The hero and the martyr of the Russian Enlightenment (original) (raw)
Related papers
Russian Genius Lomonosov as a Pioneer and Popularizer in Science
HOLOS, 2018
The article analyzes the promotional activity of outstanding Russian encyclopedist Michail Lomonosov who founded the fundamentals of science in Russia and tried to make scientific knowledge available for the wide range of readers in the XVIII century. Also, different forms of dissemination of scientific knowledge that Lomonosov used in the academic and educational activities were examined in the article.
is the icon of Russian science. Moscow State 68 University is named after him, as is the highest prize of the Russian Academy of 69 Sciences, its Great Gold Medal; his face is on the badges of its elected members. 70 Lomonosov's monuments stand in the most important spaces of Russian science, 71 in front of the main building of Moscow State University and between the main 72 building of St. Petersburg State University and the former headquarters of Russian 73 Academy of Sciences. The series of portraits of Russian scientists that adorns the 74 main building of Russia's biggest (Russian State) library also begins with 75 Lomonosov. 76 To be sure, all these symbols of homage appeared during the Soviet period, but 77 was this Lomonosov cult a Soviet invention? 1 When was it created, how did it 78 develop, and who contributed most to its present shape? These are the issues 79 studied in Steven A. Usitalo's book. The word myth in its title clearly calls into 80 question the very notion of Lomonosov as creator or ''father'' of Russian science. 81 The author shows how Lomonosov's autobiographical notes and first posthumous 82 memoirs began the gradual formation of the image of a hero selflessly struggling to 83 gain ultimate knowledge, who set Russian sciences on the path to the glory 84 intended by Peter the Great and who placed scientists in their well-earned and 85 high social positions by working in every field from navigation and history to 86 mineralogy and grammar, receiving deserved recognition from the most promi-87 nent foreign scientists. By the time of Lomonosov's bicentennial jubilee in 1911, 88 this image evolved throughout Russia into commonly recognized narratives of a 89 genius who preempted the most intricate questions of contemporary physics and 90 chemistry in his unfinished works, a Russian star shining as brightly as Newton, 91 Franklin, Lavoisier. Soviet nationalist ideology of the mid-twentieth century did 92 not even have to awaken or rediscover these narratives, already dominant for 93 decades; the authorities needed merely to turn this myth into golden, bronze, 94 marble, and legislative avatars. 95 The remaining influential, ugly mutations of innumerable concepts of Russian 96 history caused by this late Stalinist ideology are so obvious that sometimes we tend 97 to deny their dependance on pre-1917 thought. Actually, careful studies show that 98 often the seeds of these malformations can be traced not just to the late imperial 99 decades but to even earlier times, before the objects of these myths had slipped 100 into history. Usitalo's book is a strong example of such a study. 101
2016
This research reconstructs the traditions of scientific enlightenment in Russia. The turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was chosen as the most representative period. The modern age saw the establishment of the optimal model for advancing science in the global context and its crucial segment – Russian science. This period was characterized by significant scientific and sociopolitical changes. The level of education in Russia was extremely low; good education was accessible only to the upper class. Therefore, a program for popularizing science was launched. This research investigates the means and methods that were used to popularize science in Russia. In order to achieve the set goal, a set of complementary methods was used, including analysis, didactic method, and structural-functional analysis. The research also generalizes the experience of Russian and foreign experts in the subject at hand and applies the principles of historicism, systematicity, and dialectic unity o...
The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review
This essay examines the life and career of famed Russian geologist, geographer, and academician of the Soviet Academy of Sciences V. A. Obruchev. By emphasizing Obruchev’s commitment to popular enlightenment within and beyond his scientific disciplines, a clearer portrait of Obruchev’s lasting influence in Soviet science and literature emerges. Over the course of his career, Obruchev devised an original model of public science, one that renegotiated the traditional boundaries between science fiction, popular science, and academic discourse. As a result, Obruchev’s scientific research granted form and function to his popular fiction and his fiction, in turn, provided a space to explore the possibilities of scientific hypotheses and promote the active research of the scientific phenomena Obruchev considered significant. By the time of Obruchev’s death in 1956, other natural scientists, especially geoscientists, and science fiction authors had coopted Obruchev’s approach to popular enl...
Nikolaĭ I. Vavilov in the realm of historical and scientific discussions
The modern literature about Nikolai I. Vavilov is analyzed, placing recent attempts to blame Vavilov and to exonerate Lysenko within their social, political and intellectual contexts. We examine the evolution of a historical narrative about Vavilov's activities and his confrontation with Lysenko as well as the main arguments advanced by Lysenko's apologists. The paper argues that a distinction must be made, between Lysenkoism, as a set of concepts and theories, and Lysenkovshchina, as the social practice of trying to prevail over other competing research groups by appealing to the Party-State administration. The rise of anti-scientific sentiments among the ruling elites and the general public, along with a growing influence of religious fundamentalism, provide the context for the revival of Lysenkoism. To some extent, the revival of Lysenkoism can also be explained by certain academic traditions of Russian biologists. Neolysenkovshina is a purely social and economic and ideologo-political phenomenon, but not a scientific one. Authors who write pro-Lysenkoist books are guided by various motives, but they all fail to grasp the essence of the historical and scientific events associated with "the Lysenko and Vavilov affair". Eduard I. Kolchinsky : Nikolaĭ I. Vavilov in the realm of historical and scientific discussions
6 The Encyclopedism of the Russian Enlightenment in the History of Ideas
Passions, Politics and the Limits of Society, 2020
TatianaA rtemyeva 6T he Encyclopedism of the Russian Enlightenment in the Historyo fI deas The history of encyclopedism is an important part of intellectual history and helps us understand philosophicalfoundations of research and thinking.The encyclopedic look at the world wasa no utcomeo fn ew epistemologicalp rinciples and the separation of science into as pecific sphere of knowledge.I nitial attempts to systematise knowledge in Russia were presented through linguistic dictionaries, which acted as asubstitute for universal encyclopedias in the Enlightenment period. Russian scholars, however,did not follow famous examples like Zedler's Universal-Lexicon, Encyclopaedia Britannica,o re ven Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des métiers,d espite the fact that manyt exts from the Encyclopédie weret ranslated into Russian and the authors weresupported by manyprominent Russianaristocrats, including Empress Catherine the Great herself. French philosophers such as Voltaire, Diderot,D ' Alembert,R ousseau,a nd Montesquieu weren ever studied systematicallyi nc onnection with the specificity of the encyclopedic discourse. The birth of the phenomena of encyclopedism as an epistemological ideal or aform of universal knowledge in the Enlightenment epoch signaled the emergence of an encyclopedic thinker like Christian Wolff. Wolff'sp hilosophicalm ethodw as adequately grasped by Russianthinkers,who used it in the process of assimilation and classification of new knowledge.His method proved to be most valuable for natural sciences,a si ta llowed the separation of physical, chemical, mathematical, and other studies from socio-political and ideological problems, thus separatingphilosophyand science. His method formed awhole generation of Russian scholars and formulateds cientific thinkingi nR ussia, creatingasystem of encyclopedia principles which later developed into anew type of rationality that graduallyencompassed science, philosophy, history,p hilologya sw ell as political and economic theories. This "encyclopedic" view of the world emphasised the universality of method thatm ade it possiblet ow orko ut new knowledge when required and to bringitinto correlation with otherbranches of knowledge.However,Wolffianism was interpreted and modified to fit the requirements of the Russian Enlightenment.
Abstract The modern literature about Nikolai I. Vavilov is analyzed, placing recent attempts to blame Vavilov and to exonerate Lysenko within their social, political and intellectual contexts. We examine the evolution of a historical narrative about Vavilov’s activities and his confrontation with Lysenko as well as the main arguments advanced by Lysenko’s apologists. The paper argues that a distinction must be made, between Lysenkoism, as a set of concepts and theories, and Lysenkovshchina, as the social practice of trying to prevail over other competing research groups by appealing to the Party-State administration. The rise of anti-scientific sentiments among the ruling elites and the general public, along with a growing influence of religious fundamentalism, provide the context for the revival of Lysenkoism. To some extent, the revival of Lysenkoism can also be explained by certain academic traditions of Russian biologists. Neolysenkovshina is a purely social and economic and ideologo-political phenomenon, but not a scientific one. Authors who write pro-Lysenkoist books are guided by various motives, but they all fail to grasp the essence of the historical and scientific events associated with “the Lysenko and Vavilov affair