There lies at the basis of Leont'ev's conception a clear distinction and fundamental division of two primary dimensions and rhythms of reality: history and eschatology. In the light of this Leont'evian perspective Dostoevskij's conception was interpreted and critically evaluated through the prism of the absence in it, and the lack of awareness of the consequence thereof, of a similar, fundamental distinction. The centrality of Dostoevskij in the Russian and intellectual cultural tradition is, among other things, tied to his acceptance of a series of fundamental and constitutive assumptions deeply rooted in a characteristic sphere of myths and illusions. The specificity of the place and significance of Leont'ev's concepts within this tradition results from the fact that it takes a critical distance, giving thus the possibility of conceiving an essentially different problematization of the world extending beyond commonly established and naturalized obviousness of the principles and 'prejudices' of one's own culture.

The aim of this article is to analyze one of the most recognized in the Russian intellectual-cultural tradition and Russians' social self-consciousness ways of identification of the nature of Russianness and Russia-and comprehend it in the category of the "Russian Sphinx". The Russian thinkers and writers discussing the nature of Russia often return to the motif of Sphinx. Opposed to its ancient Greek archetype-counterpart, "the Russian Sphinx" does not have to resort to intricate questions-he is a riddle himself. As I show and explain, the livelihood and dissemination of the Russia-Sphinx motif in the homeland of Dostoyevski are not incidental. This motif is a synthetic medium of many archetypal contents, which accurately articulate a set of traditional intuitions and imaginations held by the Russians and concerning the alleged essence, nature, or depth of "Russianness". To conclude, I demonstrate the need to make the people comprehending Russia in a similar way aware that the accompanying, the particular-in its basic framework a priori assumed by them-image of the Russian reality is de facto a correlate of their subjective cognitive intention.Keywords: Russia, Sphinx, Oedipus, riddle, tradition, post-Kantian perspective IntroductionCentral current of the Russian intellectual, cultural, and social tradition is delineated by the posed-for-centuries questions about Russia, connected most often with the finally comprehended idea of "Understanding Russia": solving the "Russian Riddle" or the need to live, contemplate or express the depth of the "Russian Mystery". Due to the livelihood, permanency, and centrality of similar questions and attempts of self-cognition in Russian philosophy, thought, and culture, their analysis also creates heuristically fertile cognitive perspective to conduct more general research of both intellectual-cultural tradition and Russians' social self-cognition. It happens mostly when the possibilities created by the post-Kantian theoretical perspective are used, allowing to show, recognize, and explain the way in which the subject and object of cognitive relation inter-assume and inter-shape each other as the results of particular sense-formative processes, directed at the intention of "understanding Russia", realized by the subject asking about it in this particular, not any other way. Conclusion I demonstrate the need to make the people attempting to "comprehend Russia" in a similar way aware that the concurrent image of the Russian reality is-in its fundamental shape-de facto a correlate of their own attitude towards life and an assumed a priori result of a particular subjective sense-formative intention. Archetypes and SpecificationsThe Russian writers discussing the nature of Russia often return to the well-fixed and popular motif of Sphinx, a mythical beast with face and breast of a woman, torso of a bull or dog, claws of a lion, tail of a dragon or serpent and wings of a bird. This monstrosity was sent to Thebes, once upon a time, by Hera, the goddess of marital faithfulness, as a p...

Paradoxical, enigmatic, mysterious . . .Although over a hundred years have passed since Konstantin Leont'ev's death, his personality and conception are still alive in Russia's intellectual tradition, still arousing interest, debate, controversy, and contradictory assessments. For all the diversity, inconsistency, and ambivalence of the opinions expressed in Russia regarding Leont'ev's thought and stance, on one point they probably concur: usually "we encounter with regard to Leont'ev judgments in the apophatic mode: unknown, forgotten, unraveled, complex," 1 paradoxical, enigmatic, mysterious. . . .It is of interest that Russia itself, its "soul," "nature," "idea," or "mission," has been perceived down through the ages in similar fashion-and, consequently, "in the apophatic mode," as a "paradox," "enigma," or "mystery." It might therefore seem that precisely Leont'ev should be perceived in his fatherland as the quintessence of Russianness, the "Russian soul" par excellence, but in fact that is far from being the case: as a rule, he is seen as an "unrecognized phenomenon," as an "eccentric," as an atypical personality, the only one of its kind.By examining the structure of Leont'ev's thought in the context of the Russian intellectual and cultural tradition, I shall try to show why it is perceived in Russia in precisely this fashion, while other ways of perceiving it are placed outside the principal field of vision of the given tradition. And, above all, I shall try to demonstrate and describe the cognitive horizons opened up (in part only potentially) by Leont'ev's conception-in particular, the type of problematization of the world and of Russia's own cultural foundations that is inherent in it.English translation © 2008 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2006 M. Broda. "'Neuznannyi fenomen ' Konstantina Leont'eva," Voprosy filosofii, 2006, no. 7, pp. 129-39. Translated by Stephen D. Shenfield. RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY Development and structure of the conceptionIn my view, our starting point for understanding both Leont'ev's conception itself and its cultural-historical significance and heuristic fruitfulness can and even must be the following thought of the philosopher: "Any principle taken with one-sided consistency to any extreme conclusions may prove not only murderous but even suicidal. Thus, for example, were the idea of freedom to be taken to all its ultimate conclusions, it could lead by way of extreme anarchy to extremely despotic communism, to the constant legal violence of all against all or, alternatively, to personal slavery." 2 The same antinomy, the philosopher declared, is inherent in all the most important human categories (for instance, equality, secularization, nationalism, or science) and also in their relations. In general, in Leont'ev's view, the reconciliation that removes the mutual opposition of all values, the mythologically understood coincidentia oppositorum [union of opposites-Trans.] is inaccessible to man (in his earthly, public, and personal existence); any attempt at...

According to the canonical, for the Russian cultural tradition and the communal consciousness of the Russians, poetic formula presented by Fyodor Tiutchev, Russia is-unlike all the other countries, inexplicable in the notions of profane knowledge-the sacred Reality. As Wladimir Soloviev appropriately recognized the nature of the accompanying conceptualization the world, it assumes, expresses and explains the understanding of Russianhood and Russia in terms of a "soul" and the "soul of the world. " In turn, according to the identification-diagnosis by Andrzej Walicki, we are dealing here with "Tyutchev's imperial vision, " which, please note, confirms both the content articulated by the poet in the poem On the Taking of Warsaw as well as his apoetical political texts. In the theoretical perspective, co-created by both of these interpretative methods, it is worth looking into the mythical content and implications of the analysed vision of Russianhood and Russia as well as the mental-social basis, and the consequences, of its still lasting vitality.

Rosja -autorytaryzm -demokracja-miêdzy iluzj¹ i realnooeci¹ D iagnozy i prognozy, dotycz¹ce Rosji w ogóle, a charakteru tamtejszego pañstwa, ³adu ustrojowego, mechanizmów rozwojowych i ¿ycia polityczno-spo³ecznego, w jego aktualnej czy spodziewanej, przysz³ej formie, w szczególnooeci, odznaczaj¹ siê zastanawiaj¹co czêsto wyraŸnie spotêgowan¹, periodycznie nasilaj¹c¹ siê, dychotomiczn¹ wrêcz niekiedy, polaryzacj¹, przeciwstawnooeci¹ i zmiennooeci¹. Analizuj¹c procesy transformacji rosyjskiego systemu spo³eczno-politycznego, a tak¿e podejmowane próby rozpoznania charakteru, celów, kierunku i spodziewanych konsekwencji obserwowanych przemian, warto zatem pamiêtaae o kilku podstawowych problemach identyfikacyjnych, jakie im nieprzypadkowo towarzysz¹. Ich przes³anek i objaoenieñ, mo¿na i nale¿y szukaae zarówno po stronie przedmiotowej (w³aoeciwooeci rzeczywistooeci rosyjskiej), jak i po stronie podmiotowej (sposoby jej percepcji, konceptualizacji i problematyzacji), na której skoncentrowane bêd¹ przede wszystkim poni¿sze uwagi; przy czym obie one pozostaj¹ ze sob¹ powi¹zane, wspó³okreoelaj¹c siê wzajemnie.W wyros³ych na prawos³awnej glebie mentalnooeci i kulturze rosyjskiej, zdominowanych przez silny ³adunek eschatologiczny i koreluj¹ce z nim poszukiwanie docelowego -paruzyjnego czy quasi-paruzyjnego -wspólnotowego Spe³nienia, za szczególnie wa¿ny uwa¿any jest wymiar przysz³ooeci (Špidlik, 2000, s. 431 i in.). Co wiêcej, bardzo czêsto przypisuje mu siê równie¿ faktyczn¹ nadrealnooeae i niezale¿nooeae w stosunku do empirycznie uchwytnej historii i teraŸniejszooeci. Przysz³ooeae pojmuje siê jednoczeoenie w kategoriach próby inicjacyjnej, której Rosja mo¿e -albo nie -sprostaae, dychotomizuj¹c ka¿dorazowo wizje i oceny tego, co zaczyna siê dokonywaae. Podmiotow¹ si³ê, tworz¹c¹ historiê, uto¿samia siê tam tradycyjnie w³aoenie z -aktualn¹ lub potencjaln¹ -centraln¹ w³adz¹ pañ-stwow¹. W jej istnieniu, potêdze i dzia³aniu widzi siê nie tylko gwarancjê, ale równie¿ podstawê i kreatora porz¹dku spo³ecznego, a zarazem nosiciela ponadpartykularnej racji i prawdy (Špidlik, 2000, s. 3). Jeoeli aktualna