Abstract The 1910 debate between Vladimir Ern and Semyon Frank marks one of the most conceptually charged moments in Russian philosophy’s confrontation with modernity’s crisis of reason. At stake is not a national or cultural contrast between “Russian spirituality” and “Western rationalism,” but the deeper philosophical question of whether reason can remain self-grounded without losing its ontological bond with being. Ern’s critique of ratio – the self-sufficient, schematic intellect born of Kantian transcendentalism – diagnoses modern rationality as meonism, a logic of non-being that abstracts thought from reality. His counterproposal of a threefold Logos (cosmic, discursive-logical, and divine) envisions philosophy as mediation between the ontological and the divine – a participatory act through which logic regains transparency to being. Frank’s rejoinder, while rejecting Ern’s ontological excess, treats living reason, truth, knowledge, and consciousness as articulations of a single immanent and phenomenologically describable participation in the Absolute, capable of uniting discursive clarity with ontological depth. This article reinterprets their polemic as a rigorous philosophical attempt to reconstruct rationality between ratio and Logos. Drawing on the dispute and situating the debate within the post-Kantian horizon of Spinoza, Schelling, and Hegel, it argues that Ern and Frank articulate two poles of a single, unresolved antinomy: reason as participation versus reason as autonomy. The article advances the concept of participatory ontologism as the synthesis implicit in their confrontation – a philosophical position in which rational thought is neither an abstract formalism nor a mystical immediacy but a dialogical event of being’s self-disclosure through the intellect. In this sense, the Ern–Frank debate anticipates later European attempts – from existential phenomenology to dialogical personalism – to reconstitute the unity of being and thought.
Abbas Jong (Thu,) studied this question.