Introduction.
The article examines collegiality as a category of metaphysics in the religious and philosophical systems of V.S. Solovyov, prot. Sergei Bulgakov and archim. Sophrony (Sakharov). The ...analysis of the category of collegiality is carried out through the prism of personalism, as a basic concept for the metaphysical thinking of these authors.
Materials and Methods.
The research material for the proposed article is monographs and scientific works of Russian researchers devoted to the problems of ecclesiology, sophiology and personalism. In this article, the methods of comparative analysis, historical and philosophical synthesis, generalization, abstraction and interpretation were used.
Results.
The main problem posed in this article is the process of reception of the category of collegiality in Russian religious personalism. Sobornost is a term coined in the Slavophil tradition to express the concept of "unity in a plurality." In the metaphysics of total-unity and in neo-patristic synthesis, this category was perceived because it solved one of the basic questions: how are the personality correlated as the One, and the multitude, as the All-unity? This solution was formally different (for sophiology and neopatristic theology), but structurally identical. Sobornost, as unity in the multitude, realized in the Church, has as its prototype the Trinity of God. At the same time, the study states that collegiality was one of the main categories in which the general Sophian personalism of the Russian philosophical tradition was expressed. Sophia in this case means the nature of the Church, open to hypostasis, and through this hypostasis creates the possibility of Theosis of man. The research focuses on three personalities of the Russian intellectual tradition: the philosopher V.S. Soloviev and theologians Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov and Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov).
V.S. Soloviev, as the founder of the Russian metaphysics of All-Unity, uses the concept of God-manhood as a metaphysician of conciliarity, transmitting a personalistic impulse to subsequent philosophers. Late nightingale moves away from theistic personalism towards immanetism, but his disciples, among whom was Archpriest. Sergei Bulgakov, connect the category of conciliarity and the concept of God-manhood in sophiological ecclesiology. In this case, prot. Sergei Bulgakov substantiates his cathedral personalism on the basis of a trinitarian anthropological model. The tradition of neo-patristic synthesis, which is analyzed using the example of archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), refuses sophiological terminology, preserving the basic intuitions developed in Russian religious philosophy, returning them to the traditional theological field of meanings.
Discussion and Conclusion
. In the Slavophil tradition, collegiality is understood historiosophically, in the metaphysics of All-Unity - sophiologically, and in the neopatristic synthesis - ecclesiologically. In the philosophy of the Silver Age and theology, personalism becomes one of the main themes, which leads to the transformation of the category of collegiality towards polyhypostasis as the main property of the nature of the Church. At the same time, we see the transformation of a certain basic personal intuition of collegiality, which comes from the church tradition and returns to it, enriched with philosophical meanings.
Introduction.
The paper reviews the phenomenon of perception of Western Europe as the "other" in Russian intellectual tradition. The purpose of this survey is to analyze and identify the features of ...Russian historiosophical consciousness in the transition of Russian civilization from the middle ages to modernity in the context of the idea of perceiving Europe as the "other".
Materials and Methods.
The main material of the paper is a monograph by Nizhny Novgorod researches «The problem of correlation of panhuman and national in the history of Russian thought». In addition, the material of the research is the works and articles by Russians and foreign authors focus on the subject under consideration. The article used the following methods: historical-philosophical analysis, interpretation, comparison and generalization.
Results.
In the medieval period the main consolidating power of society was religion, which identified the «other» as the Catholic of Western Europe. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the «other» is still the same West, but the revolutionary West with its slogan «Liberty, equality, fraternity». The minister of national education – the earl S.S. Uvarov, in turn, proposed the following triad – «Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality». Formation of the Russian nationality was under intense pressure from the West (the «other» of Russian civilization) during this period. The split of the Russian Orthodox Church (Raskol) in XVII century led to destruction of the Orthodox unity. The Orthodoxy was the source of sacralisation of monarchial power. However, the autocracy, having dealt a blow tothe Orthodoxy, set a course for the Western absolutism. Certain social circles, keeping up old traditions of the Orthodoxy, perceived the political authority as the «other». This led not only to the religion split (Orthodoxy), but also to the split in nationality. A pro-Western elite is being formed and, having lost its connection with Orthodoxy and traditional folk culture, it finds itself in the desert of its own historical identity. As a result, historiosophical projects, created by government and intelligentsia, caused an additional split, being unable to restore the lost unity.
Discussion and Conclusions.
The authors of the research managed to make systematic and detailed historical-philosophical analysis of sources and literature on this topic. The paper presents the main concepts that explain the phenomenon of Russian national identity. This makes it possible to consider and evaluate the key ideas of Russian thinkers. As a result, the authors of the research managed to make comprehensive and systematic historical-philosophical analysis of the development of the idea of Russian national identity through the prism of the concept of perception of Western Europe as the «other» of Russia.
Introduction
. The article examines the peculiarities of the transformation of the historical image of the empire in the national intellectual tradition. The views of such thinkers as M.N. Katkov, ...F.I. Tyutchev, I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, K.N. Leontiev, P.B. Struve, M.O. Menshikov, P.N. Savitsky, N.S. Trubetskoy and others are analyzed. The typologization and analysis of the key images of the empire in the Russian historiosophical consciousness, namely: European, Byzantine and Eurasian, is presented.
Materials and Methods
. The main material of this article is the research of the following authors: L.E. Shaposhnikov, O.V. Parilov, S.N. Pushkin, V.M. Lurie, A.K. Tolstenko, R.R. Vakhitov. The following methods were used in the presented study: system analysis, philosophical analysis, interpretation, comparison and synthesis.
Results
. The article examines the evolution of the image of the empire in the Russian historiosophical consciousness, starting from the triad of Count S.S. Uvarov, the ideas of M.N. Katkov and Slavophiles, ending with the Eurasian concepts of P.N. Savitsky and N.S. Trubetskoy. During the development of the idea of empire, three main images of it were formed. The first is the European one, in which the Russian Empire is perceived as one of the European powers claiming their piece of the world pie. This image quite logically changes from the absolutist-autocratic to the liberal-national. The second image is Slavophile. Being absolutely monarchical, he regards Russia, headed by an Orthodox emperor, as the heiress of Byzantium, endowed with a special messianic status. The third image is Eurasian (P.N. Savitsky, N.S. Trubetskoy). It represents the image of a "reassembled" empire that underwent profound changes as a result of the revolution. The Eurasians are moving away from the image of the universal empire to the image of a self-sufficient "mainland state" preserving its original civilization based on Orthodoxy. At the same time, they actively use the Slavophile category of conciliarity, transferring it from the sphere of theology to national and cultural policy. The Eurasians proclaim the fundamental equality of national cultures and their unity in cathedral Russia.
Discussion and Conclusions
. The authors of the study managed to conduct a systematic and full-fledged historical and philosophical analysis of the evolution of the image of the empire in the Russian historiosophical consciousness, from Slavophiles to Eurasians. The authors managed to carry out a comprehensive and systematic historical and philosophical analysis of the three main images of the empire of the European, Byzantine and Eurasian.
PDF