I find it "refreshing", whether you agree with the thesis in whole or part, to reacquaint myself with ground not seen since my days as an undergraduate/graduate. The Philosophy of History has always been of great interest to me and this article covers 80-90% of the relevant material. One can argue emphasis or interpretation but I believe on cannot dispute the topics (and the personal resolution of those topics) that form a mature "World View".
Glad to hear that! I have been completing a PhD exploring speculative philosophy of history and was surprised to see it’s decline within the past century. What interested me most, is the fact that this phenomenon seems to be a purely Western one. The speculative approaches to history continue to thrive beyond the West. I do not want to discredit the epistemological concerns of current western analytical philosophers of history/historiography as well. But without it’s speculative counterpart, the field becomes too isolated from reality it loses value, and if anything, risks losing credibility since it is not a science. Yet clearly this seems to be changing now. And my more recent research aims to shed light on these phenomenona concerning the historical instinct of the West.
Not surprised, in the least, with the escalating decline of reflection, introspection, and the need for a logical grounding for ones thought. I believe that it is intentional and deliberate as the fruits of this gross educational failure produces easily malleable and fundamentally "empty" vessels that are ready to be filled by the latest fad, PSYOP, Consumerist gadget, "Pandemic scarce, Climate Alarmism, etc.
Mmmm "Historical "Instinct" of the West? .. Surrender, rejection of that which has built and made the west, fatalism?
Why I studied both History and International Relations and Majors for my BA, and Theology and Philosophy for minors. The frameworks of philosophy allow you to examine personal experience/life (in the micro) and society and civilization (in the macro).
I shifted to Political "Science" for my Graduate work precisely because of the fundamental problem with the way history is taught - if one can not "speculate" - or draw inferences from ones studies so as to apply "lessons" to the present day - what good is it? I was very fortunate in that I had good teachers in all these disciplines and was able to explore a wide range of perspectives. Spengler, Collingwood, Gramsci, Marcuse, Aquinas, Hegel, Marx, et. al - we perceive but dimly as so much is lost - not passed on or overlooked depending on the viewpoint of the educational elites. End of the day I am, at heart, a Medievalist and Political Realist :-)!
Not a big believer in "progress". Man, as species', suffers from a fundamental flaw, we do not live long enough to form a cogent world view and then pass it on to our progeny before death takes us... by the time the mind of the next generation is ready (developed) enough to understand the "lessons of history", we are already in the ground and those who come after "till the same ground". Thus "history" repeats :-).
Thank you again for the post, it is good to occasionally think on things that are larger than the parochial, day-to-day - pablum of our lives.
The ideas presented are potent, and vital in developing a worldview that goes beyond the Western universalist straitjacket, especially where Russia's specific character is concerned.
I will say however, the text itself could have benefited from a thorough edit and review of the writing itself, where language is clumy in places and ideas are repeated multiple times without decent underscoring of the key messages.
Of course, we all go through phases as writers, and they essentially shape our style and structure. My writing, on these topics at least, is primarily influenced by German works that are translated into English. Which means that I have developed a peculiar style, and many reviewers have also pointed this out. The different journals, magazines, and channels I publish in make it even more complex. One can say that a writer’s journey is shaped by a dialectic clash between retaining his own unique style, and tweaking his work in accordance with the requirements of each audience/platform.
Russia's greatest struggle is to find itself a new paradigm that reflects its eternal nature. Russia has adopted and adapted but it has yet to make it's own robust thought that isn't derived from other lens. These have proven to be both a boon and bane to Russia.
Russia's timelessness and proto-cultural stage manifests with its stubbornness at being its own island but it's own continued repeat. Russia's historicism is quite distinctly different. It's rooted in experience. The Russians are the end of the steppe. Their history is one of survival which is never enough.
Hello my friend, it has been too long, always a pleasure to read your insights. I literally have been meditating on some of your posts and ideas recently when exploring pre-history, I hope you have been well. On Russia, this is the point I arrived at when writing my most recent piece, which will be published soon hopefully. Russia is definitely struggling to find its authentic voice, and connect to its roots. The blame can be placed on Petrinism, which essentially paved the way for an ontological shift towards the Modern in Russia. Yet, the polarity of the Russian soul is also to blame, to a degree, that is, the constant shift in the geopolitical, economic, spiritual, and social orientation of the culture. As I said in my most recent writing, "The West is metaphysical oriented towards the West, and when the frontiers were conquered its innate verticality propelled it to space, yet that is not the case with Russia.". The symbol of multipolarity literally reveals this notion in my judgement, it oriented itself Westward, East, South towards Constantinople, and perhaps even North and Upwards (Russian Cosmism), but never within, I truly do not know why however. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on this?
Never within because within lies the self which must go outward always. Russia is only within when checked. It is how all cultures are. They are rooted in opposition and consumption of the self.
Russia is young so it can't direct itself inward. The West is old so it must because it has exhausted itself. Russia is doing normal behavior. Older things do behavior where they reflect.
But this is always limited by prime symbol which we have to regard as the resolution to the elements which make it. The Endless Flat Plain means the world is effectively layered in regards to space and time. Russia does actually acknowledge gaps in space and time. This is how they can be multipolar as well as be part of the international system. Gaps exist because there is medium that cannot be traversed because it is antithetical to the prime symbol. The ocean is for example this. Yet like Space. Russia will pursue it as prudent. Space to Russia is another plane above this one. If the world effectively is a graph then it has nodes and edges. Russia thus views the world in a manner that is inherently against anarchy. Partly due to that Filloque but also because when your environmental plane is open for constant attack. You do the opposite. England is a tiny country full of freedom while Russia is a big country full of order.
This is why the "Essence of Time" amuses me as a syncretic project because it is closer to Russia's soul then many want to admit. Dugin and Limonov are as well.
Great article! The Western historiography of Russia described in your article reminds me of James Billington’s book “The Icon and The Axe”. Not only is the text guided by the teleology of progress, but a profound ignorance of Russia as a whole.
Thank you for sharing Billington's book! Unsurprisingly I never came across it, perhaps for the same reasons Russia was demonized in Western scholarship, the same is the case with any contribution that attempts to present Russia as a unique cultural entity. I found a copy online, but it is not available currently, hopefully soon!
It’s an amazingly frustrating read. Some of the ignorance of Russia is straight up baffling. For instance, he uses the rather small heretical group of Russian flagellants to describe Russian piety as whole. If you read it, prepare to get mad and confused.
Thank you for the post!
I find it "refreshing", whether you agree with the thesis in whole or part, to reacquaint myself with ground not seen since my days as an undergraduate/graduate. The Philosophy of History has always been of great interest to me and this article covers 80-90% of the relevant material. One can argue emphasis or interpretation but I believe on cannot dispute the topics (and the personal resolution of those topics) that form a mature "World View".
Glad to hear that! I have been completing a PhD exploring speculative philosophy of history and was surprised to see it’s decline within the past century. What interested me most, is the fact that this phenomenon seems to be a purely Western one. The speculative approaches to history continue to thrive beyond the West. I do not want to discredit the epistemological concerns of current western analytical philosophers of history/historiography as well. But without it’s speculative counterpart, the field becomes too isolated from reality it loses value, and if anything, risks losing credibility since it is not a science. Yet clearly this seems to be changing now. And my more recent research aims to shed light on these phenomenona concerning the historical instinct of the West.
Not surprised, in the least, with the escalating decline of reflection, introspection, and the need for a logical grounding for ones thought. I believe that it is intentional and deliberate as the fruits of this gross educational failure produces easily malleable and fundamentally "empty" vessels that are ready to be filled by the latest fad, PSYOP, Consumerist gadget, "Pandemic scarce, Climate Alarmism, etc.
Mmmm "Historical "Instinct" of the West? .. Surrender, rejection of that which has built and made the west, fatalism?
Why I studied both History and International Relations and Majors for my BA, and Theology and Philosophy for minors. The frameworks of philosophy allow you to examine personal experience/life (in the micro) and society and civilization (in the macro).
I shifted to Political "Science" for my Graduate work precisely because of the fundamental problem with the way history is taught - if one can not "speculate" - or draw inferences from ones studies so as to apply "lessons" to the present day - what good is it? I was very fortunate in that I had good teachers in all these disciplines and was able to explore a wide range of perspectives. Spengler, Collingwood, Gramsci, Marcuse, Aquinas, Hegel, Marx, et. al - we perceive but dimly as so much is lost - not passed on or overlooked depending on the viewpoint of the educational elites. End of the day I am, at heart, a Medievalist and Political Realist :-)!
Not a big believer in "progress". Man, as species', suffers from a fundamental flaw, we do not live long enough to form a cogent world view and then pass it on to our progeny before death takes us... by the time the mind of the next generation is ready (developed) enough to understand the "lessons of history", we are already in the ground and those who come after "till the same ground". Thus "history" repeats :-).
Thank you again for the post, it is good to occasionally think on things that are larger than the parochial, day-to-day - pablum of our lives.
The ideas presented are potent, and vital in developing a worldview that goes beyond the Western universalist straitjacket, especially where Russia's specific character is concerned.
I will say however, the text itself could have benefited from a thorough edit and review of the writing itself, where language is clumy in places and ideas are repeated multiple times without decent underscoring of the key messages.
Thank you!
Of course, we all go through phases as writers, and they essentially shape our style and structure. My writing, on these topics at least, is primarily influenced by German works that are translated into English. Which means that I have developed a peculiar style, and many reviewers have also pointed this out. The different journals, magazines, and channels I publish in make it even more complex. One can say that a writer’s journey is shaped by a dialectic clash between retaining his own unique style, and tweaking his work in accordance with the requirements of each audience/platform.
Russia's greatest struggle is to find itself a new paradigm that reflects its eternal nature. Russia has adopted and adapted but it has yet to make it's own robust thought that isn't derived from other lens. These have proven to be both a boon and bane to Russia.
Russia's timelessness and proto-cultural stage manifests with its stubbornness at being its own island but it's own continued repeat. Russia's historicism is quite distinctly different. It's rooted in experience. The Russians are the end of the steppe. Their history is one of survival which is never enough.
There is a destiny that is not yet realized.
Hello my friend, it has been too long, always a pleasure to read your insights. I literally have been meditating on some of your posts and ideas recently when exploring pre-history, I hope you have been well. On Russia, this is the point I arrived at when writing my most recent piece, which will be published soon hopefully. Russia is definitely struggling to find its authentic voice, and connect to its roots. The blame can be placed on Petrinism, which essentially paved the way for an ontological shift towards the Modern in Russia. Yet, the polarity of the Russian soul is also to blame, to a degree, that is, the constant shift in the geopolitical, economic, spiritual, and social orientation of the culture. As I said in my most recent writing, "The West is metaphysical oriented towards the West, and when the frontiers were conquered its innate verticality propelled it to space, yet that is not the case with Russia.". The symbol of multipolarity literally reveals this notion in my judgement, it oriented itself Westward, East, South towards Constantinople, and perhaps even North and Upwards (Russian Cosmism), but never within, I truly do not know why however. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on this?
Russia is oriented everywhere but itself. This is the tragedy at the root of their soul.
Never within because within lies the self which must go outward always. Russia is only within when checked. It is how all cultures are. They are rooted in opposition and consumption of the self.
Russia is young so it can't direct itself inward. The West is old so it must because it has exhausted itself. Russia is doing normal behavior. Older things do behavior where they reflect.
But this is always limited by prime symbol which we have to regard as the resolution to the elements which make it. The Endless Flat Plain means the world is effectively layered in regards to space and time. Russia does actually acknowledge gaps in space and time. This is how they can be multipolar as well as be part of the international system. Gaps exist because there is medium that cannot be traversed because it is antithetical to the prime symbol. The ocean is for example this. Yet like Space. Russia will pursue it as prudent. Space to Russia is another plane above this one. If the world effectively is a graph then it has nodes and edges. Russia thus views the world in a manner that is inherently against anarchy. Partly due to that Filloque but also because when your environmental plane is open for constant attack. You do the opposite. England is a tiny country full of freedom while Russia is a big country full of order.
This is why the "Essence of Time" amuses me as a syncretic project because it is closer to Russia's soul then many want to admit. Dugin and Limonov are as well.
Great article! The Western historiography of Russia described in your article reminds me of James Billington’s book “The Icon and The Axe”. Not only is the text guided by the teleology of progress, but a profound ignorance of Russia as a whole.
Thank you for sharing Billington's book! Unsurprisingly I never came across it, perhaps for the same reasons Russia was demonized in Western scholarship, the same is the case with any contribution that attempts to present Russia as a unique cultural entity. I found a copy online, but it is not available currently, hopefully soon!
It’s an amazingly frustrating read. Some of the ignorance of Russia is straight up baffling. For instance, he uses the rather small heretical group of Russian flagellants to describe Russian piety as whole. If you read it, prepare to get mad and confused.