everything is mechanized and rationalized. The integral life of the spirit is opposed to rationalistic dissection. I. Kireevsky in the article "On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia" managed to formulate the typical features of the difference between Russia and Europe. The opposition itself also exists within Western Europe, for example, the opposition of religious culture and godless civilization. The type of Russian thinking and Russian culture is still very different from Western European. Russian thinking is much more totalitarian and holistic than Western thinking, which is more differentiated and divided into categories. The central philosophical thought, from which I. Kireevsky proceeds, is expressed by him as follows: “The inner consciousness, which is in the depths of the soul a living common concentration for all the individual forces of the mind, and one worthy to comprehend the highest truth - such a consciousness constantly elevates the very way of thinking of a person: humbling his rational conceit, it does not restrict the freedom of the natural laws of his thinking; on the contrary, it strengthens his identity and at the same time voluntarily subordinates him to the faith. The Slavophils searched in history, in society and culture for the same spiritual integrity that they found in the soul. They wanted to discover an original type of culture and social system on the spiritual basis of Orthodoxy. “In the West,” wrote Aksakov, “souls are killed, being replaced by the improvement of state forms, police improvement; conscience is replaced by law, internal motives by regulations, even charity turns into a mechanical thing; in the West, all care is about state forms. "At the foundation of the Russian state: voluntariness, freedom and peace". The latter thought does not correspond to historical reality and reveals the non-historical nature of the main thoughts of the Slavophils about Russia and the West.
The Slavophils strove for an organic understanding of history and cherished folk traditions. But this organicity was only in their ideal future, and not in the actual historical past. When the Slavophiles said that the commune and the zemshchina were the foundations of Russian history, it must be understood that the community and the zemshchina were for them the ideal of Russian life. “The community is that higher, that true beginning, which no longer has to find something higher of itself, but only has to succeed, purify and rise”, for it is “a union of people who renounce their egoism, from their personality and show their common consent: this an action of love, a lofty Christian action” (K.S. Aksakov). Westerners could not agree with this: “What is it to me that the common lives when the individual suffers?” Belinsky exclaimed indignantly.
Criticism of the West among the Slavophils is, first of all, a criticism of "philistinism", Catholicism and Protestantism, and the defense of Russia is an analogy of Orthodoxy. Russia must show humanity the way to true brotherhood and true unity - catholicity. This concept was introduced by A.S. Khomyakov as an expression of "freedom in unity" on the basis of the Orthodox faith (In the Catholic Church, such unity, Khomyakov believed, is impossible, because in it the believer feels himself not a member of a fraternal community, but a subject of a church organization).
In general, the Slavophiles were not enemies and haters of Western Europe, as were Russian nationalists of the obscurantist type (obscurantism from the Latin obscurans - obscuring, extremely hostile attitude towards education and science, obscurantism).
III. The attitude of the Slavophiles to power
The theme of power and the justification of the state is a very Russian theme. Russians have a special relationship with power. The growth of state power, sucking all the juice out of the people, had the reverse side of the Russian freemen, the departure from the state, physical or spiritual. The Russian split is the main phenomenon of Russian history. On the basis of the split, anarchist currents were formed. The Slavophiles tried to combine the idea of an autocratic monarch with the idea of Russian principled anarchism. The Slavophiles did not like the state and power, they saw evil in this. They had a very Russian idea that the cult of power and glory, which is achieved by state power, is alien to the soul of the Russian people.
The Slavophile critique of the "rule of law" is based on the opposition of "law and custom", in which conscience is replaced by law and whose entire ideology is implicated in the Old Testament. Life in a community or in a family is the opposite of the rule of law. The Russian people will be imbued with concern for such a form of state, where there would be as much scope as possible for the inner life of a person. The rule of law is beneficial only to morally inferior human communities. They also denied the legitimacy of any political decisions by a majority of votes. The Slavophils did not deny the necessity and significance of laws. They opposed only their absolutization, against the fact that conscience was replaced by law. The law is not a panacea for evil, it does not protect morally unscrupulous supporters of the law from arbitrariness. Any legislation limits the action of not only negative, but also positive forms of life.
Of the Slavophiles, the greatest anarchist was K. Aksakov, for him “The state as a principle is evil”, “The state in its idea is a lie”,
"The West is the triumph of external law." At the foundation of the Russian state: voluntariness, freedom and peace. Khomyakov said that the West does not understand the incompatibility of the state and Christianity. He, in essence, did not recognize the possibility of the existence of a Christian state.
The best form of political power for Russia, taking into account its originality, is an absolute monarchy, as the "lesser evil", since only with an unlimited monarchy can a people concentrate on their spiritual and moral life. Other forms of state power, somehow involving the people in political life, seduce him from the true path of "internal truth", because, having become a sovereign, or only having joined power, he betrays himself, involving himself in a sphere of activity alien to his essence, and in this sense simply ceases to be a people.
The monarchism of the Slavophils, in its justification and in its inner pathos, was anarchist, proceeding from aversion to power. Initially, the fullness of power belongs to the people, but the people do not like power, they refuse power, elect a king and instruct him to bear the burden of power. Among the Slavophiles, there was absolutely no religious justification for the autocratic monarchy, there was no mystic autocracy. Their rationale for monarchy is very peculiar. An autocratic monarchy based on popular election and popular confidence is the minimum of a state, the minimum of power. The Slavophils opposed their autocracy to Western absolutism. State power is evil and filth. The people put full power on the king. It is better that one person be stained with mud than the whole nation. Power is not a right, but a burden, a burden. No one has the right to rule, but someone is obliged to bear this burden. And legal guarantees are not needed. The people only want freedom. If the state returns to the people (Earth) freedom of thought and speech, which, according to Aksakov, are not subject to state control, as they are not political rights, the people will grant him confidence and strength.
The Slavophils opposed the zemstvo, society, to the state. They were convinced that the Russian people do not like power and statehood and do not want to do this, they want to remain in freedom of spirit. According to the Slavophiles, the state structure should be as follows: at the head of the people, the king with unlimited freedom of government, the people - complete freedom of life, both external and internal.
IV. The religious factor in the teachings of the Slavophiles
In Russian culture of the 19th century. The religious theme was of decisive importance. The Slavophiles relied on the Orthodox-Russian direction in the social thought of Russia. Their philosophical doctrine was based on the idea of the messianic role of the Russian people, of its religious and cultural identity and even exclusivity. The initial thesis of the teachings of the Slavophiles is the affirmation of the decisive role of Orthodoxy for the development of the entire world civilization. According to Khomyakov, it was Orthodoxy that formed “that primordial Russian beginning, that “Russian spirit” that created the Russian land in its infinite volume.”
A.S. Khomyakov divides all religions into two main groups: Cushite and Iranian. The fundamental difference between these two groups of religions, according to his thinking, is determined not by the number of gods or the peculiarities of cult rites, but by the ratio of freedom and necessity in them. Kushitism is built on the principles of necessity, dooming its followers to insane submission, turning people into executors of a will alien to them. Iranism is a religion of freedom, it addresses the inner world of a person, requires him to make a conscious choice between good and evil.
According to Khomyakov, Christianity expressed the essence of Iranism most fully. But it split into three directions: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. After the split of Christianity, the “beginning of freedom” no longer belongs to the whole church. Only Orthodoxy, Khomyakov believes, harmoniously combines freedom and necessity, individual religiosity with church organization.
Solving the problem of combining freedom and necessity, the individual and the ecclesiastical principle, serves as an important methodological principle for the Slavophiles to develop the key concept of their religious and philosophical views - the concept of catholicity. The concept of "cathedral" reveals not only the external, apparently the connection of people in any place, but also the constant possibility of such a connection on the basis of a spiritual community. It is a consequence, the result of the interaction of the free human principle (“free will of man”) and the divine principle (“grace”).
Slavophiles emphasize that catholicity can be understood and assimilated only by those who live in the Orthodox "church fence", that is, members of Orthodox communities, and for "alien and unrecognized" it is inaccessible. They consider participation in church ceremonies and cult actions to be the main sign of life in the church. This ensures in practice the implementation of the principle of "unity in plurality": each member of the church, being in its "fence", can experience and feel religious actions in his own way, which is why there is a "multiplicity".
The Slavophils recognized the important role of the rational principle and philosophical quest in the life of people and called for the creation of an original Russian philosophy as the general foundation of all sciences and the spiritual experience of the Russian people, and advocated the combination of conciliar truths with modern enlightenment. However, in their opinion, philosophical reflections are useful only insofar as they do not seek to dominate religious life. When philosophy comes to the fore, conciliar consciousness is replaced by rational consciousness: philosophy is called upon to serve as a deepening of the conciliar principle.
The religious beginning can also be traced in the thesis about the difference in the development of Russia and the West. The Western peoples, having perverted the creed, thereby consigned to oblivion the conciliar principle. This gave rise to the disintegration of society into selfish individuals pursuing mercantile interests. Russia, relying on the Orthodox spiritual foundation, is following its own special path, which will lead it to world leadership.
V. The attitude of the Slavophiles to the enlightenment of Russia
The Slavophils assigned a large place in the historical development of Russia to the enlightenment of the people. Only through him, influencing society, can one awaken "the best instincts of the Russian soul." "Russian Enlightenment - the Life of Russia".
I. Kireevsky, following Khomyakov, distinguishes the personality of Peter I and his influence on the development of education. In the education begun by Petrov, he sees the guarantee of "our future prosperity." A distinctive feature of modern education, from the position of Kireevsky, is its source in the advanced people of his time. Initially, "the educational beginning was in our church."
About the need to go to the people with the light of knowledge, Khomyakov said the following: “Private thinking can be strong and fruitful only with a strong development of general thinking, general thinking is possible only when higher knowledge and people expressing it are connected with all other organisms of society by bonds of free and reasonable love. and when the mental powers of each individual person are enlivened by the circulation of mental and moral juices in his people.
The main idea of the Slavophiles was the enlightenment of society in the name of its own good. They defined the role of Russia in the future as leadership in the enlightenment of mankind.
The result of enlightenment should also be a change within Russian society itself. "True enlightenment is a reasonable enlightenment of the entire spiritual composition in a person or people." “Enlightenment is the common property and strength of the whole society and the whole people. By this force, the Russian man has defended himself from many troubles in the past, and by this force he will be strong in the future.
The main task that Khomyakov outlined is common with the people, in which “his favorite ideals can be clarified and expressed in images and forms that correspond to them, but in order to revive science, life and art, so that enlightenment arises from the combination of knowledge and life ". Living communication with the people will allow a person to get out of the "dead loneliness of selfish existence", which is inherent in the Western representative of civilization.
VI. Creativity and philosophical views of Russian Slavophiles
Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860). Born into a noble family; in 1822 entered the mathematical department of Moscow University, received the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences. In 1839 his program article “On the Old and the New” was published, in which he developed the ideas of the all-Slavic brotherhood and the differences in the paths of Russia and the West. The philosophical concept of Khomyakov was of a religious nature, at the center of his views, the teachings of catholicity, which later became one of the foundations of the philosophy of unity.
He considered Orthodoxy to be the true Christian religion: in Catholicism there is unity, but there is no freedom; in Protestantism, on the contrary, freedom is not supported by unity. Only Orthodoxy is characterized by catholicity, or communality, a combination of unity and freedom, based on love for God. He was a determined opponent of the principle of authority. “We do not accept any head of the church, either spiritual or secular. Christ is the head, and she knows no other." “The Church is not an authority and God, not the authority of Christ; for authority is something external. He opposes authority to freedom, as well as love. Love is the main source of knowledge of Christian truth. The Church, for him, is the unity of freedom and love. Sobornost, unity, freedom, love - these are the key and most fruitful philosophical ideas of Khomyakov.
Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1806-1856). Born in an old Russian family, his mother, A.P., had a great influence on his upbringing. Yelagin. Returning to Russia from Germany, he undertook the publication of the European magazine, which was soon banned by censorship. In the 1930's and 1950's he worked extensively on the development of the theoretical foundations of Slavophilism, which, in his system of views, are closely connected with participation in the personality, with anthropology. At the center of the new philosophy, Kireevsky placed the principle of non-contradictory wholeness, the elimination of painful contradictions between mind and faith, spiritual truth and natural life. Religions, despite the achievements of Western European liberalism and rationalism, must be given back all the rights of a spiritual leader.
He was one of the first, as Zenkovsky characterizes him, Christian philosophers; it can be said that Kireevsky made an attempt to combine Russian philosophical thought with Orthodoxy.
The main works of I.V. Kireevsky: On the necessity and possibility of new beginnings for philosophy.; Nineteenth century.; On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia.; In response to A.S. Khomyakov; Review of Russian literature for 1829; Review of the current state of literature.
Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov (1817-1866). The son of the writer S.T. Aksakov. In 1835 In 1835 he entered Moscow University at the Faculty of Languages, graduating in 1835. Experienced the influence of German classical philosophy (Hegel). He was engaged in literary creativity, journalism, wrote poems, dramas, and spoke with critical essays. In the late 1930s, he became close to Khomyakov and Kireevsky, after which he became a recognized theoretician of Slavophilism. He actively collaborated in Slavophile publications (Moscow Collection, Russian Conversation, Molva). The most orthodox representative of early Slavophilism, he owns a comprehensive substantiation of the doctrine of the state and power in its relation to the "land" (community, society). He was an active supporter of the abolition of serfdom, argued the need for reforms.
He proceeded from the principle of difference between the two branches of the Christian world. The Western states are based on violence and enmity, which is why the West has unilaterally developed a coercive statehood that rigidly predetermines the course of people's life, while the basis of the Russian state is freedom and peace.
Conclusion
Thus, based on the foregoing, it should be noted that the main motives of the philosophy of the Slavophiles did not have a systemic expression and were an experience of a holistic and intuitive understanding of historical and human issues in the unity of socio-anthropological, epistemological and historical motives. Slavophilism had a significant impact on the later philosophical and religious-mystical tradition of Russian culture. The reproduction of the characteristic motives of the historiosophy of Slavophilism in the context of various theoretical systems (“pochvennichestvo”) provokes the spread of the very concept of Slavophilism for a much longer period than the third quarter of the 19th century. In this connection one speaks of "neo-Slavophilism".
The Slavophiles made a significant contribution to the development of Slavic studies in Russia, to the development, strengthening and revitalization of literary and scientific ties between the Russian public and foreign Slavs.
Despite its utopian conservatism, Slavophilism had a great influence on the development of Russian liberalism, which became a kind of "removal" of the opposition of Westernism and Slavophilism. And although, in general, liberalism developed in line with the Western tradition, one can agree that the Zemstvo reform, one of the most important reforms of the 60s, was to a certain extent the result of the propaganda of Slavophile ideas.
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.
Representatives of Slavophilism are A. Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky, F. Tyutchev, Yu. Samarin and others. Consider the main ideas of Slavophilism and the views of its representatives.
The main representatives of Slavophilism
Khomyakov Alexei Stepanovich (1804-1860) was born in Moscow into a noble noble family. He received an excellent education and already in childhood he knew the main European languages and Sanskrit. Brought up in a strictly Orthodox spirit, he forever retained a deep religiosity. In 1821, Khomyakov passed the exams at Moscow University and became a candidate of mathematical sciences. In 1822-1825. was in military service. Khomyakov consistently appealed to the spiritual experience of the Orthodox Church. Religion is considered by him not only as a driving force, but also as a factor that determines the social and state structure, folk life, morality, character and thinking of peoples.In "Note on World History" ("Semiramide") Khomyakov identifies two principles: "Iranian" and "Cushite". Iranism goes back to the Aryan tribes, and Kushitism - to the Semites. Consistent exponents of the spirit of Kushite are the Jews, who, according to A.S. Khomyakov, trading spirit of ancient Palestine and love for earthly benefits. The successive carriers of Iranism are the Slavs, who profess Orthodoxy and trace their origins from the ancient Iranian people - the Wends.
Iranianism as the beginning of sociality expresses spirituality, freedom, will, creativity, integrity of the spirit, an organic combination of faith and reason, and Kushiteism expresses materiality, rationality, necessity, materialism. The soulless and life-destroying principle of Cushiteism became the basis of the culture and civilization of the countries of Western Europe, while Russia was destined to present history and the world with an example of spirituality, Christian society, i.e. iranianity. Confronting the "freedom of the spirit" of Iranism and the "materiality" of Kushiteism, Khomyakov sought to reveal the character and fate of Russia, establish Orthodoxy as the core of Russian culture, and inscribe Russian history into the world historical process. At the same time, he proceeded from the fact that religion is the main sign of the separation of peoples. Faith is the soul of the people, the limit of a person's inner development, "the highest point of all his thoughts, the secret condition of all his desires and actions, the extreme feature of his knowledge." It is the "highest social principle."
Khomyakov asserts that the Church is a living organism, an organism of truth and love, or, more precisely: truth and love as an organism. The Church for him is a spiritual institution for the unity of people, based on love, truth and goodness. Only in this spiritual institution does a person acquire true freedom. Khomyakov understands the Church as an organic whole, where people live a fuller and more perfect life. The Church is a unity of people in which each individual retains his freedom. This is possible only when such unity is based on selfless, self-sacrificing love for Christ. The basic principle of the church is catholicity, i.e. a shared desire for salvation. Unity with the church is a necessary condition for comprehending the truths of faith.
Sobornost is a combination of freedom and unity based on absolute values. It is in the cathedral that “unity in plurality” is realized. The decisions of the council require the approval of all believers, their consent, which is expressed in the assimilation of these decisions, their inclusion in the tradition. The principle of catholicity does not deny personality, but, on the contrary, affirms it. In an atmosphere of catholicity, individualism, subjectivism, and isolation of the individual are overcome, and his creative possibilities are revealed.
Sobornost is one of the main spiritual conditions for the national unity of statehood. Russian history, according to the teachings of the Slavophiles, has a special relationship between the church, the community and the state. Outside the true faith, outside the church, the wisest state-legal institutions will not save society from spiritual and moral degradation. The Russian community is the best form of living together on spiritual and moral principles, an institution of self-government and democracy. The concept of catholicity connects the church, faith and community.
The head of the Russian state should be the tsar. Slavophiles were supporters of monarchism. Monarchy is the ideal form of statehood, Orthodoxy is the worldview of the people, the peasant community is the conciliar world.
Like other Slavophiles, Khomyakov noted the difference in the spiritual foundations of Russian and European societies. He considered Orthodoxy to be true Christianity, and Catholicism to be a distortion of the teachings of Christ. Catholicism established unity without freedom, and Protestantism established freedom without unity. Slavophiles noted in Europe the transformation of society into a scattered mass of selfish, cruel, mercantile people. They spoke of the formal, dry and rationalistic character of European culture.
Russia accepted Christianity from Byzantium in its "purity and integrity", free from rationalism. This explains the humility of the Russian people, their piety and love for the ideals of holiness, their inclination towards a community based on mutual assistance. Orthodoxy, according to Khomyakov, is characterized by democracy and fusion with the spirit of the people. Russia is called upon to become the center of world civilization - this will happen when the Russian people show all their spiritual strength.
The spiritual ideals and foundations of folk life are expressed by the Russian art school, based on folk traditions. Khomyakov considered M. Glinka, A. Ivanov, N. Gogol as representatives of this school, he treated A. Pushkin and M. Lermontov with great respect, highly appreciated A. Ostrovsky and L. Tolstoy.
Ivan Vasilievich Kireevsky (1806-1856), formulated the main differences between the enlightenment of Russia and Europe in his work "The Character of the Enlightenment of Europe and its Relationship to the Enlightenment of Russia" (1852). In his opinion, Russia lacked the three main foundations that existed in Europe: the ancient Roman world, Catholicism, and statehood that arose from conquests.The absence of conquest at the beginning of the state in Russia, the non-absolute boundaries between estates, the truth is internal, and not external right - these, according to I. V. Kireevsky, are the distinctive features of ancient Russian life.
In patristic thought, Kireevsky saw a spiritual alternative to European education. He criticized Western philosophy, natural law rationalism and Roman law, which became in Europe the sources of industrialism, revolution and centralized despotism of the Napoleonic type. Legal conventionality remained the only regulator of interpersonal relations, and the guarantor of its observance was an external force in the person of the state apparatus. The result is a purely external unity, formal and based on coercion. Kireevsky attacks "autocratic reason", which leaves no room for faith. He says that the Roman Church gave theology the character of rational activity, gave rise to scholasticism. The church mingled with the state, exalting legal norms at the expense of moral strength.
The Western Reformation was the fruit of Catholicism, a protest of the individual against the external authority of the pope and the clergy. Organic societies were replaced by associations based on calculation and contract, the world was ruled by industry "without faith". Unlike Europe, Russia was a multitude of small worlds covered with a network of churches and monasteries, from which the same concepts of public and private relations were constantly spreading everywhere. The Church contributed to the unification of these small communities into larger ones, which ultimately led to their merging into a single large community, Russia, which has a unity of faith and customs.
In Russia, Christianity developed through deep moral conviction. The Russian Church did not lay claim to secular power. Kireevsky writes that if in the West development proceeded through the struggle of parties, "violent changes", "excitement of the spirit", then in Russia - "harmonious, natural growth", with "calmness of the inner consciousness", "deep silence". In the West, personal identity prevailed, while in Russia a person belongs to the world, all relations are united by the communal principle and Orthodoxy. Kireevsky sings of pre-Petrine Russia, but does not insist on the revival of the old.
Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819-1876) shared the ideology of the official nationality with its slogan "Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality" and politically acted as a monarchist. He proceeded from the reasoning of Khomyakov and Kireevsky about the falsity of Catholicism and Protestantism and the embodiment of the true principles of social development in Byzantine-Russian Orthodoxy. The identity of Russia, its future and role in the fate of mankind are associated with Orthodoxy, autocracy and communal life. Thanks to Orthodoxy, the Russian community, family relations, morality, etc., have developed. In the Orthodox Church, the Slavic tribe "breathes freely", but outside it falls into slavish imitation. The Russian peasant community is a form of folk life sanctified by Orthodoxy. It expresses not only the material, but also the spiritual unity of the Russian people. The preservation of the community is capable of saving Russia from the "ulcer of the proletariat." Samarin was a kind of "monk in the world", repeating Gogol's testament: "Your monastery is Russia!"
Samarin noted the "evil and absurdity" of communist ideas penetrating from the West. Atheists and materialists who have lost the sense of responsibility for their homeland are blinded by the splendor of the West. They become real French, then real Germans. The Western influence penetrating through them seeks to destroy the Russian state principle - autocracy. Many Russians were seduced by these ideas, loving the West. Then came a period of imitation, giving rise to "pale cosmopolitanism." Samarin believed that the time had come to move from defense to an attack on the West.
After the abolition of serfdom, Slavophilism was transformed into pochvenism. The neo-Slavophiles continued to oppose the European and Russian civilizations, asserting the originality of the foundations of Russian life. Prominent representatives of neo-Slavophilism - A. Grigoriev, N.Strakhov, N.Danilevsky, K.Leontiev, F.Dostoevsky.
Apollon Alexandrovich Grigoriev (1822-1864) - poet, literary critic, publicist. He graduated from the law faculty of Moscow University. He entered the literary circle that developed around the Moskvityanin magazine, where the ideas of pochvennichestvo developed as a symbiosis of Slavophilism and the “official nationality”.
The world as a whole is a single living organism, harmony and eternal beauty reign in it. The highest form of knowledge, according to Grigoriev, is art. Only it can achieve complete knowledge. Art must be the product of the century and the people. The true poet is the spokesman of the national spirit.
Grigoriev spoke out against excessive claims to the world-historical mission of Russia, to the salvation of all mankind. He considered important "proximity to native soil." The soil is "the depth of people's life, the mysterious side of the historical movement." Grigoriev appreciated the Russian way of life for its "organism". In his opinion, not only the peasantry, but also the merchants preserved the Orthodox way of life. Considering humility and the spirit of brotherhood as important features of the Russian Orthodox spirit, Grigoriev drew attention to the "breadth" of the Russian character, to its scope.
Unlike other Slavophiles, Grigoriev understood the nationality primarily as the lower strata and the merchant class, which, unlike the nobility, did not differ in drill. He called Slavophilism the “Old Believer” direction. He paid great attention to the pre-Petrine period of Russian history.
The Russian intelligentsia, according to Grigoriev, should draw spiritual strength from the people, who have not yet sufficiently succumbed to the corrupting influence of Western civilization. In this sense, he argued with Chaadaev: “He was, in addition, a theoretician of Catholicism ... Fanatically believing in the beauty and significance of Western ideals as the only human, Western beliefs, as the only guiding humanity, Western concepts of morality, honor, truth, goodness, he coldly and calmly applied his data to our history... His syllogism was simple: the only human forms of life are the forms worked out by the life of the rest, Western humanity. Our life does not fall into these forms, or lies falsely... We are not people, and in order to be people, we must renounce our selfhood.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Tyutchev (1803-1873) was a diplomat in Europe (Munich, Turin), and later censor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1844-1867). He wrote the articles "Russia and Germany" (1844), "Russia and the Revolution" (1848), "The Papacy and the Roman Question" (1850), "Russia and the West" (1849), in which the poet considers many important socio-political problems of his time.
During the revolutionary events in Europe in 1848-1849. sentiments directed against Russia and Russians intensified. F. Tyutchev saw the reasons for this in the desire of European countries to oust Russia from Europe. In opposition to this Russophobia, Tyutchev put forward the idea of pan-Slavism. He advocated the return of Constantinople to Russia and the revival of the Orthodox Empire, spoke out against pan-Slavism, considering the national question to be of secondary importance. Tyutchev recognizes the priority of religion in the spiritual warehouse of every nation and considers Orthodoxy a distinctive feature of Russian culture.
According to Tyutchev, the revolution in the West did not begin in 1789 and not even in the time of Luther, but much earlier - during the period of the emergence of the papacy, when they started talking about the sinlessness of the pope and that religious and church laws should not apply to him. Popes' violation of Christian norms led to the emergence of protests, which found expression in the Reformation. According to Tyutchev, the first revolutionary was the Pope, followed by the Protestants, who also believed that common Christian norms did not apply to them. The cause of the Protestants was continued by modern revolutionaries who declared war on the state and the church. The revolutionaries sought to completely free the individual from all social norms and duties, believing that people themselves should manage their lives and property.
The Reformation was a reaction against the papacy, and the revolutionary tradition is derived from it. Having broken away from the Eastern Church in the ninth century, Catholicism made the Pope of Rome an indisputable authority, and the Vatican the kingdom of God on earth. This led to the subordination of religion to earthly political and economic interests. In modern Europe, according to Tyutchev, the revolution, continuing the work of Catholics and Protestants, wants to finally do away with Christianity.
As already noted, the revolution does what Catholics and Protestants used to do when they put the principle of the individual above all other social principles. The infallibility of the pope meant that he was above all laws and everything was possible for him. Protestants also argued that the main thing is personal faith and not the church, and, finally, the revolutionaries put the will of the individual above not only the church, but also the state, plunging society into unheard of anarchy.
The history of the West, according to Tyutchev, is concentrated in the "Roman question". The papacy made an attempt to organize a paradise on earth and turned into the state of the Vatican. Catholicism became a "state within a state." As a result, it was a reformation. Today the papal state is denied by the world revolution.
However, the strength of tradition was so deep in the West that the revolution itself sought to organize an empire. But revolutionary imperialism has become a parody. An example of a revolutionary empire is the reign of Emperor Napoleon in post-revolutionary France.
In the article "Russia and the Revolution" (1848), Tyutchev comes to the conclusion that in the 19th century. world politics is determined by only two political forces—the anti-Christian revolution and Christian Russia. The revolution moved from France to Germany, where anti-Russian sentiment began to grow. Thanks to the alliance with Catholic Poland, the European revolutionaries set the goal of destroying the Orthodox Russian Empire.
Tyutchev concludes that the revolution will not be able to win in Europe, but it plunged European societies into a period of deep internal struggle, a disease that deprives them of their will and makes them incapacitated, weakens their foreign policy. European countries, after breaking with the church, inevitably came to revolution and are now reaping its fruits.
In the article "Russia and Germany" (1844), Tyutchev notes anti-Russian sentiments in Germany. He was particularly concerned about the process of secularization of European states: "The modern state prohibits state religions only because it has its own - and this religion is a revolution."
Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896) published his articles in the magazines Vremya, Epoch, Zarya, where he defended the idea of "Russian identity", expressed a hostile attitude towards the West. From the Kostroma Theological Seminary, from which he graduated in 1845, Strakhov brought out deep religious convictions. In the book "The Fight against the West in Our Literature" he criticizes European rationalism, the views of Mill, Renan, Strauss, rejects Darwinism.
Strakhov spoke out against the belief in the omnipotence of the human mind, against idolatry before the natural sciences, against materialism and utilitarianism. Strakhov considers this whole complex of ideas to be a product of the West with its cult of godless civilization. "The madness of rationalism", blind faith in reason replaces the true faith in the religious meaning of life. A person who seeks the salvation of the soul puts the purity of the soul above all else, and avoids all that is evil. A person who has set himself a goal outside himself, who wants to achieve an objective result, must sooner or later come to the conclusion that conscience must be sacrificed. The need to act in modern man is stronger than the need to believe. The only antidote against "enlightenment" is living contact with the native soil, with the people who have preserved healthy religious and moral principles in their life.
inspired Russian society to believe in motionless ideals of antiquity; it was a purely conservative faith. The first Slavophiles preached free development ideals of antiquity; they were Progressive Patriots. The main means to achieve the goal of the "official nationality" was the "guardianship" of society and the fight against protest, while the Slavophils stood for freedom of thought and speech. But in the essence of the ideals, the two theories touched on many points.
The emergence of Slavophilism
Slavophilism arose as a result of:
1) romanticism, which awakened nationalistic aspirations among many peoples of Europe,
5) finally, there was a basis for patriotic sympathies in native literature: in the poetry of Pushkin, Zhukovsky, later Lermontov, national-patriotic sentiments had already affected; in their creations, the search for their native culture has already been determined, the ideals of the people - family, state and religious - have been clarified.
The main representatives of Slavophilism
The Slavophile school took shape around the second half of the 1830s: the Kireevsky brothers (Ivan and Peter), Khomyakov, Dm. Valuev, Aksakovs (Konstantin and Ivan), Yuri Samarin - these are the most prominent figures of Slavophilism, who developed this doctrine in philosophical, religious and political terms. At first they were friends with the "Westerners", but then they parted ways: Chaadaev's philosophical letters severed their last ties.
Views of the Slavophiles - briefly
In search of an independent type of Russian culture, Slavophilism acquired a democratic character, a tendency to idealize antiquity and a tendency to pan-Slavism(the dream of uniting all the Slavs under the Russian state). The Slavophiles, in some respects, came close to the liberal part of Russian society (democratism), but in others to the conservative part (the idealization of antiquity).
The first Slavophiles were well-educated people, inspired by ardent faith in their teaching, independent and therefore courageous. They believed in the great future of Russia, bowed before "Holy Russia", said that Moscow was the "third Rome", that this new civilization would replace all the outdated cultures of the West and save the "rotting West" itself. From their point of view, Peter I committed a sin by delaying the independent development of the Russian people. The Slavophiles expounded the theory of the existence of "two worlds": the eastern, Greek-Slavic, and the western. They pointed out that Western culture is based on the Roman Church, ancient Roman education, and its state life is based on conquest. They saw a completely different order of things in the Eastern Greek-Slavic world, the main representative of which is the Russian people. Eastern Christianity is Orthodoxy, the distinguishing feature of which is the invariable preservation of the universal tradition. Orthodoxy is therefore the only true Christianity. Our education is of Byzantine origin; if it was inferior to the Western one in the external development of the mind, then it exceeded it in a deep sense of living Christian truth. The same difference is visible in the state structure: the beginning of the Russian state differs from the beginning of Western states in that we did not have conquest, but there was a voluntary calling of rulers. This basic fact is also reflected in the entire further development of social relations: we did not have violence associated with conquest, and therefore there was no feudalism in its European form, there was no that internal struggle that constantly divided Western society; there were no estates. The land was not the personal property of the feudal aristocracy, but belonged to the community. The Slavophiles were especially proud of this "community". They said that the West had only very recently reached the idea of creating a "community" (Saint-Simonism), an institution whose institution had existed for centuries in the Russian countryside.
Thus, before Peter the Great, according to the Slavophils, our development proceeded naturally. Religious consciousness was the main moral force and guide in life; folk life was distinguished by the unity of concepts and the unity of morals. The state was a vast community; power belonged to the king, representing the general will; the close connection of the members of this great community was expressed by zemstvo sobors, a popular representation that replaced the ancient vecha. With such a liberal idealization of antiquity (veche, cathedrals) was associated the most enthusiastic admiration for the simple Russian people, the "God-bearer"; in his life, the Slavophiles saw the embodiment of all Christian virtues (love for neighbors, humility, lack of selfishness, piety, ideal family relationships). Therefore, the modified formula of the official ideology of the era of Nicholas I became the slogan of Slavophilism: autocracy ( limited by the Slavophiles to the Zemstvo Sobors), orthodoxy ( with spiritual assemblies and ward powers) and nationality ( with community, cathedrals and freedom of development). Standing on this point of view, the Slavophiles were often strict critics of Russian modernity, and therefore, if not all, then many of them, should be attributed to the opposition figures of that time.
Slavophilism- a literary and philosophical trend of social thought that took shape in the 40s of the XIX century, whose representatives argued for the existence of a special type of culture that arose on the spiritual soil of Orthodoxy, and also rejected the thesis of representatives of Westernism that Peter the Great returned Russia to the bosom of European countries and it must pass this way in political, economic and cultural development.
The trend arose as an antipode to Westernism, whose supporters advocated Russia's orientation towards Western European cultural and ideological values. As Yu. M. Lotman, “The attitude towards the Western world was one of the main issues of Russian culture throughout the post-Petrine era. It can be said that a foreign civilization acts for Russian culture as a kind of mirror and starting point, and the main meaning of interest in "alien" in Russia is traditionally a method of self-knowledge. At the same time, Yu. M. Lotman categorically rejected the assertion that the Russian Slavophiles are the bearers of "truly Russian principles", "opposing Western civilization." In his opinion, the true Slavophilism of the first half of the 19th century was a "Russian reflection of the ideas of German romanticism", which, however, "in no way degrades its originality and organic nature for Russia" .
Yu. M. Lotman wrote:
By its nature, classical Slavophilism - one of the currents of European romanticism - was generated by a passionate impulse to "find oneself." Such a formulation of the question already implied the initial loss of oneself, the loss of connection with the people and their deep culture, with what has yet to be found and put at the forefront. Classical Slavophilism, in fact, was the idea of moving towards the new under the flag of the old. In the future, this romantic utopianism had to go through transformations that changed its foundations, such as an orientation towards German philosophy, a critical attitude towards the political system of Russia that was real for that era, hostility to state bureaucracy.
Thus, initially Slavophilism was a theoretical movement. The opponents of the Slavophiles have repeatedly created the image of a Russian noble intellectual, saturated with German romantic ideas and painfully experiencing a conflict between his ideal of a Russian peasant and a real, incomprehensible and alien peasant, who accepts a master dressed in "Russian clothes" as a mummer, without identifying him with himself. , nor with their ideals .
The Slavophil worldview acquired its greatest development at the end of the 19th century, during the reign of Alexander III.
]Representatives
Supporters of Slavophilism ( Slavophiles, or Slav-lovers) declared that Russia had its own, original path of historical development. The founder of this direction was the writer A. S. Khomyakov, an active role in the movement was played by I. V. Kireevsky, K. S. Aksakov, I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. Among the most famous Slavophiles were also F. I. Tyutchev, V. I. Dal, N. M. Yazykov.
Slavophiles, Russian public figures and spokesmen for the ideas of Holy Russia, played a big role in the development of Russian national consciousness and the formation of a national-patriotic worldview. The Slavophils proposed the concept of a special path for Russia, established themselves in the idea of the saving role of orthodoxy as a Christian dogma, declared the uniqueness of the forms of social development of the Russian people in the form of a community and an artel.
I. V. Kireevsky wrote:
Everything that hinders the correct and complete development of Orthodoxy, everything that hinders the development and prosperity of the Russian people, everything that gives a false and not purely Orthodox direction to the people's spirit and education, everything that distorts the soul of Russia and kills its moral, civil and political health. Therefore, the more the statehood of Russia and its government are imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the healthier will be the development of the people, the more prosperous the people and the stronger their government and, at the same time, the more comfortable it will be, for the improvement of government is possible only in the spirit of popular convictions.
Slavophiles most often gathered in the Moscow literary salons of A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. F. and K. K. Pavlov. Here, in heated debates with their liberal-cosmopolitan opponents, the Slavophiles represented the ideas of Russian revival and Slavic unity.
[edit] Slavophiles in print
For a long time the Slavophiles did not have their own printed organ. Articles of the Slavophiles were published in the Moskvityanin, as well as in various collections - the Sinbir Collection (1844), the Collection of Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and the Peoples of the Same Faith and the Common Tribe (1845), Moscow Collections (1846, 1847, 1852). Slavophiles began to publish their newspapers and magazines only from the mid-1850s, but even then they were subjected to various censorship restrictions and harassment. Slavophiles published magazines: "Russian conversation" (1856-1860), "Rural improvement" (1858-1859); newspapers: Molva (1857), Parus (1859), Den (1861-1865), Moscow (1867-1868), Moskvich (1867-1868), Rus (1880-1885) ).
[edit] Importance of Slavophilism
Slavophilism was a powerful social and intellectual movement that acted as a kind of reaction to the introduction of Western values in Russia that began in the era of Peter I. The Slavophiles sought to show that Western values could not fully take root on Russian soil and at least needed some adaptation. Calling on people to turn to their historical foundations, traditions and ideals, the Slavophiles contributed to the awakening of national consciousness. They did a lot to collect and preserve monuments of Russian culture and language (Collection of Folk Songs by P. V. Kireevsky, Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. I. Dahl). Slavophil historians (Belyaev, Samarin, and others) laid the foundation for the scientific study of the Russian peasantry, including its spiritual foundations. The Slavophiles made a huge contribution to the development of all-Slavic relations and Slavic unity. It was they who played the main role in the creation and activities of the Slavic committees in Russia in 1858-1878.
At the same time, in the words of the Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century, V.S. Solovyov, opponents of “Westernism” “get rid of the obligation of joint cultural work with other peoples” by “arbitrary statements about the “decay of the West” and empty prophecies about the exceptionally great fate of Russia.” When these idealized ideas and prophecies of the original Slavophilism evaporated without a trace, they were replaced by “unprincipled and vile nationalism”