Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law

I.I. Evlampiev, V.A. Kupriyanov

Research output

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of understating of state and society by Russian liberal philosophy in the 19th century. One can discern two versions of the doctrine of state within liberal philosophy: mechanistic and teleological. The mechanistic understanding of state also called “state minimalism” was proposed by the leaders of the classical European liberalism (for instance, J. Locke and I. Kant) and so far it has been maintained by the up-to-date western political philosophy. The theory was fiercely criticized by Russian liberal philosophy, namely B. Chicherin, A. Gradovsky and P. Novgorodsev who presented the teleological version of liberalism developed in opposition to the western thinking. From Gradovsky’s point of view, the philosophical quintessence of the doctrine of state is social contract theory rooted in social atomism and abstract individualism. Mechanistic version of liberalism was criticized for the understanding of state as the external union of independent individuals. Russian liberal ph
Original languageUndefined
Title of host publicationSGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.
Pages863-870
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Cite this

Evlampiev, I. I., & Kupriyanov, V. A. (2016). Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law. In SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II. (pp. 863-870)
Evlampiev, I.I. ; Kupriyanov, V.A. / Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law. SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.. 2016. pp. 863-870
@inproceedings{750e915eae454c62809fb462e0072647,
title = "Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law",
abstract = "The article deals with the problem of understating of state and society by Russian liberal philosophy in the 19th century. One can discern two versions of the doctrine of state within liberal philosophy: mechanistic and teleological. The mechanistic understanding of state also called “state minimalism” was proposed by the leaders of the classical European liberalism (for instance, J. Locke and I. Kant) and so far it has been maintained by the up-to-date western political philosophy. The theory was fiercely criticized by Russian liberal philosophy, namely B. Chicherin, A. Gradovsky and P. Novgorodsev who presented the teleological version of liberalism developed in opposition to the western thinking. From Gradovsky’s point of view, the philosophical quintessence of the doctrine of state is social contract theory rooted in social atomism and abstract individualism. Mechanistic version of liberalism was criticized for the understanding of state as the external union of independent individuals. Russian liberal ph",
keywords = "Russian philosophy of law, liberalism, teleology, state, culture, nationality",
author = "I.I. Evlampiev and V.A. Kupriyanov",
year = "2016",
language = "не определен",
isbn = "978-619-7105-77-3",
pages = "863--870",
booktitle = "SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.",

}

Evlampiev, II & Kupriyanov, VA 2016, Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law. in SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.. pp. 863-870.

Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law. / Evlampiev, I.I.; Kupriyanov, V.A.

SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.. 2016. p. 863-870.

Research output

TY - GEN

T1 - Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law

AU - Evlampiev, I.I.

AU - Kupriyanov, V.A.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The article deals with the problem of understating of state and society by Russian liberal philosophy in the 19th century. One can discern two versions of the doctrine of state within liberal philosophy: mechanistic and teleological. The mechanistic understanding of state also called “state minimalism” was proposed by the leaders of the classical European liberalism (for instance, J. Locke and I. Kant) and so far it has been maintained by the up-to-date western political philosophy. The theory was fiercely criticized by Russian liberal philosophy, namely B. Chicherin, A. Gradovsky and P. Novgorodsev who presented the teleological version of liberalism developed in opposition to the western thinking. From Gradovsky’s point of view, the philosophical quintessence of the doctrine of state is social contract theory rooted in social atomism and abstract individualism. Mechanistic version of liberalism was criticized for the understanding of state as the external union of independent individuals. Russian liberal ph

AB - The article deals with the problem of understating of state and society by Russian liberal philosophy in the 19th century. One can discern two versions of the doctrine of state within liberal philosophy: mechanistic and teleological. The mechanistic understanding of state also called “state minimalism” was proposed by the leaders of the classical European liberalism (for instance, J. Locke and I. Kant) and so far it has been maintained by the up-to-date western political philosophy. The theory was fiercely criticized by Russian liberal philosophy, namely B. Chicherin, A. Gradovsky and P. Novgorodsev who presented the teleological version of liberalism developed in opposition to the western thinking. From Gradovsky’s point of view, the philosophical quintessence of the doctrine of state is social contract theory rooted in social atomism and abstract individualism. Mechanistic version of liberalism was criticized for the understanding of state as the external union of independent individuals. Russian liberal ph

KW - Russian philosophy of law

KW - liberalism

KW - teleology

KW - state

KW - culture

KW - nationality

M3 - статья в сборнике материалов конференции

SN - 978-619-7105-77-3

SP - 863

EP - 870

BT - SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.

ER -

Evlampiev II, Kupriyanov VA. Teleological conception of state and society in Russian philosophy of law. In SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings. Book 3. Volume II.. 2016. p. 863-870