Russian religious philosophy, with its profound exploration of existential themes, continues to captivate scholars worldwide. A recent review by Professor Robert Slesinski sheds light on the intersection between two titans of Russian thought: Semyon Frank and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Slesinski is expert in Russian religious philosophy who has authored a previous monograph on Frank, entitled The Philosophy of Semyon Frank: Human Meaning in the Godhead, in addition to monographs on Pavel Florensky, Sergius Bulgakov, and Lev Karsavin. Read More
Slesinski’s latest review examines a volume presenting archival materials related to Frank’s study of Dostoevsky, offering fresh insights into Frank’s engagement with Dostoevsky’s philosophical ideas. The review highlights Frank’s keen interest in expounding upon Dostoevsky’s philosophical worldview, a project that occupied him during his exile in Germany and the Netherlands in the early 1930s. This period coincided with the 50th anniversary of Dostoevsky’s death in 1931, which likely inspired Frank’s intensive focus on his work.
The archival materials reveal Frank’s ambitious plans for a comprehensive study of Dostoevsky’s philosophy, covering topics such as freedom, evil, God, morality, love, and nationalism. While this extensive project never fully materialised, Frank’s writings on Dostoevsky reveal a deep resonance between the two thinkers, particularly in their approach to fundamental existential questions.
Central to Frank’s study of Dostoevsky was the problem of theodicy – the reconciliation of God’s goodness with the existence of evil in the world. According to Slesinski, both Frank and Dostoevsky refused to explain away the problematic nature of evil. Instead, they advocated for a courageous confrontation with evil, ‘staring it down’ while always respecting human freedom. This approach reflects an existentialist casting of their thought, emphasising individual responsibility in the face of moral challenges.
Slesinski points out that both Frank and Dostoevsky supported an ontological proof for the existence of God, albeit in different ways. While Frank explicitly articulated this philosophical position, Dostoevsky conveyed a similar stance.
The review also emphasises Frank’s view of Dostoevsky as a prototypical Russian, embodying the concept of ‘vsechelovek’ or ‘all-man’. This notion portrays Dostoevsky as a universal figure, a brother to all people, transcending national boundaries while remaining deeply rooted in Russian culture.
As we continue to grapple with existential questions, the dialogue between Frank and Dostoevsky provides a rich source of reflection. Slesinski’s review invites us to consider how their profound insights might inform our understanding of the human experience in the 21st century.
