Experiences on Philosophy Design: Classical Eurasianism. Ideocratical Personalism

Aim. To reconstruct the process of developing a new philosophy based on “classical Eurasianism.” To identify and evaluate not only the body of texts and the group of intellectuals, but also the context and the set of social factors that influenced the ideologically motivated “creative” process. Throughout the entire period of Eurasianism’s evolution, emphasis is placed on the third, final stage, when results, rather than a collection of declarations, are noticeable.

Methodology. A set of techniques characteristic of historical and philosophical research are used: empirics in the form of primary sources are defined, their content is analyzed; ideas by participants in the process and observers are evaluated, considering objective and subjective factors; a context is formed. Thus, the techniques, practices of hermeneutics, and analysis (contextual and structural) were used.

Results. The key characters of the third stage of classical Eurasianism evolution are identified, whose intellectual efforts form the “new” philosophy. This philosophy not only expresses the basic principles of the ideological movement but also claims to become a methodological platform for multidisciplinary research. Such participants are N. S. Trubetskoy, L. P. Karsavin, N. N. Alekseev, V. N. Ilyin, D. P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, P. P. Suvchinsky. It is revealed that at a certain point an attempt was made to integrate N. F. Fedorov’s teaching “Common Cause” into the “personology” formed at the second stage, as well as to find points of support in a critically rethought Marxism, and to formulate the concept of “ideocracy.”

Research implications. The results obtained in the study create a platform to understand what has happened at the certain place and under certain conditions to compose a “new” philosophy. Classical Eurasianism turns out to be a productive “case” for philosophical research, since it becomes possible to observe both the experience of organizing interdisciplinary research and the creation of a new philosophical direction that claimed to express a new ideology in the categories of academic philosophy.

1. Vakhit, R. R. (2023). Eurasianism: Logos. Eidos. Symbol. Myth. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal publ. (in Russ.).

2. Ermishina, K. B. (2023). Eurasianism in the Mirror of Research Approaches, or the Search for a Certain Understanding of the Movement’s Ideological Complex. In: National Philosophy, 1 (1), 28–42. DOI: 10.21146/2949-3102-2023-1-1-28-42 (in Russ.).

3. Martinkus, A. (2021). The Temptation of Power. Transformation of the “Russian Idea” in the Philosophy of “Classical” Eurasianism (1920–1929). Moscow, Berlin: Direct-Media publ. (in Russ.).

4. Obolevich, T. (2020) Semyon Frank, Lev Karsavin and the Eurasians. Moscow: Modest Kolerov publ. (in Russ.).

5. Novikova, L. I., Sizemskaya, I. N., compls. (1995). The World of Russia – Eurasia. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola publ. (in Russ.).

6. Kozhevnikov, A. (1992). Philosophy and CPSU. In: Voprosy filosofii, 2, 72–74 (in Russ.).

7. Karsavin, L. P. (1992). Philosophy and CPSU. Regarding A. V. Kozhevnikov’s Article. In: Voprosy filosofii, 2, 75–77 (in Russ.).

8. Alekseeva, N. N., Ilyin, V. N., Klepinin, N. A., Savitsky, P. N., Chkheidze, K. A., eds. (1929). Eurasian Collection. Politics. Philosophy. Russian Studies. Book VI. Prague: Politics publ. (in Russ.).

9. Savitsky, P. N. (1997). Continent of Eurasia. Moscow: Autograph publ. (in Russ.).

10. Gacheva, A., Kazina, O. & Semenova, S. (2003). Philosophical Context of Russian Literature of the 1920–1930s. Moscow: IMLI RAS publ. (in Russ.).

11. Gacheva. A. G., compl. (2008). N. F. Fedorov: Pro et Contra. Book 2. Moscow: Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute publ. (in Russ.).

12. Sobolev, A. V. (2008). About Russian Philosophy. St. Petersburg: Mir publ. (in Russ.).