L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev

This article deals with the philosophical controversy of L. Lopatin and Vl. Soloviev. According to Soloviev, Descartes mixed the pure subject of thought and the empirical subject, which created a “bastard”, a spiritual substance that coincides with a pure mind and with the individual being. In fact,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Aleksandr Dobrokhotov
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: St. Tikhon's Orthodox University 2020-12-01
Series:Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия
Subjects:
Online Access:http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/7176
_version_ 1818622548274839552
author Aleksandr Dobrokhotov
author_facet Aleksandr Dobrokhotov
author_sort Aleksandr Dobrokhotov
collection DOAJ
description This article deals with the philosophical controversy of L. Lopatin and Vl. Soloviev. According to Soloviev, Descartes mixed the pure subject of thought and the empirical subject, which created a “bastard”, a spiritual substance that coincides with a pure mind and with the individual being. In fact, says Soloviev, “I am always conscious of myself as the subject of mental states or emotions, and never as their substance. Thus, on the basis of existing reality there is no reason to ascribe to the subject of consciousness as such a diff erent reality than phenomenological”. Lopatin quite convincingly defends Descartes and criticises Soloviev’s “phenomenism”. Specifi cally, he notes that Soloviev’s dichotomy of the “empirical person” and “pure subject of thought” is not comprehensive. He suggests a third way of understanding Self as subjective consciousness that is “present in all stages of spiritual growth”. Important aspects of Lopatin’s egology are revealed in a dispute with E. N. Trubetskoy. Trubetskoy distinguishes “hypostasis” and “substance” as a kind of dynamic Self and static Self. This reasoning gives Lopatin the opportunity to once again formulate his concept of Self and show its closeness to Soloviev’s basic views. In contrast to the dispute with Soloviev, the dispute with Trubetskoy sets up a trinitarian context for egology, which extracts thinking about oneself out of the Cartesian “landscape” and opens up horizons for patristics. These discussions became the crossroads of the future paths of Russian personalism.
first_indexed 2024-12-16T18:26:55Z
format Article
id doaj.art-27706625f8ba4e37b6b712d820a2754b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1991-640X
2409-4692
language Russian
last_indexed 2024-12-16T18:26:55Z
publishDate 2020-12-01
publisher St. Tikhon's Orthodox University
record_format Article
series Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия
spelling doaj.art-27706625f8ba4e37b6b712d820a2754b2022-12-21T22:21:23ZrusSt. Tikhon's Orthodox UniversityВестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия1991-640X2409-46922020-12-0188884559http://dx.doi.org/10.15382/sturI202088.45-599L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. SolovievAleksandr Dobrokhotov0National Research University Higher School of Economics; 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya, Moscow 105066, Russian FederationThis article deals with the philosophical controversy of L. Lopatin and Vl. Soloviev. According to Soloviev, Descartes mixed the pure subject of thought and the empirical subject, which created a “bastard”, a spiritual substance that coincides with a pure mind and with the individual being. In fact, says Soloviev, “I am always conscious of myself as the subject of mental states or emotions, and never as their substance. Thus, on the basis of existing reality there is no reason to ascribe to the subject of consciousness as such a diff erent reality than phenomenological”. Lopatin quite convincingly defends Descartes and criticises Soloviev’s “phenomenism”. Specifi cally, he notes that Soloviev’s dichotomy of the “empirical person” and “pure subject of thought” is not comprehensive. He suggests a third way of understanding Self as subjective consciousness that is “present in all stages of spiritual growth”. Important aspects of Lopatin’s egology are revealed in a dispute with E. N. Trubetskoy. Trubetskoy distinguishes “hypostasis” and “substance” as a kind of dynamic Self and static Self. This reasoning gives Lopatin the opportunity to once again formulate his concept of Self and show its closeness to Soloviev’s basic views. In contrast to the dispute with Soloviev, the dispute with Trubetskoy sets up a trinitarian context for egology, which extracts thinking about oneself out of the Cartesian “landscape” and opens up horizons for patristics. These discussions became the crossroads of the future paths of Russian personalism.http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/7176egology spiritual substance hypostasis person russian personalismэгология русский персонализм духовная субстанция ипостась личность
spellingShingle Aleksandr Dobrokhotov
L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия
egology
spiritual substance
hypostasis
person
russian personalism
эгология
русский персонализм
духовная субстанция
ипостась
личность
title L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
title_full L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
title_fullStr L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
title_full_unstemmed L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
title_short L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev
title_sort l m lopatin s egology in the context of polemics with v s soloviev
topic egology
spiritual substance
hypostasis
person
russian personalism
эгология
русский персонализм
духовная субстанция
ипостась
личность
url http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/7176
work_keys_str_mv AT aleksandrdobrokhotov lmlopatinsegologyinthecontextofpolemicswithvssoloviev