We are pleased to present the fourth issue of the journal Patria to our readers. This edition is dedicated to the history of Russian thought.

The thematic section begins with a historical overview by Alexey Kozyrev (Lomonosov Moscow State University), “Russia and the West,” which examines the relationship between Russia and the West as civilizational projects, from the invitation of the Varangians and the Christianization of Rus to the present day. The author highlights the key milestones in Russia’s civilizational choices, emphasizing the role of religion. He discusses the perspectives of Westernizers and Slavophiles on Russia’s relationship with the West and traces the development of this discourse in the works of N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, and V. S. Solovyov. Concluding the article, the author critiques the phenomenon of Westernism as presented in the works of A. A. Zinoviev, acknowledges the current rupture in Russia-West relations, and expresses hope for renewed dialogue in the future, with Russia as an equal partner and a unique civilization.

Rustem Vakhitov (Ufa University of Science and Technology, Ufa State Petroleum Technological University) continues the exploration of Russian thought, intertwining it with the central theme of traditional values in his article “Traditionalism as a Reaction to the Revolution: The Origins of the Modern Ideology of “Traditional Values” and Eurasianism of the 1920s”. The author argues that traditional values are affirmed in society as a reaction to prior political and cultural revolutions. He examines modern Russian traditional values as a response to the nihilism of the 1990s, drawing parallels with the nihilism of the 1920s concerning imperial Russia and its values. Eurasianism, which emerged in exile, was a reaction to that earlier nihilism. The article delves into the relationship between Bolshevik ideology and Eurasianism, concluding that reactions never fully restore the past order — new traditional values both resemble and differ from the old ones.

In “Danilevsky’s Double Paradox: On the Contradiction between National Egoism and the National Idea”, Nikita Syuundyukov (North-West Institute of Management, RANEPA) revisits N. Ya. Danilevsky’s theory. The author identifies a contradiction in Danilevsky’s work: on the one hand, he adheres to a civilizational approach in historiography, advocating historical pluralism; on the other, his rhetoric incorporates a metaphysical concept of Providence organizing the destinies of nations into a unified and universal human path. This contradiction complicates Danilevsky’s description of the Slavic cultural-historical type and affects his relationship with Christian ethics. Drawing on B. N. Chicherin’s theory of “conservative liberalism” and studies by Slavist Robert McMaster, the author proposes a resolution: the possibility of Christian morality is conditioned by the existence of state sovereignty, which is grounded in political realism and pragmatism.

The research block on Russian thought concludes with Nikolay Chizhov’s (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences) article “The Idea of Providence in the Philosophy of History by N. M. Karamzin”. The article analyzes the role of Providence in Karamzin’s philosophical-historical concept, highlighting its connection to his division of laws into two types: the laws of nature (laws of the real world) and the law of the moral world (the law of freedom). The article notes that the idea of Providence varies across Christian traditions, and Karamzin’s understanding aligns with the Russian Orthodox tradition. Comparing the concepts of “Providence” and “fate” in Karamzin’s philosophy, the author concludes that they are not synonymous and, in some cases, even oppose one another. Providence influences nations, countries, states, and their leaders, while fate lacks higher meaning and represents a combination of chance events, which humanity resists.

Outside the main theme, the “Studies of Religion” section, one of the journal’s recurring features, presents Mikhail Khort’s (Kazan Federal University) article “The Thesis of the Omnisubjectivity of God in Linda Zagzebski’s
Philosophy of Religion”. The article critically examines Zagzebski’s monograph Omni-Subjectivity: Essays on God and Subjectivity and her related articles and lecture materials. The author explores the conceptual reasons behind Zagzebski’s introduction of the concept of “omni-subjectivity,” which denotes God’s ability to experience first-person perspectives of all conscious, rational beings. The article evaluates two primary arguments supporting this attribute, analyzes four models of omni-subjectivity proposed by Zagzebski, and considers potential theological implications. The author concludes with critical arguments challenging the necessity of attributing omni-subjectivity to God.

In the “Practicum” section, we publish Nikolay Afanasov’s (Institute of Philosophy, RAS) report on the expert roundtable organized by the School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, HSE University, titled “Traditional Values in the Perspective of National Philosophy.” The report summarizes the findings of two research projects on values presented at the roundtable, along with the general conclusions of the discussion. By publishing this report, we further connect the issue’s theme of Russian thought with the subject of traditional values.

The Criticism and Reviews section features Alexander Nesterov’s (Samara University) response to the collective monograph Contours of Russia’s Civilizational Future (ed. by A. P. Segal, Moscow: Fortis Press, 2024).

With this fourth issue, we conclude the first volume of the journal Patria. We hope that this issue, along with the others from the journal’s inaugural year, will engage our readers and provide a foundation for future research and discussions. Thank you for being with us!

Alexander Pavlov