those of the other conservative thinkers whose views I have summiarised.[1]
An account of the views of some of the leading economists, sociologists, and historians, would be both interesting and instructive. But the writers chosen suffice for our purpose, all the more seeing that in the studies of which the present work is the first instalment the author proposes to give a sociological analysis of the work of Dostoevskii and of modern Russian literature from Puškin onwards.
No stress has been laid upon the so-called formal (i.e. methodological) problems considered by professional philosophers, though these have not been entirely ignored.
§ 187.
THE account of the character of Russian philosophy given in § 38 has been confirmed by the detailed treatment of the ideas of representative Russian thinkers. One conclusion emerges with especial force, and it is that Russian philosophical thought lacks epistemological foundation. As Radlov puts it, the leading Russian thinkers manifest no interest in epistemological problems; they are concerned with social and political questions, with the questions of the day; Russian philosophy has a markedly practical character, and it is chiefly devoted to the study of ethical problems.
Politics is based upon morality, it is the function of politics to elucidate and to realise ethical principles on behalf of and in the social whole; but morality is associated with religion and the church. There is, consequently, no contradiction involved in the two assertions I have made, that Russian philosophy is predominantly the philosophy of history and the philosophy of religion, and that Russian philosophy is preeminently practical and ethical.
Ethics, ethical principles, must naturally be based upon a sound theory of cognition. If, therefore, we say that Russian philosophy has not adequately examined its epistemological groundworks, this implies that Russian ethical thought exhibits similar defects.
The lack of a sound theory of cognition in Russia is pecu-
- ↑ In Russia, prior to 1905, at the seminaries—Pobědonoscev notwithstanding—philosophy was in a sense freer than at the universities. At the former it was not so markedly subject to the direct pressure of the government.
