The Problem of Teaching the History of Russian Philosophy in Higher Education
Authors: Antonov Konstantin ,   St. Tikhon’s Ortodox University, Vanchugov Vasily , Gerasimov Nikolai , Zabelin Kirill , Malinov Aleksey , Maslin Mikhail , Porus Vladimir , Sidorin Vladimir , Chervyakov Nikolai , Shindyapin Anton , Shpakovsky Mikhail ,   Lomonosov Moscow State University,   Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad,   Lomonosov Moscow State University,   Institute of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University,   Lomonosov Moscow State University,   RAS Institute of Philosophy,   Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University,   Lomonosov Moscow State University,   Lomonosov Moscow State University,   Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Published: July 2024

This text is a correspondence discussion about the problems of teaching the history of Russian philosophy in higher education. The experts were asked to answer six questions, reflecting, in the opinion of the editors, the main problems and conflict topics around the teaching of this academic and scientific discipline: Has students’ interest in the history of Russian philosophy changed in recent years (decades) and, if so, what are the dynamics and reasons for these changes? The Russian philosophical “canon” (at least in the broad public consciousness) is built primarily around the history of social thought with supposedly key themes such as the problem of civilizational choice, the Russian idea, etc., as well as sophiology, sobornost and a number of other religious and philosophical concepts. Do you consider it necessary to transform or revise the “canon” and, if so, how exactly can it be revised? In the historiography of Russian philosophy in the first half of the 20th century specific characteristics of Russian philosophical thought have been formulated, which, as a result, embedded both in the public consciousness and in teaching practice – the literary centricity of Russian philosophy, its panmoralism, inclination towards historiosophy, anthropocentrism, the primacy of religious philosophy, etc. Isn’t such “mythology” an obstacle to adequate and actual perception of Russian philosophy? Isn’t it a problem that the language of the modern history of Russian philosophy remains in many respects the language of self-description of Russian philosophy of the second half of the 19th – the first half of the 20th centuries? Is it necessary to actualize the Russian philosophical heritage, to consider the history of thought in connection with the modernity, to “translate” the philosophers of past centuries into the language of modern philosophy? What could be the ways of this actualization? Do you see the insufficiency of systematic training of historians of Russian philosophy in higher education: the lack of special courses (source studies, archival studies, textology, ancient languages, scientific commentary, etc.)? What other flaws in the system of philosophical education seem to you the most significant in the context of the problem posed? What other problems and difficulties in teaching and research practice related to the history of Russian philosophy seem to you the most significant? The answers to these questions can clarify and outline the ways of developing both the teaching of the history of Russian philosophy and the Russian historical and philosophical community as a whole. The discussion experts are not only the leading specialists in the history of Russian philosophy (from Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, Baltic Federal University, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, National Research University Higher School of Economics, etc.), but also young teachers and researchers, as well as students of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University – thus, the reader can get opinions of both sides of the educational process and of different generations.