@article{bykova_2023, title={Contemplating the legacy of Russian thought amidst tragedy: an introduction to The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought book symposium}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-023-09603-4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2023}, month={Nov} }
 @article{bykova_2023, title={Reflections on Russian Philosophy: on Some Western Stereotypes of Its Perception and Its Place in the History of World Philosophical Thought}, ISSN={["0042-8744"]}, DOI={10.21146/0042-8744-2023-6-17-27}, abstractNote={The article addresses the question of the uniqueness of Russian philosophy and its place in the world philosophical process. It surveys contemporary stereotypes in the perception of Russian philosophical thought in Anglophone studies and examines the history of their formation under the influence of the works of Isa­iah Berlin, in particular, his well-known book Russian Thinkers (1978). The author identifies and discusses a number of characteristics of Russian philosophical thought, which can rightfully be considered its important features that distin­guish it from other philosophical traditions. The article argues that Russian phi­losophy is an integral part of the development of the world philosophical process and, therefore, it cannot and shall not be considered outside its context. Only an open philosophical dialogue and active intellectual and ingenious cooperation with other cultures and philosophical traditions create the conditions necessary for both an adequate assessment of the originality of Russian philosophical thought and the further advance of Russian philosophy.}, number={6}, journal={VOPROSY FILOSOFII}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2023}, pages={17–27} }
 @article{bykova_2023, title={Russian philosophy and the question of its exceptional nature}, volume={75}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09607-0}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-023-09607-0}, number={4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2023}, month={Dec}, pages={781–786} }
 @article{bykova_2022, title={A Country That No Longer Exists Editor's Introduction}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2022.2174737}, abstractNote={Russia’s bloody war in Ukraine has drastically sharpened the question of the bitter confrontation between Russia and the West. Driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, this confrontation points to Russia’s ambition to regain the superpower status that its predecessor state—the Soviet Union—maintained for more than half of the last century. Furthermore, some experts argue that the current Russia–Ukraine military confrontation has its roots in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and that the concept of “the Russian world,” currently widely used to justify a geopolitical strategy based on the idea of Russian exceptionality, grew out of the humiliation Russia experienced in the wake of this disintegration. This idea is also echoed in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s series of reflective remarks on the topic. During his 2005 state-of-the-nation address, Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union “a major geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and “a genuine drama” for the Russian nation. More recently, in late September 2021, he evoked this idea again, claiming that the dissolution of the Soviet state is to blame for “what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine” and “what is happening on the borders of some other CIS countries.” It is not my goal here to examine the explanatory power of these and similar statements in relation to the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian war. Yet there should be no doubt that the Soviet era left a deep imprint on the self-conception of each of the former Soviet republics and their current, often difficult relationships. Even today, more than three decades after its official dissolution, the Soviet Union continues to cast a shadow on Russia and the world. This forces us to reflect upon the phenomenon of the Soviet Union, its origin and its development, making it an acute research topic worthy of serious philosophical discussion. The successor state to the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, was officially established on December 30, 1922, following a civil war that raged in Russia from 1917 to 1921. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR)—as it was officially called—appeared as the first nation in the world based on}, number={5}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F. F.}, year={2022}, month={Sep}, pages={349–352} }
 @article{bykova_2022, title={Concluding Russian Studies in Philosophy: An Eye Towards the Future Journal Editor's Afterword}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2023.2184114}, number={6}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2022}, month={Nov}, pages={503–507} }
 @article{bykova_2022, title={Dostoevsky's Philosophical Universe Editor's Introduction}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2022.2101283}, abstractNote={Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose 200th birthday we celebrated in 2021, is perhaps one of the most eminent Russian thinkers. A giant of nineteenth-century literature, Dostoevsky became a symbol of Russian culture. Not only did his contemporaries view him as a Russian national prophet, but also his novels and other literary writings greatly affected the way in which Russia would think of itself in the years following his death. This manifestly points to the important place that Dostoevsky rightly holds in the cultural heritage of Russia. Hence, it is not surprising that now—in the wake of the Russian unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—he, along with other famous Russian literary and cultural figures, has emerged as a target of the growing number of calls for canceling Russian culture. The current widespread attempt at “total disengagement” from Russia has led many to boycott musicians, artists, writers, and other cultural figures who have been associated with Russia at any time in history. Even those who died decades, or even centuries, before the shaping of Russia’s current political regime and those responsible for the present-day atrocities, are openly being blamed for the war in Ukraine and accused of being instrumental to cultivating the hostile ideology of the “Russian world.” Dostoevsky and his legacy have not been spared from this predicament as well. To be sure, the recently developed dismissive attitude toward the author of widely known and loved novels such as The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment may not be fully ungrounded, and not simply because Putin happened to list Dostoevsky as one of his favorite authors. More worrisome is Dostoevsky’s own support and open advocacy for PanSlavism, a nationalistic ideology that argues for integration and unity of the Slavic peoples and states under the great patronage of Russia to counter the expansion of the West. Formed into a political movement, Pan-Slavism rose}, number={1}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2022}, month={Jan}, pages={1–7} }
 @article{bykova_2022, title={Experience of the Enlightenment in Russia: the Humboldt Model of the University in the Mirror of the University Reforms enacted by A.V. Golovnin}, ISSN={["0042-8744"]}, DOI={10.21146/0042-8744-2022-7-57-65}, abstractNote={Although the Russian Enlightenment occupies an important place in the intel­lectual tradition of Russia, some of its periods and key representatives continue escaping the attention of scholars. One such example is the figure of Alexander Vasilyevich Golovnin, Minister of Public Education (1861–1866) during the reign of Alexander II. A liberal in his political views and a thinker of the En­lightenment in his frame of mind, Golovnin acted as one of the initiators and the main executors of the broad educational reforms of the 1860s. The central element of these reforms was the reform of university education, enshrined in the University Charter of 1863. The reform project itself partly followed the model of the “classical” university proposed at the beginning of the 19th cen­tury by Wilhelm von Humboldt and implemented by him by establishing the Uni­versity in Berlin (1810). The article discusses the key points of Golovnin’s university reform and shows its connection with the Humboldt model of the uni­versity, which, in its main principles, reflects the ideals and values of the Ger­man neohumanism of the 19th century with its focus on the formation (Bildung) of the individual. It is noteworthy that the same Bildung ideal, which appeared as the conceptual paradigm of the Prussian reforms of secondary and higher ed­ucation in 1807–1814 also turns out to be the defining principle of Golovnin’s educational reforms, thereby confirming adherence of the Russian reforms to the goals of the Enlightenment.}, number={7}, journal={VOPROSY FILOSOFII}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2022}, pages={57–65} }
 @article{bykova_2022, title={Russia and power: unmasking the historical origins of the present crisis Editorial}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-022-09532-8}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2022}, month={Dec} }
 @inbook{bykova_2022, title={Stalin and Philosophy in Soviet Russia}, url={https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219835-3}, DOI={10.4324/9781003219835-3}, abstractNote={The decades associated with the reign of Joseph Stalin, known as the period of the greatest ideological pressure, was a time of a decisive change in the ways of how Marx and Marxism were received and appropriated in the Soviet Union. This chapter discusses the role that Stalin played in determining the direction of the philosophical evolution and a kind of Marxism to be developed in the USSR. It examines Stalin’s own engagement with philosophy to show how it contributed to the evolving of dogmatic Marxism, which served as a Soviet official ideology for nearly 70 years. In addition to a detailed analysis of an infamous 1938 essay ‘Dialectical and Historical Materialism’, widely viewed as Stalin’s major contribution to philosophy, this chapter also looks at his two later and less-known philosophical works: his pamphlet on linguistics (1950) and his article ‘The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR’ (1952). The author argues that determined politically, Stalin’s interest in philosophy served his dictatorial ambitions and personal goals, rather than being a quest for truth or a genuine attempt to seek answers to any ultimate questions.}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2022}, month={Oct} }
 @article{bykova_sineokaya_2022, title={The Broken Light: In Memoriam Teacher Nelly V. Motroshilova}, ISSN={["0042-8744"]}, DOI={10.21146/0042-8744-2022-2-5-24}, number={2}, journal={VOPROSY FILOSOFII}, author={Bykova, Marina F. and Sineokaya, Yulia V.}, year={2022}, pages={5–12} }
 @article{bykova_2021, title={Editorial: Celebrating the centennial of the RAS Institute of Philosophy}, volume={73}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09457-8}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-021-09457-8}, number={4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={385–389} }
 @article{bosakova_bykova_2021, title={Hegel and Niethammer on the Educational Practice in Civil Society}, volume={55}, url={https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12526}, DOI={10.1111/1467-9752.12526}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Philosophy of Education}, publisher={Wiley}, author={BOSAKOVA, KRISTINA and BYKOVA, MARINA F.}, year={2021}, month={Feb}, pages={99–125} }
 @article{bykova_2021, title={Heidegger's Existential Ontology and Its Reconstruction in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia Introduction}, volume={59}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2022.2033048}, abstractNote={Heidegger is one of the most original and important thinkers in the history of Western philosophy, but his philosophical project is difficult to grasp and appreciate. Formulating his quest as the revival of the question of Being that he believes has been ignored since the time of Aristotle, he brings to the fore the fundamental significance of ontology. Yet he remains critical of traditional ontological inquiry. In particular, he opposes Cartesian ontology, i.e., ontology of “thingness” that answers the question of Being in terms of beings, and in doing so conceals the truth of Being. Heidegger demonstrates that while ontological issues played a certain role in the history of philosophy, all previous philosophy was concerned with beings or things in their being. However, Being is not a thing, but that which “transcends” things, “the transcendens pure and simple.” This “transcendens” could be open only through the authentic experience of “Being-in -the world” that Heidegger frames as the analytic of Dasein understood as human existence in respect to its temporal and historical character. Heidegger’s unique contribution to philosophy begins with his identification of the human being’s existential-experiential situation with the ontological position itself. Saying that “Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological,” he points out that the condition of experiencing-existing is precisely that of rendering the Being (ὄν) of entities explicit or intelligible in thought and speech (λόγος), and is thus most basically the condition of a being concerned with Being. Thus, the question of onto-logy, literally the meaning of Being, is implicated in the very Being of the being who inquires after it. According to Heidegger, the prevailing Western consensus on ontology rests on the Cartesian cogito ergo sum. However central to philosophy as a whole, the question of what it means to “be” was never quite considered. Heidegger criticizes thinkers who regard humans as detached from the world around them, mere observers of objects from which they are independent. Instead, he}, number={3}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2021}, month={May}, pages={155–157} }
 @article{bykova_2021, title={In Memory of a Colleague: Vladimir Vasilyevich Mironov (1953-2020) IN MEMORIAM}, volume={59}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2021.2023310}, number={3}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2021}, month={May}, pages={246–249} }
 @article{bykova_2021, title={In Memory of a Mentor, Colleague, and Friend: Nelly Vasilyevna Motroshilova (1934 - 2021) IN MEMORIAM}, volume={59}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2021.2023311}, abstractNote={The philosopher, Nelly Vasilyevna Motroshilova, belonged to the generation of Russian intellectuals and cultural figures known as the Sixtiers (shestidesiatniki), the beginning of whose professional careers coincided with the official course of the Destalinization of Soviet society and whose ideals and civic position became associated with striving for a humanistic renewal of public life. As a philosopher, both by training and vocation, she was instrumental in the awakening of Russian philosophy from its dogmatic Marxist slumber and its creative revitalization in the late Soviet period. Her work on German idealism, with a special focus on Kant and Hegel, as well as her incisive examination of Husserl’s phenomenology, is what made her not only an esteemed professor but also one of the most influential historians of philosophy, widely known in both Russia and abroad. This work, rightfully cherished, contributed greatly to the development of philosophy in Russia. Her research over the course of her more-than-six-decade career, in addition to German classic and contemporary philosophy and phenomenology, included Russian philosophy of the Silver Age and of the Soviet period, philosophical sociology, social epistemology, as well as issues of contemporary civilizational progress. She was keenly interested in the antinomies of European unification, the processes which influence the development of values that make up European identity, the specifics of the formation of the contemporary concept of civil society, and the prospects for the social and economic progress of Russia. She warned of the danger of exaggerating the uniqueness of Russian philosophical thought and its consideration outside the context of the development of Western European philosophy. Confident that, despite the specificity of Russian philosophy, it has formed and developed as an integral part of world philosophical culture, she put at the center of her research not the question of differences and oppositions, but rather the investigation of the organic relationship of the}, number={3}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2021}, month={May}, pages={250–254} }
 @article{bykova_2021, title={The Key Figures in the Field}, volume={73}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09458-7}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-021-09458-7}, number={4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={475–476} }
 @article{bykova_2020, title={Boris Pasternak and His Intellectual Legacy The Editor's Introduction}, volume={58}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2020.1864993}, abstractNote={For many Western readers, the name of Boris Pasternak is associated exclusively with his novel, Doctor Zhivago, which he wrote in 1946-55. This masterpiece earned the writer international recogniti...}, number={4}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2020}, month={Jul}, pages={247–251} }
 @book{bykova_2020, place={New York}, title={The Bloomsbury Handbook of Fichte}, ISBN={9781350036642 9781350036611}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350036642}, DOI={10.5040/9781350036642}, publisher={Bloomsbury Publishing Plc}, year={2020} }
 @book{bykova_2020, place={London ; New York, NY}, title={The German idealism reader : ideas, responses and legacy}, publisher={Bloomsbury Academic}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2020} }
 @book{bykova_westphal_2020, place={Cham, Switzerland}, series={Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism}, title={The Palgrave Hegel Handbook}, ISBN={9783030265960 9783030265977}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26597-7}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-26597-7}, abstractNote={This handbook presents the conceptions central to each aspect of Hegel’s systematic philosophy. In twenty-seven thematically linked entries by leading international experts, The Palgrave Hegel Handbook provides reliable, scholarly introductions to each aspect, its main issues and debates}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, year={2020}, collection={Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism} }
 @book{hegel’s philosophy of spirit. a critical guide_2019, year={2019}, month={Jul} }
 @article{bykova_2019, title={Kant's "I Think" and Fichte's principle of self-positing}, volume={52}, ISSN={["0066-5215"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85065468215&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.15581/009.52.1.145-165}, abstractNote={: This paper discusses the relation between Kant’s doctrine of pure apperception (the doctrine of the “I think”) and Fichte’s theory of self-positing. It shows that Kant’s conception of the transcendental unity of apperception is closer to Fichte’s principle of self-positing than is usually thought, and that Kant’s “I think,” and not Reinhold’s “principle of consciousness”, may have been a source of inspiration for Fichte in his attempt to justify transcendental idealism. As in Kant, in Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre , the activity of “self-positing” is the fundamental feature of the I-hood. Similar to Kant, in Fichte, too, the fi rst principle expresses a peculiar kind of unity, which he calls the original unity of self-consciousness ( Tathandlung ).}, number={1}, journal={ANUARIO FILOSOFICO}, author={Bykova, Marina}, year={2019}, pages={145–165} }
 @article{bykova_2019, title={Merab Mamardashvili and his philosophical calling}, volume={71}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-019-09341-6}, number={3}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2019}, month={Oct}, pages={169–172} }
 @article{bykova_2019, title={Note from the Editor in Chief}, volume={71}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85064558496&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-019-09324-7}, number={1}, journal={Studies in East European Thought}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2019} }
 @book{philosophical thought in russia in the second half of the twentieth century _2019, journal={Bloomsbury}, year={2019} }
 @article{bykova_2019, title={Sergey S. Horujy and the Russian Religious Philosophical Tradition}, volume={57}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2019.1583491}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2019.1583491}, abstractNote={As the newest addition to the journal series Contemporary Russian Philosophers, this issue celebrates Sergey S. Horujy, a Russian religious thinker, known for the highly original philosophical (synergic) anthropology resting on his experience of spiritual practices. Horujy belongs to a fairly small group of contemporary Russian philosophers whose names arewell known in theWest. Yet, many readers who have had exposure to the thinker’s publications in English may not have had access to his thought-provoking ideas formulated in the works that have appeared only in Russian. The present issue of Russian Studies in Philosophy intends to fill the existing gap by publishing translations of four recent essays that represent some of the main areas of Horujy’s research. Horujy stands in a tradition of Russian thought largely associated with the Russian Religious Renaissance, which occurred at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, when philosophy intricately intertwined with theology and spirituality. Just as the Russian Religious Renaissance was an effort to grasp and interpret human existence from the perspective of Orthodox faith, Horujy attempts to describe all aspects of the modern reality of a human being in terms of Christian theology, which he understands to include the theological rigor of neopatristic religious thoughts. His philosophical anthropology is Orthodox ascetic anthropology. Brought up during the Soviet period, Horujy did not receive any formal training in philosophy. Instead, he studied physics and mathematics, and spent most of his professional life working as a researcher in the field of Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 57, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–2. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2019.1583491}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2019}, month={Jan}, pages={1–2} }
 @article{marchenkov_bykova_2018, title={A dialogue between philosophical traditions: The life and work of james scanlan}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85052750894&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={3}, journal={Voprosy Filosofii}, author={Marchenkov, V.L. and Bykova, M.F.}, year={2018}, pages={141–151} }
 @article{bykova_2018, title={Editor’s Introduction}, volume={56}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1496699}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2018.1496699}, abstractNote={The current issue is a new addition to the Series “Contemporary Russian Philosophers” that the journal launched in 2012. This issue introduces the readers to work of Alexei A. Kara-Murza, a scholar with an international reputation. Kara-Murza is a philosopher with a strong background in history. He studied history at the Lomonosov Moscow State University and then wrote a doctoral dissertation in political philosophy addressing the issue of the social degradation as a phenomenon of the historical process. It is difficult to be a productive scholar in one single field of research. It is even more challenging to make significant contributions to a number of fields focusing on a variety of issues that traditionally do not overlap. Kara-Murza is a scholar whose research steps over the boundaries of a single field of study. Widely commended for his work on the history of liberalism in Russia, he has published on a broad range of topics in the area of political theory and the history of Russian political thought. His insightful contributions to the discussion of Russia’s identity which has been a focal point of Russian thinkers for centuries made him a central figure in renewed debates of the topic in the middle 1990s. In his book “New Barbarism” as a Problem of Russian Civilization he pioneered a unique synthesis of modern liberalism and so-called “nationally-minded thinking” which has become a mainstream view of the contemporary Russian elite. He is also known for a series of engaging intellectual portraits of Russian thinkers of the nineteenth-early twentieth century, including the moving yet highly motivated stories of the Russian émigrés settled in Italy. The author of the two dozen books and more than 200 scholarly articles, Kara-Murza’s credentials include his research and teaching at the Foundation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (FMSH). For more than Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 56, no. 2, 2018, pp. 71–72. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1496699}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2018}, month={Mar}, pages={71–72} }
 @article{bykova_2018, title={Ivan Turgenev and His Philosophical Ambitions}, volume={56}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1546028}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2018.1546028}, abstractNote={This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev (1818–1883), one of the most prominent Russian writers and intellectuals. A great novelist, dramatist, short-story writer, poet, translator, and insightful proponent of Russian literature and culture in the West, he is best known for such works as A Sportsman’s Sketches (1852), Home of the Gentry (1859), and Fathers and Sons (1862). Turgenev is rightly considered a founder of the Russian realistic novel. His literary works depict the everyday activities and experiences of common people and masterfully present in detail the routine of their lives. He realistically portrayed the peasantry and the rising intelligentsia of nineteenth-century Russia with their desire to move the country into a new age. Born into a family of wealthy landowners in Orel Province (central European Russia), he studied at universities in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Berlin, where he was exposed to radical political ideas and was known for his liberal views. Turgenev’s realism and largely liberalist intuitions could be explained, at least in part, by his childhood experiences. He grew up on one of his family’s farms, where he observed his domineering mother’s cruelty to serfs and her own family. He and his brother, Nikolai, were often beaten and punished even for a small disobedience. He also witnessed the broken marriage of his parents, who lived in constant tension and distrust. All these helped to develop Turgenev’s liberalistic ideas and foster austere and often-appearing unemotional writing. Despite being arrested and even imprisoned for a short time for revolutionary activism, Turgenev was not politically engaged at any stage of his life, as some Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 56, no. 5, 2018, pp. 361–363. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1546028}, number={5}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2018}, month={Sep}, pages={361–363} }
 @inbook{kant’s problems with freedom and fichte’s response to the challenge_2018, booktitle={Metaphysics of Freedom? Kant’s Concept of Cosmological Freedom in Historical and Systematic Perspective}, year={2018} }
 @article{bykova_2018, title={Lenin and the crisis of Russian Marxism}, volume={70}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85057094798&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-018-9313-5}, number={4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2018}, month={Dec}, pages={235–247} }
 @inbook{ludwig feuerbach and the humanistic tradition of bildung_2018, booktitle={Philosophie und Pädagogik der Zukunft. Die Brüder Ludwig und Friedrich Feuerbach im Dialog}, year={2018}, pages={171–186} }
 @article{bykova_2018, title={On the Problem of Subjectivity}, volume={56}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1471254}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2018.1471254}, abstractNote={What unites the myriad physical and psychological elements of a human life into a unique individual? One traditional term for this unifier is subjectivity. Subjectivity is a complex notion, which makes it difficult to define. At its core, it is related to such notions as consciousness, human agency, and the self. Roughly, it means “sense of itself,” or self-awareness. But subjectivity not only covers the individual’s sense of self. It also embraces the significance of a social dimension of the self: my selfawareness and self-presentation depends, in some way, on my interactions with others and our joint activity in the world. The notion of subjectivity has a long and intricate history. Some commentators suggest that the historical beginning of philosophical discussions of subjectivity dates back to the fourth century, when St. Augustin formulated a philosophical concept of personality and elaborated a proof for existence similar to one later famously made by René Descartes. Other scholars believe that debates about subject and subjectivity began much earlier than the fourth century, and, rather, should be associated with Aristotle, who was the first Western philosopher to introduce the notion of the empirical self. He conceived this self as the “rational soul” capable of processing thought (nous). However, despite these developments, only in early modern philosophy was subjectivity recognized as a philosophical problem. The treatment of subjectivity in modern philosophy has its own complex dynamic. Originally, the term was used to designate all that refers to a subject’s psychological-physical integrity represented by its mind, which determines the unique mentality, psychological state, and reactions of the subject. In this use, subjectivity meant the consciousness of one’s real self Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 56, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–5. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1471254}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2018}, month={Jan}, pages={1–5} }
 @article{bykova_steiner_2018, title={The Russian revolution reconsidered}, volume={70}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85058134560&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-018-9317-1}, number={4}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F. and Steiner, Lina}, year={2018}, month={Dec}, pages={217–220} }
 @article{bykova_2018, title={Thought capable of bridging the past and the present: Erikh soloviev and his philosophical credo editor’s introduction}, volume={56}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85055550506&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2018.1523644}, abstractNote={We stand in awe of great minds capable of overcoming their own historical times, crossing the geographical and cultural divides, and producing thoughts that shape the future. Our search for meaning inevitably leads us to the past and to breakthrough ideas produced by prominent thinkers. But we are often disappointed to realize that while their views may be relevant to our life today, creative minds of the past cannot think for us. It is us who must think with them and as they would. Yet, not all of us are able to succeed in this intricate task. Only a few are capable of going back in time and revealing something important about our present and future through an intellectual dialogue with the past. One such thinker is Erikh Yu. Soloviev, a Russian historian of philosophy, whose work we celebrate in the present issue. Born in 1934, he belongs to the Sixtiers, a generation of the Soviet intelligentsia who entered their cultural and professional lives in the early 1960s and whose liberal and anti-totalitarian orientations were informed and further stimulated by the Khrushchev thaw. A prominent scholar, Soloviev is the author of many books, including Existentialism and the Scientific Cognition (1966), The Undefeated Heretic: Martin Luther and His Time (1984), I. Kant: Mutual Complementarity of Morality and Rights (1993), and The Categorical Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 56, no. 4, 2018, pp. 233–236. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1523644}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2018}, pages={233–236} }
 @article{abdildin_bazhanov_vasiliev_kasavin_mironov_bykova_2017, title={Answers to the questionnaire questions}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85031329039&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={7}, journal={Voprosy Filosofii}, author={Abdildin, J.M. and Bazhanov, V.A. and Vasiliev, V.V. and Kasavin, I.T. and Mironov, V.V. and Bykova, M.F.}, year={2017}, pages={28–38} }
 @article{bykova_guseynov_lektorsky_motroschilova_sineokaya_smirnov_soloviev_stepanyants_2017, title={Discussion on the Project Anatomy of Philosophy: How the text works}, number={7}, journal={Voprosy Filosofii}, author={Bykova, M. F. and Guseynov, A. A. and Lektorsky, V. A. and Motroschilova, N. V. and Sineokaya, J. V. and Smirnov, A. V. and Soloviev, E. J. and Stepanyants, M. T.}, year={2017}, pages={109–146} }
 @article{bykova_2017, title={In Memoriam of Teodor I. Oizerman}, volume={55}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2017.1321920}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2017.1321920}, abstractNote={1. Teodor I. Oizerman 1914–2017This issue is a tribute to a Soviet and Russian prominent philosopher and academician, Teodor Ilyich Oizerman (in German sources spelled Oiserman). Born in a village ...}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2017}, month={Mar}, pages={85–88} }
 @article{bykova_2017, title={Lev Shestov: A Russian Existentialist}, volume={55}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2017.1386014}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2017.1386014}, abstractNote={“The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty; … the business of philosophy is not to reassure people, but to upset them.”1 This is how the Ukraine-born Russian philosopher Lev...}, number={5}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={305–309} }
 @article{bykova_2017, title={Nikolai Karamzin and Russian Historical Thought Editor’s Introduction}, volume={55}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2017.1428468}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2017.1428468}, abstractNote={“Karamzin is, no doubt, an extraordinary phenomenon.” These remarkable words, uttered by Nikolai V. Gogol, instantly bring into focus the unique role that Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766–1826) played in shaping Russian historical thought in the early nineteenth century, greatly influencing the growth of the national self-consciousness not only in his time but also in the subsequent periods of Russia’s often tumultuous yet fascinating history. Widely known as the “great historiographer” and, in fact, the first national historian who pioneered the study of Russian history, Karamzin rightfully occupies a central place among brilliant representatives of Russian intellectual and cultural tradition. His contributions to Russia and Russian intellectual history are so profuse that no wonder Vissarion G. Belinsky saw in Karamzin a thinker who “rendered great and immortal services to his country.” Born into the family of a provincial landowner, Karamzin received his early education at home and moved to Moscow for advanced study. As a young man, he tried his hand in writing and was part of the active Masonic movement associated with the liberal circle of the well-known writer and publisher Nikolai Novikov. In 1789–1790, Karamzin traveled in Europe, which exposed him to European culture and provided access to key figures of the European Enlightenment, with whom he actively interacted. Eager to make his name as a writer and to pass on the fruits of the knowledge and general education he received in Europe, Karamzin began publishing the Moscow Journal (Moskovskii zhurnal, 1791–1792), which became a forum of Russian sentimentalism and launched what came to be known the “Karamzin period of Russian literature.” About a decade later, in 1802, he founded the monthly Messenger of Europe (Vestnik Evropy, 1802–1804), one of the most important journals of the nineteenth century that played a central role in the progressive enlightenment movement in Russia. While in Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 55, no. 6, 2017, pp. 377–380. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2017.1428468}, number={6}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2017}, month={Nov}, pages={377–380} }
 @inbook{on nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence and the problem of freedom_2017, booktitle={Friedrich Nietzsche: Legacy and Prospects}, year={2017}, pages={231–249} }
 @article{bykova_2017, title={On the Place of the Russian Revolution in Russian History}, volume={55}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2017.1385345}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2017.1385345}, abstractNote={This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of the Russian Revolution of 1917. That turbulent year featured two revolutions. The first, in February (according to the Julian calendar), overthrew T...}, number={3-4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2017}, month={Jul}, pages={173–176} }
 @article{bykova_2017, title={Success lessons: Academic philosophy and the problem of publicity}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85031323215&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={7}, journal={Voprosy Filosofii}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2017}, pages={122–126} }
 @article{bykova_guseynov_lektorsky_motroschilova_sineokaya_smirnov_soloviev_stepanyants_2017, title={Why do we need philosophy today?}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85031318442&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={7}, journal={Voprosy Filosofii}, author={Bykova, M.F. and Guseynov, A.A. and Lektorsky, V.A. and Motroschilova, N.V. and Sineokaya, J.V. and Smirnov, A.V. and Soloviev, E.J. and Stepanyants, M.T.}, year={2017}, pages={140–146} }
 @inbook{fichte’s nationalist rhetoric and the project of human bildung_2016, booktitle={New Essays on Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation}, year={2016}, pages={133–151} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={Mikhail Lermontov: Living Life on His Own Terms}, volume={54}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1232553}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2016.1232553}, abstractNote={The Romantic poet and prose writer Mikhail Yu. Lermontov (1814–1841) is often considered “a close second” Russian poet to Alexander S. Pushkin. Killed in duel when he was only 26 years old, during his short life he wrote over 30 long narrative poems and 600 short lyric poems, a novel, and five dramas. Inspired by Lord Byron, whom he greatly admired, Lermontov began writing poetry at the age of 13. Later he turned to prose fiction, trying his hand first with novels and then drama. Despite his young age, he undertook ambitious literary works, producing a series of popular ballads, deeply moving dramas such as Ispantsy [The Spaniards], Strannyi chelovek [The Strange Man], and Maskarad [Masquerade], and a psychological novel, Geroi nashego vremeni [A Hero of Our Time], an intricate masterpiece, which earned him recognition as one of the founders of Russian prose. Lermontov was partly of Scottish origin, descended from the seventeenth-century mercenary George Learmont, who served as a highranking officer in the Polish-Lithuanian army. He spent his childhood and youth with his maternal grandmother, Elizaveta Arseneva (née Stolypina), who spared no expense to provide the young Lermontov with the best schooling and a marvelous lifestyle. As a young boy, Lermontov extensively read Russian and West European literature, became fluent in French and German, learned to play several musical instruments, and proved to be a gifted painter. In 1830, he enrolled in Moscow State University, where among his schoolmates were Vissarion Belinsky, Aleksandr Herzen, Konstantin Aksakov, and other notable individuals who were destined to become well-known Russian writers and literary critics.}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Mar}, pages={93–97} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={New Insights into Aristotle’s Ethics}, volume={54}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1301734}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2016.1301734}, abstractNote={The 2016 was the year marked by the 2,400th anniversary of the birth of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is the most prominent representative of ancient philosophical thought. His influence on subsequent generations is immense, and perhaps only Plato could compare with Aristotle in importance. Although modern science and philosophy has come a long way since Aristotle’s era, and our scientific and philosophical knowledge have significantly improved since Aristotle wrote his Metaphysics —the first major work in the history of philosophy—his methods continue to have a deep influence on philosophical and scientific thought. Aristotle was the first Western thinker to divide philosophy into branches, such as logic, metaphysics, natural philosophy, philosophy of mind, rhetoric, politics, and ethics. Not only are these branches still recognizable today, but the philosopher himself made major contributions in all these fields. The focus of the present issue is on Aristotle’s ethics. Aristotle wrote two ethical treatises: Nicomachean Ethics, composed of ten “books,” and Eudemian Ethics, consisting of eight books. In addition, there is the socalled Magna Moralia or “great ethics” —a short work on virtues and vices, also often ascribed to Aristotle. Although many scholars doubt Aristotle’s authorship of the text assigning it to a later author, it is commonly considered as a part of the body of works on ethics produced by Aristotle. The two main ethics works—Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics—cover many of the same themes and the relation between them remains a topic of a heated discussion, further fueled by the fact that the three books in both works are almost identical. Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 54, no. 6, 2016, pp. 449–455. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1967 (print)/ISSN 1558-0431 (online) DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2016.1301734}, number={6}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Nov}, pages={449–455} }
 @article{on thinking and knowing: hegel’s response to kant’s epistemological challenge_2016, journal={Hegel-Jahrbuch}, year={2016}, pages={201–206} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={On the Phenomenological Philosophy in Russia}, volume={54}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1198657}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2016.1198657}, abstractNote={As a method of philosophical inquiry and as a broad philosophical and psychological discipline, phenomenology, as it is known today, is largely developed by the German philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Launched in 1901 first as a kind of “descriptive psychology” and later reinterpreted as a transcendental science of consciousness, phenomenology became very influential in the first half of the twentieth century, attracting the attention of philosophers from a variety of philosophical schools and working in different fields of philosophical inquiry. The reception of phenomenology in twentieth-century Russian philosophy has a long history. Due to an intensive cultural and philosophical exchange between Russia and Germany in the 1900s–10s, Russian thinkers became acquainted with Husserl’s phenomenological ideas very early. In fact, the first volume of the Logical Investigations was translated into Russian as early as 1909. It was the first translation of this highly dense work into a foreign language. About two years later a translation of the programmatic Husserl’s essay “Philosophy as a Rigorous Science” (1911) appeared in the Russian philosophical journal Logos at the same time as the German original. By 1914 Husserl and phenomenology were not only known in Russia, but his philosophy was essentially topical. In his letter to Husserl, the Russian phenomenologist Gustav Shpet wrote in February 1914:}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Jan}, pages={1–7} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={On thinking and knowing: Hegel's response to Kant's epistemological challenge}, volume={2016}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85020523962&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1515/hgjb-2016-0135}, abstractNote={Traditionally, rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza had associated „pure thinking“ with a conceptual understanding of how the world actually is. Challenging this approach, Kant limited the application of concepts (and categories) to only the realm of our experience. Thus, he declared the world as it is in itself to be beyond the reach of human thinking and knowing. This, in turn, put some serious constraints upon the modern concept of thinking, restricting the latter’s scope, capabilities, and autonomy. Thinking had to rely upon a particular faculty – the understanding – for providing the integrating unity of cognitive activity. Furthermore, the very possibility of thought was grounded in something other than the thought principle itself: the transcendental unity of apperception. This served as the underlying, formal condition of synthesizing a manifold of intuition into the cognition of an object. Unsatisfied with the results of Kant’s probing into the ground of rational thinking, as well as with the purely subjectivist modifications of Kant’s principle of apperception undertaken by Fichte, Hegel vigorously rejects the understanding of thinking as primarily referred to a narrowly construed human cognitive faculty alongside perception, intuition, or representation. Instead, he conceives thinking as something that is „responsible for the humanity of all that is human“.1 This paper examines Hegel’s notions of thinking and knowing that he develops in response to Kant’s declaration that the world in itself cannot be grasped by human thought and knowledge. It shows that not only does Hegel affirm that thinking grasps reality, but he also promotes epistemological realism. He reveals that our concepts reflect the world as it actually is by capturing not only the logical principles of thought but also the metaphysical principles of reality. With this move he goes beyond Kant, for whom not everything that I can think about may be present in experience and thus be an object of knowledge. Contrary to Kant, Hegel holds that the sphere of knowing coincides with the sphere of thinking, i. e., all we can think about can be known. And since the activity of thought is unlimited, not only is thinking capable of exploring reality in its totality, but the flow of thought leads us to true cognition of what is actual.}, number={1}, journal={Hegel-Jahrbuch}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2016}, pages={201–206} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={Russia and the West: Bridging the philosophical traditions - Essays in Honor of Nelly V. Motroshilova Preface}, volume={68}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84978039720&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-016-9260-y}, number={2-3}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Sep}, pages={101–105} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={Valery Podoroga and His Analytic Anthropology}, volume={54}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1286902}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2016.1286902}, abstractNote={The current issue is a new addition to the series Contemporary Russian Philosophers that the journal launched in 2012. The issue introduces our readers to the work of Valery A. Podoroga, one of the most original thinkers in the Russian philosophical world today. His approach, called Analytic Anthropology, is unique not only to Russian philosophical discourse; it is also essentially different from the approaches adopted in Western philosophical anthropology.}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Jul}, pages={253–256} }
 @article{bykova_2016, title={What is wrong with the divine interpretation of Geist in Hegel?}, volume={68}, ISSN={["1573-0948"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84978645925&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11212-016-9255-8}, number={2-3}, journal={STUDIES IN EAST EUROPEAN THOUGHT}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2016}, month={Sep}, pages={181–192} }
 @article{sineokaya_bykova_2015, title={A Path Through the Decades On the Philosophical Work of Nelly V. Motroshilova}, volume={52}, ISSN={["1558-0431"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84938829404&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2014.1030322}, abstractNote={The article highlights the main contributions made by Nelly V. Motroshilova to Russian scholarship in the history of philosophy. It offers an overview of her philosophical ideas and contentions as they are presented in her scholarly work.}, number={4}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Sineokaya, Julia V. and Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2015}, pages={9–16} }
 @article{bykova_2015, title={Editor's Introduction}, volume={52}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2014.1030315}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2014.1030315}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2015}, month={Jan}, pages={1–8} }
 @inbook{morality in politics: the moral framework in kant’s political philosophy and contemporary europe_2015, booktitle={Die Philosophie und Europa. Zur Kategoriengeschichte der "europäischen Einigung}, year={2015}, pages={43–66} }
 @article{bykova_2015, title={On Nikolai Berdyaev and His Philosophical Thought}, volume={53}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2015.1154402}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2015.1154402}, abstractNote={Nikolai Berdyaev rightfully holds a special place in Russian intellectual and philosophical tradition. A thinker of a stature comparable to that of Vladimir Solovyev, his views underwent a dramatic evolution from social democracy to liberalism. In his philosophical thoughts he gradually moved from Neo-Kantianist Marxism to idealism of neo-Fichtean and abstractreligious variety, which is often equated with existentialism. Hewasdestined to live through the catastrophic events of the first half of the twentieth century in Europe, which intimately affected him, forcing him to spend the last two andahalf decades ofhis life in exile.But insteadof just being dismayed by the scale and consequences of those devastating events, he drew his inspiration from them, delving into the nature of the human condition and searching for the significance and meaning of human existence. The latter became the focus of Berdyaev’s philosophy. His intellectual brilliance, his inherent philosophical and literary talents, as well as his intuitive, aphoristic, and symbolic style of thinking and writing made him one of the most remarkable Russian philosophers of the twentieth century. Berdyaev was born on March 6, 1874 in Kiev. By birth and upbringing he was an aristocrat. Both his parents came from a long line of nobility, tracing their ancestry to the Middle Ages. His father, Alexander Mikhailovich Berdyaev, descended from military gentry. Many of Berdyaev’s ancestors were high-ranking military officers serving imperial Russia, but he resigned from the army after about two decades of serving and became actively engaged in the social life of Kiev aristocracy. His mother, Alina Sergeevna, née Princess Kudasheva, was half French. Her immediate ancestors, aristocrat French émigrés, moved to Russia fleeing}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2015}, month={Oct}, pages={255–259} }
 @article{bykova_2015, title={The Question of the Human: On the Role of the Human Sciences in Contemporary World}, volume={53}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2015.1147312}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2015.1147312}, abstractNote={In referring to the contemporary world, we often tend to think of it mainly in terms of globalization and technological advances. Yet what the notion of the contemporary world denotes is the present age, the period of human history occurring now, in our time. But how should we describe our time? Is it not one that comes after “the end of history,” after the fragmentation of “grand narratives” and the failure of the great social and political projects of modern times, whether radically democratic or violently reactionary. Indeed, our time is, strictly speaking, untimely, no longer experienced as a time in which our activity is directed toward the realization of an end. The linear time of progress toward a determinate future is now rather experienced retroactively as “lost time,” a history of a series of failures to enact a future, failures to find a time in which our activity could be grounded once and for all in the splendor of a concrete and simultaneous beginning. The relation to history that once offered us the promise of overcoming the alienation and anxiety typical for modernity, replacing it with at least temporal “synthesis,” is now itself perceived as outdated. What confronts and perhaps haunts us is a past containing possibilities that ultimately failed to be actualized, that could not deliver on their promises. Now, in the present, our relation to this past of aborted promises is one of loss—a loss of who and what we could have been—yet this loss is precisely a loss of that which never happened or occurred. In other words, this loss is identified with a loss of historical identity, of who we were in the process of becoming, not only individually but also socially. Our present relation to}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2015}, month={Jul}, pages={191–195} }
 @article{bykova_2015, title={The Scholar-Administrator: Vyacheslav S. Stepin and His Contributions to Philosophy}, volume={53}, ISSN={1061-1967 1558-0431}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2015.1123539}, DOI={10.1080/10611967.2015.1123539}, abstractNote={Continuing our series on contemporary Russian philosophers, this issue is celebrating philosophical achievements and contributions of Vyacheslav S. Stepin. A renowned scholar, he has distinguished himself through his original research in such fields as philosophy and methodology of science, epistemology, and philosophy of culture. Born in the small Russian village of Navlia in Briansk region (Central Russia) bordering Ukraine and Belarus, Stepin received his master’s}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2015}, month={Apr}, pages={111–114} }
 @article{bykova_2014, title={On the philosophical relevance of Marx's views today}, volume={9}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84923873870&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.3868/s030-003-014-0032-4}, abstractNote={This paper revisits some of Marx’s central philosophical ideas with the attempt to understand the thinker’s real place in the history of the Western philosophical tradition. It does not only show that the philosophical dimension is central to Marx’s economic and political works, and therefore his contributions to philosophy merit special investigation, but it also argues that Marx is a descendant of classic German philosophy, and thus his views should be assessed in the context of the development of the philosophical ideas that emerged within that tradition.}, number={3}, journal={Frontiers of Philosophy in China}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2014}, pages={370–380} }
 @article{bykova_2013, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={52}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84922018969&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967520300}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2013}, pages={4–8} }
 @article{bykova_2013, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={51}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84885126766&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967510400}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2013}, pages={3–6} }
 @article{bykova_2013, title={Editor's introduction: Philosophical Inquiry into the Essence of Man}, volume={52}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84904975717&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967520200}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2013}, pages={3–8} }
 @article{bykova_2012, title={A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830-1930: Faith, Reason, and the Defense of Human Dignity}, volume={50}, ISSN={["0022-5053"]}, DOI={10.1353/hph.2012.0078}, abstractNote={Reviewed by: A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930: Faith, Reason, and the Defense of Human Dignity Marina F. Bykova G. M. Hamburg and Randall A. Poole, editors. A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930: Faith, Reason, and the Defense of Human Dignity. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pp. xv + 423. Cloth, $120.00. Despite its relatively brief historical span, Russian philosophical thought displays a rich variety of ideas, trends, approaches, and schools. Yet there is no consensus on where it starts, what constitutes its essential traits, and which works it encompasses. Thus this new volume is very timely, as it offers a novel interpretation of the development of philosophical thought in Russia between 1830 and 1930, “Russian philosophy’s long nineteenth century” (1), which began with the dispute between Slavophiles and Westernizers, persisted through the “Silver Age” of Russian culture, and drew to a close with the emergence of a Russian philosophical emigration in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Recognizing the richness of the subject and the impossibility of grasping it by using any of the traditional, “reductive” interpretations of the history of Russian philosophy, the book employs a fresh, unifying approach to its subject in the context of Russia’s changing historical landscape, taking into account the deep connections of Russian philosophy with literature, politics, and intellectual life. This collection of eighteen essays is not just another survey of Russian philosophical thought, but an attempt to comprehend the development of a distinctive Russian tradition of philosophical humanism: the passionate social and moral commitment of Russian thinkers to such ideals as liberty, human emancipation, self-determination, and human dignity. The volume is split into five parts that discuss major stages of Russian philosophical humanism and how its ideas were articulated in debates between central philosophical thinkers, literary critics, writers, broad intellectual movements, and schools. Part 1 examines the emergence of Russian humanism from the 1830s to the 1860s and sets the stage for the remainder of the book. Moving away from the traditional treatment of nineteenth-century Russian philosophy, which analyzes it mainly in relation to modern Western philosophy and conceives it as a unique reception of German romanticism and idealism, the first essay uses Russia’s spiritual and cultural tradition to trace its origins back to the “theocentric personological paradigm” of Eastern Orthodox thinking (29). This and subsequent essays show that problems of personhood and questions of human nature and dignity guided all philosophical discussions of that time, including the seminal debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers, the defense of a materialistic worldview by Russian radicals, and the search for new ethical values by Russian populists, Marxists, and neoidealists. Part 2 examines the development of Russian philosophical humanism in the metaphysical idealism of B. Chicherin and V. Solov’ev, as well as in Russian panpsychism. These thinkers took different approaches to defending and justifying humanism: Chicherin and Solov’ev placed it “on the Kantian foundations of moral autonomy and self-determination” (16), whereas panpsychists insisted on returning to pre-Kantian (mostly Leibnizian) metaphysics, which subscribed to the psychic or “spiritual” character of all reality. Denying that religion or empirical science could provide a solution to the problem of free will, L. Lopatin “argued that the ‘spiritualist’ worldview is the only ray of hope for twentieth-century humanity” (161). The strong tradition of Russian religious philosophy is at the heart of parts 3–4. Part 3 examines the humanistic ideas of S. Bulgakov, P. Florenskii, and S. Frank. Scholars will appreciate the compelling interpretation of Frank’s philosophy as an “expressivist humanism” that affirms “the infinite value of each human person as a potential vehicle for the manifestation of a unique spiritual content” (222). Part 4 offers a rich survey of the Russian Silver Age, focusing on liberal and radical religious humanists, and reflecting upon the [End Page 620] complex legacy and influence of V. Solov’ev. Although different in their assessments of the value of law for guaranteeing personal autonomy and human rights, religious humanists responded to Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, drawing upon Solov’ev and further advancing his optimistic humanism and the tradition of integration, in which they saw the potential for a renewed...}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2012}, month={Oct}, pages={620–621} }
 @article{bykova_2012, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={51}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84877634299&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967510200}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2012}, pages={3–8} }
 @article{bykova_2012, title={Editor's introduction: A world of new ideas: On the philosophical study of mathematics}, volume={50}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84864345126&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967500400}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2012}, pages={3–6} }
 @book{bykova_2012, title={Fichte: Bildung as a true vocation of man}, volume={36}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84875717926&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.5840/fichte20123664}, journal={Fichte-Studien}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2012}, pages={403–415} }
 @article{bykova_2012, title={Series: Contemporary Russian Philosophers Introduction}, volume={51}, ISSN={["1061-1967"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84870771096&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/rsp1061-1967510100}, abstractNote={This is the inaugural issue of our new series Contemporary Russian Philosophers. This series will not only introduce our readers to those who do philosophy in Russia today, but also portray important elements of the country's contemporary cultural and philosophical landscape. I hope readers will appreciate the new content and find it engaging and exciting.}, number={1}, journal={RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2012}, pages={4–7} }
 @book{bykova_2012, title={The "struggle for recognition" and the thematization of intersubjectivity}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84900158346&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, journal={Essays on Hegel's Philosophy of Subjective Spirit}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2012}, pages={139–154} }
 @inbook{bykova_2012, title={The "struggle for recognition" and the thematization of intersubjectivity}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84900158346&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={Essays on Hegel's Philosophy of Subjective Spirit}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2012}, pages={139–154} }
 @article{bykova_2011, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={50}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84861075484&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967500200}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2011}, pages={3–7} }
 @article{bykova_2011, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={50}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-80053624407&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967500100}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2011}, pages={3–13} }
 @article{bykova_2011, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={50}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84861743733&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967500300}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2011}, pages={3–9} }
 @article{bykova_2011, title={Editor's introduction: On the perception of German Idealism in Russia}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-80052626142&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967490400}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2011}, pages={3–9} }
 @article{bykova_2010, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79952847089&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967490200}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2010}, pages={3–7} }
 @article{bykova_2010, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-78650871919&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967490100}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2010}, pages={3–6} }
 @article{bykova_2010, title={Editor's introduction: Philosophical inquiry into the practice of science}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79955703107&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967490300}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2010}, pages={3–6} }
 @article{bykova_2010, title={The man of thought}, volume={48}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77954990562&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967480400}, abstractNote={In each philosophical tradition, there are thinkers who remain officially unrecognized and often undervalued while alive and gain an outstanding reputation only after their death. Generally, it may be easily explained by the fact that innovative and groundbreaking ideas require substantial evaluation and can be proven true only over time. In the Soviet Union, this phenomenon was exacerbated by the state of the ideological community: those who found themselves in opposition to the officially imposed philosophical discourse suffered dramatic consequences. Their ideas were viewed with contempt by bearers of the official ideology and proideological philosophy; they had a hard time finding publishers for their works and were often persecuted and forced to abandon teaching or even leave academia. To be sure, the seizure by the regime did not always mean lack of recognition and support within the philosophical community, but this was limited due to the difficult political and ideological circumstances. Evald Vasil’evich Ilyenkov is a thinker who exemplifies such a complex situation. Throughout his professional life he suffered from the ministration, censorship, and repressive activity of the regime in different ways. His work was celebrated by his supporters and followers during his life, but the full realization of its significance came much later, years after his death. Today the philosophical legacy of this perhaps most original of the Soviet philosophers is}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2010}, pages={3–9} }
 @article{bykova_2009, title={Editor's Introduction Sovereign Democracy and the Question of the Russian Political Order}, volume={47}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67649804150&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967470400}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2009}, pages={3–7} }
 @article{bykova_2009, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={48}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-70449553503&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967480100}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2009}, pages={3–11} }
 @article{bykova_2009, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={48}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77956849506&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967480300}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2009}, pages={3–8} }
 @article{bykova_2009, title={Editor's introduction: The task of doing philosophy}, volume={48}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-75849160314&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967480200}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2009}, pages={3–7} }
 @book{essence, appearance, and phenomena. the festschrift for nelly v. motroshilova _2009, journal={Phenomenology- Hermeneutics Publisher}, year={2009} }
 @book{bykova_2009, title={Spirit and Concrete Subjectivity in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84859788703&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1002/9781444306224.ch13}, abstractNote={This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Hegel's Account of Subjectivity: General Remarks The Phenomenology as the Theory of Concrete Subjectivity Conclusion References Further Reading}, journal={The Blackwell Guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2009}, pages={265–295} }
 @article{bykova_2008, title={Editor's introduction}, volume={47}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67649537877&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967470100}, number={1}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2008}, pages={4–8} }
 @article{bykova_2008, title={Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov: Editor's introduction}, volume={47}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-63149182846&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967470200}, abstractNote={(2008). Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov: Editor's Introduction. Russian Studies in Philosophy: Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 3-7.}, number={2}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2008}, pages={3–7} }
 @article{bykova_2008, title={ON FICHTE'S CONCEPT OF FREEDOM IN THE SYSTEM OF ETHICS}, volume={52}, ISSN={["2329-8596"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-61049223445&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.5840/philtoday2008523/422}, abstractNote={The notion of freedom is a central notion of Fichte's philosophical system. In his letter from 1795 Fichte calls his philosophy "the first system of freedom," comparing its theoretical significance with the import and effect that the French Revolution had in the political sphere. He writes, "Just as France freed man from external shackles, so my system frees him from the fetters of things in themselves, which is to say, from those external influences with which all previous systems - including the Kantian - have more or less fettered man. Indeed, the first principle of my system presents man as an independent being."1 For Fichte, freedom is neither an ordinary philosophical notion, a one among others, nor an abstract idea that is conceptuaUzed as merely being opposed to the concept of determinism. Shaped in the context of the thinker's search for the systematical foundation of his Wissenschafislehre, freedom becomes the theoretical principle and also the postulate of his whole philosophy. It would be thus too ambitious to attempt examining Fichte's concept of freedom in one short essay, even if I choose to Umit myself to only one thinker's work. The aim of this essay is more modest; it will discuss only one, perhaps central and the most significant dimension of Fichte's concept of freedom, his principle of autonomy as it is estabUshed in the System of Ethics. I shall first consider Fichte's general approach to freedom and autonomy and how it differs from that of his predecessors, especially Kant's conception. Then I shall tarn to Fichte's account of autonomy and consider its development in the Sittenlehre of 1798. My main focus will be on Fichte's concept of self-determined agency and its fundamental role for legislation of morality. On Kant's Approach to Freedom and Fichte's Response to the Challenge In a general sense, freedom appears for Fichte as a pure self-activity of the (original) I. This, in turn, provides a ground for moral freedom, or freedom of the I that determines itself morally. Kant argued that autonomy was demonstrated by a person who would decide on a course of action out of respect for moral duty. For him an autonomous person acts morally solely for the sake of doing "good," independently of other incentives. Such compliance with moral law creates the essence of human dignity. Following Kant, Fichte too believes that the moral will is the chief characteristic of the self. In his systematic, it also appears as the activating principle of the world. Yet he realizes that moral freedom and linked to it awareness of the moral laws cannot be simply given or postulated; they must rather be derived from plausible and non-contradictory principles. The derivation of moral freedom Fichte sought to present in his System of Ethics. Taken systematically, this substantiation and rational justification of ethics does not belong anymore to the project of the Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschafislehre of 1794/95, but rather to the project of the Wissenschafislehre novo methodo 1796/99. Here Fichte does not any longer assume the three separate postulates, but instead he proceeds from a single principle of the finite I. Furthermore, theoretical and practical Wissenschafislehre are not treated separately, but instead it is considered as the one unified theory. As a result of these changes, Fichte modifies his approach to derivation of consciousness, now attempting to derive it from morality and freedom of the I. Fichte views such a derivation as necessary, because he believes that in philosophicsystematical theory the awareness of the moral laws cannot be taken - like in Kant - as a mere fact of the reason. In the Sittenlehre of 1798, freedom is present at different levels of system. From its first appearance here it is already inseparable from the principle of morality and in the further derivation it just obtains a concrete determinacy. Fichte attempts to provide a solution to main systematical issues that Kant could not solve in his ethics. …}, number={3-4}, journal={PHILOSOPHY TODAY}, author={Bykova, Marina F.}, year={2008}, pages={391–398} }
 @article{bykova_2008, title={Rozanov's distinctive legacy}, volume={47}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-63849196585&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-1967470300}, number={3}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.F.}, year={2008}, pages={3–6} }
 @article{bykova_2004, title={Zu hegels subjektivitätstheorie aus der perspektive der systematischen beziehungen zwischen logik und realphilosophie}, volume={6}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85026003807&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1524/hgjb.2004.6.jg.253}, abstractNote={Mit Descartes' Prinzip des »Ego cogito« beginnt die neuzeitliche Subjektivitätsphilosophie und ihre Begründung des Denkens im Selbstbewußtsein oder im Ich. Doch erst Kant und die Deutschen Idealisten entwickeln differenzierte und komplexe Theorien der Subjektivität, die bis in den Neukantianismus, den Neuhegelianismus und auch in die transzendentale Phänomenologie des 20. Jahrhunderts fortwirken und bei deren Anhängern und Kritikern bis heute gegenwärtig sind. Durch den Zeitabstand und die geänderte Motivationsund Interessenlage wird freilich im 20. Jahrhundert der ursprüngliche Sinn der klassischen Theorien von Kant bis Hegel vielfach abgewandelt. Daher gilt es, den ursprünglichen Sinn der klassischen Subjektivitätstheorien und ihre eigenen Motive und Argumentationszusammenhänge wieder freizulegen und zu explizieren, um das Für und Wider der subjektivitätstheoretischen Positionen in der gegenwärtigen Diskussion zu klären. In der Philosophie Hegels erreicht die Thematisierung der Subjektivität ihren spekulativen Höhepunkt. Anstelle der bisher herrschenden Ansichten über die Subjektivität als einem nur empirischen, individuellen Selbstbewußtsein, d. h. der konkreten als ein epistemologisches Begründungsprinzip verstandenen Individualität, tritt eine neue Auffassung über die Subjektivität auf; sie wird nun als reines Selbstbewußtsein, als theoretisches Prinzip der Logik und der Ontologie thematisiert. Im Gegensatz zu den bisher entwickelten Konzepten der Subjektivität kommt Hegel und den Deutschen Idealisten das entscheidende Verdienst zu, die Begriffe Selbstbewußtsein und Subjektivität nicht bloß monologisch und intrapersonal, sondern intrasubjektiv und interpersonal anzugehen: das Absolute ist nun nicht mehr nur ein Terminus, sondern tritt als ein inhaltliches Phänomen auf und wird unerläßlich für die theoretische Betrachtung. Dabei wird ein bestimmtes Verhältnis von Subjektivität und Absolutem als grundlegend angesetzt. Diese ist den Subjektivitätstheorien der Deutschen Idealisten gemeinsam. Inhaltlich und systematisch konzipieren sie aber dieses Verhältnis je verschieden. Kant und Fichte vertraten den transzendentalen Idealismus des endlichen Ich. Hegel stellte dem die Subjektivitätsphilosophie entgegen, in deren Zentrum die absolute Subjektivität stand. Schon in Jena einigten sich Hegel und Schelling kurzfristig auf einen Typus von Metaphysik, den K. Düsing »absolute Metaphysik« nennt. Schelling wandte sich später wieder davon ab, während die Philosophie des reifen Hegel der Ausgestaltung des gemeinsamen Ansatzes verpflichtet blieb, allerdings im Sinne jener Kritik an der Identitätsphilosophie Schellings, welche Hegel in der Vorrede zu seiner Phänomenologie des Geistes erstmalig öffentlich kritisierte. Die Philosophie des reifen Hegel repräsentiert einen Typus von Metaphysik der Subjektivität, in welchem diese als absolute und endliche zugleich begriffen wird. Von dem historisch-systematischen Standpunkt aus ist Hegel eine Ausnahme: er ist eigentlich der einzige in der Geschichte der Philosophie, der nicht nur die endliche, menschliche Subjektivität begreiflich macht, sondern eine systematisch entwickelte Theorie der absoluten Subjektivität liefert. Diese Theorie entwickelt er in der Wissenschaft der Logik. Die endliche Subjektivität wird aber zum Thema in der Realphilosophie.}, number={JG}, journal={Hegel-Jahrbuch}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2004}, pages={253–259} }
 @article{bykova_2003, title={Guest editor's introduction. Russian culturology: Its subject and domain}, volume={41}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67650086667&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2753/RSP1061-196741043}, abstractNote={One of the most interesting tendencies in contemporary philosophical developments in Russia is the basic elaboration of issues of the philosophy of culture. The interest in this problematic, which appeared back in the Soviet period in response to, among other developments, Western research in the realm of the theory of culture and civilization, led to the formation of a new philosophical discipline called culturology in Russia. For all the nuances and distinctions in the treatment of culturology and its subject matter by representatives of different schools and tendencies of the contemporary philosophy of culture in Russia, its most widely accepted descriptive definition is the one cited in a culturology textbook: "The object of culturology is the genesis, functioning, and development of culture as a specifically human mode of life, which unfolds historically as a process of cultural transmission, externally similarly to, but nonetheless distinct from, life in nature. The task of culturology is to construct a 'genetics of culture' that would not only explain the historico-cultural process but would also predict and control it."'1}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2003}, pages={3–8} }
 @article{bykova_2003, title={Russian cultural studies, subject and domain - Introduction}, volume={41}, number={4}, journal={Russian Studies in Philosophy}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={2003}, pages={08-} }
 @book{g.w.f. hegel, phenomenology of spirit _2001, journal={Nauka}, year={2001} }
 @book{the mysteries of logic and the secret of subjectivity_1996, journal={Nauka}, year={1996} }
 @book{absolute idea and absolute spirit in hegel's philosophy _1993, journal={Nauka}, year={1993} }
 @article{bykova_1990, title={Die Perestrojka in der Sowjetischen Philosophie: Mythos oder Realität?}, volume={40}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-34248281800&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/BF00818973}, number={1-3}, journal={Studies in Soviet Thought}, author={Bykova, M.}, year={1990}, pages={73–88} }
 @book{hegel's interpretation of thinking_1990, journal={Nauka}, year={1990} }