Ideas and Ideals

This is feedback on N.S. Rozov’s article “Siberian Philosophy in front of Intellectual Challenge: Overcoming ‘Provincialism’ and ‘Indigeneity’”. The author highlights provincialism of Siberian philosophy. Provincialism can create a sense of inferiority among the provincials - then provincialism can be treated negatively. However, there is another side of provincialism: consciousness of being unspoiled, rooted in the national culture; this provincialism is treated positively. Negative provincialism is quite surmountable, but the question remains, if positive provincialism has any chance to be realized? I think that it can be realized only if sincere curiosity of Siberian philosophers is directed towards the endless spaces of Siberia, as a political, cultural and geographical concept. Then we can talk about a certain type of person, and about the correspondence between habitat and mentality, etc. And the significance of the corresponding philosophy will be determined only by the level of reflection and representation.

This article is a response on N.S. Rozov’s article “Siberian Philosophy in front of Intellectual Challenge: Overcoming ‘Provincialism’ and ‘Indigeneity’”. I will begin the discussion with its high assessment as the sound scientific research carried out in the genre of “Sociology of Philosophy”. The author of the commented article, on the one hand, notes the fact of a certain professional consolidation of philosophers of Siberia, on the other hand, he draws attention to the fact that the further development of the phenomenon of the Siberian philosophy is possible only if we can provide an adequate response to the challenge to overcome such vices of the modern Russian philosophy as ‘provincialism’ and ‘indigeneity’. In general, N.S. Rozov considers the state and potential trends of the Siberian philosophy development in terms of R. Collins’ concept of intelligent networks. I completely agree with the author of the article regarding the expediency of using this approach. However, N.S. Rozov carries out his research within the framework of a provincial tradition. In my commentary, I raise the question: which of the currently available challenges the intellectual network of Siberian philosophers should respond to? In my opinion, the route of Siberian philosophy evolution according to N.S. Rozov is hardly realistic, because its implementation will take significant time (several generations). I will make an assumption that the main tension in intellectual activity by the end of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century focuses on issues of changing dominance in the world culture from science and education to technology and techniques. In the changed conditions, the goal of Russian universities to overtake world universities is deactivated. Therefore, attention should not be focused on the usual forms of scientific discourse, usually focused on the generation and discussion of ideas, problems, theories, but on developing cognitive instruments, providing the transfer of knowledge from science and education to the creation of new technologies and techniques. It should be taken into account that organization of reasoning does not differ much from the samples of Por-Royal logic of the 17th century. It is also appropriate for philosophers to think about practices of inclusion in project activities. For example, philosophers of Siberia suggest adding to the national projects the following one – ‘The Wisdom of Russia’.

My critics made the most serious remarks on the following issues: 1) the (in)significance of geography and social environment for philosophical creativity, 2) rejection of intellectual hierarchies, 3) whether a high desire for truth excludes reflection on the social aspects of philosophical creativity. An analysis of each example of "independence" of philosophy from geographical location (B. Spinoza, L. von Wittgenstein, M. Bakhtin, M. Heidegger) shows the paramount importance of the social environment of each thinker both in the formative period for his work, and in the mature period for high lifetime and/or posthumous intellectual reputation. The social environment itself (inclusion in a certain intellectual network) is largely, and in the past centuries, almost completely determined by geographical location with a specific cultural and intellectual background. The next question concerns the real contradiction between the ideal of equality in the "republic of scientists" and the reality of hierarchies of intellectual prestige between individual thinkers, between nodes and parts of intellectual networks. This contradiction is prevailed as an imperative to overcome the “illegal” hierarchy which means achieving such creative results and such an intellectual position that excludes the possibility of ignoring or arrogant neglect from “capital” positions. The most difficult question concerns the correlation of “importance” (intellectual significance, validity, proximity to the truth) and “audibility” (recognition of the results by contemporaries, if they even notice them). A model of five-part cognitive relation in philosophy is presented, on the basis of which it is shown that the “pursuit of truth in itself” does not prohibit reflection on the social nature of one’s own creativity, but allows one to more accurately express one’s thoughts. From this perspective, the collective strategy of integration of efforts within the framework of Siberian philosophy is justified as a proven way to achieve the long-term significance of ideas by the famous regional philosophical schools of the past.

The Siberian philosophy possesses features of both types: "provincial philosophy" (secondary, oriented to modern European and American traditions) and "indigenous philosophy" (isolated, discussing a secluded circle of local and / or long-outdated ideas). At the same time, there is a potential for a breakthrough to “metropolitan philosophy”, i. e. transformation of Siberian philosophy into one of the significant centers of the domestic and world philosophical network. The factors of overcoming “provincialism” and “indigeneity” include the combination of novelty and significance of results, the discovery and active discussion of deep difficulties, heated discussions on topics relevant in world philosophy with an indispensable original contribution, the combination of “pilgrimage”, “missionary activities”, attracting “stars” and interns from different centers of the global philosophical network. The definite competitive advantages and opportunities based on the positive features of the “Siberian ethos”can help to develop Siberian philosophy to prevail “provincialism” and “indigeneity”: courage and perseverance in overcoming difficulties, sanity, ingenuity, curiosity, practicality, horizontal solidarity and a willingness to mutual assistance.

The author comments on the article by N.S. Rozov “Siberian Philosophy in front of Intellectual Challenge: Overcoming ‘Provincialism’ and ‘Indigeneity’”. The author points out that self-consciousness of Siberian philosophers is still in its infancy, and their positioning themselves within world and Russian philosophy suffers either from “provincialism” (borrowing of theoretical ideas and their secondary commentary), or from “indigeneity” (fixation on their own, often homegrown constructions). The author highlights the idea that for deep self-awareness, creative consolidation and social self-affirmation, Siberian philosophers need a collective discussion and development of exactly the “philosophy of Siberia”. The involvement of metropolitan philosophers in discussing the problems of Siberia and its significance for the development of the entire Russian society can be not only a means of strengthening the ties between metropolitan and Siberian philosophers and a way to overcome our common ‘provinciality’, but also be a point of renewal and revival of all Russian philosophy, its transformation from spheres of purely abstract and obscure for the society philosophical conceptual games into the platform for a collective discussion of urgent and deeply vital problems of the national being. In this context the author draws special attention to the organization of regular nationwide interdisciplinary scientific seminar on the problems of complex development of Siberia. Perhaps it is the Siberian philosophers who have reason to act as its initiators, and Novosibirsk Academgorodok seems to be the best place to hold it.

The article is a response to the policy statement of Professor N. Rozov, proposing ways of developing Siberian philosophy with the potential to overcome its ‘provincialism’ and ‘indigeneity’ and turn it into a ‘metropolitan’ science. Designating Rozov’s project as pragmatic, the authors highlight the advantages of the formation of the philosophical network of Siberia and searching for scientific ‘underlying difficulties’ and discussing them in close contact with ‘metropolitan’ science. This philosophical network is based on the creation of a thematic unity, a common field of philosophy and “entry points” into it. Being implemented, the project is able to increase the intellectual resource of Siberian philosophy and intensify the exchange with other philosophical networks. Problems of the Rozov’s project include the use of the imposed, value-loaded concepts of ‘provincial’ and ‘indigenous’ science, which depreciate the philosophical work of Siberian authors on the basis of their thematic independence from scientific ‘metropolis’ and disinterest of the ‘metropolis’ in the dialogue on ‘non-metropolitan’ topics. The methodological basis of the project as a whole is characterized by ‘sociological reductionism’, the reduction of philosophical activity to the social relations of status, stratification, philosophical infrastructure. The disadvantage of this approach is that, taken as a maxim of behavior, it absorbs the internal factors of the development of philosophy - the freedom to choose a research topic and focus on obtaining knowledge rather than social recognition. The authors’ version of the ‘third way’ of Siberian philosophy, which is not reducible to ‘provincialism’ and ‘indigeneity’, is to strengthen the emphasis on the personal aspect of philosophical creativity. At the same time, recognition and intellectual resources are seen not as a goal and means, but as an important but optional result of the dialogue of the philosophers of Siberia with each other and with the ‘metropolis’, based on joint intellectual service of the inner need for knowledge. The third way is seen as the creation of a philosophical network that serves the ‘love of wisdom’, not reducible to one or another social relationship that accompanies philosophy.

This is feedback on N.S. Rozov’s article “Siberian Philosophy in front of Intellectual Challenge: Overcoming ‘Provincialism’ and ‘Indigeneity’”. The author considers various forms of adaptation to the communicative distance in the intellectual network. The author analyses the reports of young philosophers participating in the All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists of Siberia “Actual Problems of Humanitarian and Social Research”.

The author analyses the ideas considered in N. S. Rozov’s paper. He agrees with the division into two types of philosophy: “indigenous” and “provincial”. The author affirms that the Russian philosophical tradition as a whole has a provincial character. He believes that this state of affairs characterizes the way the research community functions and allows us to find our place in the international “division of labor.” It is noted that the experience of postcolonial studies could help in the search for originality and identity of Siberian philosophy.

This is feedback on the article by N.S. Rozov “Siberian Philosophy in front of Intellectual Challenge: Overcoming ‘Provincialism’ and ‘Indigeneity’”. The author stresses the fact that despite the quantitative concentration of philosophers (as well as everything else - capital, information, people, etc.) in the metropolitan cities, the very event in philosophy, i.e. the actual eventuality of the author’s thought is not at all determined by the geographical habitat of the philosophizing subject. The author suggests describing the philosopher's topos not in the categories of geography and social statuses, but in the categories of I. Kant: philosophy can be built according to the school concept and the world concept.