Spiritual foundations of Russian life

The book of the great Russian thinker Ivan Kireyevsky reveals his belief in the special destiny of the Russian people. Kireevsky believed that the Russians were destined to lay new foundations for spiritual enlightenment based on Orthodoxy. It is in Orthodoxy, which has preserved the purity of the patristic tradition, that the manifestation of the highest potentials of man is possible - love, Philokalia, conciliarity, the free element of the spirit, the striving for creativity. Kireyevsky contrasted the high potential for spiritual development of the Russian people with the spiritual decline of the West. He rightly believed that the predominance in the West of the material interests of life over the spiritual inevitably leads to a loss of faith, social disunity, individualism, and the opposition of man to man. To save the world from spiritual catastrophe, Russia must stand at the center of world civilization and, on the basis of Orthodoxy, bring the light of truth to Western peoples. However, this can only happen when the Russian people themselves demonstrate their spiritual powers, cleanse themselves of superficial pseudo-enlightenment and build life in their country according to the teachings of the New Testament. The great Russian thinker Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky is one of the brightest exponents of the ideas of Holy Rus'. Kireyevsky was among the first to reasonably and firmly declare the special path of Russia and the saving role of Orthodoxy as the only truly Christian faith. “Everything that hinders the correct and complete development of Orthodoxy,” wrote I. V. Kireevsky, “everything that hinders the development and prosperity of the Russian people, everything that gives a false and not purely Orthodox direction to the people’s spirit and education, everything distorts the soul of Russia and kills its moral, civil and political health. Therefore, the more the Russian statehood and its government are imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the healthier the people’s development will be, the more prosperous the people and the stronger their government and, at the same time, the more comfortable it will be, for government improvement is possible only in the spirit of popular convictions.” Kireyevsky was born on March 22, 1806 into a noble family. His father was a passionate opponent of Voltaire and once burned all of his works on his estate. He died when Ivan Vasilyevich was still a boy; The upbringing of children (Ivan Vasilyevich had a younger brother Peter, a famous “collector” of folk art, an exceptionally pure and whole person, and a sister) was in the hands of his mother, a woman remarkable for her religiosity and strength of character. She was in close friendship with her relative, the well-known poet Zhukovsky, and under his influence she was an ardent admirer of German romanticism. Left a widow, she remarried Elagin, an admirer of Kant and Schelling (Elagin even translated the latter into Russian). In such an environment, saturated with mental and spiritual interests, Ivan Vasilyevich grew up. When the family moved to Moscow, Ivan Vasilyevich began taking lessons at home, learned ancient and modern languages ​​well, and attended public courses by university professors (in particular, the Schellingian Pavlov). Having passed the exam, Kireevsky entered the service of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he met a number of talented young people (he had a special friendship with A. N. Koshelev), with whom he founded the “lyubomudrov” society. This philosophical circle dealt almost exclusively with German philosophy. After the circle closed (in 1825), Kireevsky, continuing his studies in philosophy, began to publish his articles (of a literary critical nature), which attracted everyone’s attention. In 1831, Kireevsky made a trip to Germany, listened to lectures by Hegel (whom he met personally), Schleiermacher in Berlin, then went to Schelling in Munich. The news of the appearance of cholera in Moscow and anxiety about his loved ones force Kireyevsky to leave Germany and return to Russia. Here he undertakes the publication of a magazine under the very characteristic name “European”, where he sets himself the task of promoting the rapprochement and interaction of Russian and Western cultures. This is the time of fascination with the idea of ​​universal synthesis that animated the early German romantics. But Kireyevsky’s journal was closed by the authorities precisely because of his article “The Nineteenth Century”; Kireyevsky himself was not punished only thanks to the energetic intercession of Zhukovsky, who at that time was the tutor of the heir (the future Alexander II). For 12 years after this, Kireevsky fell silent. In 1834 he married; his wife was not only a deeply religious person, but also very well-read in spiritual literature. She was the spiritual daughter of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Kireevsky began to establish connections with Russian church circles in Moscow, and on his estate he was seven miles from Optina Pustyn. Kireyevsky develops a deep interest in the holy fathers, he takes part in the publication of their works, undertaken by the Optina Hermitage. In 1845, he returned to magazine work for a short time, becoming the de facto editor of the Moskvityanin magazine, but soon left the magazine due to disagreements with the publisher M.P. Pogodin. During these same years, Kireevsky made an attempt to occupy the department of philosophy at Moscow University, but nothing came of it. In 1852, Kireyevsky published an article “On the nature of European enlightenment and its relationship to the education of Russia” in the so-called. "Moscow collection". For this article, recognized as “unreliable”, further issues of the Moscow Collection were banned. Although this again had a hard impact on Kireyevsky, his creative ideas did not stop. In the same 1852 he wrote to Koshelev: “I have not lost my intention to write, when possible, a course in philosophy... It’s time for Russia to have its say in philosophy.” After the death of Nicholas I, the magazine “Russian Conversation” began to be published in Moscow (edited by Koshelev, a close friend of Kireevsky); In the very first issue, Kireevsky’s article “On the Possibility and Necessity of New Beginnings for Philosophy” appeared. The article turned out to be posthumous - Kireevsky died of cholera even before its publication. The source of inspiration for Kireyevsky was the works of the holy fathers, which he studied with extreme attention; Kireevsky notes with deep bitterness the fact that “the spiritual philosophy of the Eastern Fathers of the Church” remained “almost completely unknown” to Western thinkers. Kireyevsky himself, admitting that “it is impossible to restore the philosophy of the holy fathers in the form as it was in their time,” nevertheless comes from them, and is inspired by them in his philosophical ideas. Some of his thoughts expressed on this issue remained completely undisclosed; others are expressed in too summary form. But in general, Kireyevsky’s own constructions really strive to philosophically reveal and illuminate with modern data the basic ideas of the holy fathers about man and the world. The idea of ​​synthesizing church consciousness with the highest and most valuable results of modern enlightenment remained dear to Kireyevsky until the end of his life. Kireevsky is entirely aligned with the idea of ​​Orthodox culture, which should replace the culture of the West. Russia needs, he wrote, for “Orthodox enlightenment to take possession of the entire mental development of the modern world, so that, enriched by worldly wisdom, Christian truth will reveal its dominance over the relative truths of the human mind all the more fully and solemnly.” I. V. Kireevsky, to an even greater extent than A. S. Khomyakov, can be called a “Christian philosopher.” He was a true philosopher and never hampered the work of reason in any way, but his concept of reason as an organ of cognition was entirely determined by the in-depth understanding of it that developed in Christianity. Kireyevsky grew up in an extremely religious family. Zhukovsky, who undoubtedly had considerable influence on Kireevsky’s spiritual structure, was no less sincerely and deeply religious. But in his youth, Kireevsky, apparently, did not live an active spiritual life - in any case, it was not at the center of his spiritual work. We find interesting data about this in a note entitled “The History of the Conversion of I.V. Kireevsky,” found among Kireevsky’s papers and compiled, apparently, from the words of his wife A.I. Koshelev. When Kireyevsky got married, clashes began between him and his wife on religious issues - his wife’s ardent and concentrated religiosity apparently caused unpleasant feelings in Kireyevsky. They agreed among themselves that Kireevsky would not “blaspheme” (!) in front of his wife. When Kireevsky invited his wife to read Voltaire, she told him that she was ready to read any serious book, but she could not stand ridicule of religion and blasphemy. Later they began to read Schelling together - and here Kireevsky’s wife extremely amazed him by indicating that the thoughts that were expressed in Schelling “had long been known to her - from the works of the holy fathers.” Gradually, under the influence of his wife, Kireevsky himself began to read the works of the holy fathers, and then he began close relationships with clergy. Of particular importance was the proximity of the Kireyevsky estate to Optina Pustyn. An interesting story has been preserved, recorded from the words of Kireyevsky himself, about the feeling that he experienced in the chapel, standing at the miraculous icon: “This icon,” said Kireyevsky, “for centuries, absorbed streams of passionate offerings, prayers of mourning and unfortunate people; she had to be filled with strength, she became a living organ, a meeting place between the Creator and people, I fell on my knees and began to sincerely pray...” Kireevsky in his religious life lived, indeed, not only with religious thought, but also with religious feeling; his entire personality, his entire spiritual world were permeated with rays of religious consciousness. He had a genuine and deep religious experience, in the understanding of which he was closely connected with all the enormous spiritual wealth that was revealed to him in the Optina Hermitage. In this sense, Kireevsky must be considered, more than anyone else, as an exponent of what the church consciousness held within itself. If A. S. Khomyakov took more from the depths of his personal church consciousness, then Kireevsky mainly relied on what he found among the elders and in monasteries. Kireyevsky, in a sense, is closer to the Church than Khomyakov - he was in constant communication with church people, especially with the elders of Optina Pustyn. And if for Khomyakov the central concept (not only in theology, but also in philosophy) is the concept of the Church, then for Kireevsky’s thought such a central concept is the concept of spiritual life. This is where Kireyevsky came from in his philosophical reflections; in a certain sense, his main constructions were based precisely on the concept of spiritual experience. But these were not far-fetched constructions dictated by the work of one mind; The whole indisputable significance of Kireyevsky’s ideas lies in the fact that they grow from the reality that stands behind them. The opposition between genuine Orthodox Christian enlightenment and Western rationalism is truly the axis around which Kireyevsky’s mental work revolves. But this is not a opposition between “faith” and “reason,” namely, two systems of education. Kireyevsky did not at all separate philosophical consciousness from theological consciousness in himself (but he decisively distinguished revelation from human thinking) - Kireyevsky did not accept any dualism of faith and reason, Church and culture: he sought spiritual and ideological integrity. This idea of ​​integrity was not only an ideal for him, but he also saw in it the basis for the construction of reason. It was in this regard that Kireevsky raised the question of the relationship between faith and reason - only their internal unity was for him the key to the whole and comprehensive truth. But for this it was necessary to rework the usual philosophical concept of reason - and Kireyevsky found this in the clear and inspiring instructions of patristic literature. The epistemological conclusions from this new teaching about reason were not the basis of this teaching - they were only conclusions, while Kireevsky’s very teaching about reason has an independent, basic character. Kireyevsky's anthropology is connected with patristic anthropology. Kireevsky based his entire construction on the difference between the “external” and “internal” man - this is the primordial Christian anthropological dualism. This is how Kireevsky formulates this teaching: “In the depths of the soul there is a living common focus for all the individual powers of the mind, hidden from the ordinary state of the human spirit.” A few lines above, Kireevsky speaks of the need to “raise the mind above its ordinary level” and “to look in the depths of the soul for that inner root of understanding where all individual forces merge into one living and integral vision of the mind.” The central concept in Kireyevsky’s anthropology is the concept of spirit, and not the concept of “feelings” - and here Kireyevsky simply continues the traditional Christian teaching about man - with the main distinction for this teaching between “spiritual” and “mental”, “internal” and “external”. When Kireevsky speaks of a “hidden common” focus for all individual powers of the mind, then by this “inner core” in a person one must understand the entire spiritual sphere in a person. Kireyevsky distinguishes the “empirical” sphere of the soul with its numerous “individual” functions from the deep sphere of the soul, which lies below the threshold of consciousness, where the central point can be called the “deep “I.” The empirical sphere of the soul is really a collection of heterogeneous functions, but the beginning of integrity - that beginning that conceals the root of individuality and the condition of its originality - is hidden from us; it must be sought in oneself in order to be nourished from it. The point is not about the “metaphysical” side in man, but about those forces of the spirit that are pushed deeper into man by sin; The inner man is separated from the outer man not because of their ontological heterogeneity. In this regard, both spheres are not separated from one another, and therefore one can and should “look” for one’s “inner content” in oneself. The inner man is closed due to the power of sin, and therefore cognitive life in a person has a different character, depending on whether sin rules in a person or not. In perfect accordance with patristic terminology, Kireevsky sees the path to regaining lost integrity, i.e. The path to the dominance of the “inner focus” in us is in the “gathering” of the forces of the soul. The task of ascent to one’s center, placing it at the center of all empirical life, “is achievable for the seeker,” as Kireevsky says, but here work is needed, spiritual work on oneself is needed, tireless work on the “natural” inclinations of a person in the name of those spiritual tasks that are revealed only to the inner man. Kireyevsky's anthropology is therefore not static, but dynamic - man is not exhausted and is not even characterized by what he “is.” In his empirical composition, he can and must, in working on himself, rise above this empirical composition and subordinate the empirical sphere to the inner center, the “deep “I.”” In one place, Kireyevsky expresses his understanding of man as follows: “The main character of believing thinking is the desire to gather all the individual forces of the soul into one force, to find that inner center of being, where reason, and will, and feeling, and conscience, the beautiful and true, amazing and desirable, just and merciful, and the entire volume of the mind merge into one living unity, and thus the essential personality is restored in its primordial indivisibility.” Kireyevsky’s entire article, “On the Possibility and Necessity of New Beginnings for Philosophy,” is built on a study of the relationship between faith and reason—it intends to develop Orthodox teaching as opposed to Western Christianity. At the same time, Kireevsky connects all his constructions with patristic thought: according to his teaching, “the deep, living and pure wisdom of the holy fathers represents the embryo of the highest philosophical principle: its simple development, corresponding to the modern state of science and in accordance with the requirements and questions of modern reason, would constitute a new science of thinking.” Kireyevsky’s thoughts about the contrasting movements of the soul are important. In letters to Khomyakov, Kireevsky develops the idea that “the development of the mind is in inverse relation to the development of the will.” In relation to the will to reason, Kireevsky immediately notes, “there are some secrets that have not yet been comprehended.” In another letter (very early), Kireevsky expressed the idea, which he held later, that “whoever did not understand a thought with a feeling did not understand it, just like the one who understood it with one feeling.” But especially important is Kireevsky’s teaching (also expressing patristic ideas) about the special significance of the moral sphere in man. This is not “one” of the spheres of the spirit; the hierarchical primacy of the moral sphere in a person is expressed in the fact that the health of all other aspects in a person primarily depends on the “health” of the moral sphere. Moral health has already been lost where there is no struggle against the “natural” separation of mental forces. Kireyevsky reproaches Western culture for the fact that there “enlightenment, being based on the development of the decayed powers of reason, has no significant relationship to the moral mood of a person.” He notes at the same time that with such a separation of cognitive forces from moral ones, “enlightenment does not rise or fall from inner height or baseness.” This is a very important idea: according to Kireyevsky, the “non-morality” of enlightenment gives it a kind of stability (which is associated with the loss of that dynamism of the spirit that creates the dependence of the soul on the sphere of morality). “Spiritual enlightenment,” Kireevsky immediately writes, “on the contrary, is living knowledge: it is acquired as the internal striving for moral height and integrity and disappears along with this striving, leaving only the appearance of its form in the mind.” The “unsustainability” of spiritual enlightenment is the reason why it can be lost. Kireevsky senses a game in the “non-moral” attitude of the “autonomous” mind. “Thinking separated from the heart’s aspiration (i.e. from the integrity of the spirit), we read in “Excerpts”, “there is entertainment for the soul; The deeper such thinking is, the more important it is, apparently, the more frivolous it essentially makes a person.” From “natural” reason one must generally “ascend” to spiritual reason. “The main difference between Orthodox thinking,” writes Kireevsky, “is that it seeks to raise reason itself above its ordinary level.” “The whole chain of fundamental principles of natural reason. .. is below the mind of the believer.” “The nature of reason... experienced in the highest development of internal, spiritual contemplation, appears in a completely different form than that in which reason appears, limited to the development of external life.” “The mind is one,” we read in the same article, “and its nature is one, but its modes of action are different, as well as its conclusions, depending on the degree at which it is located and what forces move and act in it.” Kireyevsky's teaching on the connection between the individual and the social sphere. “Everything that is essential in a person’s soul,” writes Kireevsky, “grows socially in him.” But Kireevsky only briefly developed this topic. In “Excerpts” we find the following aphorisms: “Good forces do not grow alone - the rye will die out among the weeds.” And again: “Every moral victory in the mystery of one Christian soul is already a triumph for the entire Christian world; every spiritual force created within one person invisibly attracts and moves the forces of the entire moral world.” This awareness of the spiritual connectedness of all people undoubtedly flowed from Kireyevsky’s idea of ​​the Church. In the same “Passages,” Kireyevsky expresses the idea that when an individual person works on his spiritual structure, then “he acts not alone and not for himself alone, but he does the common work of the whole Church.” From this position, Kireevsky drew the following conclusion: “The development of original Orthodox thinking does not require special genius... the development of this thinking should be a common cause of all believers and thinkers.” Kireyevsky's epistemology. Like A. S. Khomyakov, Kireevsky saw the main flaw of Western philosophy, more precisely, its main illness, in its idealism, in the loss of a living connection with reality, in the view that “the entire existence of the world is the illusory dialectic of one’s own mind, and the mind is the self-consciousness of universal existence.” Kireevsky sees his task as freeing himself from the networks of idealism, i.e. to find a fulcrum for constructing a doctrine of knowledge that does not separate us from reality. Such a fulcrum for Kireevsky’s epistemological research (as well as Khomyakov’s) is ontologism in the interpretation of knowledge, i.e. the statement that cognition is a part and function of our “existential” entry into reality, that not with one thought, but with our whole being we “participate” in reality in cognition. The main condition for preserving the proximity to being in knowledge is the connection of cognitive processes with the entire spiritual sphere in man, i.e. in integrity in spirit; as soon as this integrity in the spirit weakens or is lost, as soon as cognitive work becomes “autonomous,” “logical thinking” or “reason” is born, already fatally divorced from reality. “By splitting the integrity of the spirit into parts and giving a certain logical thinking the highest consciousness of truth, we break away in the depths of self-consciousness from any connection with reality,” writes Kireevsky. This gap occurs, as we see, “in the depths of self-consciousness,” that is, in the inner focus of a person. This means that familiarization with reality is not a function of thinking in itself, but of the personality as a whole. “For abstract thinking the essential is generally inaccessible, for only the essential can touch the essential.” This means that, since logical thinking gains independence from other spheres of the soul, then in the personality itself there is a loss of its “essentiality”. “Only a rationally free personality alone has significance in the world,” writes Kireevsky, “and only “from the internal development of meaning (in) an integral personality can the meaning of significance be revealed.” In these somewhat unclear words, the essentially basic idea of ​​ontologism in knowledge is formulated. The separation from reality in cognition is preceded by a certain painful process in the personality itself, the disintegration of its fundamental integrity. The “power” of knowledge, the possibility of “mastering” reality is determined not by knowledge as such, but by the glow of meaning, its implementation in the “inner center” of a person. When we break away from the original connection with reality, then not only thinking becomes “abstract”, empty, but “man himself becomes an abstract being.” He already loses that interaction with the being in which he originally resided. Most clearly and most tragically, this fatal disease affects the area of ​​faith, i.e. the mysterious connection of the human spirit with the Absolute. According to Kireyevsky’s formula, “in the fundamental depths of the human mind (i.e. in the “inner focus of the personality” - V. 3.), in his very nature, lies the possibility of consciousness of his fundamental relationship to God, i.e. faith. Faith rests on the deep unity of the personal spirit and God, but the spirit in its integrity.” Therefore, “faith does not belong to a separate sphere in a person... but embraces the whole integrity of a person. Therefore, the main character of believing thinking is the desire to gather all the separate parts of the soul into one force.” This means that communion with reality, as a function of personality, is given to “believing thinking.” Why is this so? Because “the meaning with which a person understands the Divine serves him and the understanding of truth in general.” The knowledge of reality is a function of the knowledge of God, and the break with reality begins in the area of ​​faith, which means its illness. This means that the emergence of “abstract thinking”, logical reason, and in general the entire system of “rational” relationships with the world, is already a secondary fact - the primary fact takes place deeper. “Logical thinking, separated from other cognitive forces, constitutes the natural character of a mind that has fallen away from its integrity.” The first damage to the integrity of the spirit was associated with the Fall, but faith, being a manifestation of integrity, since the latter was preserved in the “inner focus of the spirit,” replenishes the natural work of the mind - “it admonishes the mind that it has deviated from its moral integrity,” and with this admonition helps us to rise above the “natural” course of thinking. When faith is present, a “double activity” occurs in the believer’s thinking: while monitoring the development of his understanding, he, at the same time, monitors the very way of his thinking, constantly striving to raise his mind to the level at which he could sympathize with faith. The inner consciousness, or sometimes only the dark feeling of this sought-after, final edge of the mind, is inseparably present with every movement of his mind.” The strength inherent in the “believing mind” stems from the fact that in the mind itself there is an impulse to ascend to its highest form. Here there is no violence against the “natural” work of the mind, already damaged by the separation from the “primordial integrity,” for faith reveals to us from within that “the development of natural reason serves only as steps” to higher activity. Thus, the damage to our mind, due to the departure from “primordial integrity,” is compensated for by what faith brings into our spirit. That is why, “being at the highest level of thinking, an Orthodox believer can easily and harmlessly understand all systems of thinking emanating from the lower degrees of reason, and see their limitations and, at the same time, relative truth. But for thinking at a lower level, the higher is incomprehensible and appears as unreason.” This is how the main issue of epistemology in Kireevsky is resolved - about the internal coordination of faith and reason at the very origins of thought, about the recognition of the insufficiency of the “natural” train of thought and about the ascent to spiritual reason. Cognition is qualitatively heterogeneous and unequal (in its value, in its ability to connect with reality) in the lower (“natural”) and higher forms of thought. The point is not to subordinate reason to faith and constrain it - this would not give scope to spiritual vision, but to raise thinking from within to its highest form, where faith and reason do not oppose one another. In the ascent to the integrity of the spirit, the danger of separation from reality, the danger of idealism disappears - correctly developing knowledge introduces us to reality and connects us with it. But how then can we explain the emergence of idealistic epistemology in the Western world, which initially lived by faith? According to Kireevsky, there was a damage in faith itself, “from which first scholastic philosophy developed within faith, then reformation in faith and, finally, philosophy outside faith.” This scheme forms the basis of Kireyevsky’s entire criticism of Western culture: the fact that the Western Church replaced the internal authority of truth with the external authority of the hierarchy (when it arbitrarily, without consent with the East, changed the Creed) led to “rational self-thinking” - to rationalism, i.e. to the triumph of “autonomous” reason. The highest point of this self-sufficient reason is transcendentalism, in which all reality is already dissolved in the dialectical self-movement of reason. Therefore, we must distinguish “hyperlogical knowledge” from “logical” knowledge, where we are not detached from reality, but are immersed in it. Idealism reveals the untruth of all rationalism, within which it is inevitable, because logical reason itself leaves us within the sphere immanent to consciousness (living by logical thinking, “we live on a plan - instead of living in a house - and, having drawn a plan, we think that we have built the building itself"). “The whole order of things,” writes Kireevsky in “Excerpts,” “(which arose with the triumph of rationalism) attracts our thinking to the separation of logical thinking. That is why faith exceeds natural reason, because it has fallen below its primal level.” “Of course, a thinking person must pass his knowledge through the logical yoke,” notes Kireevsky, i.e. we need not to reject, but to overcome modern thought - and the path of Russian philosophy lies not in denying Western thought, but in supplementing it with what is revealed in higher spiritual vision. The living experience of “higher knowledge,” where the integrity of the spirit is achieved again, lost in the Fall, then damaged in Western Christianity by the triumph of logical thinking, is the living experience of “spiritual understanding” and constitutes the main position of Kireyevsky’s epistemology. Logical thinking does not introduce us to reality, but only reveals the logical structure of existence, while true knowledge, like faith, connects us with reality. Historiosophy of Kireyevsky. Kireevsky was well acquainted with Hegel’s philosophy of history—perhaps the most fascinating part of his system—and, like Khomyakov, he rebelled against the idea that an immanent reason operates in history. “We would form a false concept of the development of human thinking if we separated it from the influence of chance,” writes Kireyevsky. “There is nothing easier than to present every fact of reality in the form of an inevitable result of the highest laws of rational necessity; nothing distorts the real understanding of history more than these imaginary laws of rational necessity.” Without denying causality in history, Kireevsky brings to the fore the free will of man. Denying historiosophical rationalism, Kireyevsky also denies absolute providentialism - again in the name of human freedom - and several times warns against mixing the divine and human principles. Kireyevsky recognizes not only the freedom of the human principle, but also the internal connectedness in history; he recognizes the subordination of this immanent causality to the “invisible... flow of the general moral order of things,” he recognizes Providence in history. Kireevsky emphasizes that the “meaning” of history embraces humanity as a whole: “the enlightenment of each people,” he wrote in an early article, “is measured not by the sum of its knowledge... but solely by its participation in the enlightenment of all humanity, by the place it occupies in the general course of human development.” Kireyevsky's thoughts about the continuity of world historical thought are characteristic: each people, in its time, comes to the forefront of history. And although “progress is achieved only through the combined efforts of mankind,” peoples have their own phase of historical flowering, adopting “on the fly” the results of the lives of other peoples. Much more significant and interesting are Kireevsky’s views on the problems of concrete philosophy of history. Of particular importance here is the expectation of a new historical “eon”, a new era. This new “eon” will be associated with the glorification of the “Russian idea.” “European enlightenment has now reached,” writes Kireevsky, “fullness of development: ... but the result of this completeness was an almost universal feeling of discontent and disappointed hope... This feeling of dissatisfaction and joyless emptiness fell on the hearts of people because the very triumph of the European mind revealed the one-sidedness of its fundamental aspirations... that with all the conveniences of external improvements in life, life itself was deprived of its essential meaning. Centuries of cold analysis destroyed all the foundations on which European enlightenment stood from the very beginning of its development, so that its own fundamental principles (i.e. Christianity) became extraneous and alien to it... and his direct property turned out to be this very analysis, which destroyed its roots, this self-propelled knife of reason, which recognizes nothing but itself and personal experience - this self-ruling reason - this logical activity, detached from all other cognitive powers of man.” The source of all the troubles and severe spiritual illness of the West is rationalism and the inevitable disintegration of spiritual integrity. “Western man,” notes Kireevsky, “splits his life into separate aspirations: in one corner of his heart lives a religious feeling... in another - separately the powers of reason... in the third - aspirations for sensual pleasures, etc. Reason easily turns into clever cunning, heartfelt feeling into blind passion, beauty into a dream, truth into opinion, materiality into an excuse for imagination, virtue into self-satisfaction, and theatricality is an incessant companion of life... just as daydreaming serves as its inner mask.” “Division and rationality are the last expression of Western culture...” This understanding of Western culture, in essence, always refers to the philosophy of the West, its irreligion or departure from Christianity. “It is difficult to understand,” Kireevsky wrote in his last article, “what European education can achieve if some internal change does not occur in the peoples... One thing left in the West that is serious for man is industry, for which the physical personality has survived... We can say that the last era of philosophy and the unlimited dominance of industry is just beginning (now)....” The new “eon”, which should begin with the flowering of Orthodox culture, is depicted by Kireyevsky mainly in terms “education” and restoration of “integrity”. It is necessary, he believes, “for Orthodox enlightenment to take possession of all the mental development of the modern world, which it inherited from the entire previous mental life of mankind.” Kireyevsky’s church consciousness claims to embrace all themes, all the quests of the spirit, opening up full scope for them, but enlightening them from within through liberation from “this age” in ascetic work, in living immersion in the Church. Enlightenment of the spirit is already the action of the grace-filled forces of the Church - therefore, the truth is achievable only “churchly” - i.e. in the Church, with the Church, through the Church. You might be interested in: