Comparative Philosophy in the Soviet Union

Abstract

If is understood just as a comparison of Eastern and Western traditions, concepts, ideas, and so on, one can be sure that Soviet scholars practice it not less than their colleagues all over the world. But, in fact, comparative philosophy proves to be something more than mere comparisons. In these times, it has become an autonomous discipline of philosophy identifying itself as a special mode of intellectual activity with its own object domain, methods, and goals. Thus, a question arises as to the existence of this discipline in Soviet philosophical studies. To this question posited in such a direct manner, one must respond with an unequivocally negative answer. Soviet philosophy has produced nothing that can be equated with the discipline of comparative philosophy in the West. In the first, introductory, portion of this review, I specify some reasons why. In the second part, I trace the main lines of East-West philosophical comparisons in the works of Soviet scholars. The third part is devoted to a discussion of what Soviet scholars have preferred to comparative philosophy. It is noteworthy that Soviet philosophy as an institution lacks one of the key conditions conducive to the emergence of comparative philosophy in the West: an effective system of scholarly training in Western and Asian philosophies. In the Soviet Union, both fields are not just investigatively independent, but deliberately isolated from each other. This holds true primarily for specialists in the history of Western philosophy whose obvious neglect of Asian thought appears to result from a certain Eurocentric position secured either from their favorite Western schools or from a Marxist approach to other systems of thought. As for the latter, one can easily discern here a kind of self-centrism, evaluating other exotic systems according to the degree of their approximation to its own incontestable authority. The main preoccupation of the official Marxist history of philosophy-exploring advanced materialistic teaching or tendencies along with a critique of idealismis unlikely to provide a promising ground for profound comparative research.