The East-West Split in View of the History of Ideas

Jadwiga Maria Staniszkis

Abstrakt


RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Authoress looks for “paradigm of Russianness” – i.e. stable elements in the different phases of Rus­sian history. She finds it on the meta-level as the constant, repetitive mechanism of selection and interpretation of borrowings from the West. It is joined with the mechanism of civilization East-West di­vide. Authoress opposes Western Nominalism to the construct that defines to as Byzantine Nominalism or ontology of hypostases (with the “proper existence” that must be “extracted”) and Gnosticism (i.e. the assumption that knowledge concerning of this ontology gives title to power). The Russian borrowings from the Reformation is an example of the operation of this mechanism of selection and inter­pretation. It allows to extract, from the doctrine of predestination, knowledge about the causal relationships in time (and full flexibility of this time), and from the Thomistic ontology – will as an element of the extracting of the “proper existence.” It has created a “genotype of revolutionariness” present in Russia until modern times. From this perspective, special relationships between Russia and Germany join with a diagnosis intellectual kinship of Russia with Germany – by the influence of Byzantine Nominalism on Germany (and of course via Mohylan Academy – on Russia) and easier for this reason acceptance in Russia borrowings from German. Until Marxism with his hypostasis being in itself and being for itself.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The presented research problem concerns the specifics of Russia in the context of the history of ideas, with sources of this specificity – found in early Christianity and in the split to the East and the West. There have been applied the methods of sociological analysis of history, anthropology of power, and comparative analysis.

THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: After having initially defined the aim of the study, the fundamental concepts and terms. Then they were taken preliminary considerations on the paradigm of Russianness (genesis) and devel­oping of this category (deconstruction). This issue was presented in the form of the historical process. A further part of the study describes the phenomenon of the Russian revolutionary mentality. At the end of research deliberations have been presented the problem of secularization and the differences in this process between the West and Russia.

RESEARCH RESULTS: The result of the study is to clarify the influence of ancient and medieval Christian ideas on the development “paradigm of Russian­ness” and Russian “genotype of revolutionariness” in the context of the division of Europe into the East and West. With the “distorting mirror” between East and West rather than the Russian “specificity.”

CONCLUSSIONS, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The setting a European frame of reference (mainly Reformation and Counter‑Reformation as well as lack in Russia of Augustinian concept of subject and Roman vision of the authonomy of form) as the main “axis” of Russian history is a perspec­tive field of research (research proposal). This field allows to avoid simplifying stereotypical interpretations – focusing on describing the civilizational dissimilar­ity of Russia, as a separated world, and external signs of Russian imperialism, as a major carriers of sense of the Russian history and its interpretation.


Słowa kluczowe


Secularization; Russia; East; West; Christianity; Gnosticism; Split; Western Nominalism; Byzantine Nominalism “Proper Existence”; “Paradigm of Russianness”; Genotype of Revolutionariness

Pełny tekst:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


Beck, H-G. (1959). Kirche und Theologische Literatures them Bizantischen Reich. Munich: Beck.

Berdyaev, N. (1923). Filosofiya nieravienstva. Berlin: Obelisk.

Berdyaev, N. (1935). The Russian Idea.

Berdyaev, N. (1972). O rabstvie i svobodie chelovieka. Paris: YMCA-Press.

Berdyaev, N., Bulgakov M., & Struve P. (1992). V poiskah puti. Moskva.

Burnham, J. (1958). Rewolucja managerska. Paris: Kultura.

Copleston, F. (2004). Historia filozofii. Vol. 1. Warszawa: Instytut Wyadawniczy PAX.

Dictionnaire historique et critique. (1695). Amsterdam.

Dodds, E.R. (2002). Grecy i irracjonalność. Appendix 2. Teurgia. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Homini.

Dvornik, F. (1948). The Photian Schism: History and Legend. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fedotov, G.P. (1985). Svyatiye driewniey Rusi. Paris: YMCA-Press.

Florovsky, G. (1948). Le Corps du Christ vivant. In: La Sainte Eglise Universelle. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestié.

Florovsky, G. (1933). Vizantiyskiye otci V-VIII viekov. Paris.

Florovsky, G. (1976). Ways of Russian Theology. Belmont.

Bobrinsky, B. (Ed.). (1962). Gregoriou tou Palama Syggrammata. T. I. Thessalonika.

Haugh, R. (1975). Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont – Mass: Nordland Publication co.

Jobert, A. (1974). De Luther à Mohila. La Pologne dans la crise de la chrétienté (1517-1648). Paris.

Jowitt, K. (1978). The Leninist Response to National Dependency. Research Series. No. 37. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies. University of California.

Kozłowski, R. (1988). Rosyjska eklezjologia prawosławna w XIX-XX wieku. Warszawa: Chrześcijańska Akademia Teologiczna.

Locke, J. (1959). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publication.

Lossky, N.O. (1941). Bog i mirovoye zlo. Prague.

Luttwak, E. (1976). The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore – London: John Hopkins University Press.

Łotman, J. (2010). Rosja i znaki. Gdańsk: Słowo/obraz/terytoria.

Meyendorff, J. (1984). Teologia bizantyjska. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax.

Odahl Matson, Ch. (2004). Constantine and the Christian Empire. London – New York: Routledge.

Ostrom, V. (1991. Polish Ed. 1994). The Meaning of American Federalism. San Fransisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.

Runciman, S. (1963). Schizma wschodnia. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax.

Scanlan, I.P. (Ed.). (1994). Russian Thought after Communism. New York – London: M.E. Sharpe Armonk.

Shestov, L. (1971). Dobro v uchenii gr. Tolstogo i F. Nietzsche. Paris.

Staniszkis, J. (1984). Poland’s Self limiting Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Staniszkis, J. (1989/1992). Ontologia socjalizmu. Warszawa: Biblioteka Krytyki. / The Ontology of Socialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Staniszkis, J. (1991). The Dynamics of Breakthrough in Eastern Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Staniszkis, J. (2001). Postkomunizm. Gdańsk: słowo/obraz/terytoria.

Staniszkis, J. (2009). Antropologia władzy. Między Traktatem Lizbońskim a kryzysem. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka.

Staniszkis, J. (2010). Samoograniczająca się rewolucja. Gdańsk: Europejskie Centrum Solidarności.

Staniszkis, J. (2012). Zawładnąć!. Gdańsk: Scholar.

The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona. (2007). Trans. P. Squariti. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.

The Short Course History of the CPSU(b). (1995). Istoricheskij Arhiv. No. 5.

Tkachov, P.N. (1933). Sobranniye sochinieniya. Vol. 4. Moskva.

Uspienskij, F. (1891). Ocherki po istorii biznatiyskoy obrazovannosti. St. Petersburg: W.S. Balashev’s Typography.

Weiler, J.H.H., Wind, M. (Eds.). (2003). European Constitutionalism. Beyond the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, S. (1985). Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London: B.T. Batsford.

Yuga, M. (1926). Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium. Paris.

Zakonodatel’niye akti Pietra I. (1961). In Pamyatniki russkogo prava. Moskva: Yuridicheskaya Litieratura.

Zangemeister, K. (Ed.). (1889). Historiae adversus paganos. Leipzig.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.