The epigraph of this essay could be the words of a present day Lithuanian philosopher, Tomas Sodeika, who has described Lithuanian philosophy as follows: "Someone has said that Lithuania is not a nation of philosophers. Perhaps that is true. We do not have or would hardly have thinkers whose works would be translated into other languages; who would become the subjects of dissertations, studies and monographs for the investigators of other nations; or who would be quoted from one book to another." This could provide a grist for understanding of the whole situation of the Lithuanian philosophy — of earlier years, as well as of present times.

Historical destiny has placed Lithuania in an area which had always been immensely sensible to almost all the changes and revolutions which took place all around it. This sensibility was of a particular character, however, for it lies in the marginal situation of Lithuanian culture from the perspective of the Western world. All the major political, historical and cultural events of the world touch Lithuania but only after some period of time. The phenomena do take place in Lithuania, but after a lengthy period of time and with characteristic modifications.

Here historical developments have strongly affected the nature of Lithuanian culture and its spheres. As we are interested in the intellectual atmosphere in our country by the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, some knowledge of the historical circumstances of this period might be helpful. The end of the 19th century marked the beginning of the active national movement which embraced liberation from the Russian Empire as well as cultural autonomy. A search for cultural authenticity and the traits of the national character of Lithuanians and their nature were much discussed. The question of the relationship between religious identity and national identity was considered urgent. The Catholic Church, though non-Lithuanian at that time because most of the clergy spoke Polish, helped to highlight the national identity in contrast to the Russian Orthodox faith which always had an association with the Czarist regime. Thus the question: must every Lithuania automatically be a Catholic became important at the dawn of the Lithuanian political and cultural rebirth; it was discussed in the works of virtually all the intellectuals of that time.

What was the situation in education in those days? From 1864 until 1905 the Lithuanian language was suppressed by the Czarist rule; it was practically removed from public life and was spoken mostly among the rural inhabitants. There were no Lithuanian academics. Those who sought higher education could choose either Russia with its universities in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev or Charkov, or to go to Western Europe. But there was the problem of means for education. Without a state, there were no official institutions which could provide financial assistance. The only institution which could offer help was the Catholic Church. It granted scholarships, but only for members of the Church, and for the major Catholic centers of Western Europe — the universities of Freiburg (Switzerland) and Louvain (Belgium). The end of the 19th century marked a rapid renaissance and the prosperity of neo-Thomism after the encyclical of the Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris. These were the academic surroundings in which the majority of the Lithuania intellectuals matured.

After World War I and the fall of the Russian Empire, many small states, Lithuania among them, proclaimed their independence. In 1918 Lithuania became a sovereign state, which posed new questions and tasks for its people. Virtually everything had to be created from ruins. The intellectuals of the young state became preoccupied with ideas on the shape of the future Lithuania. The philosophers were in the front lines offering ideas gained during their studies abroad.

As most Lithuanians got their philosophical degrees in the above mentioned Catholic universities, the dominating influence in their philosophical education was neo-scholasticism, namely, neo-Thomism, and they built their own systems in a similar tradition. One of the most prominent proponents of neo-Thomism in Lithuania was the philosopher, Stasys Salkauskis who is also famous for his idea of Lithuania as the embodiment of two cultures — Western and Eastern (e.g., Slavic) due to the particular historical circumstances which placed Lithuania between the two major regions. Therefore, Lithuania should see its unique historical mission in the synthesis of these two cultures. It would be helpful to remember that Salkauskis was greatly involved in the philosophy of a Russian thinker Vladimir Solovyov. Echoes of his vision of the two worlds can be traced in the writings of Salkauskis and many of his followers. The idea of this synthesis did not fascinate all of them, however; some students joined other trends in philosophy.

In spite of the fact that the period of Lithuania independence between the two World Wars was relatively short it managed to form two totally different generations of intellectuals. As the first began to mature before independence, it had to face the Slavic element in the form of language, literature, art, state or nation. The studies in the Russian universities opened the way to Lithuania for the philosophical ideas to such Russian thinkers as Solovyov and Berdyaev, which openly were \greeted by some Lithuanian intellectuals, thus shaping their philosophical thought in a peculiar way. An example is Salkauskis and his idea of a synthesis of the two cultures.

Those who did not accept this point of view mainly belonged to the second generation of intellectuals. It is interesting to note that though this generation is only some years younger than the first, it enjoyed different conditions for its own formation and maturing. There had developed some contrast to the elements of the Slavic culture, and the values of Western culture were being avidly absorbed in opposition to Slavic values. This generation was much more original and self-dependent — as much as the historical and cultural conditions could afford.

This juxtaposition of the two generations of Lithuanian intellectuals could serve us as a way of comparing two of the most prominent thinkers of the first half of this century, who belong to the respective generations. The names of these two philosophers are usually associated with the academic and professional Lithuanian philosophy. They are Antanas Maceina (1908-1987) and Juozas Girnius (1915-1994). In spite of fact that Maceina is only seven years Girnius’s senior, he explicitly belongs to the first generation. Though Maceina had a chance of studying in the Western universities, nevertheless the ideas of Russian philosophy, namely, Berdyaev, marked the whole direction of his thought. As a matter of fact, Russian philosophy had always been very much a part of Maceina’s thought, and he taught it at German universities, being in a post-war forced exile.

Girnius managed to escape this Slavic influence. The years of his studies at the universities of Freiburg (Germany), Louvain and Sorbonne shaped the original and modern style for his philosophy. One can easily discover Girnius’s dialogue with the philosophical trends of the Western Europe of those days, which thought had been interpreted by Maceina in a totally different way. Girnius was the first to introduce existential philosophy to Lithuania and thus directed its entire philosophy in a modern way. Maceina himself had once referred to Girnius as "having the most philosophical mind of all the intellectuals who matured in independent Lithuania."

The factor common to these two seemingly different thinkers is the existential way of philosophizing, though the ways in which they explicated existential problems varied. Maceina adopted this trend of philosophy in the form of Jaspers’s existential metaphysics, whose basic postulates he interprets in "Job’s Drama". Through this study by Maceina, Jasper’s ideas entered Lithuanian philosophy. But the way Maceina interprets the ideas of the German existentialist is different from Jaspers himself. Maceina employs Jaspers’s theory of "extreme situations," but his intentions are far from those of Jaspers. He is not content with the conclusions of Jaspers, for whom the extreme situations were the circumstances where an individual experiences the fragility of his own existence and opens himself to the transcendent. Jaspers named four such situations: suffering, struggle, guilt and death. Maceina chooses suffering which he studied in the situation of Job in the Bible. The choice of a concrete person for a philosophical investigation reveals a characteristics trait of Maceina — to philosophize not in abstract terms, but in images. The main tool of his thinking is imagination.

The choice of a biblical theme suggests that this philosopher is in a peculiar relationship with theology, which reveals a curious and ambiguous character of his thought. Maceina, though having expressed his opposition to any kind of authority in philosophy, and having stated that philosophy is nothing but a constant raising of questions without a final answer, balances on a thin and indefinite border between the philosophical and theological spheres. The two are closely intertwined in Maceina’s works. He quite unexpectedly gives a name to the transcendence which has opened in front of Job — this is the God of religion. But Maceina prefers not to explain the reasons for this conclusion. He just states that extreme situations are the nearest ways to God, far more effective than any logical proofs. This again echoes Jaspers, who stated the inability of logical reasoning to reach the Transcendent. Jaspers stops after having discovered the Absolute Transcendent. Maceina quotes various Russian thinkers and even purely theological works in order to prove his own truth — the Transcendent as God of faith.

Maceina tries to prove that man and God are linked ontologically, e.g., that man is religious even when he rejects and denies God. In his last work, which is sometimes called his opus magnum, Maceina tries to reach this proof using contemporary philosophical theories, namely, hermeneutics. He adopts the view of philosophy as interpretation and, employing the construct of author and his production, he grants the same relationship to God and man, meaning the God of theology or faith. Why such a choice again? The only suggestion could be the intertwining of his own world outlook which did not consequently fit into his philosophical system. It is an attempt to prove God not scientifically or logically, but ontologically "willy-nilly", says Lithuanian philosopher, Algis Mickunas. We can see that the whole system of Maceina’s philosophy is based on the attempt to prove what is already taken for granted at the very beginning, suggesting some lack of intellectual honesty in its author.

Girnius shows a different attitude. He is a Christian believer, and does not somehow hide his own world outlook. On the contrary, he explicitly states it in all his works. Though he is preoccupied mainly with the problems of existential philosophy (his works include investigations of the philosophy of M. Heidegger and K. Jaspers), Girnius states that following his ow beliefs he is alien to existential philosophy. He thinks of himself as an existentialist only insofar as his interest or focus is not upon the essence of man, but upon his uniqueness in time. From the position of a Christian believer Girnius worked out the main postulates of his major work, Man without God, which bears as subtitle, Philosophical Analysis of Atheism. Girnius is concerned with the spread of atheism in the contemporary world, which concern moves him to philosophize — not for the sake of theory, but rather for life itself. Girnius has no intention of condemning non-believers; he treats them with tolerance and tries to understand them. God is at the beginning of Girnius’s philosophy. The author states, that "man bears a peculiar witness to God, even when he denies Him." All creation is a witness of God, especially man, who strives towards infinity due to his spiritual and creative nature. Having rejected God, witness to him is born by the emptiness of an atheistic life. We can see similarities with the ideas of Maceina here. But the difference is that Girnius states this at the very beginning of his reflections.

This is the central string of the whole of Girnius’s work on atheism. His philosophy distinguishes itself by its active character. It tends not to remain a pure reflection, but rather to change the world. Again, the philosophical and theological spheres are intertwined, thus revealing the strong element of world outlook which dominates in the whole philosophy of Girnius. The work had considerable influence in Lithuania during the communist period. Man without God opened the way to religious faith for many former non-believers, by affirming its world outlook along with its philosophical reasoning. Girnius seems more intellectually honest than his senior colleague, for he never tried to prove what was already determined at the beginning. He just reflects on the basis of his own beliefs, and does not give his reflections an obligatory character.

It should also be noted that the philosophy of Lithuania in the first part of the 20th century has also an educational, pedagogical character. That is not so surprising if we note the circumstances. From the times of the national movement and especially after the forming of the Lithuanian state its intellectuals were obsessed with the ideas of educating, enlightening and building up the future Lithuania. The vision of the future state was in some way discussed in the works of almost all the intellectuals of that time. Therefore, philosophy had become a suitable tool for shaping various pedagogic ideas. Salkauskis and Maceina were almost as productive in the field of pedagogy as in philosophy and their philosophy is concerned with upbringing, fostering, etc. The relationship between state and nation, the problem of Lithuanian identity, and the historical mission of Lithuania were the spheres of particular interest. Hence they were continued by the post-war Lithuanian emigrants, for whom these problems acquired the character of national survival.

50 years of communist regime severely suppressed the development of a living intellectual thought. Thus, authors like Maceina and Girnius were the only examples of a true Lithuanian philosophy for a long time. Works from the exiles could reach Lithuania only clandestinely, but the academic life in Lithuania continued. Today we have a new generation of philosophers who tend to think that, as before, Lithuania still has no authentic philosophy. But this reflects the fact that things reach Lithuania always after some period of time.