Abstract

The article dealt with the question of the ratio of Yuri Mamleev’s I-utrism to Tradition. The problem is in the contradiction between two positions, which Mamleev notes in different places of “The Destiny of Being” – a view of the I-utrism as a new approach within the framework of Tradition, and as going beyond it with the introduction of extraneous elements. Based on the connection between the I-utrism and the “Last Doctrine”, which clearly lies outside the Tradition, the author of the article concludes that the I-utrism should not be considered as a new approach within the framework of the Tradition, but as an autonomous construction to it. According to the author, the I-utrism due to its own radicalism contains two key problems that lead not only to a break with Tradition but also to a violation of the inner integrity of Mamleev’s philosophy itself. These two problems are defined as the radicalization of the Vedanta formula “Atman = Brahman” and the absence of the figure of the Other. I-utrism forms unified I, which the author of the article proposes to call “I-total”, because it displaces everything but itself, including the classical concept of the Absolute. Hence the lack of a topos for Mamleev’s concepts such as “Abyss” and “Eternal Russia”. It is compounded by the prevention of the metaphysical event of the Other, which is especially important for the idea of a metaphysical and mysterious Russia that requires intersubjectivity. In the process of analyzing these problems and issues, the article compares the philosophical positions of Stirner and Mamleev, as well as addresses the topic of demonic I-utrism. After all, the author concludes that the I-utrism needs to be revised and softened. This would allow it to exist organically in the overall picture of Mamleev’s worldview and not lose touch with Tradition despite the inevitable exit from it.