VLADIVOSTOK STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

Department of Humanities

Methodological development

in "Philosophy"

for a seminar session on the topic

“Domestic philosophy and its features”

(for students)

The duration of the lesson is 4 hours.

Head Department of Humanities,

And. O. professor, Ph.D. Melnikova T. G.

Compiled by: I. O. professor, Ph.D. Melnikova T. G.

Art. teacher Tarasenko D. B.

Vladivostok, 2004

Lesson 1 (2 hours)

Topic - Domestic philosophy and its features

Working with Concepts

Westerners - the direction of Russian social thought of the 40s of the 19th century. whose representatives believed that Russia should develop along the Western path.

Slavophiles - the direction of Russian social thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, whose representatives came out with a justification for the originality of the path historical development Russia, fundamentally different from Western Europe.

Sobornost is an organic, socio-spiritual community of people in which each individual reveals his or her abilities for the sake of the prosperity of the community. Sobornost is the opposite of individualism and state totalitarianism.

The noosphere is the sphere of interaction between nature and society, in which human activity becomes the main determining factor of development.

Synonyms: technosphere, anthroposphere, sociosphere.

Main features of Russian philosophy

Russian philosophy represents an original formation in world philosophical thought. Two sources of its formation can be distinguished: the influence of the achievements of world philosophy and the socio-cultural processes taking place in Russia. The last of the sources left its mark on the themes of philosophical reflection, the form of presentation of philosophical views, and so on.

There are seven special features of Russian philosophy:

Religious form. Philosophical ideas penetrated into Rus' along with Orthodoxy and, in a Christian religious form, established themselves in the public consciousness. Until the 18th century There was no secular philosophy in Russia. Even the subsequent secularization, the formation of a materialist trend, did not weaken the religious philosophical school.

Anthropologism, the ethical aspect of the problems being studied, the desire to comprehend the irreconcilable struggle between good and evil, the search for truth. Morality permeated all philosophical ideas, and Russian philosophy even made the comprehension of truth dependent on the moral qualities of a person.

Close attention to socio-political issues. Questions of the fate and role of Russia in world civilization, the path of socio-economic development of the country, projects of social transformation have always been components of any philosophical theory. Russian thought is historiosophical; it addresses questions about the “meaning” of history, the end of history, etc.

The struggle between Slavophilism and Westernism. The question about Russia's place in the world received an ambiguous answer. Some thinkers believed that Russia is part of the West, and therefore it is necessary to modernize according to Western models. Others believed that Russia had its own, special path of development.

Practical orientation and, in connection with this, the denial of abstract philosophizing. Russian thinkers put specific ethical and socio-political issues first in their works (this difference must be emphasized).

Close connection with literature and even with art, a wide variety of forms of philosophical works (religious treatises, teachings, works of art - novels by F. Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, paintings - “Trinity” by A. Rublev, etc.).

The question of truth in the process of cognition correlates with the concept of “truth”. This concept carries a moral and ethical meaning. It reflects the search for the moral basis of the world and the desire not only to understand and cognize the world, but also to transform it.

P. Ya. Chaadaev. Westerners and Slavophiles

In the second quarter of the 19th century. Russian classical literature and Russian national identity arose, reflecting on the problem of specificity, special mission and fate of the Russian people in world civilization. This problem was first raised by P. Ya. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). In his works, Chaadaev wrote that Russia will serve as a negative example for European peoples. In the discussion that followed, two main “camps” emerged - Westerners and Slavophiles.

Westerners (T.N. Granovsky, M.A. Bakunin, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, V.G. Belinsky and others) pointed out the economic, political and cultural lag of Russia from the advanced countries of Europe. Civilized bourgeois Europe seemed to them the ideal to which stagnant Russia should strive. They saw the reasons for its backwardness in the dominance of religious institutions, serfdom and monarchism. Of the philosophers, Hegel was especially appreciated, but he gravitated towards atheism, materialism and individualism.

Westerners in general rightly criticized the negative phenomena of Russian reality, but they failed to consider the merits of Russian national culture and realize the other side of Western civilization with its growing lack of spirituality, callousness, and the cult of profit and personal prosperity.

Slavophiles (I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, the Aksakov brothers, Yu.F. Samarin, etc.) relied on Russian original culture. Their philosophical views gravitated toward the pole of “totality.” They considered Orthodoxy the spiritual basis of Russian society, the monarchy - best form government, the peasant community - the economic and moral foundation of Russian life. The key concept of their philosophy is “conciliarity”. Conciliarity was based on spiritual community (in the church, family, state, etc.) and assumed the interaction of human activity and divine intervention. Slavophiles did not rule out contacts with the West, but believed that politically, economically and spiritually Western social models were destructive for Russia.

the limitations of empiricism (natural science), abstract rationalism (philosophy) and theological faith (religion). Such “whole knowledge” is achieved through love for God, nature and man.

Solovyov’s anthropology is also interesting: a person is capable of being transformed into a God-man, like Christ, in whom the natural and spiritual principles are united. The above-mentioned society Religious and philosophical quests of Russian writers (F. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy)

The writer F. Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881) in his works focused on the study of the human soul in its social and ethical-religious dimensions. His works are filled with contradictions: he wants to believe in a person, but does not believe, because he considers himself a “realist”. Dostoevsky is a subtle psychologist. He sensitively notices all the movements of the soul and, as it were, “turns” it inside out before the reader’s gaze. His books are a picture of the other side of the human soul - dark and sinful. In the 80s of the XIX century. abandoned the ideas of socialism, since socialism, based on atheism, is the way of the external structure of society. This is a dead end. True improvement of life, the author convinces, is possible only through the internal, spiritual self-improvement of a person. Truth for Dostoevsky is goodness, conceivable by the human mind, and beauty, bodily embodied in a living bodily form. The complete embodiment of truth in everything is the end, the goal and the perfection. Therefore, beauty will save the world.

The great Russian writer Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) puts forward the idea of ​​​​creating a new practical religion based on the teachings of Christ, purified from churchism, mysticism and empty belief in bliss after death. He finds philosophical support in early Christianity, Eastern religions and the teachings of Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and Feuerbach.

The central question in Tolstoy's philosophy, which he poses in his Confession (1879), is the question of the meaning of life. How do secular people solve it? Some live in ignorance, do not see the evil and meaninglessness of life. Others follow in the footsteps of Epicurus: knowing about the meaninglessness of life, they do not think about it, but strive to get all the pleasures from it. Still others solve the problem by committing suicide. Still others, knowing about the futility of existence, do not dare to do anything and go with the flow. However, all these solutions do not satisfy the demands of reason and leave the question of the meaning of life open.

Tolstoy comes to the conclusion (which is far from indisputable) that reason is not capable of resolving this issue. Only unreasonable, irrational faith removes the problem of the meaning of existence and inspires a person to live in the name of seeking God. These quests lead a person to the idea of ​​self-improvement, brotherly love for other people and the acquisition of supra-individual immortality, when individual consciousness merges with the consciousness of other people, which is a manifestation of the absolute essence of God.

How is Tolstoy’s religion fundamentally different from Church Orthodoxy? First, he perceives Christ not as God to whom one “must pray,” but as spiritual person, who established the highest ethical commandments that must be followed. The main one is the teaching of love and its practical use in non-resistance to evil through violence. The Church, Tolstoy is convinced, is responsible for the fact that people did not understand this teaching. This is second. Thirdly, the church, behind metaphysics, has forgotten the ethics of the New Testament. And they are inseparable. That is why she blessed slavery and the injustices of the authorities. And finally, fourthly, Tolstoy calls for turning to early Christianity. At the same time, Tolstoy did not separate him from other religions and teachings, Eastern in particular, believing that universal moral principles are equally expressed in all of them. The Church responded to Tolstoy's spiritual reformation aggressively and unconstructively. In 1901, Count Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church.

An important aspect of Tolstoy’s teaching is the rejection of his contemporary civilization, culture and statehood. Secular culture, the writer says, has forgotten the good of the people and “has become detached from the good.” Civilization corrupts people. And the state is “the villains who robbed the people.” How to counter this? Only through non-resistance to evil through violence - in this case this means a person’s non-participation in the affairs of the state and an isolated life in fraternal communities guided by the commandments of Christ.

Metaphysics of unity Vl. Solovyova

The pinnacle, a unique result of the development of Russian philosophy in the 19th century. became the doctrine of “all-unity” of the outstanding Russian philosopher Vl. S. Solovyova (1853 - 1900). He built his philosophical system as an antithesis to the philosophical views of the positivists, who proposed replacing philosophical speculation with “positive” science, that is, narrowly experienced, empirical knowledge.

Solovyov understood unity in three aspects:

a) epistemological - as the unity of three types of knowledge: empirical (science), rational (philosophy) and mystical (religious contemplation), which is achieved not as a result of cognitive activity, but by intuition and faith. Solovyov believed that empirical knowledge allows us to study not the object of knowledge itself, but only its properties and states. Meanwhile, all objects and phenomena do not exist separately from each other, they are only different sides (facets) of a certain Absolute, Existence. In order to cognize Existence, it is necessary to synthesize the knowledge obtained by experimental science, speculative philosophy and religious faith as forms of rationally free thinking.

b) social and practical - the unity of the state, society, church based on the fusion of Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Solovyov's ideal was a “free theocracy” - a fusion of society and state, with politics and economics guided and directed by the ideas of the spiritual community (church).

c) axiological - the unity of three absolute values: Good, Truth and Beauty, subject to the primacy of Good. Their synthesis provides “whole knowledge” in which the future (“free theocracy”) is overcome and must consist of spiritually and morally transformed people. Then “God-Humanity” will arise, and the Earth will become “God-earth”. This, according to the philosopher, is the meaning of human history.

For Solovyov, truth is the unconditional reality and unconditional rationality of everything that exists. In the life world of the individual, the concept of personality goes beyond a narrow epistemological framework, including a moral meaning (“true path”, “true choice”, etc.).

Questions for self-control:

What features of Russian philosophy do you know?

Who are the Westerners? How do they differ from the Slavophiles?

Explain the meaning of F. Dostoevsky’s saying “Beauty will save the world.”

What is the essence of L. Tolstoy’s philosophical teachings?

What is the doctrine of the unity of Vl. Solovyov?

Lesson 2 (2 hours)

Topic - Materialistic and idealistic directions in Russian philosophy of the second half of the 19th century? beginning of the 20th century

Physician-philosophers (I.M. Sechenova, N.I. Pirogova, I.I. Mechnikova)

The outstanding Russian surgeon and public figure Nikolai Ivanovich Pirogov (1810 - 1881) did not consider himself a philosopher and did not pretend to be one, but in the “Diary of an Old Doctor” published after his death, researchers (primarily V.V. Zenkovsky) discovered that he had an integral and a thoughtful philosophical worldview. Convinced of the limitations of metaphysical materialism, which cannot explain the phenomenon of life, Pirogov came to a biocentric worldview (life is global phenomenon, permeating the entire Universe). Pirogov also recognized the reality of “world thinking” (“universal mind”). The next step in Pirogov’s spiritual evolution was the recognition of God (the Absolute), standing above the “world mind.” Science studies particulars, but a necessary component of knowledge is faith (which, however, appears to the mind as an illusion). Faith connects us with the sphere of the ideal, with God; it does not limit the scope and freedom of knowledge, but only complements it (those who follow the path of knowledge believe in a positive result). It should be added that Pirogov himself distinguished between “faith” and “religion” and defended the compatibility of genuine faith in the God-Man with freedom of conscience and mind.

The founder of Russian physiology, author of the book “Reflexes of the Brain” Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov (1829 - 1905) argued that it is impossible to separate mental processes from the nervous processes associated with them. In other words, mental phenomena are part of the system of reflexes. It’s just that in adults this connection is difficult to trace because of the “long chain of transformations of one ideological state into another.” Spiritual processes are only the final link in a chain in which the middle links are successively mental processes and reflexes. Please note: Sechenov’s initial link in this chain is physiological processes. It is necessary to emphasize once again that, according to Sechenov, spiritual processes are inseparable from material processes, although the scientist recognized that “the essence of mental phenomena, as far as they are expressed by consciousness, remains in all cases, without exception, an impenetrable mystery.”

Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov (1845 - 1916), the famous biologist and pathologist (author of the theories of phagocytosis and immunity) was at first a deep pessimist (this was “facilitated” by the death of his first wife and the serious illness of his second, eye disease and other circumstances) and twice tried to commit suicide . However, in 1881 he became an optimist (hence the title of one of his books - “Studies of Optimism”). One of the central themes in scientific research Mechnikov had a question about disharmonies in man (the scientist wrote about this, for example, in the book “Studies on Human Nature”). A characteristic feature of Mechnikov was his boundless faith in the power of science, in the fact that “man, with the help of science, is able to correct the imperfections of his nature.” Hence the idea of ​​orthobiosis, the scientific regulation of life. [Orthobiosis - in the scientific and philosophical works of Mechnikov, the theory of “a complete and happy cycle of life ending in a calm and natural death”]. In the book “Studies of Optimism,” the author writes that reason can and should actively subjugate nature. Even “morality should be based on scientific evidence.” First World War, which began in 1914, showed the illusory and groundless nature of Mechnikov’s “rational worldview.”

Russian philosophy metaphysics

2. Russian cosmism

The set of teachings about the connections between man (society) and the Cosmos was called Russian cosmism. There are religious (N. Fedorov) and natural science (K. E. Tsiolkovsky, V. I. Vernadsky, A. L. Chizhevsky) directions of Russian cosmism.

The thinker N. F. Fedorov (1828 - 1903) expressed many interesting thoughts in his book “Philosophy of the Common Cause.” Technology, he argued, is a temporary, side branch of development. A person’s strengths should be directed in the other direction - towards improving and transforming oneself. A person can learn to renew his body and gain immortal cosmic existence.

The weak point in Fedorov's teaching is a concession to church Christianity, which, having not accepted the esoteric symbolism of the New Testament, began to spread the idea of ​​the physical resurrection of the dead. Fedorov is trying to provide a “scientific basis” for this idea. He says that living generations must repay their debt to the dead - i.e. "resurrect" them. From the point of view of post-classical science, this looks ridiculous.

Cosmonautics theorist K.E. Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) substantiates the possibility and necessity of man entering outer space. Philosophical thoughts of Tsiolkovsky in Soviet time heavily dissected. Therefore, only now the public is gradually learning the most important ideological axioms of the outstanding scientist. They are based on the theory of the immortal Atom of life, consonant with the esoteric teaching about monads - the energetic elements of existence. Atoms move from one state to another, from less perfect forms to more perfect ones. Therefore life is continuous. In space, the scientist believes, there are countless living beings, among which there are “gods of different degrees”, far superior to humans in their development.

Deep, revolutionary ideas are put forward by the Russian scientist V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945). He talks about the eternity of life. Denies its origin on Earth, pointing out that it is not the emergence of life on this planet that needs to be explained, but the mechanism of its appearance. Supports the idea of ​​further human evolution. But his main merit is the development of the concept of the noosphere (sphere of the mind), which is gradually taking shape on the planet thanks to the intelligent transformative activity of humanity. Over time, the boundaries of the noosphere should expand to cosmic proportions. However, it is necessary that the scientific and technical strength of man be balanced by morality, without which further development becomes problematic.

The works of the outstanding researcher, creator of cosmobiology A.L. Chizhevsky (1897-1964) radically change the ideas of spiders about the factors influencing the development of the biosphere and human history. He convincingly shows the powerful impact of cosmic forces (in particular, the Sun) on all biological, mental and social processes on Earth. It is empirically proven that, for example, the social activity of humanity (wars, revolutions, reforms, etc.) is directly dependent on the cycles of solar activity.

Philosophical views of N. A. Berdyaev and L. I. Shestov

The focus of attention of N. A. Berdyaev (1874 - 1948) and L. Shestov (1866 - 1938) was on the problems of human existence.

According to Berdyaev, there are two worlds: the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of the Spirit (God). The existence of God is comprehended by man in a non-rational way - through personal spiritual experience. God is outside the natural world and reveals himself only symbolically. God has omnipotent power over the world he created, but has no power over freedom, which he did not create. This freedom is primary in relation to good and evil, stipulating the possibility of both. Since freedom cannot be created even by God, God is not responsible for evil. The historical process consists of the struggle of good against irrational freedom.

In addition to the problem of freedom, Berdyaev also thought about the problem of personality. The individual, he thought, is not a part of society and not a part of the Cosmos. On the contrary, both society and the Cosmos are a part of the individual, which can only be comprehended as a creative act, where the whole precedes the part. Creative activity man is nothing more than an addition to social life. God and man seem to exist in each other. Only in love, in the free manifestation of the Spirit, is its victory over nature, over slavery and death achieved.

Berdyaev puts the individual above society, above the nation and the state. He does not deny the usefulness of social economic life, but only on condition that the highest values ​​of the human personality and its right to achieve the fullness of life are recognized. Equalizing aspirations (no matter who they come from - democracy, socialism, internationalism, etc.) lead only to the destruction of the individual, to the instillation of envy, resentment and anger.

Berdyaev's vague, incredibly abstract and contradictory reasoning is far from indisputable. However, paradoxically, on their basis he draws a number of profound conclusions. Firstly, this is the idea of ​​a crisis of culture and its transformation into civilization. The forces of the spirit are being replaced by the forces of nature and society, which are embodied in technology. Soulless technology suppresses and subjugates a person. The personality dissolves into the mass. Spiritual culture is replaced by lower instincts or economics. Spiritual decay begins with technological prosperity. Civilization is the last stage of world history before its completion. Secondly, the idea of ​​the impossibility of complete freedom in the conditions of social peace (indicating the illusions of communists and bourgeois democrats). And thirdly, the proclamation of the ideals of spiritual freedom and the eternal value of the human person.

According to L.I. Shestov, true religiosity is the complete subordination of reason to faith. The mind is completely incapable of knowing either God, the world, or man. Only faith gives true knowledge and salvation to man. In this case, you do not need to make any personal efforts, you do not need to rely on your wisdom, justice and strength - this is apostasy. God saves only those who have completely abandoned thoughts and actions and entrusted themselves to the Higher Will.

Questions for self-control

Is it possible to say that the outstanding Russian doctor N.I. Pirogov was a materialist?

Which of the Russian doctors of the 19th century. put forward the theory of orthobiosis and what was it?

What trends in Russian cosmism do you know? What is the difference between them?

What is personality in the philosophical teachings of N. A. Berdyaev?

What is true religiosity from the point of view of L. Shestov?

APPLICATION

P.Ya. CHADAEV

One of the saddest features of our peculiar civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become hackneyed in other countries and even among peoples who are in some respects more backward than us. The fact is that we have never walked together with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, neither to the West nor to the East, and we have no traditions of either one. We stand, as it were, outside of time; the universal education of the human race has not extended to us. [...] First wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then foreign rule, cruel, humiliating, the spirit of which the national government subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth. [...] The time of our social life, corresponding to this age, was filled with a colorless and gloomy existence without power, without tension, nothing animated it except atrocities, nothing softened it except slavery. No enchanting memories, no beautiful pictures in memory, no effective instructions in the national tradition. Look around all the centuries we have lived through, all the spaces we have occupied - and you will not find a single arresting memory, not a single venerable monument that would speak about the past with power and paint it vividly and picturesquely. We live only in the most limited present, without a past and without a future, amid flat stagnation.

Our memories go no further than yesterday. [...] We grow, but do not mature; we move forward, but in an indirect direction, that is, along a line that does not lead to the goal. [...] It can be said about us that we constitute, as it were, an exception among nations. We belong to those of them who, as it were, are not an integral part of humanity, but exist only to teach a great lesson to the world. [...]

The masses are under the influence of certain forces at the top of society. The masses do not think directly. Among them there is a certain number of thinkers who think for them, who give impetus to the collective consciousness of the nation and set it in motion. A small minority thinks, the rest feels, and the result is a general movement. [...] Stretched between the two great divisions of the world, between East and West, leaning with one elbow on China, the other on Germany, we would have to combine two great foundations of spiritual nature - imagination and reason and combine historical ones in our enlightenment the fate of the entire globe. This is not the role that Providence has given us. On the contrary, it seemed that it was not at all concerned with our fate. Denying us its usual beneficial influence on the human mind, it left us entirely to ourselves, did not want to interfere in our affairs in any way, did not want to teach us anything. The experience of time does not exist for us. Centuries and generations have passed fruitlessly for us. Observing us, one could say that the universal law of humanity is nullified here. Alone in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world, we did not contribute a single thought to the mass of human ideas, we did not contribute in any way to the forward movement of the human mind, and we distorted everything that we got from this movement . [...] If the hordes of barbarians who shook the world had not passed through the country we occupied before the invasion of the West, we would hardly have given a chapter for world history. To get noticed, we had to stretch from the Bering Strait to the Oder. [...] By the will of fate, we turned to the corrupted Byzantium for moral teaching, which was supposed to educate us. [...] In Europe at that time everything was animated by the life-giving principle of unity. Everything flowed from it there, everything was concentrated there. The entire mental movement of that time only sought to establish the unity of human thought, and every impulse flowed from the imperious need to find a world idea, this inspirer of new times. Strangers to this miraculous principle, we have become victims of conquest. [...]

All the peoples of Europe, moving from century to century, walked hand in hand. Whatever they do, each in their own way, they still constantly converge on the same path. [...] We have been relegated to the number of peoples who are destined to use the influence of Christianity in full force only indirectly and with great delay, then it is necessary to strive by all means to revive our beliefs and give us a truly Christian impulse, for after all, Christianity accomplished everything there.

Chaadaev P. Ya. Works. M., 1989. P. 18-29.

V. S. SOLOVIEV

We know that goodness in its full sense, including the concept of good or satisfaction, is finally defined as a real moral order, expressing the absolutely due and absolutely desirable attitude of everyone to everything and everything to everyone. This is called the Kingdom of God, and from a moral point of view it is absolutely clear that only the implementation of the Kingdom of God is the final goal of all life and activity, as the highest good, benefit and bliss. It is equally clear, with clear and vital thinking about this subject, that the actual moral order, or the Kingdom of God, is a completely general and at the same time completely personal matter, because everyone wants it for himself and for everyone and only together with everyone can receive it . Consequently, one cannot essentially oppose the individual and society; one cannot ask which of these two is the goal and which is only the means. Such a question would presuppose the real existence of an individual personality as a solitary and closed circle, whereas in fact each individual person is only the focus of an infinite number of relationships with another and others, and to separate him from these relationships means to deprive him of all real content of life, to transform personality into the empty possibility of existence. To imagine the personal center of one’s being as truly separated from one’s own and the general sphere of life that connects it with other centers is nothing more than a painful illusion of self-consciousness.

When a line is drawn with chalk in front of a rooster's eyes, he, as is known, takes this line for some kind of fatal barrier, which becomes completely impossible for him to cross. He is obviously unable to understand that the overwhelming, fatal significance of the chalk line for him occurs only because he is exclusively occupied with this unusual and unexpected idea for him and, therefore, is not free regarding it. A delusion that is quite natural for a rooster is less natural for a rationally thinking person. However, he too often does not understand that this limitation of his subjectivity receives its insurmountability and impenetrability solely from the exclusive concentration of his attention on this limitation, that the fatal separation of his “I” from everything else lies only in the fact that he imagines it to be fatal . He, too, is a victim of self-hypnosis, although it has, of course, objective points of support, but they are as conditional and easily removable as a line drawn with chalk. This self-deception, by virtue of which an individual person considers himself real in his own separateness from everything and assumes such an imaginary isolation as the real basis and even the only possible starting point for all his relationships - this self-deception of abstract subjectivism produces devastation not only in the field of metaphysics (which from this point of view, it is even completely abolished), but also in the sphere of moral and political life. How many confusing theories, irreconcilable contradictions and fatal questions arise here because of this! And all this insolubility and fatality would disappear by itself if we, without being frightened by big names, took into account the simple fact that these theories could be created and these fatal questions could arise only from the point of view of a hypnotized rooster.

The human personality, and therefore every individual person, is the possibility for the realization of unlimited reality, or a special form of infinite content. The human mind contains the infinite possibility of ever more true knowledge of the meaning of everything, and his will contains the same infinite possibility of more and more perfect implementation of this universal meaning in a given living environment. The human personality is infinite: this is an axiom of moral philosophy. But then abstract subjectivism draws its chalk line before the eyes of the unwary thinker, and the most fruitful axiom turns into hopeless absurdity. Human personality, as an infinite possibility, is separated from all actual conditions and actual results of its implementation, represented through society, and is not only separated, but also opposed to them. There is an insoluble contradiction between the individual and society and the “fatal question”: which of the two principles should be sacrificed? On the one hand, the hypnotics of individualism, affirming the self-sufficiency of the individual personality, who determines all his relationships from himself, see in social connections and the collective order only an external boundary and arbitrary constraint, which must be abolished at all costs; and on the other hand, there are the hypnotics of collectivism, who, seeing only the social masses in the life of mankind, recognize the individual as an insignificant and transient element of society, which does not have any rights of its own and which can be ignored in the name of the so-called general interest. But what kind of society is this, consisting of powerless and impersonal creatures, of moral zeros? Will it, in any case, be human society? What will his dignity, the inner value of his existence, consist of and where will it come from, and by what force will it hold on? Isn’t it clear that this is a sad chimera, as impracticable as it is undesirable? And isn’t this the same chimera, the opposite ideal of a self-sufficient personality? Take away from the actual human personality everything that is in one way or another determined by its connections with social or collective wholes, and you get an animal individual with only pure possibility, or the empty form of a person, that is, something that does not really exist at all. Those who had to descend to hell or ascend to heaven did not find a solitary individual there either, but saw only social groups and circles.

Sociality is not an incidental condition of personal life, but lies in the very definition of personality, which in essence is a rational-cognitive and morally active force, and both are possible only in the way of social existence. Rational knowledge from the formal side is conditioned by general concepts expressing the unity of meaning in the elusive multiplicity of phenomena; but the real and objective community (general meaning) of concepts is revealed in verbal communication, without which rational activity, delayed and deprived of implementation, naturally atrophies, and then the very ability of understanding disappears or passes into a state of pure possibility. Language - this real mind - could not be created by a solitary person, therefore, a solitary person would not be a verbal being, would not be a person. From the material side, knowledge of truth is based on experience - hereditary, collective and accumulating, while the experience of an individual being, absolutely isolated, even if it could exist, would obviously be completely insufficient for knowledge of truth. As for the moral definition of personality, although the very idea of ​​goodness or moral assessment is not only a consequence social relations, as many people think, however, it is too obvious that the implementation of this idea or the actual development of human morality is possible for a person only in a social environment through interaction with it. And in this main respect, society is nothing more than the objectively realized content of the individual.

Instead of an insoluble contradiction of two principles that exclude each other, two abstract isms, we actually find two correlative terms that logically and historically mutually presuppose and require each other. In its essential meaning, society is not the external limit of personality, but its internal replenishment, and regarding the plurality of individual persons, society is not their arithmetic sum or mechanical aggregate, but an indivisible whole common life, partly already realized in the past and preserved through the ongoing public tradition, partly realized in the present through public services and, finally, anticipating its future perfect implementation in the best consciousness of the social ideal.

These three basic and abiding moments of personal-social life - religious, political and prophetic - correspond in the whole course of historical development to three successively prominent, main concrete stages of human consciousness and life order, namely: 1) generic, belonging to the past, although preserved in a modified form of the family, then 2) the national-state system that dominates the present, and, finally, 3) the worldwide communication of life as the ideal of the future.

At all these levels, society, in its essential content, is the moral fulfillment or fulfillment of the individual in a given circle of life; only the volume of this circle is not the same: at the first stage it is limited for everyone by their own family, on the second - by their fatherland, and only on the third does the human personality, having achieved a clear consciousness of its inner infinity, strive to realize it accordingly in a perfect society with the abolition of all restrictions not only in content, but also in the volume of life interaction.

F. M. DOSTOEVSKY

Here is one reasoning of one suicide out of boredom, of course, a materialist.

“...In fact: what right did this nature have to bring me into the world, as a result of some of its eternal laws? I was created with consciousness and became aware of this nature: what right did it have to produce me without my conscious will? Conscious, therefore, suffering, but I don’t want to suffer - for why would I agree to suffer? Nature, through my consciousness, announces to me some kind of harmony as a whole. Human consciousness has made religions out of this proclamation. She tells me that I, although I fully know that I cannot and never will participate in the “harmony of the whole,” and that I will not understand it at all, what it means, but that I still must obey this proclamation , must reconcile, accept suffering in view of harmony as a whole and agree to live. But if I choose consciously, then, of course, I would rather wish to be happy only at that moment while I exist, and I have absolutely nothing to do with the whole and its harmony after I am destroyed - whether this whole remains with harmony in the world after me or will be destroyed immediately along with me. And why should I be so concerned about preserving it after me - that’s the question?

It would be better if I were created like all animals, that is, living, but not consciously aware of myself; My consciousness is precisely not harmony, but, on the contrary, disharmony, because I am unhappy with it. Look who is happy in the world and what kind of people agree to live? Just those that look like animals and come closer to their type due to the low development of their consciousness. They agree to live willingly, but precisely under the condition of living like animals, that is, eating, drinking, sleeping, building a nest and raising children. Eating, drinking and sleeping, in human terms, means profiting and robbing, and building a nest means primarily robbing. They will perhaps object to me that it is possible to settle down and build a nest on reasonable grounds, on scientifically correct social principles, and not through robbery, as has been the case until now. Let me ask: for what? Why settle down and make so many efforts to settle down in the society of people correctly, reasonably and morally - righteously? Of course, no one can give me an answer to this. All they could answer me was: “to get pleasure.” Yes, if I were a flower or a cow, I would enjoy it. But, asking myself, as now, constantly questions, I cannot be happy, even with the highest and most immediate happiness of love for my neighbor and love for me of humanity, for I know that tomorrow all this will be destroyed: both I and everyone This happiness, and all love, and all humanity - let us turn into nothingness, into the former chaos. And under such a condition, I cannot accept any happiness for anything - not from unwillingness to agree to accept it, not from stubbornness due to some principle, but simply because I will not and cannot be happy under the condition of zero tomorrow. It's a feeling, it's an immediate feeling, and I can't fight it. Well, even if I died, and only humanity remained in my place forever, then, perhaps, I would still be consoled. But our planet is not eternal and humanity’s time is the same moment as mine. And no matter how rationally, joyfully, righteously and holyly humanity has settled on earth, all this will also be equal to the same zero tomorrow. And although for some reason this is necessary there, according to some omnipotent, eternal and dead laws of nature, believe me that in this thought lies some kind of deepest disrespect for humanity, deeply offensive to me, and even more unbearable because here there is no one to blame.

And, finally, if we were to assume this fairy tale about man finally established on earth on reasonable and scientific grounds as possible and to believe it, to believe the future, finally, happiness of people, then the mere thought that nature needed , according to some inert laws of it, to torture a person for a millennium before bringing him to this happiness, the mere thought of this is already unbearably outrageous. Now add to the fact that the same nature that allowed man to finally achieve happiness, for some reason, needs to turn all this to zero tomorrow,

despite all the suffering that humanity has paid for this happiness, and, most importantly, without hiding it at all from me and my consciousness, as she hid it from the cow, then one extremely funny, but unbearably sad thought involuntarily comes to mind: “well, what if a person was put on earth in the form of some kind of blatant test, just to see whether such a creature would get along on earth or not? The sadness of this thought, the main thing is that, again, there is no one to blame, no one did the test, no one to curse, but everything simply happened according to the dead laws of nature, completely incomprehensible to me, with which my consciousness cannot agree. ERGO (Hence.- Comp.):

Since to my questions about happiness, through my own consciousness, I receive from nature only the answer that I can be happy only in the harmony of the whole, which I do not understand and, obviously for me, will never be able to understand;

Since nature not only does not recognize my right to ask her for an account, but does not even answer me at all - and not because she does not want to, but because she cannot answer;

Since I am convinced that nature, in order to answer my questions, has destined me (unconsciously) for me and answers me with my own consciousness (because I tell myself all this);

Since, finally, with this order, I take upon myself at the same time the role of plaintiff and defendant, defendant and judge, and I find this comedy, on the part of nature, completely stupid, and on my part, I consider it even humiliating;

Then, in my undoubted capacity as plaintiff and defendant, judge and defendant, I condemn this nature, which so unceremoniously and brazenly brought me to suffer - along with me to destruction... And since I cannot destroy nature, I destroy myself alone , solely out of boredom, to endure tyranny for which there is no one to blame.”. N.

My article “The Verdict” concerns the basic and highest idea of ​​human existence - the necessity and inevitability of the belief in the immortality of the human soul. The basis of this confession of a person dying “from logical suicide” is the necessity of an immediate, immediate conclusion: that without faith in one’s soul and in its immortality, human existence is unnatural, unthinkable and unbearable.<...>

Without a higher idea, neither a person nor a nation can exist. And there is only one highest idea on earth, and that is the idea of ​​the immortality of the human soul, for all the other “higher” ideas of life by which a person can live flow only from this one.<...>

Suicide, with the loss of the idea of ​​​​immortality, becomes a complete and inevitable necessity for every person who has risen a little in his development above the beasts. On the contrary, immortality, promising eternal life, binds man even more tightly to the earth. There would even seem to be a contradiction here: if there is so much life, that is, besides earthly life there is immortality, then why should earthly life be so valued? But it turns out exactly the opposite, for only with faith in his immortality does a person comprehend his entire rational goal on earth. Without conviction of his immortality, a person’s connections with the earth are severed, become thinner, more rotten, and the loss of the highest meaning of life (felt even only in the form of the most unconscious melancholy) undoubtedly leads to suicide. From here back and my moralizing<...>article: “If the belief in immortality is so necessary for human existence, then, therefore, it is the normal state of humanity, and if so, then the very immortality of the human soul undoubtedly exists.”

Dostoevsky F. M. Complete works. - M., 1895. - T. 10. - Part 1: A writer’s diary for 1876 - pp. 349-352, 422-426.

L. N. TOLSTOY

CONFESSION

Five years ago, something very strange began to happen to me: moments of bewilderment and a halt in life began to come over me, as if I did not know how to live, what to do, and I became lost and fell into despondency. But it passed, and I continued to live as before. Then these moments of bewilderment began to repeat more and more often and all in the same form. These stops in life were always expressed by the same questions: Why? Well, what then?<...>

This state of mind was expressed for me like this: my life is some kind of stupid game played on me by someone and cruel joke. Despite the fact that I did not recognize any “someone” who would have created me, this form of representation, that someone was playing an evil and stupid joke on me by bringing me into the world, was the most natural form of representation to me.<...>

But whether or not there is this someone who laughs at me, this does not make me any easier. I could not attach any rational meaning to any action or to my entire life. I was only surprised at how I could not understand this at the very beginning. All this has been known to everyone for so long. Not now or tomorrow, illness, death (and have already come) will come to my loved ones, to me, and there will be nothing left but stench and worms. My affairs, whatever they may be, will all be forgotten - sooner, later, and I won’t be there either. So why bother? How can a person not see this and live - that’s what’s amazing! You can only live while you are drunk with life; and once you sober up, you can’t help but see that all this is just a deception, and a stupid deception! That's right, that nothing is even funny or witty, but simply cruel and stupid.

An eastern fable has long been told about a traveler caught in the steppe by an angry beast. Fleeing from the beast, the traveler jumps into a waterless well, but at the bottom of the well he sees a Dragon, opening its mouth to devour him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to get out, so as not to die from the enraged beast, not daring to jump to the bottom of the well, so as not to be devoured by the Dragon, grabs the branches of a wild bush growing in the crevices of the well and hangs on to it. His hands weaken, and he feels that he will soon have to surrender to the destruction that awaits him on both sides; but he still holds on, and while he holds on, he looks around and sees that two mice, one black, the other white, evenly walking around the trunk of the bush on which he is hanging, are undermining it. The bush is about to break off and break off on its own, and it will fall into the dragon’s mouth. The traveler sees this and knows that he will inevitably die; but while he is hanging, he searches around him and finds drops of honey on the leaves of the bush, takes them out with his tongue and licks them. So I hold on to the branches of life, knowing that the dragon of death is inevitably waiting, ready to tear me to pieces, and I cannot understand why I fell into this torment. And I try to suck that honey that used to comfort me; but this honey no longer pleases me, and the white and black mice - day and night - undermine the branch that I hold on to. I see the dragon clearly, and the honey is no longer sweet to me. I see one thing - the inevitable dragon and mice - and I cannot turn my gaze away from them. And this is not a fable, but this is the true, undeniable and understandable truth to everyone.

The former deception of the joys of life, which drowned out the horror of the dragon, no longer deceives me. No matter how much you tell me: you can’t understand the meaning of life, don’t think, live - I can’t do this, because I’ve been doing this for too long before. Now I cannot help but see day and night running and leading me to death. I see this one thing because this one thing is the truth. The rest is all lies.<-..>

My question<...>was the simplest question that lies in the soul of every person, from a stupid child to the wisest old man - that question without which life is impossible, as I experienced in practice. The question is: “What will come of what I do today, what will I do tomorrow, what will come of my whole life?”

Expressed differently, the question would be: “Why should I live, why should I desire anything, why should I do anything?” Another way to express the question is: “Is there such a meaning in my life that would not be destroyed by the inevitable death that awaits me?”<...>

Now I see that if I did not kill myself, then the reason for this was a vague awareness of the injustice of my thoughts. No matter how convincing and undoubted the course of my thoughts and the thoughts of the wise, which led us to the recognition of the meaninglessness of life, seemed to me, a vague doubt remained in me about the truth of the starting point of my reasoning.<...>

Reasoning about the vanity of life is not so tricky, and all the simplest people have been doing it for a long time, but they lived and live. Well, they all live and never even think of doubting the rationality of life?<...>

Then I only felt that, no matter how logically inevitable my conclusions about the futility of life were, confirmed by the greatest thinkers, there was something wrong with them. Whether in the reasoning itself, or in the formulation of the question, I did not know; I only felt that the rational persuasiveness was perfect, but that it was not enough.<...>

I felt that if I want to live and understand the meaning of life, then I need to look for this meaning of life not from those who have lost the meaning of life and want to kill themselves, but from those billions of obsolete and living people who make life and bear their own and our lives. And I looked back at the huge masses of ordinary, non-scientific and non-rich people who had become obsolete and living, and I saw something completely different. I saw that all these billions of people who have lived and are living, all of them, with rare exceptions, do not fit my division, that I cannot admit that they do not understand the question, because they themselves pose it and answer it with extraordinary clarity. I also cannot recognize them as Epicureans, because their life consists more of hardships and sufferings than pleasures; I can even less recognize them as unreasonably living a meaningless life, since every act of their life and death itself are explained by them. They consider killing themselves the greatest evil. It turned out that all humanity has some kind of knowledge of the meaning of life, which was not recognized and despised by me. It turned out that rational knowledge does not give meaning to life, it excludes life; The meaning given to life by billions of people, by all of humanity, is based on some kind of despicable, false knowledge.

Rational knowledge in the person of scientists and wise people denies the meaning of life, but huge masses of people, all of humanity, recognize this meaning in irrational knowledge.

A contradiction emerged from which there were only two ways out: either what I called reasonable was not as reasonable as I thought; or what seemed unreasonable to me was not as unreasonable as I thought. And I began to check the reasoning of my rational knowledge.

Checking the reasoning of rational knowledge, I found it completely correct. The conclusion that life is nothing was inevitable; but I saw a mistake. The mistake was that I thought inappropriately to the question I posed.<...>I asked: what is the timeless, extra-causal, extra-spatial meaning of my life? And I answered the question: what is the temporal, causal and spatial significance of my life? What happened was that after a lot of thought, I answered: none.<...>

Having understood this, I realized that it was impossible to look for an answer to my question in rational knowledge and that the answer given by rational knowledge is only an indication that the answer can only be obtained by posing the question differently, only when the Reasoning the question of the relationship between the finite and the infinite is introduced. I also realized that<...>answers given by faith<...>have the advantage that they introduce into every answer the relation of the finite to the infinite, without which there can be no answer. No matter how I pose the question: how should I live? - answer: according to God's law. What will truly come out of my life? - Eternal torment or eternal bliss. What meaning is not destroyed by death? - Union with the infinite God, heaven.<...>

Where there is life, there is faith, since humanity has existed, it has made it possible to live, and the main features of faith are the same everywhere and always.<...>Every response of faith to the finite existence of man gives the meaning of the infinite, a meaning that is not destroyed by suffering, deprivation and death.<...>Faith is knowledge of the meaning of human life, as a result of which a person does not destroy himself, but lives. Faith is the power of life. If a person lives, then he believes in something. If he did not believe that one must live for something, then he would not live. If he does not see and does not understand the illusory nature of the finite, he believes in this finite; if he understands the illusory nature of the finite, he must believe in the infinite. You cannot live without faith.<...>

During all this time, next to those trains of thoughts and observations that I spoke about, my heart languished with a painful feeling. I cannot call this feeling anything other than a search for God.

I say that this search for God was not reasoning, but a feeling, because this search did not flow from my train of thought - it was even directly opposite to them - but it flowed from the heart. It was a feeling of fear, loneliness, loneliness among everything alien and hope for someone's help.<...>

I looked back at myself, at what was happening within me; and I remembered all these hundreds of times dying and reviving that happened in me. I remembered that I only lived when I believed in God. As it was before, so it is now, I said to myself: I only need to know about God, and I live; I just forget, don’t believe in Him, and I die. What are these quickenings and dyings? After all, I don’t live when I lose faith in the existence of God, because I would have killed myself long ago if I didn’t have a vague hope of finding Him. After all, I live, truly live, only when I feel Him and seek Him. So what else am I looking for? - a voice cried out in me. - So here He is. He is something you cannot live without. Knowing God and living are the same thing. God is life.<...>

Every person came into this world according to the will of God. And God created man in such a way that every man can destroy his soul or save it. A person's task in life is to save his soul; to save your soul, you need to live like God, and to live like God, you need to renounce all the pleasures of life, work, humble yourself, endure and be merciful.<.-..>

L. N. Tolstoy. Collection Op. In 22 vols. M., 1983. T. 16. P. 106 - 108.

V. VERNADSKY

Peculiar, one of a kind, different and unrepeatable in others celestial bodies The face of the Earth appears to us - its image in space, emerging from the outside, from the side, from the distance of endless celestial spaces.

The face of the Earth reveals the surface of our planet, its biosphere, its outer region, delimiting it from the cosmic environment...

Cosmic radiation eternally and continuously pours a powerful stream of forces onto the face of the Earth, giving a completely special, new character to the parts of the planet bordering on outer space.

Thanks to cosmic radiation, the biosphere receives in its entire structure new, unusual and unknown properties for terrestrial matter, and the face of the Earth, reflecting it in the cosmic environment, reveals in this environment a new picture of the earth's surface, changed by cosmic forces.

Thanks to them, the substance of the biosphere is imbued with energy; it becomes active; collects and distributes in the biosphere the energy received in the form of radiation, ultimately converting it into energy in the earth's environment, free, capable of producing work...

Thanks to this, the history of the biosphere is sharply different from the history of other parts of the planet, and its importance in the planetary mechanism is absolutely exceptional. It is as much, if not more, a creation of the Sun as it is a revelation of the processes of the Earth<...>.

Essentially, the biosphere can be considered as a region of the earth's crust occupied by transformers that convert cosmic radiation into actual earthly energy - electrical, chemical, mechanical, thermal, etc.<...>.

The biosphere is the only area of ​​the earth's crust occupied by life. Only in it, in the thin outer layer of our planet, is life concentrated; it contains all organisms, always separated by a sharp, impassable line from the inert matter surrounding them. A living organism is never born in it. He, dying, living and collapsing, gives her his atoms and continuously takes them from her,

but, embraced by life, living matter always has its origin in living...

On the earth's surface there is no chemical force more constantly active, and therefore more powerful in its final consequences, than living organisms taken as a whole - And the more we study the chemical phenomena of the biosphere, the more we are convinced that there are no cases on it where they would be independent of life. And so it went on throughout geological history...

Thus, life is a great, constant and continuous disruptor of the chemical inertia of the surface of our planet. It actually determines not only the picture of the nature around us, created by paints, forms, communities of plant and animal organisms, the labor and creativity of cultural humanity, but its influence goes deeper, penetrating [into] the more grandiose chemical processes of the earth’s crust.

There is not a single major chemical equilibrium in the earth's crust in which the influence of life, which leaves an indelible mark on the entire chemistry of the earth's crust, would not manifest itself in a fundamental way.

Life is therefore not an external random phenomenon on the earth's surface. It is closely connected with the structure of the earth's crust, is included in its mechanism and in this mechanism performs functions of the greatest importance, without which it could not exist<...>.

In the biosphere there is a great geological, perhaps cosmic, force, the planetary action of which is usually not taken into account in ideas about the cosmos, in scientific or scientific ideas. scientific basis.

ON THE. BERDYAEV

the nature of creativity.

The Gospel constantly speaks of the fruit that the seed should bear when it falls on good soil, of the talents given to man, which must be returned with growth. It is Christ who secretly, in parables, speaks about human creativity, about his creative calling. Burying gifts in the ground, that is, lack of creativity, is condemned by Christ. The entire teaching of the Apostle Paul about the various gifts of man is a teaching about the creative calling of man. Gifts are given by God and they point to a creative calling...

The mystery of creativity is revealed in the biblical-Christian myth about the creation of the world by God. God created the world out of nothing, that is, freely and from freedom. The world was not an emanation of God, a birth or an evolution, but a creation, that is, an absolute newness, a non-existence. Creativity in the world is only possible because the world was created, because there is a Creator...

Something must come from a person, and this is what is creativity par excellence, the creativity of the new and what has never happened. This something is not something, but nothing is freedom, without which there is no creative act. Freedom, not determined by anything, gives an answer to God’s call to creative activity, but it gives this answer in conjunction with the gift, with the genius received from God during creation, and with the materials found in the created world. The creativity of man out of nothing must be understood in the sense of the creativity of man out of freedom. In every creative plan there is an element of primary human freedom, not determined by anything, bottomless, freedom, not coming from God, but going to God. The call of God is addressed to this abyss and awaits an answer from the abyss...

The creative act is also the interaction of grace and freedom, coming from God to man and from man to God. And the creative act can be described either primarily in terms of freedom, or primarily in terms of grace, grace-filled obsession and inspiration...

Berdyaev N. On the appointment of a person. - Paris, 1931.- pp. 135-141.

About a human

We have to constantly repeat that man is a contradictory creature and is in conflict with himself. Man seeks freedom, he has a huge impulse for freedom, and he not only easily falls into slavery, but he also loves slavery... Economic slavery of man undoubtedly means the alienation of human nature and the transformation of man into a thing. Marx is right about this. But for the liberation of man, his spiritual nature must be returned to him, he must recognize himself as a free and spiritual being, material and economic, while his spiritual

nature is recognized as an illusion of consciousness, a deceptive ideology, then man remains a slave and a slave by nature. A person in an objectified world can only be relatively, and not absolutely free, and his freedom presupposes struggle and resistance to necessity, which he must overcome. But freedom presupposes a spiritual principle in man that resists enslaving necessity. Freedom that is the result of necessity will not be true freedom.

One must choose between two philosophies - a philosophy that recognizes the primacy of being over freedom, and a philosophy that recognizes the primacy of freedom over being. This choice cannot be determined by thinking alone, it is determined by the holistic spirit, that is, will. Personalism must recognize the primacy of freedom over being. The philosophy of the primacy of being is the philosophy of impersonality. An ontology system that recognizes the absolute primacy of being is a system of determinism. Any objectified intellectualistic system is a system of determinism. It derives freedom from being, freedom turns out to be determined by being, that is, in the end, freedom is a product of necessity. Being turns out to be an ideal necessity; breakthroughs are impossible in it; being is continuous, absolute unity. But freedom cannot be derived from existence. Freedom is rooted in nothingness, in bottomlessness, in non-existence, to use ontological terminology. Freedom is baseless, not defined, not generated by existence. There is no continuous continuous existence. There are breakthroughs, gaps, abysses, paradoxes, and transcendences. Therefore, only freedom exists, personality exists. The primacy of freedom over being is also the primacy of spirit over being.

The abstract idea of ​​being, as a kingdom of unchanging order, an abstraction of the general, is always the enslavement of the free creative spirit of man. The spirit is not subordinate to the order of being, it invades it, interrupts it and can change it. Personal existence is connected with this freedom of spirit. It requires recognition of being as something secondary. The source of slavery is being as an object, being exteriorized, whether in a rational form or in a vital form. Being, as a subject, is completely different, which means it should be called differently. Being, as a subject, is personal existence, freedom, spirit. An acute experience of the problem of theodicy [theodicy (lit. - justification of God) is a religious and philosophical doctrine, the purpose of which is to prove that the existence of evil in the world does not cancel the idea of ​​​​God as absolute good.], as we see, for example, in Dostoevsky in his dialectic about the tear of a child and the return of the ticket to enter world harmony, there is a rebellion against the idea of ​​being as a kingdom of the universally general, as a world harmony that suppresses personal existence. It was different with Kierkegaard [Søren Kierkegaard -Danish philosopher (1813 -1855)]. There is an eternal truth in this uprising, the truth that an individual person and his destiny are of greater value than the world order, than the harmony of the whole, than abstract existence. And this is the Christian truth. Christianity is not at all an ontology in the Greek sense of the word. Christianity is personalism. The personality rebels against the world order, against being as a common kingdom, and in the revolt it unites with God as a person, and not at all with the all-unique, not with abstract being. God is on the side of the individual, not the world order and unity. The so-called ontological proof of the existence of God is only a game of abstract thought. The idea of ​​unity, world harmony is not a Christian idea at all. Christianity has a dramatic, anti-monistic attitude towards individuals. God did not create any world order, and in His creativity He is not bound by any existence. God creates only beings, creates personality, and creates them as tasks carried out by freedom.

Berdyaev N. About slavery and human freedom. The experience of personalist philosophy. - Paris, 1939. - P. 51, 66-69.

TEST TASKS

One Russian philosopher of the 20th century. rightly noted “that the main thing in life is love and that it is love that builds life together on earth, for from love will be born faith and the entire culture of the spirit.” Name this philosopher

a) Berdyaev

c) Lossky

002. Which of the Russian philosophers of the 20th century could say that “freedom is more primary than being”?

a) Pisarev

b) Florensky

c) Lossky

d) Berdyaev

f) Bakunin

003. Which of the Russian philosophers of the 19th century. life as the author of the theory of “Russian”, peasant socialism?

a) Herzen

b) Dostoevsky

c) Plekhanov

d) Chernyshevsky

004. Which of the Slavophiles called conciliarity or communalism

“combining personal independence with the integrity of the general order”?

a) K.S. Aksakov

b) I.V.Kireevsky

c) Yu.F. Samarin

d) A.S. Khomyakov

005. Which of the following philosophical works of Russian philosophers belongs to Vl. Solovyov?

a) "Philosophy of the general spirit"

b) "The meaning of love"

c) "Philosophy of Freedom"

d) "Dialectics of myth"

006. Point out the main idea of ​​theocratic utopia

from the Christian philosopher Vl. Solovyova

a) combining the power of the Pope with the power of the Russian Tsar

b) the primacy of the Catholic Church is protected

c) increasing the role of the Russian Orthodox Church

d) criticism of the religious ideology of Christianity

007. In the works of which Russian religious philosopher was the famous phrase first heard: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted”?

a) F. M. Dostoevsky

b) Vl. Solovyova

c) L.N. Tolstoy

d) P.A. Florensky

008. To which famous Russian philosopher did the words belong: “A lover is always a genius, since he reveals in the object of his love that which is hidden from anyone who does not love”?

a) N.A. Berdyaev

b) V.I.Vernadsky

c) A.F. Losev

d) N.O. Lossky

Which famous Russian philosopher is considered the founder of the philosophy of “All-Unity”?

a) Berdyaev

c) Lomonosov

d) Soloviev

010. I.M. Sechenov, the founder of the physiological school in Russia, a materialist philosopher, substantiated the position that...

a) the weight of acts of conscious and unconscious mental life

are reflexes.

b) muscle sense signals serve as sources of information

and provide reliable knowledge about the outside world

c) the roots of thought lie in sensations that precede thinking

d) in principle, all these thoughts belong to I.M. Sechenov

011. Where, in what country was the philosophical idea of ​​“all-unity” conceptually developed?

a) and England

b) in Germany

c) in Russia

d) in Japan

a) Soloviev

c) Florensky

d) Fedorov

d) Berdyaev

e) Lossky

g) Vernadsky

LITERATURE:

1.Introduction to philosophy. In 2 parts. Part 1. - M., 1989.

Philosophy (edited by V. N. Lavrinenko). - M., 2002.

Lossky N. O. History of Russian philosophy. - M., 1991.

Zamaleev A.F. Course on the history of Russian philosophy. - M., 1996.

Introduction to Russian philosophy. - M., 1995.

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy. (any edition).

Chikin S. Ya. Physicians-philosophers. - M., 1990 (scientific library).

Philosophers of Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries. - M., 1995.

Russian cosmism. Anthology of philosophical thought. - M., 1993.

Evlampiev I. I. History of Russian philosophy. - M., 2002.

Soloviev V. S. Works. In 2 volumes. - M., 1988.

Berdyaev N. A. Self-knowledge. - M., 1991. I knowledge of Kant. - M., 1991.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Khimki - 2012 ᴦ.

Time - 2 hours

Lecture

in the discipline "Philosophy"

TOPIC No. 5/1. “FORMATION AND MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT”

Discussed at PMK meeting No. 1 “___” September 2012 ᴦ. Protocol No. 1.

For full-time and part-time study

I. Training and educational goals:

1. Understand the content of the basic stages of the formation, formation and development of Russian philosophy.

2. Determine the content and specifics of domestic philosophizing.

3. Determine the range of basic problems in Russian philosophy and their ideological solution.

4. Instilling personal responsibility in students for high academic results at the academy.

II. Educational and material support:

2. Literature exhibition

III. Calculation of study time:

IV. Organizational and methodological instructions:

When studying a topic, it is extremely important to reveal the content of Russian philosophical thought, its origin, stages of formation and development, as well as the range of basic problems and their ideological solution in the conditions of Russian society.

“FORMATION AND MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT”

Domestic (Russian - as a synonym) philosophy is part of the philosophical culture of mankind. It is closely connected with world philosophy, but at the same time it has significant originality. Russian philosophy has a centuries-old history, the development of which did not follow a straight, continuous line. Its significant milestones are associated with the stages of development of Russian statehood; in this regard, it is quite natural to talk about the Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg periods of the development of Russian philosophical thought. In terms of content, Russian philosophy is distinguished by a wide variety of movements and schools that have different, sometimes opposite, directions. In this regard, we can distinguish religious and atheistic, materialistic and idealistic, conservative and liberal-radicalist, mystical and rational-logical, intuitive and positivist directions of Russian philosophical thought. This chapter examines periodization and features, as well as the most significant trends in structural, logical and content terms that determine the specificity and originality of Russian philosophy.

Considering the history of the development of Russian philosophical thought, we can identify several reasons for its periodization. The chronology of world history can serve as such a basis. In this regard, we can talk about Old Russian philosophy, Russian philosophy of the Middle Ages, Modern times, etc. At the same time, there is an approach to the periodization of Russian philosophy taking into account not only temporal, but also spatial, natural and geographical factors (for example, philosophical thought North-Western Rus' XIV century). In some cases, Russian philosophy is considered in accordance with the development of national culture, highlighting, for example, the philosophy of the Silver Age. The Marxist tradition connects the stages of philosophy with the socio-economic formations within which it develops. Other bases for the periodization of Russian philosophy are also used. At the same time, it is more expedient to build its periodization in accordance with the stages of development of Russian statehood, noting, in cases of extreme importance, going beyond their limits. Taking into account these circumstances, we should focus on the common and most acceptable option, when the periodization of Russian philosophy includes the following stages:

– the prehistory of philosophy, including aspects of the mythopoetic and pagan-sacral complex of oral philosophizing of the ancient Russians until the 5th – 7th centuries;

– the formation of Russian philosophy within the framework of Kievan, Novgorod Rus and other principalities in the 8th – early 12th centuries;

– philosophy of the period of feudal fragmentation of the medieval Rus' XII– XIV centuries;

– philosophical thought of the Moscow period of Russian statehood in the second half of the 14th – 17th centuries;

– Russian philosophy of the St. Petersburg period of the 18th century;

– philosophical thought of the “Russian Renaissance” of the 19th – early 20th centuries;

– Soviet period of Russian philosophy (1917 – mid-80s of the XX century);

– the current stage of development of Russian philosophy.

A special period in the development of Russian philosophy is the philosophy of the Russian diaspora of the “first wave” from the early 1920s to the 1970s. The peculiarities of Russian philosophy emphasize its originality. When considering the characteristic features of Russian philosophy, it is extremely important to constantly take into account those general development trends that are characteristic of world philosophy. Manifesting itself under the influence of specific conditions, the general is capable of influencing the formation of the specific, determining the domestic historical and philosophical process. At the same time, various directions and schools of Russian philosophical thought, interacting with each other and possessing distinctive features, however, they have a number of common features. Let's list some of them.

First of all - ϶ᴛᴏ ontology of Russian thought, formed on the basis of ancient and Byzantine-Orthodox traditions. In contrast to the commitment of Western philosophy to a rational basis associated with the properties and characteristics of the human mind, Russian philosophical thought, thirsting for communication with the Absolute, according to A.F. Losev, considers the metaphysical divine Logos to be the basis of everything. This allowed Russian thinkers at all times to uniquely answer the most profound, general existential questions.

The next feature of Russian philosophy is its dislike of abstract thinking, concrete practical nature and the fight against the abstractness of “abstract principles”. In this sense, P.A. Florensky, considering the opposition between Russian and German classical philosophy, spoke about the vagueness of the latter. At the same time, he pointed out its fundamental inability to answer specific philosophical questions, characterizing the German classics as masters of avoiding specific answers, comparing their philosophy with a continuous howl in which there is not a single pure tone.

Artistic imagery how a feature of Russian philosophy manifests itself, starting with the specific multidimensional interpretation of the concept of Sophia - Wisdom. This central philosophical theme, running through the thousand-year history of Russian thought, has several artistic and semantic shades. Sophia is both the personification of philosophical wisdom, and a figurative temple, embodying the harmony and well-being of existence, and an iconographic plot of the interpretation of the “highest idea”, and a set of the deepest thoughts of philosophical theoretical sources, and a symbolically hidden interpretation of the path to achieving the highest wisdom.

Russian philosophy pays close attention to religious issues, which determines religious-Christian character a significant part of the creativity of domestic thinkers. While fulfilling one of the tasks entrusted to it to develop a comprehensive Christian worldview, domestic philosophical thought did not stand on a par with Western European thought. scholasticism. Based on the key tendency of striving to comprehend truth through the divine Logos, Russian philosophy avoided the fate of becoming a “handmaiden of theology”, operating primarily with categories of a rational, formal-logical nature.

Domestic thought systems are distinguished by independence, integrity And uncompromisingness, as well as consistent opposition to the philosophical schools of opponents, “frontal criticism” of their views. Moreover, this position is not an indicator of “general intolerance” or “indispensable denunciation” of an ideological opponent. It contains the desire to express and defend one’s position, to comprehend the truth, and not the desire to be similar and pleasing to the recognized authorities of “world philosophy.”

An important feature of Russian philosophy is its ethical-soteriological orientation. The moral starting point is highlighted in almost all Russian philosophical teachings. Having already formulated this direction in his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev wrote: “Christians are not confirmed by truth and grace, but are saved...”. The position about the indispensable morality of philosophy, its “spiritual wisdom” was developed in the works of Moscow Metropolitan Daniel. And Maxim the Greek noted in this regard that Christian philosophy “... is needed for the salvation of the soul.” These provisions of the founders of Russian philosophy were developed by their followers and determined one of the features of Russian philosophical thought.

Domestic philosophical thought is different historiosophical. History Wisdom Theme and the comprehension of its meaning runs through all Russian philosophy. Moreover, this feature of it is inextricably linked with eschatology - ideas about the end of times and the end of world history. This feature correlates with the very structure of Russian thinking, which did not stay in the “middle zones” of mastering existence and rushed to the “final limit”.

Social character Russian philosophy was expressed in the search for the optimal balance between the importance of the personal and social-collective principles in the social sphere. In Russian consciousness and Russian philosophy, consideration of basic problems occurs through the prism of sociality. Almost all Russian thinkers in their philosophical constructions created “projects” for the reconstruction of society, “models” of its future development. Moreover, according to A.F. Losev, it is sociality that is not only the “destiny” of Russian philosophers, but also “the deepest foundation of all reality, the deepest and most intimate need of each individual, this is what absolutely everything must be sacrificed for.”

The next feature of Russian philosophical thought is systematic worldview, cognition, as well as ways of expressing what is known. Formulating their philosophical views, Russian thinkers sought to reproduce the ideological achievements of Russian and universal culture within the framework of the system, which led to a comprehensive unification of ontology and epistemology with the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of being and knowledge. At the same time, anthropologism, closely related to personal personalism, forms the basis of the system-forming principle of Russian philosophy. This is the reality in connection with which almost all problems in Russian philosophy are considered. It should be emphasized that Russian philosophy is not simply based on the individual person, the bearer of biological, psychological, and social qualities. The value of a person as the main category of Russian philosophical thought lies primarily in his personal qualities.

Moreover, a number of Russian philosophical movements (for example, Slavophilism and Eurasianism) endow the sociocultural sphere and its individual elements with personal qualities: family, community, social groups, classes, people, state, as well as Russian culture. Examples in this regard are the introduced categories of “conciliar” and “symphonic” personality. The totality of such individuals, forming a special socio-cultural environment, contributes to the formation of individual personal qualities, as well as his involvement in harmonious social life.

An important feature that determines the specificity of Russian philosophical thought is recognition of the significance of the problems of Russian statehood, its spiritual nature, as well as the moral character of political power. This feature is also associated with the Byzantine tradition and runs like a red thread through the entire history of Russian philosophy. In this sense, the philosophical creativity of domestic thinkers develops through the doctrine of the “godly ruler” of Theodosius of Pechersk, the Josephite idea of ​​a strong Orthodox state, the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” of the monk Philotheus, and subsequent philosophical teachings of a political and state orientation.

Domestic thought is associated with ideocratic character of Russian philosophical systems, commitment to researching problems related to the “Russian idea”, Russian mentality, Russian character, Russian patriotism. This feature is reflected in the philosophical heritage of various authors and passes through the depths of centuries from the birth of Russian philosophy to the present.

The listed characteristics do not exhaust the entirety of the Russian philosophical tradition, but they determine its specificity and the most important features that determine the appearance of Russian philosophy.

There is a very great difficulty in defining the national type, the national individuality. It is impossible to give a strictly scientific definition here. The secret of any individuality is recognized only by love, and there is always something incomprehensible to the end, to the last depth.

N. Berdyaev

The history of philosophy, despite its universal character, tells us about the dialogues of different philosophical schools, different cultures, and about the influence of the characteristics of a particular country or people on philosophical thought. Thinkers from different countries posed similar questions: about the meaning and purpose of human life, about the principles of existence, about what is good and evil, but the answers to them were different and depended not only on the personality of the philosopher himself, but also on that cultural, national environment in which he worked. It is very difficult to confuse the work of an ancient Greek thinker with an ancient Chinese treatise or to mistake the text of a French author for the work of a German philosopher. Any philosophical system is nationally colored: each national philosophical tradition has its own “voice”, which is manifested in characteristic features problems and means of solving philosophical issues, in the specifics of connection with other cultural phenomena, etc.

Multinational character

Philosophical thought on the vast territory of Russia, of course, cannot be reduced to just one tradition, to one “line of development.” This is an extremely complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It includes the works of outstanding thinkers who cannot be attributed to one philosophical tradition. A variety of cultural influences are intertwined in their work. Outstanding Russian thinker Pitirim Sorokin(1889-1968) rightly noted that “since the emergence of the Russian nation, its unity... has always been based on racial and ethnic diversity... The Eastern Slavs were a mixture of various Indo-European and Aryan racial lines with a noticeable addition of Ural-Altai branches Mongolian, Turkic and Finnish peoples. Since then... the diversity of Russian peoples has increased even more.” This greatly contributed to the progress and growth of Russian culture.

Late start

Russian philosophy as a special sphere of the spiritual life of society developed relatively late. According to an outstanding Russian thinker Gustav Gustavovich Shpet(1879-1937), the history of our philosophy “began with Peter, but proceeded in the darkness of public philosophical consciousness. Only towards the end of the second century after Peter did it begin to get light, individual and lonely peaks began to glow with a golden light, minds began to wake up and scattered to work. This is the history of Russian philosophy...” Perhaps Shpet is too categorical, denying Russian culture before the 18th century. in a philosophical status.

Philosophical ideas were organically included in ancient chronicles and literary works; Russian painting (especially icon painting) was surprisingly philosophical. But only by the 18th century. philosophy in Russia develops as an independent form of spiritual exploration of the world. At this time, Western European philosophy already had a rich past, which included great antiquity, refined medieval scholasticism, Renaissance humanism, and educational ideas. Russia, creating its own original philosophical tradition, could not avoid apprenticeship. Many ideas and themes in Russian philosophy were borrowed, for example, the Russian Enlightenment was clearly influenced by the French, socialist theories in Russia, as a rule, had Western roots, etc. But Russian philosophy as a whole did not remain studentish, it was able to create a precious a fusion of free and original creativity and traditions of world philosophical thought. What is characteristic specifically of Russian philosophy? Does it have its own themes, distinctive features?

Social orientation

Apparently most important feature philosophical thought in Russia is the close attention of philosophers to social issues. Almost all Russian thinkers in their philosophical constructs gave “recipes” for remaking society and built some kind of model for the future development of the country. This feature was largely associated with the specifics of the historical path of Russia, which did not fit completely into either the Western or the Eastern scheme of changing formations. Russia has always been a problem for itself. Moreover, the question was raised not only about real Russia and its place in the world, but also - with much more passion - about what kind of Russia must be. The country clearly lagged behind Western Europe in the development of civilization, life, and law. All this could not but raise questions for the Russian intelligentsia about what path Russia should take in its development, what social transformations are necessary to remake the “vile Russian reality” (in the words of V. G. Belinsky), what future Russia should strive for . There is no history that cares so much about tomorrow as Russian history, G. G. Shpet aptly noted. Therefore Russian philosophy utopian, looking to the future, she is looking for Russia’s place in this universal future. In this regard

N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “Russians, in their creative impulse, are looking for a perfect life... Russian emotional revolutionism was determined... by intolerance of reality, its untruth and ugliness.”

Projects for social transformation were given in a variety of ways: from passionate calls for a popular revolution and socialist reorganization of society to religious utopias of universal brotherhood and Christian love, striking in their moral purity and beauty. But, despite the dissimilarity of the “diagnoses” of social diseases in Russia and the even more obvious discrepancy in the “recipes” for their treatment, almost all Russian thinkers did not ignore the problems associated with the present and future of Russia, almost all tried to give their own guidelines for its development. Therefore, Russian philosophy is philosophy addressed to questions about the meaning of history and Russia’s place in it, This is a socially active philosophy, associated not only with the knowledge and description of the world, but also with changing it.

Popular worship

Another one distinguishing feature national philosophical tradition, closely connected with the first, was called by N. A. Berdyaev "popular worship". What does this mean? The Russian intelligentsia has always had a painful sense of “duty to the people”: the populist, scientist and philosopher P. L. Lavrov figuratively compared the intelligentsia with a flower that grew out of the mud: for them to receive an education and the opportunity to engage in creative intellectual work, the common people had to pay a terrible price - with its darkness, ignorance, downtroddenness. This means, Lavrov draws a conclusion typical of a Russian intellectual, “we owe the people and are obliged to repay this debt,” by doing everything possible to promote enlightenment and change their way of life. The Russian intelligentsia, N.A. Berdyaev also wrote, “opposed itself to the people, felt its “guilt” before the people and wanted to serve the people. The topic of “intelligentsia and people” is a purely Russian topic, little understood by the West.” Such sentiments, widespread in Russian society, led to “people-worship.” Any idea, thought, system had to be “tested for strength”, assessed from the point of view of contributing to the liberation of the people.

Of course, this approach to the assessment of philosophical systems speaks of the humanistic tradition of Russian philosophy, its democracy and moral pathos. But any medal has two sides. The downside of this “worship of the people” was the underestimation by the Russian intelligentsia of many great philosophical systems and ideas due to their “neutrality” in relation to the struggle to solve social problems. As a result of evaluating philosophy not from the point of view of its epistemological value (whether it is true or not), but from the position (even humane and progressive!) of “usefulness” to a particular stage of the liberation movement, the Russian intelligentsia was often captivated by mediocre and unoriginal philosophers only because because their ideas could be interpreted in the spirit of social change. Conversely, original and interesting philosophical systems were discarded and rejected only because such an interpretation seemed impossible. The already mentioned N.A. Berdyaev in this connection noted with bitterness (somewhat exaggerating) that the Russian intelligentsia I never understood philosophy, since she approached it purely utilitarianly, not as free creativity, which has relative independence and internal logic of development, but as a theory that has only applied significance for the cause of social transformation of Russia.

The place of ethics in philosophical concepts

This state of affairs is closely connected with another feature of Russian philosophical thought - its ethical orientation. German Marxist Rosa Luxemburg called Russian literature "educational and painful." We think this characteristic can also be attributed to philosophy. Russian philosophy is “educational” and painful at the same time; it is characterized by a moral starting point in all theories and constructions. For Russian thinkers philosophical creativity takes on the character of moral preaching. A striking example here can be the works of L. N. Tolstoy, who not only built his philosophy, trying to give a theoretical justification for moral norms, but also made the plot of his artistic works dependent on educational function art. If Anna Karenina cheated on her husband, then, from Tolstoy’s point of view, she simply could not live her life happily. Of course, this interpretation of Tolstoy’s works is a gross simplification. But analyze the fates of the heroes of his novels - you will understand that there is a moment of truth in this simplification. It is obvious that for Russian thinkers, even if they did not write special works on ethics (which, by the way, was rare), morality was the starting point. If Western European philosophy is characterized by an attitude towards ethics as a kind of “superstructure” over ontology, epistemology, philosophy of history, as a conclusion from these areas of philosophical knowledge, then Russian thinkers put ethics at the very foundation of systems, they see in it the foundation of their philosophizing. This idea can be explained by a typical example of the solution of epistemological problems by N.A. Berdyaev, L.I. Shestov and many others: they made his ability to understand the world directly dependent on the moral qualities of a person: the world is revealed only to a morally integral, spiritual personality. Therefore, the very concept of truth is for them not only an epistemological, but also an ethical category. Due to such a moralistic orientation, Russian philosophy, as already noted, has always gravitated towards social issues, towards a moral assessment of its attitude towards the people.

Dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles

Another very important point The development of Russian philosophy was the struggle between Westernism and Slavophilism in the spiritual life of Russian society. The historical fate of Russia refutes the schemes that establish rigid boundaries between the cultural and historical areas of the West and the East. Eurasian situation the country acquired symbolic significance for national identity. The struggle between Westernism, at the origins of which was P. Ya. Chaadaev, and Slavophilism, associated primarily with the names of K. S. Aksakov, A. S. Khomyakov and I. V. Kireevsky, became a constant factor in the development of Russian philosophy and culture. Calls from Westerners to introduce Russia to the fruits of Western culture and civilization, to take the European model of development as a model for our country sometimes took extreme forms of denying the value of everything Russian and neglecting the country’s past. Such extreme Westernism (which, unfortunately, has not been eliminated even today) in many ways itself, “by contradiction,” gave rise to its opposite - Slavophile concepts of Russia’s originality, its special historical path and destiny. These were two mutually presupposing poles of Russian culture.

The dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles posed the problem of the relationship between different cultural traditions for Russian philosophy. The criticism of the West by the Slavophiles was largely a protest against Eurocentric ideology, which limited the diversity of spiritual experience of mankind and established the scheme of progress of Western civilization as the only possible model of historical development. It was from the Slavophile “soil” that the so-called "Russian idea" - the idea of ​​a special world historical mission of Russia. The logic of the reasoning was approximately as follows: Russia is neither the East nor the West; it intricately combines both. This means that she can play the role of a force uniting humanity.

The ideological clash of two approaches to explaining the historical process helped develop specific themes of Russian philosophy: the “East - West” problem, interpretation of the meaning of Western European and Russian history, attempts to solve the “Slavic question”, justification of the “Russian idea”, etc. Many of these topics concern Russian society today. Apparently, the end to the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles has not yet been reached, although it has now taken the form of a discussion of various ways to reform society.

Philosophical and artistic complex

Russian philosophy is also characterized by such a phenomenon in the spiritual life of society as philosophical and artistic complex. What does it mean?

The fact is that, as we already said in the first chapters of the textbook, philosophy acts as a kind of ideological reproduction of culture. Man, who is the object and subject of philosophical consciousness, exists in a cultural “space”, in a world that he managed to warm and change. Therefore, philosophy is a kind of complex characteristic, "the quintessence of the culture of its time"(K. Marx). Philosophy “grows” from culture, drawing its themes from it, but philosophy itself influences culture, including artistic culture, embodying its findings and discoveries in it, putting its problems into artistic form. History knows many examples of solving inherently philosophical problems through artistic means. Beethoven's music or Durer's painting, "Hamlet"

Shakespeare or Goethe's Faust rightfully belong to philosophical and artistic works, because they pose purely philosophical questions, but the answer is given through the means of art.

At all times, philosophy and artistic culture were very closely connected, they always had a lot in common - general questions about the meaning and purpose of human life, common tasks of spiritual influence on a person, a common way of existing in the unique creativity of a unique personality of a philosopher or artist. This allows us to say that philosophy, along with cognitive, worldview, methodological and other functions, also has artistic, aesthetic, and emotional functions. Philosophy has always been perceived as a means for self-expression, individual improvement, self-knowledge, etc. But although this is characteristic of every philosophy, the degree of its interpenetration with artistic culture varies. About the subtlest the permeation of almost all Russian literature and all art with philosophical issues and “anxiety” (G. Florovsky) were spoken by many Russian thinkers. And at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. formation is taking place a holistic community of philosophy and artistic culture, when the line between them becomes conditional, mobile, and sometimes difficult to define, which indicates the formation of a philosophical and artistic complex.

In Russian history, the 19th century is a period of incredibly intense development of the self-awareness of society, which was distinguished by the desire to philosophically comprehend all the phenomena of reality. This century is distinguished by a literal fascination with philosophical terminology and problematics. For Russian intellectuals of that time, the entirety of life was subject to philosophical interpretation, and therefore any fact of life could be theoretically comprehended and turned into a problem. Philosophy was at that time a mandatory component of education, philosophical articles and ideas found their fans not only among professionals (who, by the way, were few), philosophical terminology was used even in personal letters, the ideas of Hegel, Schelling, V.S. Solovyov were discussed in circles and salons, on the pages of magazines and newspapers. Philosophy became an integral part of the spiritual life of Russian society of that time, entered the flesh and blood of its culture.

Particularly characteristic in this sense is the Silver Age of Russian culture, the so-called Russian religious and philosophical renaissance beginning of the 20th century The religious and philosophical quests of that time, based on the ideas of F. M. Dostoevsky and V. S. Solovyov, were not isolated from the general flow of culture. Philosophy had a very close connection with the art of that time. Even the search for a social ideal within the framework of the philosophy of history often took on an artistic character. The musical creativity of composers A. N. Scriabin, I. F. Stravinsky, the paintings of artists K. A. Somov, L. S. Bakst carried an enormous ideological charge, went in the same direction of cultural renewal, grew from the same soil that and religious philosophy of the time.

The “kinship” of philosophical ideas and artistic creativity is especially obvious in poetry Russian symbolism. Andrei Bely, Vyacheslav Ivanov, K. D. Balmont, V. Ya. Bryusov, D. S. Merezhkovsky, A. A. Blok inextricably intertwined a philosophical idea and artistic form in their works. Russian symbolism emerged at the turn of the century both as an artistic and poetic movement and as a philosophical movement. He set himself the task of creating a new irrationalistic philosophy, a new doctrine of man (“new humanism”) through the means of art. Most of the works of these poets were of a philosophical and conceptual nature, and their creators were philosophically minded artists. It is not for nothing that even the famous poems about the Beautiful Lady of Blok are not so much love lyrics as discussions about Sophia-wisdom - the central concept of religious philosophy of that time. Thus, the domestic philosophical tradition is characterized by close interaction and interpenetration with Russian artistic culture, which led to formation in the country at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. philosophical and artistic complex.

Extreme positions in the assessment of religion

Another feature that distinguishes Russian philosophy is close attention to religious issues. For a long time During the Soviet period of history, Russian philosophy was viewed as predominantly materialistic in essence and revolutionary in orientation. This led to a careful and thoughtful study of the philosophy of A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, P. L. Lavrov and other thinkers of the revolutionary democratic trend, but also to the oblivion of such major religious philosophers as V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev or P. A. Florensky. Foreign historians of Russian philosophy were characterized by the other extreme: materialist philosophy was declared completely “student” in relation to Western philosophy, unoriginal, and the Russian tradition itself, the originality of Russian thought, was associated only with the religious-idealistic line of development.

It is obvious that the actual development of Russian philosophy is a process that presupposes a contradictory unity of materialistic and idealistic directions, real mutual influence, and a dispute between a variety of schools and movements. Nevertheless, both materialists and idealists rarely avoided issues related to faith, religion, and church, although they resolved them in completely different ways. And the rebel-atheist M. A. Bakunin with his conclusion that to recognize God means to recognize the slavery of man, and the passionate, fiery thinker N. A. Berdyaev, who saw the “divine spark” in man’s ability to create, despite the diametrical opposition of positions, raised questions related to religion in their philosophical heritage. This feature of Russian philosophy is apparently explained by the fact that for many years, until the 17th-18th centuries, philosophical ideas in Russia were not of a secular nature and developed mainly in theological literature.

In addition, the very Orthodox nature of Christianity in the country implied a close interpenetration of religious and philosophical problems. It is not for nothing that Orthodoxy is considered a “spiritual” form of Christianity, in contrast to politicized Catholicism. Attention to the problems of internal self-improvement and spirituality was largely a consequence of the political weakness of the Russian Orthodox Church, which depended on the state. This led to the fact that philosophical thought was highly developed in Orthodox theology, and many of the questions posed in it (about human freedom, about his moral nature and the meaning of life, about the relationship between rational knowledge and faith) gave impetus to the development of secular philosophy. Questions were asked, it was necessary to look for answers to them. Russian thinkers are often characterized by a kind of maximalism: either deep religiosity or convinced atheism. It is difficult to find a neutral, objectivist attitude towards matters of religious faith.

Of course, these characteristics do not exhaust the entirety of the Russian philosophical tradition. But even the features we have listed indicate the presence national specifics in philosophical quests, which is inherent, of course, not only in Russian philosophy, but also in the philosophical thought of any people. Philosophical consciousness reflects the specific historical destinies and spiritual experiences of peoples, and refracts in itself the characteristics of the national character.

Questions and tasks

• 1. What do they mean when they talk about “the problem of the origin of Russian philosophy”? What points of view exist on the issue of its beginning?
• 2. What characteristic features of the Russian philosophical tradition can you name?
• 3. What is a “philosophical-artistic complex”? When did it take shape in the history of Russian philosophy? What is characteristic of him?
• 4. In literature they often talk about the philosophy of N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky and other Russian writers. You studied their works at school. Try to guess what kind of philosophical views were inherent in them, whether they can be characterized as rationalism or irrationalism, materialism or idealism.
• 5. Using reference books, the Internet, and other publications, prepare a report about a Russian thinker and his philosophical views.

Philosophy: main problems, concepts, terms. Textbook Volkov Vyacheslav Viktorovich

DOMESTIC PHILOSOPHY

DOMESTIC PHILOSOPHY

The genesis of Russian philosophy during the period of Kievan and Moscow Rus'

The origins of Russian philosophy consisted of two spiritual streams: pagan and Christian.

Russian philosophical thought of the pre-Mongol period experienced significant influence of Byzantine spiritual culture. What philosophical traditions were brought to Rus'?

Neoplatonism, with its skills of subtle dialogue and the idea of ​​​​the synthesis of Logos and Sophia, that is, thought and embodiment;

Rationalism of Aristotle and John Domaskin;

Asceticism, which rejected earthly life, philosophy and all worldly knowledge.

At the cradle of Russian philosophical thought stood the works of the Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion(XI century), who gave in his “Sermon on Law and Grace” a philosophical-historical and ethical-gnoseological interpretation of Russian life of that time.

The originality of Russian philosophical thought of that period was expressed in religious "humanism"(“Teaching” Vladimir Monomakh and "Prayer" Daniil Zatochnik).

At the same time, it developed Russian religious epistemology. Its main representative was the bishop Kiril Turovsky(XII century). He was the first to develop the doctrine of the experimental, natural origin of the mind, which is based on the testimony of the senses.

The development of philosophical thought in Muscovite Rus' took place in continuous connection with the events of socio-political and church life of that time. The main thing was - formation of a single state and strengthening the omnipotence of feudal lords: secular and ecclesiastical. The latter was opposed by numerous heresies(forms of opposition to the official church). The most famous were: Strigolniki and Antitrinitarians.

At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV centuries. approved in Rus' hesychasm, came from Byzantium. This is an ascetic, mystical teaching, the ideal of which was contemplation, silence, and loneliness. Hesychasm states: “The world is unknowable, all sciences are meaningless. True knowledge is faith. The Church is above secular power." Figures of hesychasm - Sergius of Radonezh XIV century), Neil Sorsky(1433–1508) and other non-acquisitive people believed that people should not live off the labor of others and chase positions, and monasteries should not have serfs. Only prayer, work and moral improvement are worthy of a monk. In the field of knowledge, the main thing for non-acquisitive people is close attention to the inner world of a person. The Josephites, led by Joseph Volotsky, who defended the church’s right to income, opposed the non-covetous people. The views of the Josephites are characterized by: rationalism destroying scholasticism, substantiation of the idea of ​​free will, human choice, substantiation of the concept of absolute monarchy.

The “Moscow-Third Rome” concept developed in the same autocratic spirit. It was developed by Metropolitan Zosima and Elder Philotheus. This concept contributed to the spread of ideas about the superiority of Russian Orthodoxy and the chosenness of the Russian Tsar.

The spokesmen for Europeanization trends were Andrei Kurbsky and Maxim Grek.

Domestic philosophy in the 18th - early 20th centuries.

In Peter's time a radical philosophical revolution took place - secularization of Russian philosophical thought (the emergence of a secular type of philosophizing). Representatives of the philosophical thought of that time - the so-called “Scientific Squad”: F. Prokopovich, V. Tatishchev, A. Kantemir. Their ideas were further developed M. Lomonosov(1711–1765), which gave rise to the materialist tradition in Russia. In the field of ontology as the achievements of M.V. Lomonosov can be called the atomic-molecular picture of the structure of the world, the law of conservation of matter, which played a large role in substantiating the idea of ​​​​the increasability and indestructibility of matter and the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe infinity of the Universe. In the field of epistemology M.V. Lomonosov put forward a method of synthesis of precise calculation and the free imagination of the artist.

At the end of the 18th century, a new understanding of man was established.

An outstanding philosopher who made significant progress in the field of knowledge of man and the social world was A. Radishchev(1749–1802). Introduced a new milestone in Russian philosophy P. Chaadaev(17941856). He was the first in modern times to approach the assessment of Russia’s place in the world, its present and future, not from a parochial position, but from a global, worldwide position. Chaadaev's views can be expressed as follows: harsh national self-criticism.

P. Chaadaev’s speech gave impetus to philosophical debates and discussions, as a result of which new philosophical movements and schools arose.

Slavophiles - this is a movement of Russian philosophers who expressed the national identity of Russia (conciliarity, that is, the free unity of people based on Christian love and communal collectivism) in world history. It primarily included A. Khomyakov (1806–1856), I. Kirievsky (1806–1856), K. Aksakov (1817–1860), Yu. Samarin (1819–1876).

An alternative point of view was expressed by “Westerners.”

Westerners- this is a trend that highlighted the interests of the individual, which must be protected by the rule of law and civil society. Westerners include N. Stankevich (1813–1840), V. Botkin (1811–1839), T. Granovsky (1813–1855) and others.

In the 19th century, other philosophical schools arose: populists (N. Chernyshevsky (1828–1889) and N. Dobrolyubov (1836–1861)), Russian anarchists (M. Bakunin (1814–1876) and P. Kropotkin (1842–1921) ), soilists (N. Strakhov (1828–1896), A. Grigoriev and F. Dostoevsky (1821–1881)), neo-Slavophiles (N. Danilevsky (1822–1885), K. Leontiev (1831–1891)) and positivists (K Kavelin (1818–1885), V. Lesevich (1837-1905)).

Developing in the conditions of the beginning of bourgeois modernization, Russian philosophy by the end of the 19th century acquired a number of characteristic Features:

1. Historiosophicality, that is, close attention to the problems of the development of history.

2. Utopian-projective aspiration to the future.

3. Anthropocentricity, increased attention to human problems

4. Panmoralism, that is, the extraction of the moral aspect in all philosophical problems.

5. “Worship of the people,” that is, an attempt to evaluate any idea or system from the point of view of promoting the cause of liberation of the people.

6. Anti-bourgeois. Almost all philosophers, except liberals, opposed capitalism.

7. Close attention to religious topics, either from theological or atheistic positions.

8. Close connection with Russian literature and art.

The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries was the heyday of three philosophical directions: Russian religious philosophy, Russian cosmism and Russian philosophy of socio-political orientation.

Russian religious philosophy was developed in the works of such authors as V. Solovyov, P. Florensky, N. Berdyaev, E. Trubetskoy, L. Tolstoy, N. Bulgakov, V. Rozanov, G. Shlet and many others. Perhaps the most important in this direction are the views V. Solovyova(1853–1900). The central idea of ​​his philosophy is the idea of ​​unity that is, cosmic conciliarity: “all is one in God,” and above all, the Creator and his creations.

The views of V. Solovyov gave impetus to the development of the most original direction of Russian philosophy - Russian cosmism, the main feature of which was the philosophical and scientific justification of human evolution to a new divine-human state. N. Fedorov, A. Sukhovo-Kobylin, V. Muravyov, N. Umov, K. Tsialkovsky, V. Vernadsky, A. Chizhevsky and others proposed their own options for such a transformation of man and society. They substantiated the anthropic principle, which assumed a connection between the properties of the Universe and human existence.

The leading direction of social and philosophical thought in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was undoubtedly Russian Marxism, represented by such names as P. Struve, M. Tugan-Baranovsky, G. Plekhanov, V. Lenin, A. Bogdanov. There was no ideological unity in the camp of Russian Marxists, both along the main philosophical line and on other issues of epistemological and socio-philosophical terms.

Eurasianism- this is an ideological movement that arose in emigration, associated with understanding the uniqueness of Russian civilization. Eurasianism began with a collection of articles by N. S. Trubetskoy, P. N. Savitsky, G. V. Florovsky and P. P. Suvchinsky “Exodus to the East” (Sofia, 1921). The authors of the collection, continuing the tradition of the late Slavophiles, proclaimed Russia a special cultural and historical type - “Eurasia”, focusing on its connection with the Asian-Turkic world and contrasting it with “Europe”, that is, the West. Politically, this led to the recognition of the pattern of the October Revolution and Soviet power as an organic manifestation of Eurasian civilization.

In exile, N. Berdyaev continued his philosophical activity, the central themes of which were the problems of freedom, personality, creativity and the meaning of history.

Development of philosophy in the Soviet Union

He made a great contribution to the development of Russian philosophy of the Soviet period IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin)(1870–1924). In the book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” V. Lenin, polemicizing with the Machists - supporters of E. Mach and R. Avenarius, criticized their epistemology, which absolutized the role of sensations in cognition and came to agnosticism. V. Lenin comprehensively analyzed the main issue and the most important categories of philosophy (matter, experience, time, space, cause, freedom, etc.), and also developed the Marxist theory of knowledge, namely, he created the theory of reflection; analyzed the role of practice and sensations in cognition; explored the problem of truth. In another work, “Philosophical Notebooks,” V. Lenin criticized and rethought Hegelian dialectics.

The most vivid debate that gripped many philosophers and scientists in the 1920s was the debate between “mechanists” and “dialecticians.” The first were represented by: I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, A. Timiryazev, V. Sarabyanov, the second by A. Deborin, N. Karev and others. The dispute was about the relationship between philosophy and natural science: the “mechanists” exaggerated the importance of natural science, the second - materialist dialectics.

In the 1930s, the situation in the spiritual sphere changed significantly. The development of philosophy during the years of Stalinism was under the decisive influence of " Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” of 1938 and especially the second paragraph of the fourth chapter “On dialectical and historical materialism”, written by I. Stalin himself.

The development of Marxist philosophy in the USSR in the post-war period was contradictory: on the one hand, many fruitful, deep ideas were expressed in various fields of philosophical knowledge, on the other hand, these ideas, if they were not openly suppressed, were buried in the kingdom of dogmatism and scholasticism.

In the 60-70s of the XX century. in the works of Soviet philosophers - V. Shtoff, V. Shvyrev, E. Mamchur, V. Stepin - problems of methodology and logic were developed very intensively scientific knowledge. Famous philosophers, - B. Kedrov, M. Rosenthal, E. Ilyenkov, N. Lapin continued to work on the problems of materialist dialectics. In addition, E. Ilyenkov and D. Dubrovsky developed the problem of the ideal.

The problems of man and personality were fruitfully developed. In the works of famous Soviet scientists V. Tugarinov, I. Kon, A. Leontyev, L. Bueva, I. Frolov, in-depth studies of the structure of the personality, the relationship between the social and biological in it, and the ways and forms of personal improvement were carried out.

Since 1985, philosophy in the USSR has developed under the sign of perestroika and its defeat. For the theoretical sphere, perestroika and its failure meant a decline in the authority and influence of Marxism in Soviet philosophy. Marxism lost its monopoly position, giving way to other philosophical movements and schools. The topics of philosophical research have changed significantly. Understanding the phenomena of modern life occupied an important place among them.

From the book Reader on Philosophy author Radugin A. A.

From the book Philosophy of History author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

Philosophy Hegel argued that freedom is a necessary condition for philosophy. Behind this conviction stood, first of all, the confidence that Hegel’s contemporary German society represented a genuine kingdom of freedom and was thus an environment of the most

From the book Introduction to Social Philosophy: A Textbook for Universities author Kemerov Vyacheslav Evgenievich

§ 1. Social philosophy and philosophy of history Social philosophy of the late 20th century. could claim aristocratic origin: its ancestor was the classical philosophy of history. However, the connection between them is broken. They are separated by a whole era, during which they were

From the book Philosophy for Graduate Students author Kalnoy Igor Ivanovich

1. PHILOSOPHY OF PATRISTICS AS A PHILOSOPHY OF THEOCENTRISM Stages of medieval philosophy: patristics and scholastics. Patristics of the Apostolic period (until the middle of the 2nd century); the apologetic period (until the 4th century) with the claim that true philosophy is the Christian religion; mature

From the book Answers to the Candidate's Minimum Questions in Philosophy, for postgraduate students of natural faculties author Abdulgafarov Madi

5. HEGEL’S PHILOSOPHY AS A PHILOSOPHY OF “PANRATIONALISM” Georg Hegel was born on August 27, 1770 in the family of a prominent official. The Latin school in Stuttgart, the theological seminary and the university in Tübingen are the stages of his theological education. From Hegel's spiritual career

From the book Me and the World of Objects author Berdyaev Nikolay

11. Philosophy of al-Farabi. Philosophy of Y. Balasaguni. His work: “Blessed Knowledge” Abunasyr Muhammad ibn Muhammad Farabi (870–950) is one of the greatest thinkers of the early Middle Ages. He is a multifaceted encyclopedist and one of the founders of the Eastern

From the book Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Part three. Philosophy of spirit author Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

27. Kazakh philosophy: history and modernity (Abai, Valikhanov, Altynsarin), origins of traits, traditions and innovations. Professional philosophy in Kazakhstan. (Rakhmatullin -

From the book What is Political Philosophy: Reflections and Considerations author Pyatigorsky Alexander Moiseevich

1. Philosophy between religion and science. The struggle between philosophy and religion. Philosophy and Society The position of the philosopher is truly tragic. Almost no one likes him. Throughout the history of culture, hostility to philosophy has been revealed, and from the most diverse sides. Philosophy

From the book Cheat Sheets on Philosophy author Nyukhtilin Victor

2. Philosophy is personal and impersonal, subjective and objective. Anthropologism in philosophy. Philosophy and life Kierkegaard especially insists on the personal, subjective nature of philosophy, on the vital presence of the philosopher in all philosophizing. He contrasts this

From the book I Explore the World. Philosophy author Tsukanov Andrey Lvovich

S. Philosophy (§ 572) This science represents the unity of art and religion insofar as the external in its form is the way of contemplating art, the inherent activity of subjective creation and the splitting of its substantial content into many

From the book Bourdieu's Adept in the Caucasus: Sketches for a Biography in a World System Perspective author Derlugyan Georgy

PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY February 8, 2006, RSUH Yesenin Auditorium LECTURE PLAN (0) Philosophy and philosophizing. Politics as a specific subject of several scientific and quasi-scientific disciplines (for example, political science). Politics as a non-specific subject

From the author's book

8. German classical philosophy and its main problems. Kant's philosophy: the concept of “things in themselves” and transcendental knowledge. Antinomies of pure reason German classical philosophy is considered as an independent stage in the development of philosophy, because on

From the author's book

15. Analytical philosophy of the twentieth century. The philosophical program of neopositivism and its crisis. “Postpositivism” and the philosophy of science Analytical philosophy (Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein) was formed in the 20th century and saw the task of philosophy not in the synthesis of scientific knowledge, but in

The origins of Russian philosophy consisted of two spiritual streams: pagan and Christian.

Russian philosophical thought of the pre-Mongol period experienced significant influence of Byzantine spiritual culture. What philosophical traditions were brought to Rus'?

Neoplatonism, with its skills of subtle dialogue and the idea of ​​​​the synthesis of Logos and Sophia, that is, thought and embodiment;

Rationalism of Aristotle and John Domaskin;

Asceticism, which rejected earthly life, philosophy and all worldly knowledge.

At the cradle of Russian philosophical thought stood the works of the Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion(XI century), who gave in his “Sermon on Law and Grace” a philosophical-historical and ethical-gnoseological interpretation of Russian life of that time.

The originality of Russian philosophical thought of that period was expressed in religious "humanism"(“Teaching” Vladimir Monomakh and "Prayer" Daniil Zatochnik).

At the same time, it developed Russian religious epistemology. Its main representative was the bishop Kiril Turovsky(XII century). He was the first to develop the doctrine of the experimental, natural origin of the mind, which is based on the testimony of the senses.

The development of philosophical thought in Muscovite Rus' took place in continuous connection with the events of socio-political and church life of that time. The main thing was - formation of a single state and strengthening the omnipotence of feudal lords: secular and ecclesiastical. The latter was opposed by numerous heresies(forms of opposition to the official church). The most famous were: Strigolniki and Antitrinitarians.

At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV centuries. approved in Rus' hesychasm, came from Byzantium. This is an ascetic, mystical teaching, the ideal of which was contemplation, silence, and loneliness. Hesychasm states: “The world is unknowable, all sciences are meaningless. True knowledge is faith. The Church is above secular power." Figures of hesychasm - Sergius of Radonezh XIV century), Neil Sorsky(1433–1508) and other non-acquisitive people believed that people should not live off the labor of others and chase positions, and monasteries should not have serfs. Only prayer, work and moral improvement are worthy of a monk. In the field of knowledge, the main thing for non-acquisitive people is close attention to the inner world of a person. The Josephites, led by Joseph Volotsky, who defended the church’s right to income, opposed the non-covetous people. The views of the Josephites are characterized by: rationalism destroying scholasticism, substantiation of the idea of ​​free will, human choice, substantiation of the concept of absolute monarchy.

The “Moscow-Third Rome” concept developed in the same autocratic spirit. It was developed by Metropolitan Zosima and Elder Philotheus. This concept contributed to the spread of ideas about the superiority of Russian Orthodoxy and the chosenness of the Russian Tsar.

The spokesmen for Europeanization trends were Andrei Kurbsky and Maxim Grek.

Domestic philosophy in the 18th - early 20th centuries.

In Peter's time a radical philosophical revolution took place - secularization of Russian philosophical thought (the emergence of a secular type of philosophizing). Representatives of the philosophical thought of that time - the so-called “Scientific Squad”: F. Prokopovich, V. Tatishchev, A. Kantemir. Their ideas were further developed M. Lomonosov(1711–1765), which gave rise to the materialist tradition in Russia. In the field of ontology as the achievements of M.V. Lomonosov can be called the atomic-molecular picture of the structure of the world, the law of conservation of matter, which played a large role in substantiating the idea of ​​​​the increasability and indestructibility of matter and the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe infinity of the Universe. In the field of epistemology M.V. Lomonosov put forward a method of synthesis of precise calculation and the free imagination of the artist.

At the end of the 18th century, a new understanding of man was established.

An outstanding philosopher who made significant progress in the field of knowledge of man and the social world was A. Radishchev(1749–1802). Introduced a new milestone in Russian philosophy P. Chaadaev(17941856). He was the first in modern times to approach the assessment of Russia’s place in the world, its present and future, not from a parochial position, but from a global, worldwide position. Chaadaev's views can be expressed as follows: harsh national self-criticism.

P. Chaadaev’s speech gave impetus to philosophical debates and discussions, as a result of which new philosophical movements and schools arose.

Slavophiles - this is a movement of Russian philosophers who expressed the national identity of Russia (conciliarity, that is, the free unity of people based on Christian love and communal collectivism) in world history. It primarily included A. Khomyakov (1806–1856), I. Kirievsky (1806–1856), K. Aksakov (1817–1860), Yu. Samarin (1819–1876).

An alternative point of view was expressed by “Westerners.”

Westerners- this is a trend that highlighted the interests of the individual, which must be protected by the rule of law and civil society. Westerners include N. Stankevich (1813–1840), V. Botkin (1811–1839), T. Granovsky (1813–1855) and others.

In the 19th century, other philosophical schools arose: populists (N. Chernyshevsky (1828–1889) and N. Dobrolyubov (1836–1861)), Russian anarchists (M. Bakunin (1814–1876) and P. Kropotkin (1842–1921) ), soilists (N. Strakhov (1828–1896), A. Grigoriev and F. Dostoevsky (1821–1881)), neo-Slavophiles (N. Danilevsky (1822–1885), K. Leontiev (1831–1891)) and positivists (K Kavelin (1818–1885), V. Lesevich (1837-1905)).

Developing in the conditions of the beginning of bourgeois modernization, Russian philosophy by the end of the 19th century acquired a number of characteristic Features:

1. Historiosophicality, that is, close attention to the problems of the development of history.

2. Utopian-projective aspiration to the future.

3. Anthropocentricity, increased attention to human problems

4. Panmoralism, that is, the extraction of the moral aspect in all philosophical problems.

5. “Worship of the people,” that is, an attempt to evaluate any idea or system from the point of view of promoting the cause of liberation of the people.

6. Anti-bourgeois. Almost all philosophers, except liberals, opposed capitalism.

7. Close attention to religious topics, either from theological or atheistic positions.

8. Close connection with Russian literature and art.

The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries was the heyday of three philosophical directions: Russian religious philosophy, Russian cosmism and Russian philosophy of socio-political orientation.

Russian religious philosophy was developed in the works of such authors as V. Solovyov, P. Florensky, N. Berdyaev, E. Trubetskoy, L. Tolstoy, N. Bulgakov, V. Rozanov, G. Shlet and many others. Perhaps the most important in this direction are the views V. Solovyova(1853–1900). The central idea of ​​his philosophy is the idea of ​​unity that is, cosmic conciliarity: “all is one in God,” and above all, the Creator and his creations.

The views of V. Solovyov gave impetus to the development of the most original direction of Russian philosophy - Russian cosmism, the main feature of which was the philosophical and scientific justification of human evolution to a new divine-human state. N. Fedorov, A. Sukhovo-Kobylin, V. Muravyov, N. Umov, K. Tsialkovsky, V. Vernadsky, A. Chizhevsky and others proposed their own options for such a transformation of man and society. They substantiated the anthropic principle, which assumed a connection between the properties of the Universe and human existence.

The leading direction of social and philosophical thought in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was undoubtedly Russian Marxism, represented by such names as P. Struve, M. Tugan-Baranovsky, G. Plekhanov, V. Lenin, A. Bogdanov. There was no ideological unity in the camp of Russian Marxists, both along the main philosophical line and on other issues of epistemological and socio-philosophical terms.

Eurasianism- this is an ideological movement that arose in emigration, associated with understanding the uniqueness of Russian civilization. Eurasianism began with a collection of articles by N. S. Trubetskoy, P. N. Savitsky, G. V. Florovsky and P. P. Suvchinsky “Exodus to the East” (Sofia, 1921). The authors of the collection, continuing the tradition of the late Slavophiles, proclaimed Russia a special cultural and historical type - “Eurasia”, focusing on its connection with the Asian-Turkic world and contrasting it with “Europe”, that is, the West. Politically, this led to the recognition of the pattern of the October Revolution and Soviet power as an organic manifestation of Eurasian civilization.

In exile, N. Berdyaev continued his philosophical activity, the central themes of which were the problems of freedom, personality, creativity and the meaning of history.

He made a great contribution to the development of Russian philosophy of the Soviet period IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin)(1870–1924). In the book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” V. Lenin, polemicizing with the Machists - supporters of E. Mach and R. Avenarius, criticized their epistemology, which absolutized the role of sensations in cognition and came to agnosticism. V. Lenin comprehensively analyzed the main issue and the most important categories of philosophy (matter, experience, time, space, cause, freedom, etc.), and also developed the Marxist theory of knowledge, namely, he created the theory of reflection; analyzed the role of practice and sensations in cognition; explored the problem of truth. In another work, “Philosophical Notebooks,” V. Lenin criticized and rethought Hegelian dialectics.

The most vivid debate that gripped many philosophers and scientists in the 1920s was the debate between “mechanists” and “dialecticians.” The first were represented by: I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, A. Timiryazev, V. Sarabyanov, the second by A. Deborin, N. Karev and others. The dispute was about the relationship between philosophy and natural science: the “mechanists” exaggerated the importance of natural science, the second - materialist dialectics.

In the 1930s, the situation in the spiritual sphere changed significantly. The development of philosophy during the years of Stalinism was under the decisive influence of the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” of 1938 and especially the second paragraph of the fourth chapter “On dialectical and historical materialism,” written by I. Stalin himself.

The development of Marxist philosophy in the USSR in the post-war period was contradictory: on the one hand, many fruitful, deep ideas were expressed in various fields of philosophical knowledge, on the other hand, these ideas, if they were not openly suppressed, were buried in the kingdom of dogmatism and scholasticism.

In the 60-70s of the XX century. In the works of Soviet philosophers - V. Shtoff, V. Shvyrev, E. Mamchur, V. Stepin - the problems of the methodology and logic of scientific knowledge were very intensively developed. Famous philosophers - B. Kedrov, M. Rosenthal, E. Ilyenkov, N. Lapin continued to work on the problems of materialist dialectics. In addition, E. Ilyenkov and D. Dubrovsky developed the problem of the ideal.

The problems of man and personality were fruitfully developed. In the works of famous Soviet scientists V. Tugarinov, I. Kon, A. Leontyev, L. Bueva, I. Frolov, in-depth studies of the structure of the personality, the relationship between the social and biological in it, and the ways and forms of personal improvement were carried out.

Since 1985, philosophy in the USSR has developed under the sign of perestroika and its defeat. For the theoretical sphere, perestroika and its failure meant a decline in the authority and influence of Marxism in Soviet philosophy. Marxism lost its monopoly position, giving way to other philosophical movements and schools. The topics of philosophical research have changed significantly. Understanding the phenomena of modern life occupied an important place among them.