Philosophical works

A. I. Abramov. Pamfil Danilovich Yurkevich

Pamfil Danilovich Yurkevich (1827-1874) belongs to those Russian philosophers whose fate is almost complete oblivion. This is all the more surprising since the thinker stood at the foundation of the original Russian philosophy, his works introduced the Russian reader to the contemporary problems of European philosophical thought, and his merit in the formation of Russian philosophical vocabulary is also great. Of particular note is his influence on the formation of the worldview of V. S. Solovyov, who considered him his teacher.

He was born in the Poltava province (the village of Liplyavoe, Zolotonosha district) in the family of a priest, was educated at the Poltava Seminary and intended to enter the Medical and Surgical Academy, but at the insistence of his father in 1847 he entered the Kiev Theological Academy, the course of which he graduated in 1851. By the decision of the academic conference, the graduate was appointed to the position of "mentor in the Class of Philosophical Sciences". In 1852, Yurkevich received a master's degree with the renaming of the bachelor of the academy, a year later he was declared the favor of St. "for his excellently diligent and very useful work", and already in 1854 he was appointed to the post of assistant inspector of the Academy. However, the young philosopher did not like the administrative work, and two years later he submitted a petition for dismissal from this position. Yurkevich began to teach a philosophical course, he also taught German. In the teaching field, his career was rapid: already in 1858 he was an extraordinary professor. The first publications (in the "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education" and in the "Transactions of the Kiev Theological Academy") belong to this time.

After a ten-year break, in 1861 the Department of Philosophy was opened at the Moscow University, and it was Yurkevich, in the words of G. G. Shpet, who was the only one in Russia "philosophically prepared enough to occupy the university chair without a previous business trip abroad"[1]. In October 1861, the appointment was approved by the imperial decree, and Yurkevich moved to Moscow, where he remained until the end of his days. In addition to the history of philosophy, he taught courses in logic, psychology, pedagogy at the university, and also worked in the teachers' seminary of the military department. A group of students under the guidance of the professor was also engaged in the translation of various philosophical works (in particular, Spengler's History of Philosophy was published under the editorship of Yurkevich)[2]. The highest stage of his university career was his appointment in 1869 as acting dean of the Faculty of History and Philology. In 1873, after the death of his wife, he fell seriously ill and died on October 4, 1874. He was buried in the cemetery of the Danilov Monastery in Moscow.

Unfortunately, it was not his own philosophical writings that brought him wide fame, but the journal polemics about the work of N. G. Chernyshevsky "The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy". A considerable part of the public of that time, which did not delve into the subtleties of the philosophical dispute, was opposed in advance against the spiritual-academic philosopher, who, moreover, enjoyed the support of M. N. Katkov. Yurkevich's article "" criticizing the "Anthropological Principle...", published in a special theological journal, might have gone unnoticed altogether if the Russky Vestnik had not reprinted it accompanied by Katkov's article "Old and New Gods" (see Russky Vestnik, February, 1861). This discussion was then continued by Yurkevich in the article "The Language of Physiologists and Psychologists".

In the last years of his life, Yurkevich focused his efforts on the development of pedagogical problems[4]. In such books as "Readings on Education" and "A Course of General Pedagogy", the foundations of pedagogy, however, were deduced by him from psychological, logical and philosophical foundations, which determined, on the one hand, the consistent integrity of his concept, and on the other hand, the critical attitude of the opponents of Yurkevich's philosophical position to it. P. N. Tkachev, for example, characterized the "Course of General Pedagogy" as a vile attempt under the guise of idealist phraseology and vague mysticism to justify everything wild and ugly, which only sanctifies tradition and supports routine. At the same time, as a rule, no attention was paid to other sections, for example, to the chapter on the three types of love: for truth, disciples, and goodness.

According to the memoirs of the famous propagandist of spiritualistic theories A. N. Aksakov[6], in the last years of his life, Yurkevich developed an interest in spiritualism and the organological philosophy of E. Swedenborg. V. S. Solovyov also recalls this in an article dedicated to the memory of the teacher[7].

The ambiguous position of the "official" philosopher, invited from the Kiev Theological Academy to Moscow allegedly specifically to criticize and defeat the advancing materialism, the hostile attitude towards him of a number of leading journalists, including M. A. Antonovich[8], caused a negative attitude towards Yurkevich not only on the part of many of his contemporaries, but also created a kind of "negative tradition" in many studies of the history of Russian philosophical thought. As a result of this more than a century-old tradition, the odiousness of Yurkevich's name in our literature has become almost fabulous[9].

On the other hand, in a number of works of the Russian philosophical emigration, Yurkevich's works are evaluated quite highly. For example, Kommersant V. Zenkovsky calls him "the most prominent representative of the Kiev school" (along with F. A. Golubinsky, V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. N. Karpov, Archimandrite Theophan (Avsenev), S. S. Gogotsky). "Yurkevich's criticism of materialism... caused harsh and rude articles and notes in Russian magazines; the name of Yurkevich in Russian radical circles was therefore for a long time, without any grounds, associated with the idea of 'obscurantism' and hindered the assimilation of Yurkevich's remarkable constructions."[10] A brief description of N. O. Lossky, however, leaves no doubt about the latter's high appreciation of Yurkevich's criticism of materialism; He calls the polemics in the "progressive press" a "campaign of persecution." G. V. Florovsky assesses this discussion in the same way, considering Yurkevich "a strict thinker who combined logical accuracy with mystical inquisitiveness," Vlad listened to him. Solovyov..."[11].

A detailed assessment of the philosophical heritage is contained in the works of G. G. Shpet and V. S. Solovyov, placed as an appendix to this edition. It seems, however, that a deep analysis of the thinker's work is ahead. The collection of Yurkevich's works is incomplete, there are unfortunate gaps in the study of his biography, and finally, his influence on the further development of Russian philosophy has not been studied at all. In any case, against the background of the philosophical life of Russia in the 60s of the 19th century, his best works, "The Idea" and "Reason according to the Doctrine of Plato and Experience according to the Doctrine of Kant", stand out too sharply not to influence the ideas of the thinkers of the next generation (in particular, N. Y. Grot and S. N. Trubetskoy). Yurkevich's analysis of the philosophical systems of Plato and Kant can be considered one of the most profound in Russian philosophy.

Of the outstanding predecessors, it is necessary to mention, of course, G. S. Skovoroda, who developed the theme of "the metaphysics of love and the philosophy of the heart", which is so close to Russian culture. The humanism of Yurkevich's work is expressed in his main idea: "Man begins his moral development from the movements of the heart, which would like to meet everywhere creatures that rejoice, warm each other with the warmth of love, are bound by friendship and mutual sympathy. Only in this form of realized universal happiness does the world appear to him as something worthy of existing" [12].

In his time, V. V. Zenkovsky wrote: "Yurkevich, of course, was far above his time, and it was not for nothing that he had an influence on Solovyov. One can only regret that Yurkevich's remarkable works are almost completely inaccessible to the reader – they have never been reprinted. If the time ever comes when Yurkevich's philosophical works are collected and reprinted, his deep views will come to life again for Russian thought."