[转]当今俄罗斯哲学家对苏联暴政的认识
李东凯
今天，我收到Konstantin Khroutski 先生发来的邮件。Konstantin Khroutski 先生是俄罗斯的一名哲学教授，我和他是在今年8月份在韩国首尔大学举行的第二十二届世界哲学大会上认识的，在我宣读提交自己的论文后，他和我有很好的交流，回来后，也经常来信交换看法。他说他刚刚在一份刊物上发表了一篇哲学论文，如果我有兴趣的话，希望得到我的看法。
他的这篇论文的核心内容，是根据亚里士多德的现实实体理论来阐述一个国家、民族为什么会有其自身的文化文明潜能的发展。对这个观点，我大致认同。根据亚里士多德的理论，任何一个实体都有其内在的符合其自身存在的发展演化的潜能。人、人类也是一样的。对于某个国家、民族也是这样的，有属于其自己的不可代替的文明文化发展的潜能。根据这个观点，他的此篇论文阐述了俄罗斯自身的文化文明潜能发展的历史，指出1917年后的暴政对于俄罗斯自身文明文化的发展是个残酷的扼杀和压制，也指出，只有民主自由的环境和国度才能让一个国家的自身的文明文化的发展成为可能和实现。
我翻译了他的几段内容如下。
“从彼德大帝开始（18世纪初期），俄罗斯开始接受西方文明，之后的几个君主专制时期一直持续，这个“西化”过程，从某个意义上来说减少了俄罗斯自主发展演化某些文明成果的可能性。但是，在20世纪（1917年以后的布尔什唯克专政），形势急速恶化，俄罗斯内在的不可剥夺的文化潜能被暴力革命和暴政无情地压制住，俄罗斯文明的自主演化发展被迫停止。真正的属于俄罗斯自己的文化文明潜能和亚里士多德的伟大正确的哲学原理被压制后，兴起的却只是西方来的马克思主义以及它的变种马克思-列宁主义，并一直成为苏联马克思主义哲学（辨证唯物主义）的独断教条原则。为了执行这个独断唯一的原则，苏联曾经成立了好几种用来镇压与苏联意识形态不符的其他思想理论，比如GULAG（管理刑事劳动教养的国家特务机构），GLAVLIT（苏联审查机构），对持不同意见者进行强制的“精神处理”等等。这个情况，正如NICOLEI LOSSKY在1951年逃亡时期（他被驱逐出俄罗斯）曾经说的：“辨证唯物主义是唯一被苏联政府允许的哲学理论，于此不同的理论是不允许发表出版的，严重的要被送到集中营。只要苏联的共产专政一结束，变成和其他文明发达国家一样地拥有思考的自由的时候，俄罗斯必将出现众多流派的哲学思想。”（LOSSKY 1951：408）
到了20世纪80年代末90年代初，经过政变和进一步的民主化改革，俄罗斯才逐渐出现了允许哲学思想自由的环境。不过，属于俄罗斯自己的文化遗产包括自然科技成就的发展情况依然不大好。原因是西方的哲学、科技还有金融资本的影响力极大地超过了本土俄罗斯的文化的影响力。结果就是，至今依然很明显的，俄罗斯的现实文化状态，依然由西方文明占据主导，俄罗斯本土的文化发展得无其所。因此不必惊奇，当今世界上的主流哲学科技理论大家包括绝大多数的俄罗斯哲学家和科学家，除了能借用西方观点理论，似乎无法去探索这个有机的整体性的世界，以至于亚里士多德的关于解释世界万物的现实实体论不大被提起或重视。
的确，300多年来，在探索自然起源和发展俄罗斯自己的文明文化方面，俄罗斯所走的是一条非常不合适的路，特别是在1917年布尔什唯克专政开始后的恐怖时期。那是一段非常野蛮的人为扼杀俄罗斯文明发展的时期。我强烈地认为，缺乏俄罗斯文化对世界的和谐的融合，是20世纪的两次世界大战和东西方冲突的一个非常重要的因素 ”。
下面是原文以及出处：
To the point, forcible westernization of Russian civilizational evolution has been carried out since the reign of Peter the Great (i.e., since the beginning of the XVIII century) and continued during the further monarchical reigns, and this “general perspective” seriously reduced possibilities of the realization of Russian inherent civilizational potential. However, in the XXth century (since the 1917, during the Bolshevist dictatorship), the essential conditions have been worsened dramatically, inasmuch as Russian civilizational evolution has been broken by the violent total suppression of its inalienable cultural potentials (as well as by non-admission of the other world-wide cultural achievements). The suppression of true inherent Russian culture (and, hence, the breaking of the world evolutionary development of Aristotle’s basic philosophical principles) has been fulfilled in favor of Western Marxism, executed in the name of Marxism-Leninism and within the dogmatic principles of Soviet Marxist Philosophy (dialectical materialism). To implement this, there were framed the punitive social institutions that repressed opposition to Soviet ideology, including GULAG (the government agency that administered the penal labor camps), GLAVLIT (Soviet censorship organ), the forcible “psychiatric treatment” of dissidents (otherwise-minded), etc. Herein, the conclusion of Nicolei Lossky is relevant (made by a prominent Russian philosopher in the 1951, already in the emigration, for, Lossky was exiled from Russia): “Dialectical materialism is the only philosophy allowed by the Soviet Government. A philosopher who attempted to write a book or an article in a different line of thought could not have his work published and moreover would be in danger of being sent to a concentration camp. As soon as Russia becomes free of the communist dictatorship and has freedom of thought, there will at once appear many different schools of philosophy just as in any other free and civilized country” (Lossky 1951:408).
Only since the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the periods of “Glasnost” and “Perestroyka” and the further “democratic reforms”, – there appeared (in Russia) the conditions for the free development of philosophical ideas, both Russian and World (chiefly, Western). However, again the balance has run into the unfavorable condition for the development of Russian cultural heritage, including the development of Russian scientific achievements, realized in the conceptions of Sechenov, Mendeleev, Danilevsky, Ukhtomsky, Bogdanov, Vernadsky, Kholodny, Sorokin, Anokhin, Chizhevsky, Ugolev, Gumilev, Simonov and many other (which bear the essence of neo-Aristotelism). The reason is that the current sources of Western philosophy and science is enormously more influential (in financial aspect, first of all) than the surviving sources of Russian culture. Therefore, in outcome, in current Russian reality (cultural life) we have, of course, the overwhelming predominance of Western civilizational ideas and dispositions over the natural inherent Russian position and perspective in the world development. Not surprisingly, therefore, that Arthur Saniotis, as well as any other scientist in the world (including a major part of Russian philosophers and scientist themselves), – have not any other chance for the exploration of organic wholeness of the world but the use of a Western standpoint (world outlook), inasmuch as the achievements of Russian philosophy and science, which develop Aristotelian ideas of realist and rational (universal) approach to the world (i.e., which deal with and develop Aristotle’s immanent teleological essentialism), – these ideas and conceptions still are unavailable for a explorer and, thus, – for the world cultural development on the whole.
Indeed, for more than 300 years Russian civilization undergoes the crudely unfavorable conditions for the natural origin and development of its inherent cultural potentials, including the horrific period of the Bolshevist dictatorship in the XXth century, since the 1917 (that caused, in brutish manner, the artificial break of the evolution of Russian civilization and its influence on the world development). To my strong opinion, the lack of the harmonizing influence of Russian culture on the world evolution in the XXth century is one of the main factors of the occurrences of two brutal world wars and the entire world confrontation in the XXth century, as well as the appearance of the 11 global paradoxes (crises), the characterization of which is given in my previous works (Khroutski, 2007–2008).
- Konstantin S. Khroutski, Ph.D.
Novgorod State University after Yaroslav-the-Wise
A/B 123, PO-25, Novgorod Velikiy, 173025 Russia
Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics
EJAIB Vol 18(4) July 2008 ISSN 1173-2571
Copyright ©2008 Eubios Ethics Institute (All rights reserved, for commercial reproductions).
Eubios Ethics Institute World Wide Web: www.eubios.info/index.htm
Official Journal of the Asian Bioethics Association (ABA)
