Beginning of the 20th century in Russia - a time of cultural and religious revival. The rise of artistic creativity was expressed in literature, poetry, music, theater, ballet, and painting. The development of domestic culture as a whole during this period - the period of the Silver Age. At the beginning of the 20th century. Outstanding Russian thinkers lived and worked in Russia. In 1922, the Soviet government arrested over a hundred professors and writers on charges of diverging from Soviet ideology. Among them are N. A. Berdyaev, L. P. Karsavin, S. L. Frank, I. A. Ilyin, N. O. Lossky.
Russian philosophy of the 20th century. - a broad multilateral and multidimensional process of development of ideological ideas, philosophical concepts about the inner nature of the world and man, which includes dialectical-materialistic views, and religious-symbolic, and mystical.
Russian existentialism of N. L. Berdyaev. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948) is the most famous Russian religious philosopher of the 20th century in the world. While in exile, he wrote “The New Middle Ages. Reflections on the fate of Russia and Europe" (1924); “About the appointment of a person. Experience of Paradoxical Ethics" (1931); “About slavery and human freedom. Experience of personalistic philosophy" (1939); “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism” (1937); "Russian idea".
Berdyaev's worldview is a type of existential philosophy, that is, the philosophy of human existence. According to Berdyaev, there are two worlds: the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of spirit (God). The existence of God is given to man in a non-rational way - through personal spiritual experience. The Deity is outside the natural world and can only reveal itself symbolically. God has omnipotent power over the created world, but has no power over freedom, which was not created by Him. Freedom is understood by Berdyaev not as an innate, natural or social ability of a person, but as a primary and fundamental reality that penetrates into all spheres of existence - space, society and man himself. Freedom is primary, unpreconditioned and unfounded. The historical process consists of the struggle of good against irrational freedom.
Along with the problem of freedom, at the center of Berdyaev’s philosophy is the problem of personality. The individual is not part of society and not part of the cosmos. Human creative activity 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 - therefore Berdyaev calls his philosophy existential (or personalistic).
Berdyaev puts the individual above society, nation, and state. Society must proceed from the recognition of the highest values of the human person and his right to achieve the fullness of life. The philosophy of equality leads to the destruction of personality, to the inculcation of the spirit of envy, resentment and malice. Berdyaev criticized socialism in Soviet Russia, but also capitalism and bourgeois society. Humanism as a product of Western civilization has completed a full cycle of its development and has grown into its opposite. Modern humanism is trending toward the “kingdom of Antichrist,” as evidenced by the inhumane events of the 20th century. - world wars, revolutions, social conflicts.
Russian Marxism. The first major theorist and propagandist of Marxism in Russia, G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918). “Legal” Marxists (N.A. Berdyaev, S.I. Bulgakov, S.L. Frank, P.B. Struve, etc.) - philosophers and economists - saw in Marxism a strictly scientific theory of the development of society. In 1902-1905 legal Marxists abandoned Marxist materialism and atheism and switched to the position of the religious philosophy of all-unity Vl. Solovyova.
Philosophical research in modern Russia is associated with the rejection of outdated approaches in methodology and theory, the search for ideas that in the future could lead to the renewal of ideological positions, overcoming stereotypes and dogmatism.
Russian cosmism. A unique direction of Russian philosophy is Russian cosmism. The ideas of cosmism about the inextricable connection between man and the Universe have been known since ancient times: the pagan Slavs perceived the cosmos as united and animated. These ideas then manifest themselves in the mid-19th century. as a special direction in the philosophical culture of Russia. Cosmists rely on data from contemporary science:
§ consider the Universe as a unity of natural and human;
§ substantiate the idea of cosmic prospects for society;
§ They associate the progress of civilization with its entry into outer space and the acquisition of moral perfection there.
There are three currents in Russian cosmism:
a) artistic (V.F. Odoevsky, A.N. Scriabin, N.K. Roerich, N.K. Ciurlionis) considers aesthetic methods to be leading in the development of universal knowledge, the improvement of the world and man;
b) religious and philosophical (N.F. Fedorov, P.A. Florensky) goes back to the idea of the unity of the world and the creator, offers a path of active evolution, guided by humanity based on the synthesis of religion, philosophy and science;
c) natural science (N.A. Umov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, V.I. Vernadsky, A.L. Chizhevsky) strives, on the basis of objective knowledge, to model the future of human civilization, to determine the fate of man and the culture generated by him.
Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1889-1903) - religious thinker, founder of Russian cosmism. Main work: “Philosophy of a Common Cause.” Considering society in its historical development, Fedorov proceeds from the fact that thanks to society, one people is exterminated by another, the younger generation replaces the older one. The main enemies of humanity are blind natural forces. The philosopher sees the fight against them in the moral duty of “sons and daughters of men” in relation to “fathers,” ancestors, and all the dead. This duty is to “resurrect people.”
In the teaching of the “common cause” Fedorov speaks of the resurrection of all the dead. Resurrection - the highest guarantee of the immortality of life - will give a moral character to the entire universe and introduce consciousness into it. Fedorov proposes the “technology” of resurrection and possible ways related to the need for the work of all humanity to collect scattered particles of the ashes of the dead. Resurrection is impossible for limited beings, for resurrection is not simply their restoration to their former nature, but the transformation of their nature into a higher, self-creating one. He assigned a special role to science; the whole world, the whole Universe and man himself become the subject of knowledge. Christianity, in the teachings of Fedorov, is the only religion capable of leading humanity along the path of universal salvation.
The utopian nature of Fedorov’s teaching is undeniable. However, the merit of the philosopher is that, justifying the need to regulate nature, he opened up cosmic prospects for the development of humanity, contributed to the greening of humanity and outlined an original approach to global issues, which are relevant and actively discussed today.
Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935)- an outstanding cosmist, the founder of astronautics, laid the foundations for ballistic missile design. The center of his interests are the problems of the meaning of the cosmos as a whole, the place of man in the cosmos, the finitude and infinity of human existence.
According to Tsiolkovsky, space is filled with various forms of life - from primitive to creatures capable of assimilating solar energy. Modern man is not the final link in evolution. Reason and creativity will lift man into space, where his physical nature will change, he will come closer to the higher organisms inhabiting interstellar space. Tsiolkovsky develops the idea of atomic immortality, the concept of atomic anthropology, according to which the human body is a domination of atoms that are immortal and travel from one conglomerate or organism to another.
The emergence of “cosmic ethics” is associated with the name of Tsiolkovsky. The imperatives of cosmic ethics recognize the superiority of promising and perfect forms of life over imperfect ones. The exchange of atoms in space encourages all intelligent beings to engage in moral mutual responsibility. The main ethical principle of the cosmos becomes the reduction of the “sum” of universal suffering, evil and injustice, reducing the risk of the appearance of imperfect forms of “atoms-spirits”. To achieve these goals, the main task of the higher mind allows radical means - from the forced limitation of the reproduction of irrational creatures to their painless destruction and settlement with highly organized forms. The guarantor of the implementation of cosmic ethics is the creative essence of the Universe, which is described by Tsiolkovsky as “reason” (or “will”). One of the manifestations of the “call” of cosmic ethics is the eternal human desire to improve the system of social relations. Tsiolkovsky presents the structure of human society as a kind of alloy of democratic aspirations and elitist technocratic and socialist postulates. According to Tsiolkovsky’s views, the success of the processes of social rationality of mankind is predetermined by the exploration of outer space.
Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945)- an outstanding Russian thinker, founder of the doctrine of the biosphere and noosphere, genetic mineralogy, radiobiology, biogeochemistry. The doctrine of the biosphere developed by Vernadsky was one of the largest achievements of world science in the first half of the 20th century.
In his worldview, Vernadsky strove for an organic synthesis of natural science and social science. He is one of the creators of anthropocosmism - a doctrine that represents in unity the natural (cosmic) and human (social and humanitarian) sides objective reality. In his works “Living Matter”, “Space and Time in Inanimate and Living Nature”, he reflects on problems that cover near and far space, the earth’s crust, the biosphere, human life and humanity. It was Vernadsky who introduced the concept of “living matter” into scientific circulation, meaning by this the totality of all living organisms on the Earth.
The concept of “biosphere,” according to Vernadsky, is a film of life that has arisen on the surface of the planet and is capable of absorbing the energy of space and assimilating earthly matter with its help. The biosphere has strengthened and accelerated evolution due to its ability to utilize solar energy. Living matter became a catalyst for the development process. According to Vernadsky’s conclusions, throughout the history of the Earth, the amount of living matter is almost constant due to the so-called geochemical cycles or circulation of substances in nature.
The noosphere is the sphere of the mind. Man is becoming a new geological force. Under the influence of human activity, the geochemical migration of matter changes. The noosphere as a sphere of reason presupposes both a new reasonable morality and a restructuring of all existence for the coordinated existence of nature and man.
Alexander Leonidovich Chizhevsky (1897-1964) - founder of cosmobiology, created the concept of interaction between space and historical development on Earth, established a relationship between cycles of solar activity and phenomena of the Earth's biosphere, connected revolutions, uprisings, wars, crusades, religious unrest with eras of maximum solar activity, the frequency of which was approximately 11- 12 years old. Developing the idea of the unity of all living things with the entire universe, Chizhevsky believed that the biosphere must be recognized as a place of transformation of cosmic energy.
The ideas of Russian cosmism by N. F. Fedorov, K. E. Tsiolkovsky, V. I. Vernadsky, A. L. Chizhevsky echo modern ideas about the interconnected development of man and nature, about the phenomenon of life on Earth as a result of cosmic evolution.
Let's sum it up
1. Russian culture is part Orthodox culture, which determined the characteristic features of Russian philosophy. Let us highlight the following: sophia, emphasis on moral and ethical issues, religious form.
2. Russian philosophy of the CIC century developed in line with the confrontation between two trends - Slavophilism and Westernism. Slavophilism advocated a unique, inimitable path of development for Russia. Westernism sought to prove that the cultural and historical development of Russia should become a repetition of the historical experience of Western Europe.
3. Russian philosophy of the CC century was a broad process of development of concepts about man and the world, including religious and dialectical-materialist views.
Questions for self-control
1. When did Russian philosophy emerge?
2. Who is the first Russian philosopher?
3. How do the views of Slavophiles and Westerners differ?
4. Reveal the specifics of Russian philosophy of the CC century.
5. Reveal the meaning and significance of Russian cosmism.
6. Characterize the main provisions of the philosophy of “common cause” N.F. Fedorov.
7. What are the main provisions of the “space ethics” of K.E. Tsiolkovsky?
8. What is the significance of V.I.’s noospheric idea? Vernadsky?
Literature
1. Lossky N.O. History of Russian philosophy. M., 1991.
2. Zamaleev A.F. Lectures on the history of Russian philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1995.
3. Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy
4. Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M., 1990.
5. History of philosophy: West – Russia-East: In 2 books. M., 1996.
6. Introduction to Russian philosophy. M., 1995.
7. Thoughts about the soul. Russian metaphysics of the CUIII century. St. Petersburg, 1996.
8. Russian cosmism. M., 1993.
9. Chizhevsky A.L. Earthly echo of solar storms. M., 1973.
10. Vernadsky V.I. Living matter. M., 1978.
11. Vernadsky V.I. Philosophical thoughts of a naturalist. M., 1988.
12. Vernadsky V.I. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. M., 1991.
13. Tsiolkovsky K.E. Monism of the Universe. Space philosophy // Russian cosmism. M., 1993.
Plan:
1. Opening speech - Shalashnaya V.M., teacher;
2. Philosophical ideas of P.Ya.Chaadaev - Ziyatdinova S., student of group 112;
3. Freedom and personality in Russian philosophy - Amelichkina E., student of group 113;
4. The idea of the unity of philosophical teaching Vl. Solovyova - Demkina A., student of group 112;
5. E. Trubetskoy about the meaning of history - Kapitonova S., student of group 112;
6. K. Leontyev about the historical fate of Russia - Kuvshinova N., student of group 112;
7. The problem of creativity in the teaching of N. Berdyaev - Skobelkina L., student of group 111;
8. I. Ilyin about the originality of Russian culture - Andrianova T., student of group 112;
9. L.N. Tolstoy on the meaning of freedom and necessity - Belolipetskaya E., student of group 111.
Basic philosophical ideas of P.Ya. Chaadaeva
(Ziyatdinova S., student 112 gr.)
P. Ya Chaadaev was born in 1794, on May 27, in Moscow, in the family of retired colonel Yakov Petrovich Chaadaev. From 1808 to 1811 Peter studied at Moscow University. On May 12, 1812, he was enlisted as a second ensign in the Semyonovsky Life Guards Regiment. From 1812 (June) to 1814 (March), as part of the Semenovsky and then the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment, he participated in the Patriotic War and in the foreign campaigns of the Russian army. In 1812, by order of the Semenovsky regiment, Chaadaev was promoted to ensign. In 1816 (April) he was transferred as a cornet to the Life Guards Hussar Regiment, stationed in Tsarskoe Selo. In June - July, Chaadaev met Pushkin in Karamzin's house. In August, Chaadaev was promoted to lieutenant. In 1817 (December) he moved to St. Petersburg and was appointed adjutant to the commander of the Guards Corps I.V. Vasilchikov. In 1819 he received the rank of captain. In 1821 he retired. In 1828 - 1830 he worked on the cycle of “Philosophical Letters”. In 1856, on April 14, Chaadaev died.
For a long time, Chaadaev was in a state of in-depth search and creation of a new unity of his own personality and thought. Of great importance in his work was his acquaintance with two young women - Avdotya Sergeevna Norova and Ekaterina Dmitrievna Panova.
Norova came from an old noble family and received a home education typical of that time. In the rural wilderness, as well as in the presence of the “white public,” Pyotr Yakovlevich did not lose either his festive clothes, or the importance of his posture, or the brilliance of his mind. Dunya Norova was captivated by the charm of his personality and conversation, or rather, conquered, in whose person Chaadaev initially found perhaps the only listener who listened to his intelligent speeches with silent reverence. Chaadaev's peculiar relationships with women are very important for understanding his character and philosophy.
Chaadaev sees in natural female passivity and a heartfelt predisposition to self-denial the key to the development of the ability to submit to the “supreme will”, necessary for true creativity.
Pyotr Yakovlevich feels the predisposition of the female heart to self-denial as the point of application of forces leading to the final degree of human perfection. Avdotya Sergeevna was the first among those women whom Pyotr Yakovlevich tried to “convert” and direct their sincere religiosity towards “perfection.” Pyotr Yakovlevich was alarmed by the timid and gentle shyness of the woman he was admonishing, which was not part of the mission he had entrusted to himself as a “prophet” and “sower” of the sought-after “kingdom of truth.” At the same time, this mission allowed Chaadaev to maintain the necessary distance, the reduction of which would impose unusual obligations on him and would encroach on his independence and freedom.
The same complex combination of feelings in Pyotr Yakovlevich is manifested in his relationship with another neighbor, Ekaterina Dmitrievna Panova. At the time she met Pyotr Yakovlevich, she was 23 years old. It has been 5 years since she got married, but had no children. They met by chance. Chaadaev saw a creature languishing in the emptiness of the environment, unconsciously understanding that his life was somehow distorted, instinctively seeking a way out of the vicious circle of the environment that was stifling him. Chaadaev could not help but take part in this woman; he was carried away by an irresistible desire to give her a helping hand, to explain to her what exactly she was missing, what she was involuntarily striving for, without defining an exact goal for herself. A correspondence began between them.
In order to systematize his views on paper, Chaadaev completely secludes himself from society. He sits alone in prison, reading and interpreting the Bible and the church fathers in his own way. Real and imaginary diseases force him to combine the implementation of a philosophical plan with a careful study of medical literature. In worries about his health and ways to materialize his thoughts, Pyotr Yakovlevich indulged in a kind of despair. A man of society and society par excellence, he became lonely, gloomy, unsociable... They were already threatening his mind with insanity...
In this state, Chaadaev receives a message that serves as an external formative impetus for the systematization of his philosophy. Once again Panova wrote, saddened by the loss of his favor and sharing her difficulties with him. Pondering the response message and sketching out its first lines, Chaadaev could not contain the influx of thoughts in which the metamorphoses of Panova’s own consciousness and mental disorder, various socio-historical situations and world goals echoed and were visible through each other. All this suggests to him the desired genre of expression of accumulated problems, corresponding not only to the spiritual originality of the addressee, but also to the nature of his philosophy, its broad purpose. Now the opening lines are redone, additional material is brought in, and the personal letter in the process of work turns into the famous first philosophical letter.
“...it is necessary to try to fearlessly and selflessly surrender to the movements of the heart awakened by religious feeling. To preserve and consolidate these movements, one should practice submissive service to God, i.e. strictly observe all church rituals, inspired by a higher mind and possessing life-giving power. it is also necessary to preserve their spirit in everyday life. However, the implementation of such intentions is hampered by the “sad order of things”, the absence in everyday Russian reality of “the necessary framework of life in which all the events of the day are naturally located” and which is necessary for moral health, as fresh air for physical health. We are not talking about any moral principles or philosophical truths, but “simply about a well-ordered life, about those habits and skills of consciousness that impart ease to the mind and bring righteousness into the daily life of a person.” Without beliefs and rules in everyday life, he imperceptibly moves from personal problems to social ones; the seeds of good do not ripen in Russian society, where there is no development of elementary ideas of duty, justice, law, order and no one has a “certain sphere of existence.” Ideas associated with the mysterious meaning of the historical process, with the role of Russia in the destinies of all mankind, occupy a central place in his mental activity and form the main core of his first philosophical letter. In the second philosophical letter, speaking about the study of the material and spiritual worlds, about the ways and means of knowing nature and man, about space, time, movement, he unfolds philosophical and scientific evidence of his main idea: “In the human spirit there is no other truth than that , which God put into him with his own hand when he took him out of existence.”
A significant part of the third philosophical letter is devoted to the consideration of the subordination of human understanding of life to a higher principle, an external force, the originality of which reveals its manifestation in both the physical and moral world.
In the fourth philosophical letter, moving on to the analysis of the movement of physical bodies, Chaadaev will conclude that inexorable logic forces us to talk about it as a consequence of an external source. And since movement is the universal form of existence of any phenomena in the world, mental and moral movement also has an external stimulus.
The sixth and seventh philosophical letters deal with the movement and direction of the historical process.
In the eighth and last philosophical letter, partly of a methodological nature, the author concludes: “The truth is one: the kingdom of God, heaven on earth, all the promises of the Gospel - all this is nothing more than the insight and implementation of the connections of all the thoughts of mankind in a single thought; and this single thought is the thought of God himself, in other words, the realized moral law.”
Having retired from Moscow society in 1828 to 1830, Chaadaev basically completed work on a cycle of philosophical letters, which was an event of great significance for him, giving him an awareness of personal completeness and firmness of a new social quality and capable of leading him out of a difficult crisis.
1. Tarasov B.N. “Chaadaev” - M.: Young Guard, 1986
2. Frolova I.T. “Philosophical Dictionary” - M.: Politizdat, 1986.
“Freedom and personality in Russian philosophy”
(Amelichkina E., student 113 gr.)
The problem of personality is one of the main theoretical problems in the history of Russian philosophy. Its comprehensive study is an important national feature of philosophical thought. The problem of personality concentrates the main issues of political, legal, moral, religious, social and aesthetic life and thought.
The place of the individual in society, the conditions of his freedom, the structure of the personality, his creative realization is a holistic process of development of ideas.
The theme of the problem of personality passes in one form or another through many stages in the history of Russian philosophical thought. However, this problem was developed most intensively in the 19th - early 20th centuries in various publications that were distinguished by their richness of content.
Slavophiles argued that true personal freedom is possible only on the basis of recognition of religion as the highest level of spiritual life. Rejecting rationalism and materialism, they defended God in man. Raising the question of the inner spiritual freedom of man was an undoubted merit of the Slavophil philosophers.
Slavophiles opposed personal property in a legal state. They believed that clan, family, community, social connections are the best environment for the existence of an individual. They contrasted all forms of external freedom - political, legal, economic - with internal freedom of the individual, based on the values of the inner world, illuminated by religion.
Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov raised this problem to a new level. They moved from abstract human nature to an understanding of personality as a subject of socio-political activity.
They affirmed social activity, asserted the unity of word and deed. A person turns into a personality in the process of struggle against the forces that impede progress, against slavery and empty daydreaming.
Chernyshevsky developed the idea of “Reasonable Egoism”. Its essence: a protest against falsehood and hypocrisy, against individual egoism, against violence against the individual, but “for” a reasonable combination of the interests of the individual and society, for the unity of consciousness and behavior.
Vladimir Solovyov approached the development of the problem of personality differently. He analyzed man on a global, cosmic scale; his understanding introduced a humanistic character. His research into the essence of goodness, shame, the unity of knowledge, morality, and aesthetics has enriched world philosophical thought.
It should be noted that Solovyov, in his work “Justification of Good,” declared socialism untenable precisely from the point of view of values.
He argued that socialism, denying the highest principle, i.e. God, “restricts and humiliates man.”
The problem of personal freedom, to which Russian philosophers devoted so many bright pages, has become modern world special significance; it becomes the object of not only political declarations, but also theoretical research. One of them is liberalism. Russian liberalism is expressed by the social system, which many people imagined as the movement of society towards a civil and legal state, where everyone is equal before the law, where the interests of the individual are higher than the interests of the state, where there are good working and living conditions.
The depth of the idea of Russian liberalism is demonstrated by the work of one of the leading representatives of Russian social and philosophical thought, Peter Struve.
The position of liberal conservatism, to which he includes such people as Catherine II, Karamzin and Vyazemsky, Alexander Pushkin, was continued in Struve’s works.
Struve believed that the main essence of certain teachings is the attitude “to the two main problems of the cultural and state development of Russia: the problem of freedom and power.” Thus, two trends are intertwined - complete freedom of the individual and at the same time the search for the boundaries of this freedom. Struve considered the work of A.S. to be a classic expression of liberal conservatism. Pushkin, in whom Struve saw a combination of both love for freedom and love for power.
Prötr Struve developed the ideas of “Great Russia”. At the same time, he relied on both the historical past of the country and living cultural traditions.
Understanding the state as the most important factor in the country's progress logically led to the affirmation of the role of law. It was for this reason that Struve opposed arbitrariness and destructive anarchy.
In the 20s, in the article “Our People,” Struve spoke out against the revolution and against hopes for the restoration of tsarism. He wrote: “Russia needs revival, not restoration. The revival is comprehensive, imbued with the ideas of nation and fatherland, freedom and property, and at the same time free from the spirit and spirits of self-interest and revenge.”
Only the strengthening of the constitutional principles of the state, the establishment of firm laws, the creation of a society based on strong legal principles capable of preventing any excesses, any form of destructive action of the anarchic mass, skillfully directed by those who strive for power.
Peter Struve was convinced of the need not only for evolutionary changes based on strict legality, but also in the possibility of various compromises on both sides.
Struve called the revolution of 1917 an all-Russian catastrophe, the responsibility for which lies with the clumsy government, the radical and liberal intelligentsia.
It is quite natural that Struve came to assess the Russian Revolution of 1917 as a “national misfortune”, a cultural, social and political collapse. He recognized the influence of Marxism on public consciousness, but the theory itself cannot serve as a source of gigantic historical changes.
Thus, thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries sought to establish in Russian society the ideas of enlightenment and respect for legal norms, respect for the individual.
“The idea of the unity of the philosophical teaching of Vl. Solovyov”
(Demkina A., student 112 gr.)
The most prominent figure in Russian philosophy of the second half of the 19th century was Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov.
From the very beginning of his philosophical work, he was unusually independent. Solovyov had the rare ability to quickly master and study a significant number of sources, including ancient authors, and then analyze them very critically and thoroughly. The works of Plato had a huge influence on Solovyov’s worldview. It is known that he even made an attempt to translate all of Plato’s dialogues into Russian, and only death prevented him from completing this task.
Vladimir Solovyov highly valued Plato’s idealism and his ideal worldview, but believed that it was impossible to transform life with ideas alone. Therefore, the idea must be embodied materially without losing its meaning. Solovyov believed that it was impossible to become a real superman only by the power of mind and genius.
Solovyov, creating his philosophical system, turned to the works of other European philosophers. In particular, to Schelling, Kant, Hegel. Just like these German philosophers, he highly valued human reason, but disagreed with them on a number of fundamental issues. The main fundamental difference was that Vladimir Solovyov was oriented towards Christian theology from beginning to end, while German philosophers, to one degree or another, moved away from Christianity.
In his worldview, he was a comprehensive scientist, that is, in his theoretical works he acted not only as a philosopher, but also tried to present integral, synthetic knowledge.
Solovyov deeply knew not only theology, but also knew well fiction. He is considered an outstanding publicist and art critic.
Thus, philosopher Vladimir Solovyov acts as a multifaceted researcher. An important place in his philosophical work is occupied by the doctrine of Sophia and of God-manhood. His works “Readings on God-Humanity” make it possible to understand Solovyov’s ideas about the meaning of life and the meaning of the historical process.
The central idea of Solovyov's philosophy is the idea of unity. The basic principle of unity: “Everything is one in God.” For Solovyov, God is an absolute personality: loving, merciful, strong-willed, who ensures the material and spiritual unity of the world. The philosopher characterizes God as a “cosmic mind,” “a superpersonal being,” “a special organizing force operating in the world.”
Solovyov was a supporter of the dialectical approach to reality. In his opinion, reality cannot be viewed in frozen forms. The most common characteristic of all living things is the sequence of changes. For Solovyov, the direct subject of all changes in the world is the world soul, which has a special energy that spiritualizes everything that exists. However, the activity of the world soul needs a divine impulse. This impulse is manifested in the fact that God gives the world soul the idea of unity as the determining form of all its activities. This eternal divine idea in Solovyov’s system was called Sophia - wisdom. The basis and being of the world is the “soul of the world” - Sophia, which should be considered as a connecting link between the creator and creation, giving community to God, the world and humanity.
The mechanism of bringing God, the world and humanity closer together is revealed in Solovyov’s philosophical teachings through the concept of God-manhood. The real and perfect embodiment of God-manhood, according to Solovyov, is Jesus Christ, who, according to Christian dogma, is both a complete god and a complete man. His image serves not only as an ideal to which every individual should strive, but also as the highest goal for the development of the entire historical process.
Solovyov’s historiosophy is based on this goal. The goal and meaning of the entire historical process is the spiritualization of humanity, the union of man with God, the embodiment of God-manhood. It is not enough, Solovyov believes, for the coincidence of the divine with the human to occur only in the person of Jesus Christ. It is necessary for the union to take place in reality - practically and, moreover, not in individual people (in “saints”), but on the scale of all humanity. The primary condition on the path to God-manhood is the acceptance of the doctrine of Christianity. Christ revealed universal moral values to man and created conditions for his moral improvement. By joining the teachings of Christ, a person follows the path of his spiritualization. This process occupies the entire historical period of human life. Humanity will come to the triumph of peace and justice, truth and virtue, when its unifying principle will be God embodied in man, who has moved from the center of eternity to the center of the historical process. The social structure presupposes, from Solovyov’s point of view, the unity of the “universal church” and monarchical domination, the merger of which should lead to the formation of a “free theocracy.” In the epistemological aspect, the principle of unity is realized through the concept of integral knowledge, which represents an inextricable relationship between three varieties of this knowledge: imperial (scientific), rational (philosophical) and mystical (contemplative-religious). As a prerequisite, a fundamental principle, integral knowledge presupposes belief in the existence of an absolute principle - God.
Solovyov's statement about true knowledge as a synthesis of imperial, rational and mystical knowledge is the basis for the conclusion about the need for the unity of science, philosophy and religion. Such unity, which he calls “free theosophy,” allows us to consider the world as a complete system, conditioned by unity or God.
List of used literature:
1. Radudin A.A. “Philosophy”, course of lectures, publishing house “Center” 1996
2. Nemirovskaya L.Z. “Philosophy”, 1996
“E. Trubetskoy on the meaning of history”
(Kapitonova S., student 112 gr.)
Evgeniy Nikolaevich Trubetskoy developed problems in the philosophy of law, theory of knowledge, Christian ethics and aesthetics, and anthropology.
An important place in the philosophical teachings of Evgeny Trubetskoy is occupied by discussions about the historical process. He believed that at the beginning of the 20th century, world civilization was on the verge of a global crisis. He saw the features of the impending catastrophe primarily in the morality of the modern state, which reflects the collective egoism of politicians, entrepreneurs, classes and even entire nations.
Human society is turning into an improved beast. Trubetskoy considered the main reason for this process to be the impact on society and morality of industrialization, which destroys divine and human laws.
Trubetskoy tried to find the answer to the questions: can our faith in the meaning of life withstand the hellish whirlwind of universal destruction, when the whole world is engulfed in the ominous glow of the fire of world war and revolution? E. Trubetskoy discusses this topic in one of his main works, which is called “The Meaning of Life.” The philosopher wrote this book during the difficult days of 1918. He says that the dominance of evil in the world manifests itself in the form of general war between people. And although the fact of war itself is a phenomenon as old as the world, but World War- a new and unusual fact in the history of mankind. In Russia, the war, having received further development, became general in a different sense, turned into a war of all against all, i.e. to civilian. Classes, parties and even individuals are at war. “And it’s as if the Motherland itself no longer exists - there are only warring...predatory wolves that tear each other apart or gather in packs to attack lonely ones together...”
During the days of the World War, serious changes occurred in the consciousness of the Russian people. Everyone was imbued with the idea that in the interests of collective, national everything is permitted. As a result, all moral foundations were shaken. The life and personality of a person have lost their value. “It’s convenient to “pin” an enemy who has surrendered in order to untie your hands and not bother with him - isn’t it a tempting opportunity to justify this convenience with considerations of general security?...” Thus, personal egoism began to coincide with collective egoism. Practical atheism took hold.
As a result, the people lost confidence in their old leaders and believed those who spoke of deception and betrayal of the ruling classes. The Bolsheviks contrasted the collective egoism of the nation with the collective egoism of the class. They explained to the people that there are only two nations: the common people and the propertied classes, their sworn enemies.
The people believed. And the war changed front, turned inward: from a world war it became a civil war. The revolution, which began with a military revolt, transferred the morality of war to public relations. General war is the dark satanic face of world life, which manifests itself in mass brutality, mockery of man, persecution against the church and Christian morality.
Trubetskoy is looking for the reason for the persecution of the Soviet government against the church and comes to the conclusion that the reason for the persecution is the special role of the church in society. The existence of the Church personifies the condemnation of the bloody chaos of the fratricidal war. The Church is hateful because it forbids people to swallow each other.
As a religious philosopher, Trubetskoy sees the meaning of life in counteracting this universal evil, in active love for God. He proposes, with the impoverishment of human society, to take care of the moral growth of the individual. At the same time, he speaks not only about exaltation, the desire for God as the final result, but also about the recognition of relative values and a positive attitude towards them, since God is the meaning of everything relative and temporary. Thus, all elements of culture that are doomed to extinction and eternal values are very important.
Social disasters (wars, revolutions) should not lead people to inactivity; on the contrary, life should constantly develop. It is necessary to strengthen order in the state, take care of loved ones and those in need of help. We must not lose the culture of life and relationships in everyday life. Tests should morally strengthen a person.
Trubetskoy is critical of the ideas that were popular in those years about the imminent end of the world. He says that the end of the world is not a simple cessation of the world process, but the achievement of its main goal, the main meaning - the creation of God-mankind. God-manhood, to which, Trubetskoy believed, peace would come through difficult trials and moral improvement, is not only the greatest miracle of God, but, at the same time, a manifestation of the highest energy of human nature.
Biographical information.
Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1863 - 1920) - prince, Russian religious philosopher, lawyer, public figure. He was a close friend of V. Solovyov, although he was younger than him. E.N. Trubetskoy continued the work of Solovyov, developing an Orthodox religious philosophical worldview.
E. Trubetskoy studied at a classical gymnasium in Moscow, and was brought up surrounded by highly cultured people. From the age of 12, he developed a passion for music, especially classical music, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and later Russian composers - Borodin, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsokov... During the Russian-Turkish war that broke out in 1877, Trubetskoy was supporter of the idea of Russia as a great nation. While still in the gymnasium, Trubetskoy, like Solovyov and other Russian young people of his time, overcame a spiritual crisis, expressed in the denial of all traditions of the past. He lost faith in God and became carried away by positivism. Positivism is a philosophical concept whose proponents sought to achieve positive, positive knowledge necessary for man. Later, Trubetskoy began a more serious study of philosophy. He soon renounced positivism and switched to skepticism, which became a source of new torment for him. Skepticism is a philosophical concept whose supporters either doubt the possibility of knowing reality, or, without doubting this, settle on a negative result. Although E. Trubetskoy, for example, clearly realized that dishonest actions are unacceptable, nevertheless his mind was powerless to bring any convincing argument in favor of selfless behavior. He overcame the crisis only when he became passionately interested in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. E. Trubetskoy began to understand that pessimism was an inevitable consequence of the denial of absolutely correct principles governing the world. Then he faced an alternative: “Either there is a God, or it’s not worth living.” Trubetskoy's heart recognized God, but his mind rejected him. Having overcome such duality, E. Trubetskoy felt the return of the integrity of his human being. He returned to the fold of the Orthodox Church and became even more interested in the problems of the Russian national spirit.
In 1886 he met V. Solovyov and since then became his close friend. Trubetskoy was a professor of legal philosophy, first in Kyiv and then in Moscow. He was an active publicist and defended the idea of independence of the church from the state. As a politician, he opposed the reactionary forces who sought to “freeze” Russia, and against the revolutionaries who, in his words, “set themselves the task of turning everything upside down.” In the pamphlet “Two Beasts,” he calls these forces the two beasts of the apocalypse and shows that the mouth of the red beast and the claws of the lonely black beast are dangerous.
In 1910, E. Trubetskoy founded the publishing house “Put”, where he published the works of outstanding Russian religious philosophers. Since 1918 in Novorossiysk he supports the White movement and in 1920 in Novorossiysk he dies of typhus.
His main works: “The Worldview of St. Augustine”, 1892; “The worldview of Pope Gregory VII and the publicists - his contemporaries”, 1897; “The World Outlook of V. Solovyov”, 1912; “Metaphysical assumption of knowledge”, 1917; “The Meaning of Life”, 1918, as well as his two wonderful brochures about Russian iconography - “Two Worlds in Old Russian Iconography” and “Speculation in Colors”.
List of used literature:
1. Trubetskoy E.N. "Meaning of life. Anthology”, M., 1994;
2. Lossky N.O. “History of Russian Philosophy”, M., 1991;
3. Zharov L.V., Zolotukhina E.V. “Modern philosophy: dictionary and reader.”, Rostov-on-Don, 1996.
"TO. Leontyev about the historical fate of Russia”
(Kuvshinova N., student 112 gr.)
Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev (1831 - 1891) was born on January 25 in the Kaluga province. The decisive influence on the fate of the future writer and philosopher was exerted by his mother, who was distinguished by deep religiosity and firm monarchical convictions. While studying at Moscow University, he began to write. Leontyev's first works were highly appreciated by I.S. Turgenev. Konstantin Leontyev made an excellent career, he served as consul in the European possessions in Turkey, was a censor, a doctor, and participated in the Crimean War. But he sacrificed his career for the sake of his writings. In the end, he left his position and retired to a monastery, where he took secret monastic vows under the name of Clement. He did not live long in the monastery and Leontyev died in 1891.
Even during his lifetime, Leontyev’s work caused heated debate. Since his philosophy ran counter to both the philosophy of the Westerners and the philosophy of the Slavophiles. Leontyev was considered a follower of N.Ya. Danilevsky. But this cannot be asserted, since Leontyev’s views were formed even before his meeting with Danilevsky. And subsequently K.N. Leontyev disagreed with Danilevsky on the issue of what is the basis of any culture and state. Danilevsky believes that the basis is the “tribe,” and Leontyev believed that the tribal principle is meaningless for Russia, since the Slavs are affected by the “virus” of Western European bourgeois egolitarism. At the same time, Leontyev believed that Russia would be able to free itself from this “virus”. According to Leontyev, Russia is a special cultural and historical type that will have to replace the Romano-Germanic one. Based on this, Leontyev saw two ways out of the current situation in Russia: either Russia should imitate European civilization and adopt the experience of “Old British personal love of freedom” with an admixture of flat French equality, or defend its national identity, imbued with the ancient Orthodox spirit. Leontyev gravitated towards the second option. And he came up with a cultural and political ideal of the state that Russia should become. He believed that “the state should be strong, class-based and fierce, the church should be independent, the life of the Russian people should be national and separate from the West.”
If, according to Leontyev’s assumptions, Russia would become like this, then it would take leadership in the world, eclipsing Europe. But here the question arises: why should Europe give up its world leadership? Leontyev found the answer. And this answer is contained in his historical concept. On average, according to Leontyev, the historical period of development of peoples is 1000 - 1200 years. This period is divided into three periods: initial simplicity, blossoming complexity and simplifying confusion. In his work “On the Durability of the State,” Leontiev, by calculation, concluded that European civilization is in the third period and the logical end of its existence is approaching. Leontyev put forward Russia in place of Europe. But is Russia really much younger than Europe? In order to deduce the age of Russia, it is necessary to count our history, either from Rurik (862), or from the baptism of Vladimir (988). It turns out that it is either 1012 or 886 years. So this means that Russia is not nearly younger than Europe! But Europe and Russia are different in their development. In Europe, development was progressive and rapid, but Russia was “frozen” for several centuries (Tatar-Mongol yoke), so development proceeded slowly. Russia has just entered the second phase of development, and it has yet to become a powerful and strong state. To do this, she needs to conquer Constantinople, where in the future it is necessary to strengthen the conservative cultural layer and restore the Eastern Kingdom with a forced agricultural community. Leontyev appreciated the coercive nature of the relationship, since the weakening of strong power is a sure sign of the decomposition of the state.
But not everyone had a positive attitude and shared Leontiev’s philosophy. According to Solovyov, all these discussions about the further development of Russia resemble childishness. Hopes and dreams do not come from true Christianity. V. Solovyov’s opinion was shared by S.N. Bulgakov. He believed that “Leontyev started a lawsuit with culture.” Leontiev's ideal was the Renaissance. But this era had two sides: the highest dawn of culture on the one hand, and the greatest suffering, on the other hand. Leontiev, according to Bulgakov, was ready, without hesitation, to sacrifice human tears to the demon of beauty. Bulgakov called this aestheticism godless humanism. Not everyone condemned Leontyev. According to V. Zenkovsky, Leontyev knew how to approach the most difficult problems (including political problems). But the lack of completeness of Christian consciousness did not allow K.N. Leontiev to develop a positive program of historical work.
1. “Russian philosophers” (late XIX - mid-XX centuries). Bibliographical essays, texts of essays., M., 1993;
2. Solovyov V., Leontiev K.N., vol. 2, M., 1994;
3. Leontiev K.N. “Byzantium and Slavism”, M., 1995.
“The problem of N. Berdyaev’s creativity”
(Skobelkina L., student 111 gr.)
Analysis of Chapter VIII “The World of Creativity. “The meaning of creativity” and the experience of creative ecstasy”, a philosophical autobiographical work by N.A. Berdyaev “Self-awareness”.
Berdyaev wrote that the theme of creativity, the creative vocation of man, is the main theme of his science. Moreover, the formulation of this topic was not the result of philosophical reflection, it was an internal experience, “insight”. Berdyaev, as a deeply religious person following a spiritual path, experienced an acute period of consciousness of oppression by sin, but did not withdraw into himself from the consciousness of this, but overcame it, feeling a strong creative uplift. So what did he feel? What is “creativity” according to Berdyaev? On the one hand, creativity is a requirement of God for man, it is “man’s response to the creative act of God.” Berdyaev wrote that it would be impudent to assume God’s need for man, but nevertheless, “The Loving (God) cannot exist without the beloved (man).” Berdyaev also defined creativity as a “flight to infinity,” a breakthrough into another being. He wrote that the final products of creative activity are only “symbolic creativity,” and “real creativity” is the desire for the transformation of the world, leading to the emergence of “a new heaven and a new earth.” According to Berdyaev, the creative act is an eschatological act, directed towards the end of the world.
He closely intertwined the problem of creativity with the problem of freedom. Freedom is groundless; it is not drawn into the causes of the relations to which being is subject. Berdyaev noted that freedom is a prerequisite in creativity. But on the other hand, the great creative act needs matter, because it does not take place in emptiness. But human creativity cannot be determined only by the material; there is something in it that does not obey world laws. This is the element of freedom.
Berdyaev poses the question: “Is it possible to move from the creativity of perfect works to the creativity of a perfect life?” The creativity of modern life here should be understood as a real change in the world. Berdyaev did not change his faith in the creative calling of man, but the hope for the imminent advent of a creative era is dashed by catastrophic events in the world (wars, revolutions, the threat of world slavery, etc.).” “It always seemed to me that the events on the surface of history were insignificant and not very important in themselves; I see in them only signs of something else... It seemed to me that real life was behind all this.”
Berdyaev denies such a concept as “the evolution of creativity.” The idea of direct, continuous, continuous development is alien to him. In the world and historical process there is no need for a natural development or program. Periods of reaction and darkness are possible just as creative breakthroughs and the opening of “new worlds” are possible.
The problem of the relationship between contemplation and creativity in Berdyaev’s concept is interesting. It would seem that these concepts are opposite, since creativity is an activity that requires the activity of the spirit, and contemplation is a passive perception of reality... But Berdyaev proves the opposite. He says that contemplating the beauty of the world around us presupposes an active desire for another world. “In contemplation of the highest beauty, harmony, the contemplator experiences a moment of creative ecstasy... But the moments of contemplation themselves do not know struggle, conflict, painful resistance and difficulty, these states are overcome. This distinguishes contemplation from other forms of activity of the spirit. And a person must periodically come to moments of contemplation, experience the blessed rest of contemplation. Exceptional dynamism, continuous activism either tears a person apart or turns him into a mechanism. This is the horror of our era.”
Berdyaev realized and noted with bitterness that his contemporaries did not understand him. They do not understand his thoughts, ideas that “were in deep conflict with time and were directed towards the distant future.” “I tried to preach humanity in the most inhumane era,” wrote N.A. Berdyaev. And this was the essence of his work.
Biographical information.
Russian religious philosopher. At the turn of 1900 he was influenced by the ideas of Marxism and neo-Kantianism, and later turned to religious philosophy; was influenced by Dostoevsky, V. Solovyov, and later by Boehme. He participated in the collections “Problems of Idealism” (1902), “Milestones” (1909), “From the Depths” (1918), in the activities of the religious and philosophical society named after V. Solovyov, and was the initiator of the creation of the Free Academy of Spiritual Culture (1918 - 1922). In 1922 he left the USSR. From 1924 he lived in France, publishing the religious and philosophical magazine “The Path” (Paris, 1925 - 1940). Refusing to build his philosophy monistically, to derive it from a single principle, Berdyaev develops it as a combination of several independent ideological complexes, each of which grows from a certain primary intuition: the idea of freedom, which defines the entire Berdyaev anthology, the idea of creativity and objectification, the idea of personality underlying anthropology , social philosophy and ethics, the idea of a “metahistorical” eschatological meaning of history. General basis These ideas are a dualistic picture of reality, in which two sets of principles are mutually opposed. Freedom, spirit (God), noumenon, subject (personality, “I”) - on the one hand, necessity, world, phenomenon, object - on the other. Both series characterize two different types of reality that interact with each other. This picture, according to Berdyaev, is close to Kant’s metaphysics, however, the basic concepts of the latter are reinterpreted here: the noumenon or “thing in itself” turns out to be the subject in Berdyaev - “beings and their existences”, only in the subject, in the personality, is contained, according to Berdyaev, the Incomprehensible inner depth rooted in freedom.
Personality in Berdyaev's concept does not coincide with imperial individuality; it is conceived as the focus of all the spiritual and mental powers of man. Berdyaev’s concept of “objectification” is not the opening of the spirit (cf. Hegel’s concept), but its quest, “closing.” The world of objects is devoid of spirituality and freedom, its law is suffering, slavery, evil rooted in objectification; it is opposed in the world by creativity, which prolongs the alienation and externality of objects to man: the creative subject includes the world within himself, into his inner life, open to freedom, and there transforms it. The point of history is to get rid of objectification. The conflict between personality and objectification is the main content of Berdyaev’s teaching about man and society. Having accepted the Marxist criticism of bourgeois society, Berdyaev at the same time acted as an ideological opponent of Marxism and an ideologist of anti-communism; calling for a “personalistic revolution,” he rejected social revolution as an end in itself and called himself a supporter of “personalistic socialism.” Berdyaev's ideas had a significant influence on the development of French existentialism and personalism, as well as on the social and philosophical concepts of the “new left” movements in France in the 1960s - 1970s.
"AND. Ilyin about the originality of Russian culture”
(Andrianova T., student 112 gr.)
Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin lived in his homeland for 39 years. From 1909 he worked at Moscow University, and in 1922 he left Moscow. At that time he held the rank of associate professor of 2 faculties - law and history and philology. He left his hometown not of his own free will. After a brutal arrest by the communist-political police, he received a death sentence, which was later commuted to lifelong deportation abroad. “This became a good school for further formation and perseverance, for the ability to put everything on the line for the sake of freedom as such, for the sake of freedom of thought and faith - yourself, your life, opportunities, family.” In 1938, he fled Nazi Germany and the Swiss authorities granted him a residence permit with very strict conditions: not to engage in political activities, not to have the right to work, not to change his place of residence under the threat of being sent back to Germany.
The 2-hour lecture “Soul” was given by Ilyin several times in different cities of Switzerland. It was read under different titles - “On the Russian Soul”, “Russian Soul”, “Russian Sphinx”. The “Soul” lectures were published twice in Zurich in German, and in Russia they were published for the first time in 1996 in the magazine of Russian culture “Moscow”. In the lecture “Soul” Ilyin deals with questions:
1. Nature and climate;
2. Temperament;
3. Freedom and harmony;
4. Language and humor;
5. Simplicity and dignity;
6. Character;
7. Heart and conscience;
8. Striving for excellence;
9. Improvisation and responsibility;
10. Primary forces.
In the introductory speech to the lecture “Soul” I.A. Ilyin defines the topic. The entire lecture begins with the word “Russia”. And since he is giving a lecture abroad, in his introductory speech he first talks about how Russia, its people and culture appear to Western Europe: “As a sphere of the hidden, as a problem that defies understanding, as a kind of sphinx, alarming" And since it was rare that a European could afford a trip to Russia for scientific purposes, they received knowledge from the so-called “experts” of Russia. Apparently, Ilyin considered it unacceptable to continue such incorrect, often irresponsible dissemination of information, which is why he decides to take on such an important task as explaining the essence and originality of Russian culture to Europe.
The idea of publishing a book or course of lectures has been incubated for decades.
I will address several issues in this lecture; some of them perform a single function and are similar in content, so they do not require detailed consideration.
1) Nature and climate. “The soul of a people is in a living and mysterious relationship with its natural conditions and therefore cannot be sufficiently explained and understood without taking into account this relationship.” Based on his own word, we can say that he considered it necessary to open up this matter. As an example of this relationship, he takes the spring flood: “Intense flood: rivers overflow their banks, flood lowlands, thawed patches form everywhere; roads become impassable; awakens from winter sleep, and people walk around as if drunk, with drunkenness in their blood and in their souls.”
2) Temperament. I.A. Ilyin understands the Russian temperament. He speaks about it in a cheerful, exciting language, and this very temperament is felt in him. Speaking about the Russian people (“he enjoys space, light assertive movement, ice drift, forest thickets, deafening thunderstorms... he revels in the intensity of being”), Ilyin believes that Russian people have a craving for the complete achievement of a goal, a dream of the last and final , the desire to look into the vast distance, the ability not to be afraid of death. In this matter, he recalls Pushkin and Dostoevsky. And he makes the following conclusion: “Such is the Russian soul: passion and power are given to it; form, character and transformation are its historically vital tasks.
3) Freedom and harmony. According to I. Ilyin, “the moral and spiritual balance of the Russian soul is reflected in a kind of freedom and harmony.” But according to Ilyin, it is not correct to imagine the Russian soul as an “eternally boiling cauldron”; “in everyday life the Russian appears smooth and natural, light and good-natured.” In this same question, Ilyin recalls a folk song. For what? But it is precisely in this folk art form that there is harmony; without conductors, tuning forks, or any musical training, the Russian choir sounds with all its heart, in free performance, from inner feelings, hearing and taste. Here the philosopher also recalls the culture of church bell ringing, which was often improvised depending on the taste of the bell ringer.
4) Primary force. I. Ilyin does not strive to idealize the Russian soul: “what is in it, that is; what he lacks, let him win through suffering and patience.” Ilyin strives to point out the uniqueness of the Russian soul. It is believed that Western Europe must now recognize this uniqueness. “To understand this peculiarity of the Russian soul, it is important to distinguish between primary and secondary soul-spiritual forces. Primary forces are life-determining, creative and spiritually leading forces. The secondary ones are adjacent to the primary ones and bear the imprint of the latter. The Russian spirit is, first of all, “the soul of feeling and contemplation.” “Her cultural-creative act is the essence of a heartfelt vision and a religiously conscientious impulse.” At the same time, love and contemplation are free, like free space, like a plain, like a pleading spirit - that’s why a Russian needs freedom and values it. Russian culture is built on feeling and heart, on contemplation, on freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer. These are, according to Ilyin, the primary forces of the Russian soul, which form and nourish the Russian temperament. Feelings and contemplation as the basis of character have special value for a Christian, but they do not form character. That is why Ilyin considers the education of the latter to be the immediate and most important task of the Russian people. Here the heart and conscience must be complemented and determined by the will, and then the path of cultural renewal in the Christian spirit and in accordance with the old tradition would be formed. At the same time, Russians have a sense of duty, social depth, and organizational ability. But Ilyin notes that “the Russian legal consciousness also lacks a strong form and strength.”
Ilyin leads to the fact that the Russian soul - “this is not some terrible sphinx” - whoever understands it or passes it off as such demonstrates a lack of its own ability to penetrate. “It is the soul that seeks correct understanding and does not want to be confused with extremely narrow movements and ideologies (for example, with Bolshevism). Being the soul of free feeling and free contemplation, she was, as it were, born for Christianity; and her last refuge is therefore faith and religion.”
For information:
In total, I. Ilyin had 13 lectures:
1. “Soul”;
2. “Faith”;
3. “Move” historical development”;
4. “The main national problems of Russia”;
5. “History of the formation of the state”;
6. “Creative idea of Russia”;
7. “Russian soul in fairy tales and legends”;
8. “On the Russian perception of art and artistic perfection”;
9. “On modern Russian fiction”;
10. “Old Russian art (architecture, frescoes)”;
11. “Freedom of the spirit of Russia. Posters by nature in Russia and holy fools in Christ”;
12. “Peace and joy in the Orthodox worldview”;
13. “Eternally feminine and eternally masculine in the Russian soul” (not found).
List of used literature:
1. Journal of Russian culture “Moscow”, January 1996
“L.N. Tolstoy on the meaning of freedom and necessity"
(Belolipetskaya E., student 111 gr.)
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828 - 1910) - a brilliant Russian writer - realist, famous thinker, whose ideological positions are of great interest for characterizing the historical and philosophical process in Russia XIX- beginning of the 20th century. His legacy is works of art, theoretical works, journalistic articles, diaries and letters full of deep philosophical reflections of a moral, social, aesthetic nature. These thoughts, for the most part, are in organic connection with the actual literary features of the writer’s artistic heritage and are inseparable from them. In Tolstoy’s thoughts, one or another, predominantly idealistic, solution to philosophical (both anthological and epistemological) problems was found, his likes and dislikes, his attitude to various currents of socio-political, philosophical sociological thought, aesthetic and ethical teachings were revealed. His worldview contains rational judgments that have not lost their significance even today. At the same time, the views of the brilliant writer and famous thinker, the exponent of the moods and aspirations of the multimillion-strong patriarchal peasantry are riddled with glaring contradictions, a deep analysis of which was given by V.I. Lenin in his articles about Tolstoy. On the one hand, Tolstoy dealt a heavy blow to the dogmas of the Orthodox Church. On the other hand, he is looking for ways to renew religion and expresses obvious idealistic statements. At the same time, Tolstoy is characterized by a realistic perception of nature and social life; he has materialistic judgments. Based on the position of metaphysics in resolving a number of issues, admitting, for example, the existence of eternal and unchanging truths, L.N. At the same time, Tolstoy in his artistic creations reflects the dialectic of the material and spiritual. Tolstoy’s masterful depiction of the “dialectics of the soul,” the mobility and dynamics of the views of numerous heroes of his novels, stories, and short stories are in clear contradiction with his metaphysical prejudices, statements, and with his inherent vagueness in the issue of the relationship between the material and the ideal.
In the field of sociology, especially in the interpretation of the laws of socio-historical development, Lev Nikolaevich affirms a number of very important and scientifically valuable truths. Using materials from Russian and world history, the writer in an artistic and visual form shows the driving forces and determining factors of the socio-historical objective development of human society. In his work “Philosophy of History,” Tolstoy examined the movement of humanity. He believed that this movement is continuous, and therefore comprehension of the laws of this movement is the goal of history. But in order to comprehend the laws of continuous movement - the sum of all the arbitrariness of people, the human mind allows for arbitrary, continuous units. This is achieved in two ways. The first technique is to take an arbitrary series of continuous events and consider it separately from others, whereas it cannot be the beginning of any event, since it continuously follows from another. The second is to consider the actions of one person (the king) as the sum of the arbitrariness of people, while the sum of human arbitrariness is never expressed in the activity of one person. But to study the laws of history, you need to completely change the subject of observation, leave kings and generals alone, and study the homogeneous, infinitesimal elements that lead the masses. The subject of history has always been the life of peoples and humanity. But historians were divided into old (ancient) and new. Questions were being resolved about the will of the people and how it was governed. For the ancients, these questions were resolved by faith in the direct participation of the deity in the affairs of mankind. New history rejected this. She rejected theory, but followed it in practice. Instead of the previous goals of the peoples pleasing to the deity: Greek, Roman, which seemed to be the goals of the movement of humanity, new story set as its goal the good of the French, German, English and, in the highest abstraction, the goal of the good of the civilization of all mankind, by which is meant the ordinary peoples occupying the small northwestern corner of the big continent. New history rejected the beliefs of the ancients, but came to them in a different way:
1. That nations are led by individuals;
2. That there is a known goal towards which nations and humanity are moving.
But Tolstoy believes that it is impossible to connect these two stories. But if you combine both stories together, as modern historians do, then it will be the history of monarchs and writers, and not the history of the life of peoples.
According to Tolstoy, vital role freedom and necessity play in history. These are philosophical categories that express the relationship between human activity and the objective laws of nature and society. Freedom is a person’s ability to act in accordance with his interests and goals, based on the recognition of objective necessity. Necessity is something that cannot fail to happen under given conditions, something that must definitely happen. This is also the development of phenomena, which inevitably follows from the internal significant relationships, relationships and interactions of these phenomena. The relationship between freedom and necessity is always changing, that is, religion, common sense, humanity, the science of law and history itself equally understand this relationship between necessity and freedom. Without exception, all cases in which our idea of freedom and necessity increases or decreases have only 3 reasons:
1) The attitude of the person who committed the act to the outside world. If we consider one person, and some objects act on him, then freedom decreases, and necessity increases.
2) By time. This is the basis due to which the life and activity of people who lived centuries ago, connected with me in time, cannot seem to me as free as modern life, the consequences of which are not yet known to me. Reasoning about freedom of action becomes doubtful the further one carries forward through memories and forward judgments. The freedom of people becomes doubtful, but the law of necessity is obvious.
3) To the reasons that produced the action. Ideas about freedom and necessity increase or decrease depending on the reasons, but no matter how the period of time is lengthened or shortened, no matter how understandable or incomprehensible the reasons are for us, we will never be able to imagine less than complete freedom and not complete necessity.
Because:
1) It is impossible to imagine a person free, outside of space;
2) In order to imagine its movement as free, it is necessary to imagine it in the boundaries of the present, past and future, i.e. outside of time, and this is impossible;
3) You cannot do an act without a reason, since the fact that I want to do an act without a reason is the reason for my act.
In the same way, we cannot imagine a person and his actions without the participation of freedom and subject only to the law of necessity, since there is still a share of freedom.
All this leads to two foundations of a person’s worldview: reason and consciousness. Reason expresses the laws of necessity, and consciousness expresses the essence of freedom. Freedom, unlimited by anything, is the essence of life in the human mind. Only when freedom and necessity are combined is there a clear idea of human life. Tolstoy believes that in finding the causes, history should set as its task the search for laws, since despite certain elements of fatalism, Tolstoy correctly resolves the question of the role of the masses in history, in the creation of material wealth and spiritual values, and rightly criticizes the point of view of those historians and sociologists , which depict the individual with power as the determining factor in historical action.
In general, Tolstoy tried to comprehend man and nature in its unity with man. Tolstoy unravels the “new culture” secular style of thinking, but calls not to the traditional, but to “his” church. Tolstoy is a theorist of unity. He rebels against the disintegration into components that modern science, society, and culture are subject to. He calls people to the only natural unity. The significance of Tolstoy’s work for the development of Russian thought is very great and not unambiguous. He overcame the secularism of Russian thought. Secularization is the liberation of the public and individual from the influence of religion. He showed the intelligentsia a different path, but did not follow it himself. He was not understood either by his followers or his contemporaries.
,38.18kb.
6.4. Russian philosophy of the “Silver Age”
Russian philosophy dates back thousands of years to the times of Kievan Rus. Its roots go back to national soil, but at the same time it was influenced by various movements of world philosophy, especially German classical philosophy of the 18th – 19th centuries. By the beginning of the twentieth century. we can talk about the established original Russian philosophical school. In the works of Russian philosophers, problems were posed, the solution of which is important for Russia and the fate of world civilization. This philosophy is presented in different forms: non-Marxist and Marxist materialism, secular and religious idealism. Philosophical problems were considered in the works of prominent figures in science and artistic culture.
Russian philosophy is characterized by the following features: 1) Special attention was given to the problem of man - philosophical anthropology; 2) it had a humanistic character; 3) important place it dealt with problems of creative activity; 4) issues of axiology (the science of values) were especially considered; 5) it is characterized by cosmism. These features distinguished the works of philosophers of all schools, which speaks of integrity and unity in the diversity of Russian philosophy. Heyday national philosophy– this is the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. Russian philosophy, along with Russian literature, is Russia's main contribution to world spiritual culture. Russian philosophy has given many ideas in various fields: ontology, theory of knowledge, logic, ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy.
At the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. - one of the most significant stages in the history of Russian spiritual culture - a great turning point was taking place. The general spiritual basis of the innovations of the “Silver Age” in various spheres of culture was a new philosophy - the Russian religious and philosophical renaissance. For Russian thinkers, philosophy was not an abstract theory, but the core of spiritual culture.
The “Silver Age” is a unique cultural phenomenon, one of the features of which is the complexity and interweaving of various elements of spiritual culture, which makes this period similar to the ancient mythological stage in the development of human consciousness, when there was no division of spiritual life into artistic, moral and religious principles. Centuries of isolated development of philosophy, religion, and art led to their flourishing. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century. a deep gap between various spheres of spiritual culture, between what is and what should be, thought and action, beauty and everyday life, politics and morality began to painfully manifest itself. This gap was realized only by single geniuses - F.M. Dostoevsky or Vl. Solovyov, who, based on the philosophy of unity, discovered the triune formula: Truth - Good - Beauty.
Established by the beginning of the twentieth century. philosophy had significant shortcomings: 1) traditional materialism led to the belittlement of spirit, consciousness, considering them only as a simple function, a reflection of being; 2) positivism declared the problems of the spiritual world, the meaning of life - everything that cannot be measured and calculated by the methods of the exact sciences - to be meaningless; 3) traditional idealism separated logical forms or sensations from real existence.
Art, isolated from philosophy and morality, turned into either a dull copy of everyday life or a verbal game. Religious consciousness became increasingly clothed in frozen church ritual forms and, naturally, entire generations of the intelligentsia moved away from it. The new stage of Russian culture at the turn of the century was a grandiose attempt to bridge the gap that was detrimental to culture.
The interweaving of philosophy with other forms of spiritual life, mainly with art and literature, found its expression not only in theory, but also in everyday practice. Thus, the appearance of philosophical and artistic salons is characteristic: the salon of D. Merezhkovsky and Z. Gippius, where supporters of the “new religious consciousness” N. Berdyaev, V. Rozanov, A. Blok, A. Bely, N. Minsky gathered; salon of the poet and philosopher V. Ivanov - “environment”; St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings with the participation of the magazines “New Way” (since 1903), “Questions of Life” (since 1905); Liberals grouped around the journal “Russian Thought” under the leadership of P. Struve.
However, there were tragic contradictions in the Russian Renaissance: the cultural elite was isolated in small circle and out of touch with the broader social trends of the time. This had fatal consequences in the character that the Russian revolution took. At the same time, the consequences of the spiritual feat of Russian thinkers cannot be underestimated. Today, the restoration and development of the spiritual wealth of the “Silver Age” has begun. It is necessary to comprehend social cataclysms, sources of utopianism, restore moral criteria, ideals, revive national pride, far from narcissism. Of particular importance is the revival of morality, “truth” - the moral foundations of life, the spiritual essence of existence. Truth is sought not for the sake of abstract knowledge, but in order to “transform the world, be cleansed and saved.” A.F. Losev wrote that “in the 19th century, Russia produced a number of profound thinkers, whose genius can be ranked next to the luminaries of European philosophy.” Among the philosophers of the “Silver Age” we can name Vl. Solovyov, K. Leontyev, P. Florensky, N. Berdyaev, I. Ilyin, L. Shestov, V. Rozanov, N. Lossky, L. Karsavin and others.
A special place among them belongs to Vl. Solovyov, the creator of the concept of unity. Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853 – 1900) – son of the historian S.I. Solovyov graduated from Moscow University, taught, and then acted as a publicist. His main works: “The Justification of Good. Moral Philosophy”, “Criticism of Abstract Principles”, “Theoretical Philosophy”, etc. In 1900 Vl. Soloviev was elected honorary academician of the Academy of Sciences.
Vl. Soloviev acts as an idealist. He attempted to combine Christian Platonism, German classical idealism (Schelling) and scientific empiricism in the “great synthesis”.
The core of Vl.'s philosophical teaching. Solovyov - the idea of unity. This is a system in which all elements of the spiritual and material world are directed towards the Absolute and are revived. This unity was thought of by the philosopher in the form of Sophia - the wisdom of God.
The path to comprehension of existence Vl. Soloviev saw in organic synthesis different ways knowledge - empirical, philosophical-rational and mystical. One of these forms of comprehension of existence cannot lead to Truth, which is accessible only to the synthesis of science, philosophy and revelation. The philosopher believed that all existing philosophical teachings suffer from one-sidedness. The idea of unity is complex. This is the comprehensiveness of being, and “whole knowledge” (as a synthesis of science, philosophy, religion), and the “conciliarity” of man, that is, his generic, socio-historical and universal essence. The highest goal of historical development is the spiritual communication of people, which Vl. Solovyov called it the Church. His terminology is unusual; he put original content into it. The spiritual development of humanity must come to the three most important categories of human thought: Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Real life imperfect, its evolution is underway, the ultimate goal of which is the Kingdom of God as the highest Good. Later Vl. Solovyov became close to Russian cosmism and preached “theurgic work,” designed to rid the world of the destructive effects of time and space and overcome death.
At the same time, especially towards the end of life, along with the call to a higher being, absolute Good, Vl. Soloviev feared the threat of the end of history and great catastrophes. Nationalism, general satiety, external contentment, but complete spiritual decay lead to disaster. As a result, there will be a decline in moral and religious values, the dominance of spiritualism, superstition, and belief in any deception. The philosopher feared capitalism and revolution. Although in the field of spirit he is a revolutionary. Above all Vl. Solovyov emphasized the unity of knowledge, faith, beauty with Good, with the principles of morality, which knows no exceptions. No person, no people, no group of people, if they do not harm anyone, should suffer. Vl. Solovyov rejects the idea of violence even in the name of liberating people and changing the nature of the system. In this he differs significantly from the Russian revolutionaries, preaching humility, asceticism, and not violence in the name of socialism, which for Vl. Solovyov is no different from the bourgeois system he hated, with its dominance of material interests and injustice. But we must keep in mind that he wrote about utopian socialists like Saint-Simon, and he did not know Marxism enough. The two forces that the philosopher feared—capitalism and revolution—appeared in the twentieth century. the rise of science, technology, social transformations and the horrors of war, the destruction of millions of people.
Vl. Solovyov wrote a lot about Russia (“Russian Idea”, etc.). He advocated the unity of Europe and Russia, for the unification of all three varieties of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism. He was against reducing the “Russian idea” to the Christian monarchical idea. Neither the state, nor society, nor the church, taken separately, express the essence of the “Russian idea.” This idea coincides with the Christian transformation of life, with its construction on the principles of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. The “Russian idea” is carried out not against other nations, but with them and for them.
Creativity Vl. Solovyov had a noticeable influence on the subsequent development of Russian philosophy. It stands at the origins of the “new religious consciousness” of the early twentieth century: the “search for God” and the religious philosophy of N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, P. A. Florensky and others.
Russian Revolution 1905 – 1907 was one of the largest events of the early twentieth century. Everything was mixed up here: the collapse of tsarist illusions, spontaneous riots, the Black Hundreds, terror, the emergence of parliamentarism, etc. The authors of the collection “Milestones” tried to comprehend the experience of the revolution in relation to the fate of the Russian intelligentsia and culture. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia,” published in 1909.
In this book, leading philosophers, legal scholars, and publicists tried to comprehend the experience of the first Russian revolution and, in its light, evaluate the leading trends in Russian social thought, the traditional views and ideals of the Russian intelligentsia. After its release, “Vekhi” generated a huge number of responses, controversy, and active rejection of both left-wing and right-wing public figures. In the first six months of 1909 alone, 154 articles were published about the collection.
Thus, the leader of the cadets P. Milyukov sharply negatively assessed “Vekhi”, seeing in the book a distortion of the image of the Russian intelligentsia. The opponent of the liberals, V.I. Lenin, called the collection an encyclopedia of liberal renegadeism, seeing in it a break with revolutionary democratic traditions.
One of the key ideas of “Vekhi” was expressed by the initiator of the collection M.O. Gershenzon: “A person cannot live forever outside.” ( Milestones. From the depths. - M.: Pravda, 1991. – P. 74). It was a call to the formation of personality, to the need for continuous internal work of a person, to his self-deepening. No external changes in the fatherland will lead to the achievement of justice, prosperity, harmony of human relations if there are no steady changes in the inner world of man. A call to creative consciousness, to self-education, to overcome “evil in oneself”, i.e. to cleanse consciousness from prejudices, from narrow group intolerance, when for the sake of political temporary slogans the values of morality and spiritual life are sacrificed, were voiced with exceptional force in “Vekhi”.
The authors of "Vekhi" were honest, sincere champions of the country's genuine progress. They did not idealize contemporary Russia. They did not defend autocracy, but spoke about the monstrosity of a blind, spontaneous and merciless popular revolt, the antidote to which can only be a strong state power based on law. By the way, this is exactly what M. Gorky, V. Korolenko, I. Bunin, V. Shulgin wrote about after October 1917. It is interesting that the articles in the collection were not discussed in advance, and the authors did not get acquainted with each other’s articles. All the more indicative are the coincidences of many ideas and the unconditional integrity of the collection.
The authors proceeded from the recognition of the primacy of spiritual life over external forms of human communication (economics, government). the main objective books - to comprehend the results of the first decade of the twentieth century. in Russia, revolution, rampant terror, fermentation of minds, and, above all, to identify the spiritual basis of these events, to discuss how true the ideological predilections of the Russian intelligentsia were, whether many of its ideals were outdated, turned into idols, dogmas that were not subject to discussion. Although this resulted in inevitable accusations of apostasy and forgetting of ideals and traditions.
Many ideas voiced in “Vekhi” were a continuation of the traditions of Russian social and philosophical thought in new conditions. Contrary to popular belief, the “Vekhi people” also adopted certain ideas of revolutionary democrats, in particular, A. Herzen. These are the ideas of personal freedom, the need for a solid moral foundation for any radical changes. It is necessary to free ourselves from dogmatic thinking, no matter how humane and democratic certain ideas may be. Ideas of pluralism developed. Requires transfer from external to inner side life, which ensures the spiritual freedom of the intellectual. It is required to know better domestic philosophical thought: in particular, A. Khomyakov, B. Chicherin, A. Kozlov, S. Trubetskoy, L. Lopatin, V. Neslilov, P. Chaadaev, Vl. Solovyov, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky. The passion for European fashion must be contrasted with a universal national tradition.
It’s interesting that the “Vekhi people” were Marxists in the past. By the beginning of the twentieth century. Russian philosophers are moving away from Marxism, striving to better understand not only the economic laws of society, but also the spiritual world of the individual, his freedom. They saw the basis of progress not in destruction, but in creation, hence the need for purposeful, creative, organized, competent work. The ideas of “Vekhi” become relevant again at the beginning of the 21st century, when Russia is experiencing another inversion.
Cosmism was a notable phenomenon in philosophy. In world culture, both Western and Eastern, there is a deep tradition associated with the feeling of man’s deep involvement in cosmic existence, the idea of man as a microcosm, containing all natural, cosmic elements and energies, as evidenced by religions, myths, magical rituals. Essentially, from antiquity to the end of the 19th century. this space theme, in in a broad sense, developed only in myth, folklore, poetry, as well as in some philosophical and utopian fantastic works (Cyrano de Bergerac, Jules Verne).
But it is significant that it was in Russia, which became the birthplace of the scientific doctrine of the biosphere and its transition to the noosphere and opened the way to space, that already, starting from the middle of the 19th century, a unique cosmic direction of scientific and philosophical thought was maturing, which developed widely in the 20th century. These are philosophers and scientists such as N.F. Fedorov, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, N.A. Umov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, V.I. Vernadsky, A.L. Chizhevsky, V.N. Muravyov, A.K. Gorsky, N.A. Setnitsky, N.G. Kholodny, A.K. Maneev and others. In the philosophical heritage of thinkers of the Russian religious revival - Vl. Solovyov, P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev - a line close to the pathos of the ideas of Russian cosmism also stands out.
The genetic feature of the new worldview is the idea of active evolution, i.e. the need for a new creative stage in the development of the world, when humanity directs it in the direction in which reason and moral sense dictate to it. This direction will more accurately be defined not as cosmic, but as actively evolutionary. For active evolutionary thinkers, man is still an intermediate being, still in the process of growth, far from perfect, but at the same time consciously creative, called upon to transform not only external world, but also their own nature. We are essentially talking about expanding the rights of conscious-spiritual forces, about controlling the spirit of matter, about the spiritualization of the world and man.
One of the main questions that cosmist philosophers pondered was the question of the future prospects of our civilization, the direction of human development. They believed that further development is possible only if there is harmony between man and nature, and nature understood as the cosmos, and not just the earth. Confrontation between them can only lead to death. Humanity can find harmony between itself and the cosmos only if it finds harmony within itself, between all the people of the planet.
Russian cosmism for the first time began to substantiate the idea of uniting people, based not so much on ideological and political reasons, but on environmental and moral reasons. Thus, the most important feature of this philosophical trend was the combination of such problems as space access, conservation natural environment, the establishment of universal human brotherhood. For religious cosmists, the highest goal of development - the transformed zones of existence - is called the Kingdom of God. In the idea of God-manhood, the idea of the creative vocation of humanity triumphs. A new view of man is emerging, not only as a historical, social figure, biological or existential subject, but also as an evolving, creatively self-transcending, cosmic being. Moreover, we are not talking about an individual person, but about collective humanity. The ideal prototype of such humanity among religious cosmists is the Soul of the world, the Divine Sophia.
It is necessary to overcome the currently dominant idea of the existing boundaries of man. The expansion of knowledge in itself cannot be the highest good: it is unknown for what purpose or only to create temporary material comfort for the living. The highest good can only be life, and life in its spiritual color, personal life and its preservation, extension and development. The pinnacle of active evolutionary thought becomes resurrection personalism directed against death.
The cosmists themselves were versatile people, encyclopedist thinkers who worked fruitfully in various fields of science and technology. Unfortunately, the works of many of them enter scientific circulation only in last years(A. Chizhevsky, a number of works by K. Tsiolkovsky).
The current of Russian cosmism has not only national, but also universal significance. In our time, when there is a search for a fundamentally new type of thinking that would give planetary hope, the legacy of Russian cosmists acquires special attractiveness. Cosmology is an essential feature of the culture of the “Silver Age”, reflected in philosophy (Vl. Solovyov, V. Rozanov, N. Lossky), literature, especially poetry (V. Bryusov, A. Bely, A. Blok), new trends in Russian painting (M. Vrubel) and Russian music (A. Scriabin).
Religious and philosophical meetings (RFS) of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia and Orthodox clergy opened in St. Petersburg on November 29, 1901 on the initiative of a group of writers.
The idea of organizing them was first expressed by Z.N. Gippius and picked up by her husband D.S. Merezhkovsky and V.V. Rozanov. October 8, 1901 authorized founding members of the RFU - D.S. Merezhkovsky, D.V. Filosofov, V.V. Rozanov, V.S. Mirolyubov and V.A. Ternavtsev - were received by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev. In the evening of the same day, the founding members of the RFU - D.S. Merezhkovsky, Z.N. Gippius, V.A. Ternavtseva, N.M. Minsky, V.V. Rozanova, D.V. Filosofova, L.S. Bakst and A.N. Benois were received by Metropolitan. Anthony (Vadkovsky).
The RFU took place in the building of the Geographical Society.
The permanent chairman of the RFU was Bishop. Yamburgsky Sergius (Stragorodsky), rector of SPbDA. The Council of Assemblies also included: future participant in the Renovationist schism, Archimandrite. Antonin (Granovsky), protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, Archpriest S.A. Sollertinsky, D.S. Merezhkovsky, V.S. Mirolyubov (publisher of the magazine “Life for Everyone”), V.V. Rozanov, treasurer - V.A. Ternavtsev. Later, the original founding members were expanded to include Archimandrite. Sergiy (Tikhomirov), V.M. Skvortsov (editor of Missionary Review), M.A. Novoselov (publisher-editor of the “Religious and Philosophical Library”), Z.N. Gippius, D.V. Filosofov, A.V. Kartashev, V.V. Uspensky, N.M. Minsky, P.P. Pertsov, E.A. Egorov.
Visitors to the RFU were many representatives of the literary and artistic elite of Russia at that time, among them I.E. Repin, A.N. Benois, V.Ya. Bryusov, L.S. Bakst, S.P. Diaghilev, A.A. Block.
A total of 22 meetings of the RFU took place. Topics discussed: “On the relationship of the Church to the intelligentsia”, “Leo Tolstoy and the Russian Church”, “On the relationship between the Church and the state”, “On freedom of conscience”, “On spirit and flesh”, “On marriage”, “On dogmatic development Churches". The minutes of the meetings were published in the magazine “New Way”, then “Notes of St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Meetings” (St. Petersburg, 1906) was published.
A common assessment of the RFU as manifestations of religious and philosophical revival, revitalization of Russian theological apologetic thought etc., does not coincide with the accusatory word of St. right John of Kronstadt “On the old and new ways of salvation” (March 1903). On April 5, 1903, by resolution of K.P. Pobedonostsev RFU were closed.
According to the organizers' plans, during the RFU under the guise of discussing pressing issues of the religious and civil life of the Church it was proposed to reconsider the attitude towards Orthodox dogmas, heretical teachings, state power and marriage, and thereby overcome a certain “internal crisis” that allegedly prevented the Russian Orthodox Church from fulfilling the “great task of public salvation.” In the first report of V.A. Ternavtsev called by the Church give an answer not in words, but in deeds to universal human requests. In subsequent speeches, ideas were put forward for the religious renewal of society, “neo-Christianity,” for the sake of saving Russia in its “hopeless” situation.
The participants, as a rule, evaluate the results of the RFU, this meeting of “two worlds” negatively, noting the lack of dialogue, mutual understanding of the parties, and the imminent closure of the meetings. Despite this imaginary disappointment with the results of the RFU, from the point of view. modernists, the action was a success in its own way. Representatives of the Orthodox clergy, with the exception of St. John of Kronstadt, did not give a church-canonical assessment of the new false teachings that were voiced during the RFU.
The consequences of the RFU, as a manifestation of modernism in the Russian Church, can be traced far ahead, right up to the beginning of the 21st century. Literally every one of the ideas voiced at the RFU: Gnostic confusion of the Church and the world, dogmatic development, immoralism, “collective salvation,” opposition to the foundations of Christian statehood and society, etc. - received further development, both in the immediate period of the renovationist split, and in subsequent years. This can be seen in the examples of the teachings of Mariology, the materials of the conference “The Sacrament of Marriage - the Sacrament of Unity” (St. Petersburg, 2008), the teachings of prof. A.I. Osipov, sectarian activities of Fr. G. Kochetkova and others.
Quotes from speeches at the RFU:
D.S. Merezhkovsky: For us, theological science is not the final authority, not the categorical authority. If it prevents you from going to Christ, then we admit that it must be destroyed, not leaving one stone unturned.
V.A. Ternavtsev: There is absolutely nothing to be done with the dogmas preserved by the Church, either in the state, or in artistic creativity, or in the struggle for the establishment of a good social life. Yes, with them you can renounce all this, but not create... While Christianity is tragically divided into warring confessions and stands in contradiction with the state and culture, we are told that in the teaching of the Church everything is complete. This is the most unfortunate mistake of our scholastic school theology.
D.V. Philosophers: There was an unconscious “religiosity” in our doctors, female students, and students who went to serve their neighbors during the famine year, since they were faithful to true love for the “earth.” But “religiosity” is not religion. Faith in God was replaced by faith in progress, civilization, and the categorical imperative. And before our eyes, the consciousness of society has grown, and the old ideals have ceased to satisfy it. Their futility was clearly demonstrated by Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, not to mention spiritual writers. In the name of love for one's neighbor, without love for God there can be no true work on earth. Without God there cannot be a real culture that embraces the fullness of human existence... The Church, in contrast to intelligent society, understood and consciously accepted only the first half of the commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” And not being able to accommodate the second, she began to deny it, bringing her love for God, her service to Him, to the point of hatred of the world, to contempt for culture. Historical Christianity, right up to the 20th century, focused all its attention only on the ascetic side of the teachings of Christ, on serving God, neglecting in its one-sidedness that God's world, part of which are neighbors working in the sweat of their brows.
Sources
1. St. John of Kronstadt. About the old and new paths of salvation // Missionary Review. 1903. No. 5. SS. 690-692
2. Prot. G. Florovsky. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937
3. S.M. Polovinkin. At the turn of the century (Religious and philosophical meetings in St. Petersburg in 1901-1903) // “Russia XXI”. 2001. No. 6 Russian philosophy has a thousand-year history since the times of Kievan Rus. Its roots go back to national soil, but at the same time it was influenced by various movements of world philosophy, especially German classical philosophy of the 18th - 19th centuries. By the beginning of the twentieth century, we can talk about the established original Russian philosophical school. In the works of Russian philosophers, problems were posed, the solution of which is important for Russia and the fate of world civilization. This philosophy is presented in different forms: non-Marxist and Marxist materialism, secular and religious idealism. Philosophical problems were considered in the works of prominent figures in science and artistic culture.
Russian philosophy is characterized by the following features: 1) special attention was paid to the problem of man - philosophical anthropology; 2) it had a humanistic character; 3) problems of creative activity occupied an important place in it; 4) issues of axiology (the science of values) were especially considered; 5) it is characterized by cosmism. These features distinguished the works of philosophers of all schools, which speaks of integrity and unity in the diversity of Russian philosophy. The heyday of Russian philosophy was the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Russian philosophy, along with Russian literature, is Russia's main contribution to world spiritual culture. Russian philosophy has given many ideas in various fields: ontology, theory of knowledge, logic, ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy.
At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries - one of the most significant stages in the history of Russian spiritual culture - a great turning point took place. The general spiritual basis of the innovations of the “Silver Age” in various spheres of culture was a new philosophy - the Russian religious and philosophical renaissance. For Russian thinkers, philosophy was not an abstract theory, but the core of spiritual culture.
The “Silver Age” is a unique cultural phenomenon, one of the features of which is the complexity and interweaving of various elements of spiritual culture, which makes this period similar to the ancient mythological stage in the development of human consciousness, when there was no division of spiritual life into artistic, moral and religious principles. Centuries of isolated development of philosophy, religion, and art led to their flourishing. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, a deep gap between various spheres of spiritual culture, between what is and what should be, thought and action, beauty and everyday life, politics and morality, began to painfully manifest itself. This gap was realized only by single geniuses - F. M. Dostoevsky or Vl. Solovyov, who, based on the philosophy of unity, discovered the triune formula: Truth - Good - Beauty.
The philosophy that had emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century had significant shortcomings: 1) traditional materialism led to the belittlement of spirit and consciousness, considering them only as a simple function, a reflection of being; 2) positivism declared the problems of the spiritual world, the meaning of life - everything that cannot be measured and calculated by the methods of the exact sciences - to be meaningless; 3) traditional idealism separated logical forms or sensations from real existence.
Art, isolated from philosophy and morality, turned into either a dull copy of everyday life or a verbal game. Religious consciousness became increasingly clothed in frozen church ritual forms and, naturally, entire generations of the intelligentsia moved away from it. The new stage of Russian culture at the turn of the century was a grandiose attempt to bridge the gap that was detrimental to culture.
The interweaving of philosophy with other forms of spiritual life, mainly with art and literature, found its expression not only in theory, but also in everyday practice. Thus, the appearance of philosophical and artistic salons is characteristic: the salon of D. Merezhkovsky and Z. Gippius, where supporters of the “new religious consciousness” N. Berdyaev, V. Rozanov, A. Blok, A. Bely, N. Minsky gathered; salon of the poet and philosopher V. Ivanov - “environment”; St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings with the participation of the magazines “New Way” (since 1903), “Questions of Life” (since 1905); Liberals grouped around the journal “Russian Thought” under the leadership of P. Struve.
However, there were tragic contradictions in the Russian Renaissance: the cultural elite was isolated in a small circle and cut off from the wider social trends of the time. This had fatal consequences in the character that the Russian revolution took. At the same time, the consequences of the spiritual feat of Russian thinkers cannot be underestimated. Today, the restoration and development of the spiritual wealth of the “Silver Age” has begun. It is necessary to comprehend social cataclysms, sources of utopianism, restore moral criteria, ideals, revive national pride, far from narcissism. Of particular importance is the revival of morality, “truth” - the moral foundations of life, the spiritual essence of existence. Truth is sought not for the sake of abstract knowledge, but in order to “transform the world, be cleansed and saved.”
A.F. Losev wrote that “in the 19th century, Russia produced a number of the deepest thinkers, whose genius can be placed next to the luminaries of European philosophy.”
Among the philosophers of the “Silver Age” we can name Vl. Solovyova, K. Leontyeva,
P. Florensky, N. Berdyaev, I. Ilyin, L. Shestov, V. Rozanov, N. Lossky, L. Karsavina and others.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 - 1907 was one of the largest events of the early twentieth century. Everything was mixed up here: the collapse of tsarist illusions, spontaneous riots, the Black Hundreds, terror, the emergence of parliamentarism, and so on. The authors of the collection “Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia,” published in 1909.
In this book, leading philosophers, legal scholars, and publicists tried to comprehend the experience of the first Russian revolution and, in its light, evaluate the leading trends in Russian social thought, the traditional views and ideals of the Russian intelligentsia. After its release, “Vekhi” generated a huge number of responses, controversy, and active rejection of both left-wing and right-wing public figures. In the first six months of 1909 alone, 154 articles were published about the collection.
Thus, the leader of the cadets P. Milyukov sharply negatively assessed “Vekhi”, seeing in the book a distortion of the image of the Russian intelligentsia. The opponent of the liberals, V.I. Lenin, called the collection an encyclopedia of liberal renegadeism, seeing in it a break with revolutionary democratic traditions.
One of the key ideas of “Vekhi” was expressed by the initiator of the collection M. O. Gershenzon: “A person cannot live forever outside.” (Milestones. From the depths. - M.: Pravda, 1991. - P. 74). It was a call for the formation of personality, for the need for continuous internal work of a person, for his self-deepening. No external changes in the fatherland will lead to the achievement of justice, prosperity, harmony of human relations if there are no steady changes in the inner world of man. The call for creative consciousness, for self-education, for overcoming “evil in oneself”, that is, for cleansing consciousness from prejudices, from narrow group intolerance, when the values of morality and spiritual life are sacrificed for the sake of political temporary slogans, sounded with exceptional force in “Vekhi "
The authors of "Vekhi" were honest, sincere champions of the country's genuine progress. They did not idealize contemporary Russia. They did not defend autocracy, but spoke about the monstrosity of a blind, spontaneous and merciless popular revolt, the antidote to which can only be a strong state power based on law. By the way, this is exactly what M. Gorky, V. Korolenko, I. Bunin, V. Shulgin wrote about after October 1917. It is interesting that the articles in the collection were not discussed in advance, and the authors did not get acquainted with each other’s articles. All the more indicative are the coincidences of many ideas and the unconditional integrity of the collection.
The authors proceeded from the recognition of the primacy of spiritual life over external forms of human communication (economics, government). The main goal of the book is to comprehend the results of the first decade of the twentieth century in Russia, the revolution, the rampant terror, the ferment of minds, and, above all, to identify the spiritual justification for these events, to discuss how true the ideological predilections of the Russian intelligentsia were, whether many of its ideals have become outdated, turned into idols, dogmas, not subject to discussion. Although this resulted in inevitable accusations of apostasy and forgetting of ideals and traditions.
Many ideas voiced in “Vekhi” were a continuation of the traditions of Russian social and philosophical thought in new conditions. Contrary to popular beliefs, the “Vekhi” people also accepted certain ideas of revolutionary democrats, in particular,
A. Herzen. These are the ideas of personal freedom, the need for a solid moral foundation for any radical changes. It is necessary to free ourselves from dogmatic thinking, no matter how humane and democratic certain ideas may be. Ideas of pluralism developed. A transfer from the external to the internal side of life is necessary, which ensures the spiritual freedom of the intellectual. It is required to know better domestic philosophical thought: in particular, A.
Khomyakova, B. Chicherin, A. Kozlov, S. Trubetskoy, L. Lopatin, B.
Neslilova, P. Chaadaeva, Vl. Solovyov, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky. The passion for European fashion must be contrasted with a universal national tradition.
It’s interesting that the “Vekhi people” were Marxists in the past. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian philosophers were moving away from Marxism, seeking to better understand not only the economic laws of society, but also the spiritual world of the individual, his freedom. They saw the basis of progress not in destruction, but in creation, hence the need for purposeful, creative, organized, competent work. The ideas of “Vekhi” become relevant again at the beginning of the 21st century, when Russia is experiencing another inversion. 10.1.4.