The forties of the nineteenth century went down in history as a “wonderful decade” - a time of heightened ideological debate and ongoing spiritual quest. The Russian intelligentsia as if “awakened from a dream”, giving the opportunity for the active development of social and philosophical thought.
All mental life was concentrated in the capital - Moscow, where the leading figures of the era A. Herzen, P. Chaadaev, A. Khomyakov expressed their liberal - idealistic views on society, led debates and discussions. Pupils of Moscow University played a large role in the life of Russia. They expressed new views on the nature of the history of the development of Russia and its relationship with Europe. Gradually, the participants in the discussions divided into two circles, bearing polemical names: Slavophiles and Westerners.
These two currents constantly polemiced among themselves. The subject of their debate was the past and future of the Russian state. Slavophiles and Westerners in Russian philosophy were close in their interpretation of the past times of their fatherland, considering them different from European ones. The first praised the bright ideals of the Old Russian state. The Westerners expressed the opinion that in the old European powers the story unfolded completely opposite to ours, having long since generated certain positive results. They completely denied even the idea of comparing the Russian past with the great Middle Ages in Western countries. Some of them idealized the past, while others painted it only in dark colors.
Slavophiles and Westernizers. What united these two philosophical trends?
Both of them were very critical of the present. They refused to understand and accept the Nikolaev system operating at that time: serfdom, foreign and domestic policy, revolutionary transformations. All their words and actions were aimed at trying to defend the freedom of the press, speech, conscience, and public opinion in the current political situation.
The dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles also concerned the future. The first, admiring the actions of Peter 1, hoped for the development of the Russian state on the European model. The main task of the authorities and society, in their opinion, was the country's perception of ready-made progressive forms of socio-economic life inherent in the West European powers. To achieve these goals, it was necessary to eliminate the serf system, abolish legal class distinctions, give greater freedom to entrepreneurship, streamline local self-government and democratize the judicial system.
The Slavophiles condemned Peter for the violence and contention that he introduced into society. The solution to social problems and the deliverance from the proletariat they saw in the establishment of a communal system. To implement their ideas, the Slavophiles were ready to go for a revolution. Relying on the idea of a categorical distinction between Russia and Europe, they criticized the Western individualistic principle, placing great hopes on the establishment of community principles for the life of the Russian people.
Idealizing Orthodoxy, the Slavophiles criticized Protestantism and Catholicism. They believed that the task of Russia is to build their lives on true Christian principles and convey the basic principles of their existence to believers throughout the world. The country must open the way to all mankind for true unity and brotherhood - collegiality, or, as Khomyakov said: "freedom in unity through the Orthodox faith."
Slavophiles and Westerners - having arisen in serf Russia during the crisis, these two movements reflected the desire of liberal-oriented layers of society to develop holistic theories of the transformation of the Russian state.
