Scholarlink

<p>This article rereads the Ern–Frank debate of 1910–1911 as the moment when “Russian philosophy” was posed as a philosophical problem in its own right, rather than treated merely as a historiographical designation. It reconstructs the post-1905 intellectual constellation in which mystical realism, legal liberalism, Marxism, cosmism, and the <i>Logos</i> circle advanced competing accounts of what, if anything, could make philosophy Russian. Within this field, Ern’s <i>Logos</i>-centred ontologism assigns “Russian philosophy” a substantive philosophical task: to confront and overcome the opposition between <i>Logos</i> and <i>ratio</i>, or between Eastern Christian ontologism and Western meonism, within Russian thought itself. Frank’s response rejects this move. Defining philosophy in terms of rational validity and universally binding truth, he treats Ern’s position as a case of “nationalism in philosophy” and argues that “Russian” can properly describe a worldview, tradition, and historical milieu, but not a philosophy as such. The article argues that the controversy is significant because it brings into sharp focus a tension internal to Russian thought: the tension between philosophy’s claim to universal validity and its articulation through historically specific religious, linguistic, and cultural forms. On that basis, the article concludes that “Russian philosophy” is best understood neither as a distinct type of reason nor as a merely geographic label, but as a contested philosophical designation for the relation between universality and historical–cultural particularity in Russian thought.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The philosophical debate between Vladimir Ern and Semyon Frank and the question of Russian philosophy in post-1905 Russia

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Abbas Jong

摘要

This article rereads the Ern–Frank debate of 1910–1911 as the moment when “Russian philosophy” was posed as a philosophical problem in its own right, rather than treated merely as a historiographical designation. It reconstructs the post-1905 intellectual constellation in which mystical realism, legal liberalism, Marxism, cosmism, and the Logos circle advanced competing accounts of what, if anything, could make philosophy Russian. Within this field, Ern’s Logos-centred ontologism assigns “Russian philosophy” a substantive philosophical task: to confront and overcome the opposition between Logos and ratio, or between Eastern Christian ontologism and Western meonism, within Russian thought itself. Frank’s response rejects this move. Defining philosophy in terms of rational validity and universally binding truth, he treats Ern’s position as a case of “nationalism in philosophy” and argues that “Russian” can properly describe a worldview, tradition, and historical milieu, but not a philosophy as such. The article argues that the controversy is significant because it brings into sharp focus a tension internal to Russian thought: the tension between philosophy’s claim to universal validity and its articulation through historically specific religious, linguistic, and cultural forms. On that basis, the article concludes that “Russian philosophy” is best understood neither as a distinct type of reason nor as a merely geographic label, but as a contested philosophical designation for the relation between universality and historical–cultural particularity in Russian thought.