Samarin through the lens of western-liberal ideologues
Introduction . The paper analyzes the way representatives of the liberal camp evaluated the views of Y. F. Samarin, a leading figure in the Slavophile movement. Emphasis is placed on examining the positions of prominent Western-liberal ideologues: K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, and A. D. Gradovsky. This approach reveals the distinctiveness of the perspectives held by both Slavophiles and Westernizers, as well as individual nuances of each thinker's views. Materials and methods . The study scrutinizes the philosophical works of outstanding nineteenth-century Russian thinkers: Y. F. Samarin, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, A. D. Gradovsky, and others, who belonged to opposing ideological camps. It also considers subsequent scholarly literature devoted to the analysis of these thinkers' works. The research employs a historical-logical method to place the scholars’ views within a broad social context, alongside a comparative methodology that juxtaposes their positions to identify shared attitudes and individual distinctiveness. Results . The paper emphasizes Samarin's well-substantiated critique of Kavelin's claim that Russia lacked a genuine history prior to Peter I. Samarin also demonstrated the untenability of Chicherin's rejection of "subjective principles" in humanitarian knowledge. As a supportive argument, the paper cites prominent Russian scholars who endorse Samarin's position regarding the presence of value orientations in humanitarian research, and consequently, their inevitable subjectivity. However, such personal assessment does not imply a "distortion of scientific facts." The study also examines A. D. Gradovsky’s publications dedicated to Samarin. Despite his liberal orientation, Gradovsky provided an objective assessment of the Russian thinker's views, demonstrating his significance in both intellectual and social spheres. Discussion and conclusions . The study concludes that Y. F. Samarin was one of the most educated figures of his time. His publications were the focus of attention for both Slavophiles and Westernizers. He successfully demonstrated the importance of national traditions and Russia’s unique culture to the country’s development. Samarin's polemic with K. D. Kavelin and B. N. Chicherin, along with A. D. Gradovsky's assessment of his views, remains relevant today, particularly concerning the preservation and development of national values and historical memory. Importantly, even Samarin’s ideological opponents highly valued his personal qualities: his honesty, patriotism, and integrity.