The philosophical canon between normativity and doxography: western discourse and the russian context

The study focuses on the problem of the philosophical canon, examined at the intersection of normative and doxographic approaches. Building on the genesis of the “Western canon”, initiated by Mortimer Adler and Robert Hutchins, the author notes Allan Bloom’s defense of the canon as an expression of the rationality of the Western tradition, critiques of multiculturalism, and Harold Bloom’s “school of resentment”. It is emphasized that, unlike literary and cultural canons, the philosophical canon possesses its own specificity, grounded in the criteria of rationality, continuity, and conceptual rigor. A key milestone in the conceptualization of the philosophical canon was the typology of genres proposed by Richard Rorty: doxography, historical reconstruction, rational reconstruction, and Geistesgeschichte. According to Rorty, it is the latter that enables the formation of a constructive philosophical canon, combining contextuality and relevance while preserving the dynamics of philosophical ideas. In contrast, opposing approaches reduce philosophical reflection either to philosophy, to history, or to an unsystematic enumeration of names devoid of normative content. Special attention is paid to the Russian context. Here, the history of philosophy traditionally drew on models from Hegelian, Neo-Kantian, analytic, and existential traditions, but the loss of institutional and discursive context has led to the dominance of the doxographic genre. The history of philosophy came to be perceived as a mechanical recounting of a “pantheon” of thinkers rather than a form of critical reflection on the boundaries of philosophy. The lack of conscious engagement with the philosophical canon and critical theorization hinders the formation of a dynamic canon capable of integrating into contemporary discourse. The author argues that the philosophical canon, as a dynamic process, must be constantly revisited and refined. Only in this way can it serve as a tool for preserving disciplinary boundaries while also enabling their meaningful expansion. Compared to Western and Eastern philosophical cultures, the Russian one demonstrates a deficit in such reflection, creating a risk of methodological rupture and limiting participation in the global philosophical dialogue. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References