Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/226

200 represented as belonging to the same sphere; Radlov refers in this connection to Radiščev, Bělinskii, Černyševskii, Mihailovskii, Grigor'ev, and Strahov.

This classification manifestly lacks precision, for Radlov fails to distinguish accurately between "sphere" and "trend." He goes on to say, in amplification, that Russian philosophers have no interest in the more abstract problems of philosophy, such as the theory of cognition, but that they delight in practical questions. Ethics, in particular, is the favourite field of Russian philosophy. It is from this practical predilection of Russian thought that Radlov deduces the second leading quality he ascribes to it, namely the mysticism which permeates all manifestations of the Russian mind.

Radlov confirms my own views upon Russian philosophy, but it seems to me that a more precise definition of certain concepts is essential.

It is perfectly true that Russians are now mainly busied with ethical questions. To use Tolstoi's phrase, they desire to grasp the meaning of life in order to apply their theory to practical living. We need not now discuss whether this is a specific characteristic of the Russian spirit. At any rate, western philosophy was for a long period, and still is, largely busied about these same ethical problems.

Ethics leads on logically to politics. The political and social trend of Russian philosophy is ethical; ethical theory is to be practically applied to extant society. In concrete, therefore, we have to do with socialism and its justification. To carry matters a stage further, we have to ask how the goal of socialism is to be attained, whether by reform of the existing political organisation or by revolution. The problem of revolution, an ethical problem, is the crux of contemporary politics.

But socialism does not involve politics merely, the principles of social practice, it involves sociology in addition, the theory of social organisation and evolution; and it is here that history and the philosophy of history have their parts to play. Russian thinkers are not satisfied with enquiring as to the meaning of life in abstracto; they wish also to learn the meaning of Russian life, Russian social order, and Russian history.

But this implies a comparison of Russia with the west. It implies, in a word, the problem, Russia and Europe, if we conceive the contrast between these two areas as expressed