Oksana NazarovaCorresponding author

Peter Ehlen’s Christian Reading of Frank’s Russian Religious Philosophy

Article
18/2 - Fall 2013, pages 251-261
Date of online publication: 26 juillet 2015
Date of publication: 30 décembre 2013

Abstract

This paper analyzes the problem of Western perceptions of one of the most original branches of the Russian Philosophical Renaissance that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century: namely, the so called Russian Religious Philos- ophy. This problem still possesses contemporary relevance, owing to the fact that Russian philosophy continues to be engaged in a search for self-identification in respect of Western philosophical contexts. The paper shows that “Russian Reli- gious Philosophy” is perceived by Western thinkers not only as “an exotic cul- tural phenomenon,” but also as an equal partner in a dialogue: it is considered a significant philosophical achievement, meeting all generally accepted criteria of philosophical creativity. The German Catholic philosopher Peter Ehlen’s mono- graph on the subject of the religious philosophy of Semyon Lyudvigovich Frank will furnish us, here, with an example of just such an approach. The author of the monograph approaches his subject as something which he himself stands in an essential connection to—something which he, as a researcher, is in a pecu- liar spiritual communion with. A common spiritual experience of the religious perception of reality determines both Ehlen’s interest in Frank and the specific character of the research undertaken by him. e position of researcher, expected to maintain a certain distance from his or her subject maer, is replaced by that of a co-thinker, engaged in co-experiencing and understanding in depth the ideas of the particular philosopher under examination. e result of this approach is a new synthesis created by Ehlen on the basis of Frank’s philosophy.

Cite this article

Nazarova, Oksana. "Peter Ehlen’s Christian Reading of Frank’s Russian Religious Philosophy." Forum Philosophicum 18, no. 2 (2013): 251–61. doi:10.35765/forphil.2013.1802.14.