Philosophical Letters Research Articles

Россия как цивилизация в отечественной философской публицистике XIX – начала ХХ века

The article examines the spectrum of domestic philosophical journalism from the XIX ‒ early XX century, which placed particular emphasis on identifying the civilizational specificity of Russia. A significant initial contribution to this discourse was made by P.Ya. Chaadaev in his works “Philosophical Letters” and “Apology of a Madman”. A distinctive response to Chaadaev’s ideas can be found in the works of his contemporaries, including A.S. Pushkin, F.I. Tyutchev, and N.V. Gogol. Each of these authors proposed their own solution on the issue of Russia as a unique civilization. This topic is further developed by Russian philosophers of the second half of the XIX – early XX century – N.Y. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, V.S. Solovyov and V.V. Rozanov, whose ideas became the subject of analysis in the presented article. The text provides a comparative analysis of domestic and foreign assessments of this historical period in the context of the geopolitical situation of that time. Particular attention is paid to the reconstruction of cultural-historical types in the works of Russian and European authors.

Le mythe de la Pennsylvanie, l’Histoire des deux Indes et les Recherches sur les États-Unis de Filippo Mazzei

The “Myth of Pennsylvania,” an overly idealized representation of Pennsylvania, its founder William Penn, and the Quakers, was embraced by many 18th-century French philosophes. It appears in Voltaire’s Philosophical Letters (1734), Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie (1751-65), and most prominently in Raynal’s influential History of the East and West Indies (1780). According to the myth, Penn’s colony offered an image of the Golden Age and a model of good government. William Penn was portrayed as a great legislator who established a popular representative government and gave laws that guaranteed civil liberties, maintained equality and ensured religious tolerance. As for the Quakers, their morals and customs were deemed to revive the virtues of early Christians. However, around the time of the American Revolution, many liberal intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic responded critically to such idealistic distortions of American reality, no matter how well intended. Filippo Mazzei, a naturalized American citizen from Italy who played an important role in the War of Independence, is a good case in point. In the third of his four-volume Researches on the United States (1788), Mazzei develops an extended refutation of Raynal’s version of the myth of Pennsylvania. Penn is now depicted as a greedy, sly opportunist who mostly looked after his own interests and those of his family. Similarly, the Quakers are criticized for having always deftly advanced their own political and commercial interests, and for not having clearly supported the Revolution. Mazzei—and his friends Jefferson and Condorcet, who collaborated with him on the Researches in Paris—could only feel irritated by the propagation of utopian myths or fanciful notions about America when the goal of the Revolution was to establish a large modern republic founded upon human rights and a complex legal and constitutional apparatus. Refuting the myth of Pennsylvania meant also discrediting the outdated ideals of the philosopher king and the primitive virtuous utopia.

Skepticism, Faith and the Problem of Historical Authenticity

Abstract Epistemological questions concerning the reliability of historical knowledge and the establishment of truth, which we continue to confront today, were an urgent concern for Nikolai Nadezhdin in the aftermath of his arrest in 1836 resulting from his publication of Petr Chaadaev’s Philosophical Letter. In the months following his arrest he published a trio of articles, at least partially written while in confinement, which address the problem of historical knowledge and seek to expand the range of sources available to historians. This article traces the outlines of Nadezhdin’s argument particularly with regard to historical methodology and the reliability of sources. In seeking to incorporate new sources of historical knowledge, Nadezhdin set out for the first time key principles that would later inform his influential views on the methods and goals of ethnography as a scholarly field.

Hölderlin’s Politics of the New Mythology

ABSTRACT This article reevaluates Hölderlin’s social and political thought in the 1790s. Against Georg Lukács, it argues that Hölderlin’s politics of the new mythology, while utopian, are not mystical. In the Fragment of Philosophical Letters and the Oldest System-Programme of German Idealism, Hölderlin instead articulates two fundamental claims. Socially, the new mythical collectivity must elevate (erheben) the social relations produced by bourgeois society, exalting them in aesthetic-religious form, rather than sublating (aufheben) them, modifying both their form and their content. Politically, realizing this new collectivity requires transcending the state, and so is essentially revolutionary. Hölderlin’s prosaic writings thus supplement Hyperion’s romantic critique of modernity. They take as their point of departure a sober exposition of the social relations of the market emerging in Hölderlin’s time and, from within these relations, excavate a new mythical collectivity capable of suturing the fragmentary divisions of modern life.

Thoreau’s Stoicism inLetters to Various Persons: The Spiritual Direction of Harrison Blake

ABSTRACTIn the present contribution, the author contends, first, that “the perfect piece of Stoicism” that Emerson wanted to make out of Thoreau’s philosophical correspondence with his disciple Harrison Blake in Letters to Various Persons (1865) was neither concerned with a personality stereotype, as Sophia Thoreau feared, nor with the specifically Stoic way of living, as Richardson and Risinger have claimed in response. This first edition of Thoreau’s correspondence was in fact meant to be representative of that generally philosophical “art of living well” to which Thoreau was entirely committed. Second, the author provides a comparative analysis of Thoreau’s philosophical letters to his pupil and Seneca’s epistolary with Lucilius, in order to ascertain precisely how Thoreau’s letter-writing itself, apart from Emerson’s framing of it, might have been informed by his knowledge and interest in Stoic epistolary practices.

Joseph de Maistre and Peter Chaadaev: Cultural transfer of Catholic ideas

The influence of Joseph de Maistre on P.Chaadayev is a confirmed fact, though the textological analysis of his “Philosophical Letters” has not yet been carried out. The problematic aspect of the topic is the variety of interpretations of the thought of the Savoyard philosopher in Russia, which leads to the paradoxical possibility of reaching opposing conclusions based on the same works of de Maistre. He also inspired the conservative thinkers and Chaadayev, whose works were perceived by his contemporaries as opposing the theory of official nationality. The methodology used to investigate this problem is M.Espagne’s methodology of reception studies, which suggests the possibility of creating a new semantic meaning when an idea is perceived from a different cultural or political perspective. In this article, we focus on Chaadayev’s strategies in interpreting de Maistre’s thought and the significant differences that arise in adapting the Savoyard philosopher’s ideas for the readers of the “Philosophical Letters”. The novelty of the study lies in comparative analysis of the texts, which makes it possible to move away from stating the fact of borrowing to its specific use, characteristic of the author and the era when the work was written in Russia. With this approach, the focus of the study shifts to the recipient’s text and the perception of the Savoyard philosopher’s thoughts in a specific historical context.

«Особый путь» литературы Сибири? (Опыт реконструкции историософских и литературно-критических источников сибирского областничества)

An attempt is presented to reconstruct the historiosophical and literary-critical sources of Grigory Potanin’s article “A novel and a story in Siberia.” This article is key to the literary criticism of the “senior” regionalists. Consideration is given to two phenomena: 1) the Russian literature of the 19th century, regarded as “incorrect” as it was forced to evolve rapidly due to the lagging in its development (the consequence of the forced modernization of Russia), and 2) Western European literature, regarded “normal” and supplying the Russian literature with forms seen as models. These two phenomena were reproduced several decades later on a more local scale though less consistently: 1) Russian literature, having become “normative” for the Russian reader by the 1870s, and 2) the literature of Siberia lagging in its development compared to Russian literature. The leaders of Siberian regionalism would speak about the “specialness” of Siberia when comparing it both with Russia and Europe, with this “specialness” requiring a special representation. Considering criticism as an institution that “supervises” literature, Potanin, as his associate and friend Yadrintsev, suggested a radical thesis about the absence of literature in Siberia in his article. At the same time, relying on Karamzin’s article “Why are there few author talents in Russia?” and the first “Philosophical Letter” by Chaadaev, Potanin joins the discourse of the “shortage” of literature generated by several Russian critics of the first third of the 19th century. Potanin’s thought follows the paradigm formed in literary criticism and historiosophical discourse of this period.

РЕЦЕПЦИЯ АНТИЧНЫХ ЭСТЕТИЧЕСКИХ КАТЕГОРИЙ В ПЕРВОМ «ФИЛОСОФИЧЕСКОМ ПИСЬМЕ» П. Я. ЧААДАЕВА*

The relevance of the study is due to the need for an aesthetic analysis of a famous journalistic work of Pyotr Chaadayev, which in the history of philosophy has been studied in detail from the ethical, epistemological, ontological, and theological perspectives, but the aesthetic aspect has been overlooked. The problem of identifying the reception of ancient aesthetic categories in the most famous Russian philosophical letter of the first half of the 19th century is associated with a change of cultural eras and is of interest in terms of preserving the content of the categories of aesthetics that was laid down by Plato and Aristotle. The research methodology includes the text analysis method and the comparison of the content of aesthetic categories of ancient philosophers and Chaadayev. The study revealed that Chaadaev in his letter uses the reception of the Socratic dialogue, adapted for his time, which suggests the author’s commitment to ancient traditions. Chaadaev’s most popular aesthetic categories are the sublime and the base, as well as mimesis (he uses the word “imitation” in his letter). As a result, it turns out that while characterizing Western European culture the philosophical letter’s author correlates it with the category of the sublime, which is close in content to the sublime of the Platonists and Pseudo-Longinus. The opposite category of the base in the Aristotelian interpretation, from Chaadaev’s point of view, best describes Russian history and culture. According to the results of the comparison, the reason for such a bitter picture of domestic existence found by the author seems logical – it lies in the mimesis or imitation, which in Chaadaev’s definition clearly manifests the traces of both Platonic and Aristotelian meanings. As a result, the letter obviously demonstrates the reception of ancient aesthetic categories. However, it can be noted that the entire composition of the work is built on the contrast between the sublime and the base. It was this contrast that created the plot conflict of the letter, which caused a stir among the nineteenth-century readers and leaves no one indifferent to this day.

Natural Philosophy, Abstraction, and Mathematics among Materialists: Thomas Hobbes and Margaret Cavendish on Light

The nature of light is a focus of Thomas Hobbes’s natural philosophical project. Hobbes’s explanation of the light (lux) of lucid bodies differs across his works, from dilation and contraction in Elements of Law to simple circular motions in De corpore. However, Hobbes consistently explains perceived light (lumen) by positing that bodily resistance (endeavor) generates the phantasm of light. In Letters I.XIX–XX of Philosophical Letters, fellow materialist Margaret Cavendish attacks the Hobbesian understanding of both lux and lumen by claiming that Hobbes has illicitly made abstractions from matter. In this paper, I argue that Cavendish’s criticisms rely on an incorrect understanding of the nature of Hobbesian geometry and the role it plays in Hobbes’s natural philosophy. Rather than understanding geometry as wholly abstract, Hobbes attempts to ground geometry in different ways of considering bodies and their motions. Furthermore, Hobbes’s own criticisms of abstraction suggest that he would share many of the worries she raises but deny that he falls prey to them.

Can a Philosophical Letter Be Used in Values Education? Letters from Seneca to Lucilius

The aim of this research is to reveal the usability of moral letters, which are intellectual and literary products, as a resource in values education. The research was aimed considering the fact that different materials add excitement to the teaching environment, increase students’ interest and motivation in the course, and increase academic success. The research was carried out in a qualitative design and the document analysis method was used. The data source of the research consist of the letters with philosophical content written by Lucius Annaeus Seneca to Lucilius, the Governor of Sicily at the time. Value Review Form, henceforth “VRF” prepared by the researcher was used to collect data from the aforementioned data source. The collected data were analyzed by using the Maxqda 18 qualitative data analysis program, and the content analysis method was used in the analysis of the data. As a result of the analysis process, meaningful word groups and sentence/sentences were coded around the themes. As a result of the research, it was concluded that, moral letters can be used in the teaching of more than sixty different values that make life meaningful, keep societies and human generation alive, and organize and facilitate human relations. These values which are mentioned as the root values in the Turkish national education program and which all nations aim to see in their individuals include; “Justice”, “friendship”, “honesty”, “self-control”, “patience”, “love”, “respect”, “responsibility”, “patriotism”, “helpfulness”, are frequently used. Therefore these values are a wealthy resource that can be used in values education. In the suggestions section, suggestions were also made regarding the use of moral letters for values education inside and outside the school and including the value-content parts of these letters in the textbooks in the form of partial quotations following the purposes of the curriculum.

1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution by Paul Werth

Reviewed by: 1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution by Paul Werth Valeria Sobol (bio) Paul Werth, 1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). 213 pp., ill. Index. ISBN: 978-0-19-882635-4. Paul Werth's new book offers an intriguing reinterpretation of Nicholas I's reign, typically viewed as a stagnant and oppressive period of Russian history, sandwiched between the Decembrist uprising of 1825 and the era of Great Reforms that followed Russia's catastrophic defeat in the Crimean War. Focusing on one specific year, Werth argues instead that the 1830s in Russia was a time of "dynamism, innovation, and consequence" (P. 2), when a "quiet revolution" took place "that unified and integrated the country, while also serving to embody a Russian nation in institutions and practices" (P. 201). On the surface, the year 1837 was relatively inconspicuous, lacking the dramatic ruptures and transformations we typically associate with a revolution. And yet, the argument goes, that year was punctuated by developments that, when viewed in retrospect, had long-term consequences and ultimately proved critical to the formation of modern Russia. The book consists of ten chapters, each telling the story of a particular event in Russian history that occurred in 1837 and, as the author argues, played a crucial role in ushering Russia into the modern age. It starts with the death of Alexander Pushkin in a duel in January 1837, prompting the creation of the myth of the national poet, and ends with the December 1837 fire that destroyed the Winter Palace, which then was quasi-miraculously restored by Easter of 1839. In between the reader will find chapters examining a range of important developments: the creation of the first Russian opera, the future Alexander II's tour of the empire, the birth of the provincial press, and the construction of the first railroad in Russia, among others. Each of these events, to a lesser or greater degree, as Werth shows, unified the Russian population not just as imperial subjects but also as a nation–both physically, through its first railroad, and symbolically, through its first national poet and first national opera, as well as the first intense philosophical inquiry into the essence of the Russian national character by Petr Chaadaev (chapter 3). According to Werth, "a Russian nation, in short, was emerging within the empire" as a result of the confluence of these individual events (P. 3). In the introduction to the book, Werth explains that its chapters can be read separately or consecutively, depending on the reader's interests and background. Indeed, each chapter follows the same structure, [End Page 295] starting with an intriguing "hook" that introduces the topic and ending with a conclusion and notes; each can be read as a self-contained piece. In some cases, the author draws connections between the chapters, with varying degrees of success. (I personally did not find his attempt to link the publication of Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letter" to the cult of Pushkin and the veneration of Glinka's opera A Life for the Tsar particularly convincing.) In general, while the individual analyses do add up to support the overarching argument about the significance of 1837 (and the 1830s more broadly), more conceptual links between chapters would have strengthened the author's central claim. Overall, the chapters are somewhat uneven in regard to the use of primary research and the level of originality. The chapter on Pushkin is based largely on secondary sources and tells a story that is rather familiar to most Russian literary scholars and Pushkin aficionados. The author makes it clear that each sketch is addressed less to specialists who "may take issue with simplifications designed to keep the text accessible and brief" (P. 4) than to general readers and is intended to pique their interest in the subject. And yet I cannot help but wish for a more nuanced analysis of Pushkin's famous poem "I have built myself a monument," which is part of a long "Exegi Monumentum" tradition going back to Horace, rather than an original and prescient work as it appears from Werth's discussion. Closer attention to the translation of the original text would also be welcome...

Национальный характер и инокультурные заимствования в зеркале отечественной мысли

Liberal Russian reforms at the turn of the millennium actualize the issue of foreign cultural borrowing in the national discourse. The study, using examples of P. Ya. Chaadaev, F. M. Dostoevsky and N. A. Berdyaev analyzes the relationship between foreign cultural borrowings and traits of national character, which determine the attitude towards other cultures and towards qualitative transformations of society. All these concepts reflect the inconsistency of the respective features of the national character. The position of P. Ya. Chaadaev is contradictory. Whereas in Philosophical Letters he simultaneously ascribes to the Russian people a lack of innovation and a lack of soil, in Apology of the Madman, on the contrary, he sees in the Russian people a paradoxical unity of national conservatism and the ability to innovate. F. M. Dostoevsky perceives the basis of our national character a synthesis of national soil and universal responsiveness. N. A. Berdyaev formulates two antinomies of the Russian soul: 1) the antinomy of universalism and nationalism and 2) the antinomy of “boundless freedom of spirit” and “unheard-of servility”, without finding a convincing solution to these antinomies. The authors come to the conclusion that as a result of the interaction of foreign cultural innovations and the traits of the Russian national character associated with their perception, certain modes of antinomies identified by Russian thinkers are actualized in it. As a result, the national character informs a certain balance, providing a specific historical continuity and stability of its archetypal structures.

Motion as an Accident of Matter: Margaret Cavendish and Thomas Hobbes on Motion and Rest

AbstractMargaret Cavendish is widely known as a materialist. However, since Cavendishian matter is always in motion, “matter” and “motion” are equally important foundational concepts for her natural philosophy. In Philosophical Letters (1664), she takes to task her materialist rival Thomas Hobbes by assaulting his account of accidents in general and his concept of “rest” in particular. In this article, I argue that Cavendish defends her continuous‐motion view in two ways: first, she claims that her account avoids seeing accidents as capable of generation and annihilation, which she argues is inconceivable; and second, she contends that according to Hobbes’s own view “rest” is an absurd conception since it cannot be drawn from experience. Beyond its function as a defense, I claim that Cavendish’s focused criticism of “rest” shows that she is a perceptive reader of Hobbes’s natural philosophy, insofar as her criticisms undercut the two a priori principles of Hobbesian physics. Finally, I show how her views developed in more detail in Philosophical and Physical Opinions (1663) and Observations upon Experimental Philosophy ([1666] 2001) avoid the worries she raises for Hobbesian materialism.

The question of the addressee of P. Ya. Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letters" in connection with his religious and mystical views

The question of the addressee of P. Ya. Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letters" in connection with his religious and mystical views

Voltaire and the politicization of medicine and science.

The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed an intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment that made possible future revolutions such as the scientific. No person better characterizes the Enlightenment than Voltaire (1696-1976) who, in his book Philosophical Letters published in 1734, venerated the liberalism of English institutions while criticizing the ancien régime of France. He was convinced that the personal freedom the English enjoyed was responsible for their country's success, pointing to inoculation for smallpox and advances in science as evidence. His choice of smallpox inoculation and science as exemplars of empiricism, which maintained that knowledge is obtained through sensory experience, is revealing as it pinpoints political flashpoints that persist to this day. This paper explores how inoculation and science were employed by Voltaire to advance his political idea of liberty.

Поиск оснований русского Просвещения у П.Я. Чаадаева и И.В. Киреевского: к истории «Записки» П.Я. Чаадаева А.Х. Бен­кендорфу

This article analyses Pyotr Chaadayev’s “Note” (1832), a message addressed to Alexan­der von Benkendorf, who served as head of the secret police under Nikolas I. “The Note” is essentially a letter that supports Ivan Kireevsky’s article entitled “The 19th Century”, which Kireevsky published in his magazine – “The European” – and which provoked the secret police to close the magazine right after the publication of the article in 1832. “The Note” is a somewhat enigmatic text because it was signed with Kireevsky’s name, which for a long time made researchers believe that it reflected Kireevsky’s position. However, in the 1930s, researchers proved that the actual author of “The Note” was Pyotr Chaadayev, and that “The Note” contained his thoughts. “The Note” shows that it was the July Revolution of 1830 that temporarily undermined Chaa­dayev’s belief in Europe and made Chaadayev shift from the negative philosophy of Russian history and the Eurocentrism of his “Philosophical Letters” (1829–1830) to­wards the idea of Russia’s historical mission, despite Russia’s backwardness. This back­wardness was later presented in the text “Apology of a Madman” (1837) as the idea of Providence guiding Russia through history. The present article argues that in the early 1830s, Kireevsky did not share Chaadayev’s belief in Providence. “The Note” reads as a very ambivalent text because Chaadayev used it to both vindicate Kireevsky’s article, and to set forth his own philosophy of history. In the present paper, the author separates these two types of arguments and concepts which were tightly interwoven in “The Note”, but were in fact reflections of two different, although unstable and somewhat overlap­ping, positions of two philosophers.

Творчество Чаадаева и его интерпретация в интел­лектуальной культуре Серебряного века

Peter Y. Chaadaev (1794‒1856) is a key figure of Russian philosophy. His experience of theorizing about subjects of the highest order – God, man, knowledge, history, and reli­gion – is still a historical and philosophical problem that does not allow us to fully under­stand the mystery of Chaadaev’s creativity, which has the thickness of a cultural myth. From our point of view, the Chaadaev theme in the history Russian thought is not only the question of what the author of the Philosophical Letters said, in other words, it is not about the explication of his ideas. In our opinion, this is rather a question about the exist­ing discourse about Chaadaev as well as about the perception and understanding of his texts in the context of Russian intellectual and political culture. Philosophers of the Silver Age tried to get close to understanding the deep motives of Chaadaev’s thought. “Chaadaev’s problem” provided Russian intellectuals with a powerful creative impulse prompting them to ask questions about Russia, its history as well as its cultural, civiliza­tional, and political identity.

Apologia de um louco

O texto a seguir trata-se de uma tradução integral de Apologie d'un fou (1836/7), que Piotr Tchaadáiev (1794–1856) redigiu após ter sido declarado oficialmente insano como represália à sua “Primeira carta filosófica” (1829). Nesta, de inspiração idealista e foco religioso, o autor defende a ideia de que a Rússia não tinha ainda uma história civilizacional própria, vivendo de importações precárias que não decorriam de um progresso moral e intelectual orgânico. Em tom fatalista, Tchaadáiev constatava que, prensada entre Europa e Ásia, a Rússia nada aprendera com o tempo. Ela seria uma nulidade cultural, retrógrada, em trágica solidão histórica. Sem um passado integrado à cristandade católica e ao desenvolvimento filosófico-político da Europa, a Rússia ainda estava de fora da cultura moderna do Ocidente. Inicialmente um manuscrito (em francês) com bastante circulação, esse texto acabou sendo publicado (1836), em tradução russa, no periódico O telescópio (Teleskop). O escândalo foi tamanho que a revista foi extinta, o editor, exilado, e o censor responsável, destituído. Tchaadáiev foi detido como louco, proibido de publicar, e por um mês foi obrigado a receber periodicamente a visita de um policial e um alienista para atestar que continuava insano e deveria seguir em prisão domiciliar. Apologia de um louco, escrita também em francês, aparentemente se tornaria um pequeno tratado de filosofia da história aplicada ao caso russo, no qual o autor retificaria posições extremas da Carta filosófica, mas também defenderia o fundamento do seu raciocínio e o desenvolveria em novas direções. Porém, a obra não evoluiu além do fragmento que aqui traduzimos, publicado postumamente em 1862. É um dos documentos fundamentais da futura polêmica entre eslavistas e ocidentalistas, que alternadamente reclamariam para si o impulso dado por Tchaadáiev.

Margaret Cavendish among the Baconians

Margaret Cavendish is a very difficult thinker to place in context. Given her stern critique of the “experimental philosophy” in the Observations on the Experimental Philosophy, one might be tempted to place Cavendish among the opponents of Francis Bacon and his experimental thought. But, I argue, her rela­tion to Baconianism is much more subtle than that would suggest. I begin with an overview of Cavendish’s philosophical program, focusing mainly on her later natural philosophical thought in Philosophical and Physical Opinions (1663), Philosophical Letters (1664), Observations on the Experimental Philosophy (1666/68) and her Grounds of Natural Philosophy (1668). I then turn to Francis Bacon, and talk about how he understood his philosophical program in the 1620s, and how it had been transformed by later Baconians in the 1650s and 1660s. While Bacon held a vitalistic natural philosophy, what was most visible, particularly in Royal Society propaganda, was his experimentalism. But Margaret Cavendish’s natural philosophical program is, in a way, the exact contrary. While she was skeptical of Bacon’s experimentalism, she was an enthusiastic advocate for a vitalistic materialism that may well have been inspired, at least in part, by Bacon’s thought. Because of her opposition to the experimental philosophy, her contemporaries may not have seen her as a Baconian. But even so I think that she was a philosopher whom Bacon himself would have recognized as a kindred spirit.

Идеи, традиции и «высшие личности»: представление об истории в русской философии. Статья первая: П. Чаадаев, А. Пушкин, А. Герцен, Ф. Достоевский

The article proves that the idea of the historical development of mankind, which is expressed in the Philosophical Letters P.Ya. Chaadaev, became a universal model of understanding of history for all Russian religious philosophy. Accord­ing to Chaadayev, the meaning of history is the gradual refusal of people from selfish freedom, from personal independence, from adherence to material goals and in complete submission to the divine power acting in the world and leading people to connect with each other and with spiritual reality. The result of this process should be the emergence of a perfect humanity. The subjects of history directing its course are the few “higher personalities”; they generate great ideas that turn into traditions and thereby become powerful forces of influence on peo­ple. A.S. Pushkin shared Chaadayev’s view that history is determined by a few “higher personalities” who have a mystical connection with God, with a higher reality. The importance of cultural traditions in history was emphasized by A.I. Herzen, however he believed that Europe had ceased to follow its traditions and this leads to its death. F.M. Dostoevsky after Herzen argued that Europe had renounced its destiny to be the cultural center of mankind, now Russia should become such a center and lead humanity along the path of cultural creativity and spiritual unity. Dostoevsky also saw the historical development of mankind as the result of the activities of individual “higher personalities”, whose instruments are “higher ideas”.