UDC: 1 (091)
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-2-123


viewing

GENESIS OF THE IDEA OF EGOLOGY IN RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY

Yu. G. Sedov
The State Institute of Economics, Finance, Law and Technology, Gatchina, Russia
e-mail: yuriy-sedov@mail.ru

Abstract. The formulation of egology as a special section of philosophy is becoming relevant as a result of the expansion of the sphere of self-consciousness. It makes it possible to resolve philosophical problems with the help of subjectively oriented research. The foundations of egology were laid thanks to the transcendental tradition originating in the Cartesian approach, in the philosophy of Kant and Husserl, as well as in the works of Russian thinkers. The purpose of the article is to consider the genesis of the idea of egology in Russian philosophy. To achieve this goal, a historical and philosophical explication of the idea of egology was carried out based on the interpretation of texts, as a result of which the following results were achieved. Firstly, in Russian philosophy, spiritual experiences of contemplation prepared the ground for the formation of scientific approaches to self-knowledge and the problem of the pure Self. These approaches can be conditionally divided into two opposing camps. Some philosophers were inclined to comprehend the pure Self as a substance, while others questioned not only its substantiality, but also the need to introduce such a principle. Secondly, despite the skeptical challenges, the need for a detailed development of the concept of the pure Self to replace the widespread but obsolete spiritualistic metaphysics of the subject has become apparent. Awareness of this need was first attested to in the works of representatives of Russian neo-Kantianism. Since the penetration of Husserl’s phenomenological ideas into Russia, the first attempts were made to present the doctrine of the pure Self in a systematic form. Thirdly, the prospects of egology were outlined as a result of the synthesis of descriptive and dialectical methods of cognition, allowing one to consider the movement of the pure Self toward itself on the basis of spatial articulation. However, the spatial structures of self-consciousness have not yet been sufficiently studied. The results of the study proposed for discussion indicate that in Russian philosophy there is a steady interest in egology, which sets itself the task of studying the spatial structures of the pure Self. First of all, the phenomena of «distance» in reflection, «central» and «peripheral» structures. For a detailed explication of the main themes, we will need a preliminary consideration of the genesis of the idea of egology.

Key words: Russian philosophy, egology, pure I, substantiality of the ego, spatial structures of consciousness, bifurcation of the I, dialectics.

Cite as: Sedov, Yu. G. (2025) [Genesis of the idea of egology in Russian philosophy]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 2, pp. 123–131. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-2-123.


References

  1. Vvedensky, A. I. (2011) Opyt postroyeniya teorii materii na printsipakh kriticheskoy filosofii [An attempt to construct a theory of matter based on the principles of critical philosophy]. M.: Librokom, 354 p.
  2. Dobrokhotov, A. L. (2020) [Egology of L. M. Lopatin in the context of the dispute with V. S. Soloviev]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriya 1: Bogosloviye. Filosofiya. Religiovedeniye [Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities. Series 1: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies]. Vol. 88, pp. 45–59. – https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI202088.45-59. (In Russ.).
  3. Karinsky, M. I. (1997) [Phenomenon and Reality]. Antologiya fenomenologicheskoy filosofii v Rossii. Pod red. I. M. Chubarova [Anthology of Phenomenological Philosophy in Russia]. Ed. by I. M. Chubarov. M.: Logos, pp. 27–58. (In Russ.).
  4. Kissel, M. A. (1991) [Hegel and Husserl]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 1, pp. 59–67. (In Russ.).
  5. Kozlov, A. A. (1889) [Conversations with the St. Petersburg Socrates]. Svoye slovo [Your word]. Kyiv: V. I. Zavadsky, pp. 5–109. (In Russ.).
  6. Lapshin, I. I. (1992) [Refutation of Solipsism]. Filosofskiye nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. Vol. 3, pp. 18–45. (In Russ.).
  7. Linkov, E. S. (2018) Lektsii raznykh let po filosofii [Lectures on Philosophy from Different Years]. Vol. 1. 2nd ed., corrected. and add. St. Petersburg: Umozrenie, 580 p.
  8. Lopatin, L. M. (1996) Aksiomy filosofii. Izbrannyye stat’i [Axioms of Philosophy. Selected articles]. M.: ROSSPEN, 560 p.
  9. Mamardashvili, M. K., Pyatigorsky, A. M. (2011) Simvol i soznaniye[ Symbol and consciousness]. SPb.: Althabet, 320 p.
  10. Molchanov, V. I. (2007) Issledovaniya po fenomenologii soznaniya [Studies in the phenomenology of consciousness]. M.: Territory of the Future, 456 p.
  11. Sedov, Yu.G. (2023) [Egological study of the phenomenon of subjective space]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 1, pp. 82–90. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2023-1-84. (In Russ.).
  12. Sesemann, V. E. (2000) [Notes on the Problems of Cognition: On Object and Non-Object Knowledge]. Antologiya fenomenologicheskoy filosofii v Rossii [Anthology of Phenomenological Philosophy in Russia]. M.: Logos, pp. 269–278. (In Russ.).
  13. Soloviev, V. S. (1989) Chteniya o Bogochelovechestve [Readings on God-Manhood]. Works in 2 volumes. Vol. 2. M.: Truth, 1989, pp. 3–172. (In Russ.).
  14. Frank, S. L. (2017) Nepostizhimoye [Incomprehensible]. M.; Berlin: Direct-Media, 423 p.
  15. Chelpanov, G. I. (1904) Problema vospriyatiya prostranstva v svyazi s ucheniyem ob apriornosti i vrozhdennosti [The Problem of Perception of Space in Connection with the Doctrine of Apriority and Innateness]. Kyiv: Kushnerev, 444 p.
  16. Shpet, G. G. (1994) Filosofskiye etyudy [Philosophical Etudes]. M.: Progress, 376 p.
  17. Husserl, E., Boehm, R. (1956) First Philosophy (1923/24). First Text. Critical Thoughts. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 468 p. (In Eng.).