Часть вторая. Добро от Бога

Chapter seven. Unity of moral foundations When a person acts badly in some respect, for example, when he offends his neighbors in a positive or even negative way - by refusing to help them in need, he then feels ashamed. This is the real spiritual grain of all human goodness and the distinctive sign of man as a moral being. What exactly is being tested here? Firstly, we have a feeling of pity for the offended person, which did not manifest itself at the moment of the offense itself, and this proves, among other things, that our spiritual nature can have internal movements that are deeper and at the same time stronger than the presence of material motives: purely mental reflection is able to evoke that feeling that was deaf to external impressions; the invisible misfortune of others turned out to be more real than the visible one. Secondly, this simple (albeit already refined by the absence of a visible object) feeling of pity is joined here by a new (even more spiritualized) modification, since we not only feel sorry for someone or those whom we did not feel sorry for before, but we also regret that we did not feel sorry for them then, we regret that we were merciless - to the regret of the victim of the insult, we are joined here by regret for ourselves as the offender. But the matter is far from exhausted by these two mental aspects. The feeling under consideration receives all its spiritual acuity and moral significance from the third point, which consists in the fact that the thought of our ruthless act evokes in us, in addition to the natural reaction of the corresponding feeling - pity, an even stronger reaction of another, apparently not related at all, feeling - shame: we not only regret our cruel act, but are also ashamed of it, even if there was nothing specially shameful in it. This third moment is so important here that it characterizes the entire state of mind, so that instead of “I am ashamed,” we directly say “I am ashamed,” J'ai honte, ich schäme, mich, I am ashamed. In ancient languages, words corresponding to “conscience” were not used in living speech, being replaced by words corresponding to “shame” - a clear indication that the primary root of conscience lies precisely in the feeling of shame. What does this mean? If the thought of an admitted violation of any of the moral requirements beyond the corresponding influence on the part of the injured moral element also causes the influence of shame, the requirements of which in its own area (the relationship of man to his lower nature, or flesh) were not, however, violated by this act, which had nothing contrary to modesty or a sense of human superiority over material nature, then it is clear that the distinction in the moral nature of man of the three fundamental principles should not turn into their separation, that these three the roots at a certain depth grow together into one and that the moral order in the entire totality of its norms is, in its formative essence, only a dismemberment of one and the same principle, turned in one direction or another. The feeling of shame, being in a very real way connected with the facts of the sexual sphere, intercepts beyond the boundaries of material life and, as an expression of formal disapproval, accompanies any violation of a moral norm, no matter what area of ​​relations it belongs to. In all languages, as far as I know, the words corresponding to our “shame” are invariably distinguished by two features: 1) connection with objects of the sexual sphere (αιδώς, αιδοια, pudor - pudenda, honte - parties honteuses, Scham - Schamtheile) and 2) the application of these words to all cases of disapproved violation of moral requirements in general. In order to deny the special sexual meaning of shame (or the special shamefulness of carnal relations between the sexes), as well as in order to limit shame to this meaning alone, one must first of all renounce the human word, recognizing it as a meaningless accident. The general moral meaning of shame is only a further internal development of what already lies in its special initial manifestation regarding the facts of sexual life. The essence of life, its main task - for animals - undoubtedly lies in the perpetuation, through the reproduction in new units, of that special form of organic being that appears to one or another animal. I say that this is the essence of life for them, and not only in them, because the primacy and unique importance of genital interest is internally experienced and felt by them, although, of course, only involuntarily and unconsciously. If you look at a dog waiting for a tasty morsel, then its posture, the expression of its eyes and its whole being seem to indicate that the main nerve of its subjective existence lies in the stomach. But the most voracious dog completely forgets about food during the time of love, and if it is a female, then voluntarily gives both its food and its very life to the puppies. Here the individual animal seems to recognize in good faith that its individual life in itself is not important, that the point is not in it, but only in the preservation of a given type of organic life, transmitted through an endless series of disappearing individuals. The image of infinity is the only one available to the animal. But from this we understand the enormous, fundamental significance of the genital area for human life. If a person is essentially more than an animal, then his separation from the animal kingdom, his internal self-determination as a person must begin precisely in this source region, in this center of organic being. Any other point would be comparatively superficial. Only here the animal individual feels the infinity of the generic life, considers itself (as it is) only a finite phenomenon, only a means, an instrument of the generic process and, without any struggle or delay, surrenders to this infinity of the species, completely absorbing individual existence; and here, in this center of life, man realizes the insufficiency of this generic infinity in which the animal finds its highest. And on a person his tribal essence lays claim to its rights, and through him it wants to perpetuate itself; but his inner being responds to such a demand: “I am not the same as you, I am beyond you, I am not a genus, although from a genus - I am not a genus, but a genius (I am not a genus, I am a spirit (lat.)) I want and can be infinite and immortal not only in you, but on my own. You drag me into the abyss of your bad, empty infinity in order to swallow me up and destroy me, but I am looking for that true and complete infinity that I could share with you. What I have from you wants to mix with you and drag me into your abyss, above which I have risen, but my own being, which is not from you, is ashamed of this confusion and resists it; it wants, as the only thing worthy of itself, that true union in which both united are perpetuated.” In the feeling of sexual shame - and this determines its enormous fundamental significance as the basis of not only material, but also formal morality - a person recognizes for himself as shameful and, therefore, bad, undue, not some private and accidental deviation from some moral norm, but the very essence of that law of nature to which the entire organic world is subject. What is important here is not so much that a person is ashamed in general, but rather what he is ashamed of. Possessing this ability of shame, not noticeable in other animals, a person could be defined as a shameful animal. This definition, better than many others, would not, however, mark in man the bearer of a special world, or a new order of being. But the fact that man is first and most ashamed of the very essence of animal life, or the fundamental manifestation of natural being, directly shows him as a superanimal and supernatural being. Thus, in this shame a person becomes a person in the full sense. The genital act embodies the infinity of the natural process, and, ashamed of this act, a person rejects this very infinity as unworthy of himself. It is unworthy for a person to be only a means, or an instrument, of a natural process in which the blind force of life perpetuates itself at the expense of giving birth and dying individuals, alternately displacing each other. Man, as a moral being, does not want to obey this natural law of displacement of generations, the law of eternal death, he does not want to be displaced and displaced, he feels, at first vaguely, both the need and the ability to contain within himself the entire fullness of eternal life. Ideally, he already contains it within himself, in this very act of his human consciousness, but this is not enough, he needs to realize the ideal in reality, without which the idea is only fantasy and higher self-consciousness - only conceit. The power of eternal life exists as a fact: nature lives forever and shines with eternal beauty; but this is an indifferent nature - indifferent to individual beings who, by their succession, support its eternity. But between these creatures there is one that does not agree to such a suffering role: finding its involuntary service to nature shameful for itself and the reward for it in the form of personal death and tribal immortality - insufficient, this creature wants to be not a tool, but the owner of eternal life. To do this, he does not need to create any new vital force out of nothing, but only to master that which is given in nature and use it for better use. We call people geniuses whose living creative power is not completely spent on the external matter of carnal reproduction, but also goes towards the internal matter of spiritual creativity in one area or another. A man of genius is one who, in addition to the life of the race, perpetuates himself and is preserved in the common offspring, even if he did not produce his own. But such perpetuation, if we dwell on it as final, obviously turns out to be illusory, for it takes place on the same basis of successive and disappearing generations, so that neither the one who is remembered, nor those who remember, have real life. The meaning of genius in the generally accepted sense is only a hint of the real matter. The true genius inherent in us, which speaks loudest in sexual shame, does not require from us high abilities in the arts and sciences, which give a glorious name in posterity. But he demands much more: as a real genius, i.e. associated with the whole genus (genus), although standing above it, he turns not only to the chosen ones, but to everyone and everyone, warning everyone and everyone from this whole process of evil infinity, through which earthly nature eternally, but in vain, builds life on dead bones. The subject of sexual shame is not the external fact of the animal union of two human individuals, but the deep and universal meaning of this fact. This meaning is primarily expressed, but is far from exhausted, by the fact that with such a connection a person submits to the blind attraction of an elemental force. If the path on which she was taking him was good in itself, then he would have to come to terms with the dark nature of this attraction in the hope of eventually entering his mind and freely accepting what he at first involuntarily submitted to. But the real power of sexual shame is that we are ashamed here not only of our submission to nature, but of our submission to it in a bad matter - completely bad; for the path to which carnal instinct draws us and from which the feeling of shame warns us is a path that is shameful at the beginning, in the end it turns out to be both merciless and wicked, which clearly reveals the internal connection of all three moral norms already contained in the first. Sexual abstinence is not only an ascetic, but at the same time an altruistic and religious requirement. The law of animal reproduction, of which we are ashamed, is the law of displacement or displacement of one generation by another, a law directly contrary to the principle of all-human solidarity. By directing the power of our lives to the production of children, we turn away from fathers, who can only die. We cannot create anything from ourselves - what we give to the future, we take away from the past, and through us, descendants live at the expense of their ancestors, live by their death. This is what nature does, it is indifferent and merciless, and we, of course, are not responsible for this; but our own participation in this indifferent and merciless work of nature is already our guilt, albeit involuntary, and we vaguely feel this guilt in advance in sexual shame. And we are all the more guilty because our participation in the merciless work of nature, which displaces previous generations with new ones, relates most closely to those to whom we are especially and most indebted, to our own fathers and ancestors, so that this matter turns out to be contrary not only to pity, but also to piety. There is some great contradiction here, some fatal antinomy, which we must in any case recognize, even if we had no hope of resolving it. Procreation is good; it is good for the mother, who, according to the word of the Apostle, is saved by childbirth, and, of course, also good for the father participating in this saving work, good, finally, for those who receive the gift of life. And at the same time, it is also undeniable that there is evil in carnal reproduction, not the accidental and external evil of these or other disasters imparted to those born along with life, but essential and moral evil in the carnal act itself, through which we affirm with our own consent the dark path of nature, shameful for us in its blindness, merciless towards the passing generation and wicked because this generation is our fathers. But this evil of the natural path for man can only be corrected by man himself, and what the man of the present has not done can be done by the man of the future, who, having been born along the same path of animal nature, can renounce it and change the law of life. Here is the resolution of the fatal contradiction: the evil of childbirth can be abolished by childbirth itself, which through this becomes good. But this saving power of childbirth will be illusory if those who are born do the same as those who give birth, sin and die in the same way. After all, all the charm of children for us, their special, human charm, is inextricably linked with the assumption and hope that they will not be like us, they will be better than us - not quantitatively better, by one or two degrees, but in their very essence - that they will be people of a different life, that in them is our real salvation - of us and of all our ancestors. Human love for children must have something in it beyond what is in chicken love; it must have a reasonable meaning. But what reasonable sense is there in placing the goal of one’s life with admiration and tenderness in the future scoundrel, while condemning the present one? If the future imagined by children differs from the present only in the order of time, then what is this special charm of children? If this grain produces a poisonous or weedy herb, then what do I admire in the grain? But the fact is that the possibility of a better path of life, which lifts us above nature with its dark and powerless striving, in order to reveal to us and in us the fullness of strength and light, this opportunity, which lies in us ourselves, as well as in children, is more complete in them than in us, for it is still preserved in its integrity, not wasted, as with us, in the stream of empty and bad reality. These creatures have not yet sold their souls and their spiritual birthright to evil forces. Everyone agrees that the special charm of children is their innocence, but this actual innocence could not bring us joy and admiration if we were sure that it would certainly be lost. The idea that their angels directly see the face of the Heavenly Father would not have anything comforting or edifying in itself if it were combined with the conviction that these angels would inevitably now go blind. If the special moral charm of children (on which their aesthetic attractiveness is based) depends on the greater possibility for them of a different path in life, then before giving birth to children for the sake of this opportunity, shouldn’t we ourselves really change our bad path? Since we are unable to do this, procreation can be good and salvation for us; but on what basis will we decide in advance that we are not able to? And is confidence in our powerlessness a guarantee for the future strength of those to whom we hand over our lives? Sexual shame does not refer to a physiological fact, taken separately and in this individually indifferent, and also not to sexual love in general, which can be not shameful and constitute the greatest good - the warning and then condemning voice of sexual shame refers only to that path of animal nature that is inherently bad for a person, although it may be, given the current state of human life, a lesser evil, necessary, i.e., a relative good. But there is no real, unconditional good on this path, and it begins, at least for a person, with abuse. There is a positive side to human sexual love, which for clarity and brevity I will call “falling in love.” Of course, this phenomenon is analogous to the sexual attraction of animals and grows on its soil, but it is clear that it cannot be reduced to this attraction, unless we reduce man to an animal in general. Falling in love differs significantly from the sexual passion of animals in its individual, super-generic character: the object for the lover is a certain person, and he strives to perpetuate not the race, but precisely this person and himself with him. From other types of individual human love: parental and childish, brotherly, etc. - falling in love is especially distinguished by the inseparable unity of its spiritual and physical sides: it primarily refers to the whole person, for the lover, the mental and physical being of the loved one, although in different ways, are equally interesting, significant, dear, he is attached to them with the same intensity of feeling. 68 What does this mean from a moral point of view? At the time of the flowering of all man’s powers, a new spiritual-physical force opens in him, filling him with delight and heroic aspirations, and a higher voice tells him that this strength was given to him for a reason, that he can use it for great things, that that true and eternal union with another person, which the pathos of his love requires, can restore in them the image of a perfect person and lay the foundation for the same re-creation in all of humanity. Of course, the rapture of love does not say the same words to all lovers, but the meaning of what it says to them is the same and represents only from the other, positive side what sexual shame says. Shame keeps a person from the wrong, animal path, and the pathos of love points to the proper path and the highest goal for that positive excess force that lies in this pathos itself. When a person turns this higher power back to the animal work of procreation, it is clear that he is wasting it in vain; for the matter of procreation in humans, as in animals, does not require this at all; it is very successfully accomplished through ordinary organic functions without any high pathos of personal love. When a simple action c is sufficient to produce a result b, and yet a complex action a†c is used to achieve this, then it is obvious that all the power of a is wasted in vain. The feeling of shame serves as a natural basis for the principle of asceticism, but the content of this feeling is not exhausted by the negative rules of abstinence. In addition to the formal principle of duty inherent in shame, which prohibits us from actions that are shameful or unworthy and condemns us upon their commission, there is also a positive side to shame (in the sexual sphere associated with “falling in love”), pointing to the good of life that is protected by our abstinence and is endangered or even destroyed by our abstinence from “deeds of the flesh.” In shame, not only the formal height of human dignity or the superanimal abilities of infinite understanding and aspiration belonging to the mind, but also the essential vital integrity of man, hidden, but not destroyed in his given state, resists the attractions of the carnal, animal way. Here we touch upon the limits of metaphysics, but without crossing them, without leaving the soil of moral philosophy, we can and must point out this positive side of the basic moral feeling, which is factually and logically undeniable. Shame in its primary phenomenon would not have that special vital character, would not be a localized spiritual-organic feeling, if it expressed only the formal superiority of the human mind over the irrational attraction of animal nature: after all, this superiority of mental abilities is not lost by a person on the path from which shame guards him - something else is lost, really and essentially connected with the direct object of shame, and it is not for nothing that sexual modesty is also called chastity. A person is deprived of the integrity of his being and his life, and in true, chaste love for the other sex he strives, hopes, dreams of restoring this integrity. Such aspirations, hopes and dreams are destroyed by that act of a momentary, external and illusory union with which nature, drowning out shame, replaces the desired wholeness. Instead of spiritual-physical interpenetration and communication of two human beings, there is only a contact of organic shells and a mixing of organic secretions (secretions), and this superficial, although secret, unity only confirms, strengthens and perpetuates the deep actual division or fragmentation of the human being. Following the basic division into two sexes or in half, there follows, due to the external union of these sexes, fragmentation in order of succession into ranks of successive and displacing each other generations, which, in the order of coexistence, leads to the creation of many external, alien and hostile individuals when they meet. The integrity, or solidarity, of a person is violated both in depth, and in breadth, and in distance. But this desire for fragmentation, this centrifugal force of life is a tendency that, although everywhere it is realized in parts, can never be fully realized. In man, where it has the internal character of a recognized wrong, or sin, the internal integrity of the human being also resists and reacts against it: firstly, in the basic feeling of shame, or chastity, resisting the mixing and fragmenting aspirations of nature in the area of ​​real or sensory life; reacts also in a positive manifestation of shame - in the pathos of chaste love, which does not tolerate either the separation of the sexes or their external, deceptive union; then, in the area of ​​social life of an already multiplied person, the centrifugal force of nature, manifested as the egoism of each and the antagonism of all, causes opposition to the same integrity of man, expressed here as the internal solidarity of externally disparate individuals, mentally felt in a feeling of pity. The centrifugal and anti-integral force of nature, striving to break the unity of man both in his psychophysical and in his social life, acts in the same sense against the connection connecting him with the absolute beginning of his existence. Just as there is natural materialism in man - the desire to slavishly, with creeping pleasure, to surrender to the blind forces of animality, just as there is natural egoism in him - the desire to internally isolate himself from everything else and put everything that is his own regardless of everything else, so there is also natural atheism in him (I mean practical, since theoretical sometimes has a purely cerebral character and is only a delusion of the mind, innocent in the moral sense) - practical atheism, or the proud desire to renounce from absolute perfection, to place oneself as an unconditionally independent beginning of one’s life. This most fundamental and important type of centrifugal force (for here there is a separation from the absolute center of the universe), which deprives a person of not only the opportunity, but also the desire for an all-inclusive existence (since a person can become everything only through his internal connection with that which is essentially everything), causes a powerful opposition to our innermost wholeness, expressed here in the religious feeling of piety, which gives us direct and irremovable evidence of our particular and general dependence on a higher principle in certain or its other manifestations, starting with our own parents and ending with the universal Providence of the Heavenly Father. The exceptional importance of this relationship (religious and moral) also corresponds to the special modification that the consciousness of what is wrong experiences when it is caused by a violation of a religious obligation: here it is no longer said “ashamed” or “conscientious,” but “terrible.” Here, the spiritual being of man reacts with special concentration and intensity in that feeling of “fear of God”, reaching, when a violation of the highest will has occurred, even involuntarily, to panic horror (horror sacrilegii) (horror of sacrilege (lat.)), which was so well known to the ancients. Horror sacrilegii (in the sense of the ancients) passes with the spiritual growth of a person, but the fear of God remains as a necessary negative side of piety - as “religious shame.” To have the fear of God, or to be God-fearing, does not mean, of course, to be afraid of the Divine, but to be afraid of one’s contradiction to the Divine, or an improper attitude towards Him - this is a feeling of real inconsistency of our absolute Good, or perfection - as in a positive feeling of reverence, or piety, a person affirms his proper or appropriate connection with the highest principle - namely, the desire to participate in its perfection, preserving and realizing integrity of your being. Having understood shame rooted in the sexual area as a manifestation here of the integrity of the human being, we will not be surprised at the overflow of this feeling into other moral spheres. In general, it is necessary to distinguish the inner essence of morality from its formal principle, or moral law, and from its real manifestations. The essence of morality in itself is one thing - it is the integrity of man, inherent in his nature, as an abiding norm, and realized in life and history through the struggle with the centrifugal and crushing forces of existence, as moral action. The formal principle or law of this doing in its purely rational expression is also one in itself, as an obligation: you must observe the norm of human existence in everything, protect the integrity of the human being - or negatively: you must not allow anything contrary to this norm, no violation of this integrity. But the single essence of morality and its single law are modified in their manifestations in accordance with the real, factual relationships into which a person enters in life. There are an indefinite number of these relations, but logical necessity and the facts of experience equally force us, as we know, to distinguish three main areas of all relations subject to moral assessment, depending on whether they are connected with the lower world, with the world of creatures similar to us, or with the higher. The roots of all reality are hidden in earthly darkness, and morality does not belong to that kingdom where trees grow with their roots upward. And its roots are hidden in the lower sphere - it all grows out of a feeling of shame. Here the inner essence, the real manifestation, and the formal principle or law of the moral order are contained in unity, like a plant in a grain, and differ only in the reflection of the mind. Inseparably in the feeling of shame one feels the very moral being of man, defending his integrity, and a special type of it in this regard (genital chastity), and a moral imperative that forbids us to yield to powerful attempts on it from the lower nature and reproaches us for the concessions already made. These commands and these reproaches of shame do not have only a negative protective meaning. They have a positive purpose. We must guard our inner potential wholeness in order to be able to realize it and actually, really create the whole person in a better and more durable way than what nature offers us. “Not that, not that!” - says the feeling of shame, thus promising “that” real and proper thing, for which it is worth abandoning the carnal path. This path, condemned by shame, is the path of fragmentation of the psychophysical - not only spiritual, but also bodily, and to such fragmentation the integrity of a person is also opposed not only as spiritual, but also bodily - psychophysical. But the realization of such complete integrity, for which chastity is only the beginning, requires the completeness of conditions that embrace the entire life of a person. This implementation is complicated and delayed, but is not eliminated by the accomplished reproduction of man, the division of his single being into many individuals. Thanks to this new condition that creates man-society, the enduring integrity of his being is no longer manifested in chastity alone, which protects him from natural fragmentation, but also in social solidarity, which through a feeling of pity restores the moral unity of an already physically fragmented person. Here the difference in moral elements merged in the primary feeling of shame becomes clearer. The feeling of pity expresses the internal solidarity of living beings, but is not identical with it, retaining its psychological distinctness in comparison with unconscious shame. And the formal moral element of shame, merged there with its psychophysical basis, stands out here in the form of that more subtle and abstract feeling called conscience (in the narrow sense of the word). The modification of carnal instinct into egoism corresponds to the modification of shame into conscience. But the primary, root meaning of shame is also revealed here, for, as was indicated, one can say “I’m ashamed” instead of “I’m ashamed” even in those cases when it comes to purely selfish actions that have nothing to do with the sexual sphere. Morality is one, and its full manifestation in shame, reacting against the work of the flesh, thereby (implicitly) reacting against the bad consequences of this work, among other things, and against the selfishness of the multiplied person. But a special, definite moral reaction against this new evil is psychologically expressed as pity, and in its formal moral expression there is conscience - this “social shame”. But neither the moral purity of chastity, protected by shame, nor the moral fullness of solidarity, which makes our hearts equally pity all living beings, still gives us enough strength to actually accomplish what is required by chaste love and all-embracing pity. And yet, conscience clearly tells us: “You must, therefore you can.” Man is ashamed of the carnal path, because it is the path of fragmentation, dispersion of vital force, and then death and corruption. If he is really ashamed of this, feels it as something he shouldn’t, then it means he must follow the opposite path of integrity and concentration towards immortality and incorruptibility. If, further, he really pities all his own kind, then the goal of this path is to achieve immortality and incorruptibility for everyone. His conscience tells him that he must do this, which means he can. And at the same time, the evidence says that such a task - to create immortality and incorruptible life for everyone - is higher than man. But is it separated by some impenetrable wall from what is above it? After all, the hidden normal being of a person reacts in religious feeling to human weakness just as clearly as it reacts in shame to carnal desires, and in pity to selfishness. And the same conscience, having adopted a new form of fear of God, says to him: all your duty and all your power are in God; You must, therefore, you can completely surrender to Him and through Him give the real fulfillment of your integrity - saturate your chaste love and pity to the end, obtain for yourself and for everyone immortal and incorruptible life. Your weakness is essentially the same anomaly that you yourself see in shamelessness and ruthlessness; this anomaly comes from your separation from the unconditional beginning of everything that is proper and everything that is powerful, and through reunification with Him you must and can correct this anomaly. 69 That highest principle with which religious feeling connects us is not only ideal perfection. Perfection in an idea is accessible to man himself. But man is powerless to give reality to his perfection, to make his good a real good. Here is the deepest basis for its dependence on the one in whom absolute perfection is given as eternal reality and who is the indivisible and unchangeable identity of Good, Goodness and Bliss. By uniting with him with the purity and fullness of our good aspirations, we, to the extent of them, receive the power of fulfillment, the power of transforming the potential wholeness of our pan-human being into reality. That is why we are so ashamed or ashamed of every bad act, even mental. It is not some abstract principle or some arbitrary rule that is being violated here. But a false step was taken, a delay occurred for us and for others on the one true path towards a single worthy and dear goal - the restoration of immortal and incorruptible life for everyone. And shame, and conscience, and the fear of God are only negative expressions for the necessary conditions for what is as real as it is a lofty, divine-human cause. So, moral goodness, by its very essence, is a way of actually achieving real good, or bliss, that is, one that can give a person stable and final satisfaction. Good (and bliss) in this sense is only the other side of good, or another point of view on it - between these two concepts there is the same internal connection and the same impossibility of contradiction as between cause and effect, goal and means, etc. One must desire good for oneself, but this pure will is not in the least disturbed by our consciousness that good itself is certainly a good for the demand that fulfills it. On the other hand, it is natural to desire every good for ourselves, but this in no way prevents us from understanding and taking into account the fact of experience that every good, in order not to turn out to be imaginary or illusory, must be conditioned by goodness, that is, the fulfillment of moral requirements. If the law of goodness, or true eudaimonia, is determined by moral goodness, then there can be no contradiction between the ethics of pure duty and eudaimonism in general. Good will must be self-legitimate (autonomous); but the opposite of this - the foreignness (heteronomy) of the will, of course, does not consist in the recognition that proper behavior leads to real well-being. Such recognition, conditioning good by moral good, subordinating good to good, is completely in accordance with moral self-legitimacy; foreignness, on the contrary, consists in the separation of eudaimonia from the morally obligatory, in the subordination of the desirable not to the moral, but to another, alien to morality, law. Thus, the main contradiction in the field of ethics does not relate to eudaimonism in general, but only to abstract eudaimonism, or, more precisely, distracting, namely distracting or separating good and well-being from its actual purely moral conditions, without which only imaginary or deceptive good is possible. Why, however, does the fulfillment of duty so often not give complete satisfaction? I have so little desire to evade this objection that I will even strengthen it: human virtue never gives complete satisfaction. But when does this virtue itself become complete, and who between those born “εκ θελήματος σαρκός” and “εκ θελήμτος ανδρός” has ever completely fulfilled his duty? It is clear that the fullness of goodness is not realized by any single human person, and it is equally clear that a superhuman person capable of realizing the fullness of goodness will find complete satisfaction in this. It also follows that the autonomy (self-legitimacy) of the will, i.e. the ability to want only pure good for its own sake, without any extraneous motives, and, moreover, to want all good, is only a formal and subjective property of a person, which for its objective realization must still acquire the ability to actually do all the good and thereby give a person complete satisfaction. Without this, virtue has only a negative and insufficient character, which, however, does not flow from the essence of the moral principle. So, firstly, when this principle requires that the spirit have power over the flesh, then this requirement in itself does not contain any external limitation of such power. The norm here is the perfect and unconditional power of the spirit over the flesh, its complete and actual self-legitimacy, as a result of which it should not submit to the alien law of carnal existence - death and corruption. This means that in this sphere only immortal and incorruptible life is perfect goodness, but it is also perfect well-being. So, morality, which does not lead to real immortality and incorruptibility, cannot, strictly speaking, be called self-legal, for it clearly obeys someone else’s law of material life. In the same way, in the sphere of altruism, the moral principle, prescribing to help everyone, does not set any fundamental restrictions on this help - obviously, here complete goodness requires the delivery to all neighbors of the fullness of all benefits, or absolute bliss, and if our altruism does not fulfill this, then this insufficiency of our good has its basis not in the moral law, which requires the greatest, but in someone else’s law of limited material existence, and, therefore, altruism, obeying this alien law can no longer be recognized as autonomous morality in the precise sense, but turns out to be essentially heteronomous (alien law). So, good can be combined with dissatisfaction or lack of good only if and to the extent that this good itself is incomplete, imperfect, or the moral law is not fulfilled to the end and still gives way to another, alien law. Perfect goodness, that is, free from any foreign law, also gives perfect satisfaction. In other words, goodness is separated from goodness not by the inner essence of its demands, but only by external obstacles in their fulfillment. A moral principle, consistently fully realized, a duty, perfectly fulfilled, inevitably leads to the highest good, or bliss, and, therefore, between eudaimonism and pure morality the contradiction is only accidental, arising from the empirical imperfection of human good or from a false understanding of both the good and the good. In the first case, the discrepancy between good and good (“the misfortunes of the righteous”) indicates only the insufficiency or incompleteness - the incompleteness of a given moral state, and in the second case, i.e. with a false understanding, there is no moral interest at all, no matter whether the falsely understood good coincides with the falsely understood good or does not coincide. So, for example, when someone earnestly prays to God in order to find a wallet with money on the street or to win the lottery, then the failure of such prayer has nothing to do with the question of the discrepancy between virtue (in this case, religious) and eudaimonia, or the good and the good; for here only a false understanding of both is at work: prayer, contrary to both God’s and human dignity, as a means for a selfish and base goal, does not constitute real good, and receiving undeserved money is not yet receiving good, or real well-being. On the other hand, when a person engages in philanthropy not out of pity and not on an altruistic principle, but only in order to be given an order, which he actually receives, such a coincidence of a falsely understood goodness with a falsely understood well-being has here as little meaning for ethics as their discrepancy in the first example: there is no need to prove that such philanthropy, although it can be used in social and practical forms, is not There is, however, virtue, nor the fact that the order is only a ghostly good. It is clear that real good can only be born from noble feelings and deeds, that is, those with moral dignity, consistent with good, and real good, in turn, cannot ultimately lead to disasters, that is, to evil. It is very characteristic, in fact, that the same concept of “evil” equally expresses the opposition of both virtue and well-being - both villainy and misfortune are equally recognized as evil, which clearly indicates the internal affinity between good and blessing, which, however, are themselves often identified in general usage, being replaced by one another. So, we come to the conclusion that the division between goodness and benefit (or well-being) is only a conditional phenomenon, and that the unconditional essence of goodness includes the fullness of goodness. The initial question about the meaning of life is not finally resolved either by the fact of good feelings inherent in human nature, or by those principles of proper behavior that reason deduces from the moral consciousness of these feelings. From moral feelings and principles, which represent some relative good, but do not give complete satisfaction, both feeling and reason force us to move on to Good itself in its unconditional essence, which is not subject to any chance, to any external restrictions and therefore gives real satisfaction, the true and complete meaning of all life. That pure moral goodness must ultimately be experienced as the highest good, that is, as complete satisfaction, or bliss, was recognized by the strict preacher of the categorical imperative himself. But the path by which he thought to arrive at the unity of these two supreme concepts cannot in any way be recognized as leading to the goal. The great German philosopher, who irreproachably defined the formal essence of morality as an unconditionally independent, or self-legal, action of pure will, did not escape in the ethical field that one-sided subjective idealism, which constitutes the common boundary of all his views. On this basis, only an imaginary synthesis of good and good is possible, only an imaginary implementation of a perfect moral order. Subjectivism in a rough, elementary sense is eliminated, of course, by the very concept of pure will, that is, will, free from any empirical random motives and determined only by unconditional ought (das Sollen), that is, by the universal and necessary norm of practical reason, by virtue of which the moral rule of our activity (and each of our actions) can only be that which we, without internal contradiction, can affirm as an unconditionally universal law, applicable, therefore, to ourselves no differently than to anyone else. This formula in itself (i.e., logically) is completely objective; but what is its real strength? By presenting the requirement of the moral order in an unconditional form, Kant guarantees only the possibility of its fulfillment: you must, therefore you can. But this possibility does not at all guarantee reality, and, consequently, a perfect moral order may remain unrealized in general. From this point of view, the final internal basis of the moral requirement itself is not visible. For our will to be pure, or (formally) self-legitimate, it must be determined solely by respect for moral duty, as clear as A equals A. But why is this A required at all? On what is the requirement of a “pure” will based? If I want to get pure hydrogen from water, then, of course, I must remove oxygen from it. But if I want to drink or wash, then I don’t need pure hydrogen at all, but only need its certain compound with oxygen H 2 O, called water. In Kant, without a doubt, one should recognize the Lavoisier of moral philosophy. His decomposition of morality into autonomous and heteronomous elements and the formula of the moral law represent one of the greatest successes of the human mind. But the matter cannot be limited here to theoretical scientific interest alone. Kant speaks of practical reason as an unconditional principle of actual human behavior, and here his statements are similar to what if a chemist began to demand or consider it possible that people use pure hydrogen instead of water. Kant refers to conscience as the real support for his ethical point of view. Of course, conscience is more than a requirement, it is a fact. But for all the philosopher’s sincere reverence for this evidence of our higher nature, it does not serve him at all to his advantage. Firstly, the voice of conscience does not say exactly what it should say, according to Kant, and secondly, the objective meaning of this voice remains, despite everything, problematic from the point of view of our philosopher. Kant, as is known, recognizes as alien to true morality, or alien to the law, not only the motives of self-interested calculation, which encourage us to do good for our own benefit (in which he is certainly right), but also all other motives, except only respect for the moral law; Thus, a person who, out of a simple feeling of pity, helps his neighbor in need does not thereby demonstrate “pure will,” and his action is devoid of moral dignity, in Kant’s opinion. And in this case, he is right from the point of view of his moral chemistry, but the fact is that the highest authority to which he himself appeals - conscience - does not take this point of view. One can only jokingly (as Schiller does in his famous epigram) imagine a person whose conscience would reproach him for pitying his neighbors and helping them with heartfelt sympathy: I am used to doing good to my loved ones, but, unfortunately, I do good with joy, loving them tenderly with my heart. How can we be here? Hate them and, full of enmity and malice, Do charity: only then will you be morally right. Real conscience obliges us to have a proper attitude towards everything, and whether this proper attitude takes the form of an abstract consciousness of general principles, or directly acts in the form of an immediate feeling, or - what is best - combines both - this is already a question about the degrees and forms of moral development - a very important question in itself, but extraneous to conscience and therefore not having decisive significance for the general assessment of human actions according to their moral essence. But apart from the disagreement between Kant’s ethical demands and what the conscience he refers to tells us, what significance can the very fact of conscience have for “transcendental idealism”? The voice of conscience, testifying to the moral order, filled Kant's soul with reverence. But we know that the same reverence was aroused in him by the sight of the starry sky. What is the starry sky, from Kant’s point of view? Perhaps it still represented some kind of reality for the author of the Natural History of the Heavens, 70 but the author of the Critique of Pure Reason destroyed the seductions of simple-minded realism. The starry sky, like the entire universe, is only an idea, a phenomenon in our consciousness. Although caused in us by some unknown influences of something beyond our control, this phenomenon in its actual form and properties has nothing in common with those absolutely mysterious essences and does not express at all the true existence of things: it is entirely created by the forms of our sensory perception and the imaginative force acting according to the categories of our reason. And if Kant was in awe of the greatness of the starry sky, then the real object of this feeling could only be the greatness of the human mind, or, more precisely, the mental activity that creates the order of the universe in order to then cognize it. But Kant’s “idealism” took away true reality not only from the visible world, but also from the spiritual world. In criticism of rational psychology, it is proven that the soul does not have its own existence, that in fact there is only a complex set of phenomena and series of phenomena of the inner sense, which in no way have any more reality than the phenomena of the so-called external world. The connection between internal (as well as “external”) phenomena does not at all occur because they are experienced by the being who suffers and acts in them, but this connection, or the unity of mental life, depends entirely on known laws or general relationships that form a certain order or established mechanism of mental phenomena. If in this mechanism we find an important spring called conscience, then with all the specific features of this phenomenon, it takes us just as little out of the realm of subjective ideas as the unique ring of Saturn, which we contemplate through a telescope. Kant - who was as burdened by his subjectivism in the moral sphere as he was proud of it in the theoretical sphere - understood well that the fact of conscience in itself does not free him from this subjectivism. If conscience is only a mental phenomenon, then what is its binding force? And if it is something more, then it means that the moral law has its basis not only in us, but also independently of us, in other words, this unconditional law presupposes an absolute legislator. At the same time, Kant, despite the influence of Rousseau, who was alien to moral optimism, clearly saw the abyss between what should be according to the unconditional moral law and what is in reality, and understood well that this abyss cannot be filled, good cannot fully triumph and the ideal cannot be completely realized in the conditions of a given empirical existence, or mortal life, and so he “postulates” the immortality of the soul - the very soul whose existence was eliminated by him in "Critique of Pure Reason". Thus, despite his criticism, behind the starry sky above us, Kant wanted to find God, and behind the voice of conscience in us - an immortal soul in the image and likeness of God. He calls these the postulates of practical reason and the objects of rational faith. 71 There is no faith here, since faith cannot be a conclusion, and there is little rationality, since all reasoning revolves in a false circle: God and the immortal soul are derived from morality, and morality itself is conditioned by God and the immortal soul. In themselves, these two metaphysical ideas do not have, from Kant’s point of view, any reliability; but since the reality of God and the immortal soul is required for the real meaning of the moral law, these ideas should be recognized as reliable truths. But any skeptic or “critical philosopher” can rightfully turn this reasoning directly against Kant: since the existence of God and the immortal soul is necessary to substantiate pure morality, and the reliability of these ideas cannot be proven, then, consequently, the pure morality conditioned by them remains an assumption devoid of reliability. If the moral law really has unconditional significance, then it must rest on itself, and there is no need to connect it with these “postulates,” the subject of which, moreover, is so systematically disgraced in the Critique of Pure Reason; and if a moral law needs foundations for its actual force, then in any case these foundations must have an independent reliability that does not depend on it - it cannot in any way be based on something that has its own foundation in itself. Morality is truly self-legitimate - Kant was not mistaken in this, and this great success of consciousness associated with his name will not be lost for humanity. But morality is self-legitimate precisely because its essence is not an abstract formula hanging in the air, but has within itself all the conditions of its reality. And what is necessarily presupposed by moral life - the existence of God and the immortal soul - is not a requirement for something else that comes with morality, but is its own, internal basis. God and the soul are not postulates of the moral law, but direct formative forces of moral reality. The fact that goodness does not have a universal and final realization for us, that virtue is not always real and never (in our actual life) is never completely real, does not, obviously, abolish the other fact that goodness still exists, and the third fact that the measure of goodness in humanity generally increases. Not in the sense that individual people become stronger in virtue or that the number of virtuous people becomes larger, but in the sense that the average level of generally binding and implementable moral requirements increases. This is a historical fact that cannot be argued in good faith. Where does this increase in goodness come from in humanity as a collective whole, regardless of the moral state of individual human units? We know that the growth of a physical organism occurs through an excess of nutrition, which it receives from the actual physical-organic environment surrounding it, which pre-exists the given organism. In the same way, moral growth, logically inexplicable from the physical (for such an explanation would ultimately come down to deducing more from less or something from nothing, which is absurd), can only be explained from excess nutrition, that is, from the generally positive influence of the actual moral or spiritual environment. And since, in addition to the fickle and mostly dubious moral growth of individuals, explained by the educational effect of the social environment, there is a constant and undoubted spiritual growth of humanity or the social environment itself (which is the whole meaning of history), then to explain this fact it is logically necessary to accept the reality of the superhuman environment, which spiritually nourishes the collective life of humanity and, with the excess of this nutrition, determines its moral progress. And once the reality of the superhuman Good is accepted out of necessity, there is no longer any reason to exclude the personal moral life of a person from the spiritual influence of this Good: it is clear that this highest action extends to everything capable of perceiving it, and the action of the social environment should be understood not as a source, but only as one of the necessary conditions of the moral life of each person. Further, since moral life (both collective and personal) is understood as the interaction of man (and humanity) with the perfect superhuman Good, then this life is essentially removed from the realm of transient material phenomena, that is, both the individual and the collective soul are recognized as immortal. Moreover, this immortality does not at all imply the substantiality of souls in themselves. It is possible to think of each soul not at all as a separate independent substance, but only as one of many inseparably connected, permanent and, therefore, immortal relations of the Divine to some universal substrate of world life, the immediate definition of which is not directly in the interest of moral philosophy. We know nothing yet (that is, before the theoretical study of metaphysical questions) about the substantiality of the soul, as well as about the substantiality of the Divine; but we know one thing for sure: God lives - my soul lives - if we abandoned this fundamental principle, we would cease to understand and affirm ourselves as a moral being, that is, we would renounce the very meaning of our existence. Chapter eight. The unconditional beginning of morality Neither the natural inclination towards goodness in individuals nor the rational consciousness of duty is sufficient in itself for the realization of goodness. But in our moral nature there really lives the beginning of something greater than itself. Already the first two moral principles: shame and pity - are not exhausted in their content either by the given mental state of this or that person, or by the general reasonable requirement of what is due. When a person is ashamed of some desires and actions arising from his material nature, then in this he not only expresses his personal opinion or the state of his mind at a given moment, but also actually cognizes some reality that does not depend on his opinions and random states, namely the reality of the spiritual, supermaterial being of man. In a feeling of shame, the basic material drives are actually repelled by us as alien and hostile. It is clear that here the repellent and the repulsed cannot be one and the same - a person who is ashamed of a material fact cannot himself be only a material fact. What is a material fact that is ashamed and repulsed by itself, that judges itself and recognizes itself as unworthy? Isn't this pure nonsense, an example of the logically impossible? So, the feeling of shame, in which our proper attitude towards material nature is rooted, is something more than a simple mental phenomenon: in it a certain general truth is self-evidently revealed, namely that in man there is a spiritual, supermaterial being. In shame and in the ascetic morality based on it, this spiritual being of man appears not only as a possibility, but also as a reality, not only as a requirement, but also as some kind of realization. People who demonstrate the power of the spirit over material nature really existed and exist, and if there are relatively few of them, this only means that the moral demand has not reached its final and complete realization, and not that it is not realized at all or remains just a demand. It cannot be said that this moral principle lacks reality; it only lacks perfect reality, or, what is the same, real perfection. In a similar way, the feeling of pity or compassion, in which a person’s proper attitude towards his peers is rooted, expresses not only the mental state of a given person, but also some general objective truth, namely the truth of consubstantiality, or the real solidarity of all beings. In fact, if the lives of everyone were not connected by this basic unity, if they were alien and external to each other, then one could not really put itself in the place of another, transfer other people's states to itself or internally experience them together with others, for sympathy is a real state, and not just an imaginary state and not an abstract thought. The sympathetic connection of beings, expressed in the basic feeling of pity and developing in the morality of altruism, is not only a requirement, but also an actual beginning of fulfillment, as evidenced by the real and historically growing solidarity of people in their community; and the shortcoming of this morality is, again, not that it is not realized at all, but only that it is not realized completely and completely. – Just as the feeling of shame, although it does not give us any theoretical concept of the spiritual principle in man, but proves the existence of this principle with certainty, so the feeling of pity, without telling us anything definite about the metaphysical essence of universal unity, however, in fact shows the existence of some fundamental, pre-experimental connection between individual individuals, empirically separated and, however, more and more united in the same empirical reality. In two moral areas, designated by shame and pity, good is already known as truth and is realized in reality, but only imperfectly. In the third area of ​​moral relations, determined by religious feeling, or reverence, the true object of this feeling makes itself known as the highest or perfect good, not only realized, but unconditionally and completely realized, eternally existing. The internal basis of religion does not consist merely in the consciousness of our dependence on a power immeasurably superior to us; in its pure form, the religious state ultimately boils down to the joyful feeling that there is a being infinitely better than ourselves, and that our life and destiny, like everything that exists, depends precisely on it - not on something senselessly fatal, but on the real and perfect Good - the one, everything contains it within itself. In a real religious sensation, the reality of what is felt is given; we actually perceive the real presence of the Divine, we experience its action within ourselves. All abstract objections are powerless against experienced reality. When a person is ashamed of his animal instincts, is it possible to prove to him that he is only an animal? In the very fact of shame, he feels and shows himself in reality as something greater and higher than an animal. When, in a feeling of pity, the suffering of others really evokes in us the corresponding states and makes us feel in our neighbor the same being as ourselves, what power can theoretical reasoning have that this neighbor, for whom my heart aches, is my idea, which, perhaps, has no reality of its own? If I feel an inner connection between myself and another, such a feeling testifies to the real existence of this other no less than to my own. But this conclusion is valid not only with compassion or pity, but also with religious feeling, with the only difference that the object of the latter is felt not as something equal to us, but as unconditionally higher, all-encompassing and perfect. If I cannot admit the thought that a being who arouses in me a living feeling of compassion does not itself live and does not suffer, then it is even less possible to admit that that highest thing that inspires us with reverence and fills our soul with unspeakable bliss does not exist at all. We cannot doubt the reality of that which tangibly affects us and whose effect is given in the very fact of our sensation. The fact that I do not always experience this sensation, and others do not experience it at all, harms the reality of my sensation and its object just as little as the fact that I do not see daylight at night, and those born blind have never seen it during the day, harms the sun and vision. In addition, many people have, and previously everyone had, false ideas about the sun, attributing to it its small size and movement around the Earth. But neither the existence of the sun nor my confidence in it changes at all. In the same way, all theological contradictions and errors associated with religion do not in the least concern its actual subject. Theological systems, like astronomical ones, are the work of the human mind and depend on the degree of its development and on the amount of positive knowledge. Correct theology, like correct astronomy, is an important and necessary matter; but this is not a matter of prime necessity. The epicycles of the Alexandrian astronomers and the bifurcation of the solar system according to the theory of Tycho de Brahe did not prevent anyone from using the light and heat of the sun, and the exposed error of these astronomers could not arouse practical doubt in anyone about the actual existence of the sun and planets. In the same way, even the most false and absurd theological teaching cannot prevent anyone from feeling the Divine and cannot cause anyone to doubt the reality of what is given in his sensation. Abstract theoretical doubts have arisen and are arising not only regarding the existence of God, but also regarding any other existence. Only people who are not at all involved in philosophical thinking can think that the existence of the physical world or even our neighbors is something self-evident to the mind. In fact, doubt about this existence is the first foundation of any speculative philosophy that deserves this name. These theoretical doubts are one way or another resolved by various epistemological and metaphysical theories. Despite all the interest and all the importance of such theories, it is not they that have direct significance for life and activity, but moral philosophy, the subject of which is what is really given in spiritual nature, and those guiding, practical truths that follow from these data with logical necessity. The indicated correspondence between spiritual and physical blindness is further strengthened by the following circumstance. It is known that people born blind are not only completely healthy in other respects, but also have a direct advantage over sighted people in the better development of others’ senses - hearing, touch. In a similar way, people who are deprived of sensitivity to the light of the deity are in other, practical and theoretical, respects not only completely normal, but also usually turn out to be more capable than others in various matters and sciences. It is clear that a person, especially one who gravitates towards the absolute center of life, cannot concentrate with equal attention on relative objects. Therefore, one cannot be surprised that in the special worldly tasks of mankind, a large share of work and success belongs to people for whom the Upper Light is closed. But in addition to the naturalness of such a “division of labor,” we also find in it some teleological explanation of atheism, which cannot exist without some positive, good goal in general, whatever, however, its special negative reasons may be in each case. If historical work is needed, if a real unification of humanity is needed, if in a given era it is necessary that people invent and build all sorts of machines, break through the Suez Canal, discover unknown lands, etc., then for the successful fulfillment of these tasks it is also necessary that not all people are mystics and not even all are serious believers. It goes without saying that the highest will does not deliberately make anyone an atheist for its historical purposes. But since a complex chain of causes, finally approved by one or another voluntary decision of the person himself, has produced spiritual blindness in this case, then it is up to Providence to direct this “bad” in such a way that it too is “not without good” - so that the subjective untruth has an objective justification. The reality of the deity is not a conclusion from a religious sensation, but the content of this sensation is the very thing that is felt. Take away this felt reality of the highest principle - and there will be nothing left in the religious feeling. He himself will no longer be there. But it exists, and, therefore, there is what is given in it, what is felt in it. There is God in us, which means He exists. No matter how complete the feeling of our inner unity with God may be, it never passes into the consciousness of a simple, indifferent identity or fusion: there always remains with the feeling of unity the inseparable sensation that the deity that acts and reveals itself in us, with whom we unite, is something different and independent from us, that it is before, higher and greater than us. So, God is in himself. What is sensed is logically prior to any given sensation. The reality of an object does not depend on one or another of its actions. When we have to tell someone: “God is not in you,” then everyone understands that this is not a denial of divinity, but only a recognition of the moral worthlessness of that person in whom there was no place for God, that is, no internal receptivity for the action of God. And this conclusion, of course, would not change for us even if we recognized in all people such incompatibility for the deity. Just as from the feeling of my compassion for another person it does not at all follow that I and this other are one and the same (the same subject), but only that I am homogeneous and in solidarity with him, in the same way in a religious feeling, from the fact that we feel God in ourselves or ourselves in God, it does not in any way follow that we and He are one and the same, but it only follows that we are internally connected with that “of His kind we are.” Moreover, this connection is not fraternal, as with our neighbors, but filial - not the solidarity of equality, but the solidarity of dependence. But this dependence is not external and accidental, but essential and internal. In a real religious feeling, the deity is posited as the completeness of all conditions of our life, or that without which life would be meaningless and impossible for us, as the first principle, as the true environment and as the final goal of existence. Since everything is already in God, we cannot bring anything, no new content from ourselves: we cannot make absolute perfection become more perfect. But we can assimilate it more and more, unite with it more and more closely. Thus, we relate to the deity as form to content. Further analyzing what is given in religious feeling as a living sensation of the reality of the deity, we find ourselves in a threefold relationship to this perfect reality, the absolute Good, or the supreme Good: 1) we are aware of our difference from Him, and since it contains the fullness of perfection, it means that we can differ from Him only by negative qualities or definitions - our imperfection, weakness, malice, suffering. In this respect, we constitute the opposite of the deity, its negative other: this is the lower, earthly principle from which man is created (his ύλη, or causa materialis), what in the Bible is called “dust of the earth” (matter (Greek), material cause (Latin)) (afar gaadama). 2) But, being only a combination of all kinds of imperfections, we recognize absolute perfection as what truly exists, and in this consciousness we ideally unite with Him, imagining Him in ourselves; this idea of ​​unity, as the formative beginning of our life (είδος, causa formalis), is, according to the biblical word, the “image of God” in us (more precisely, a reflection, tselem - from tsel - shadow) (form (Greek), formal reason (lat.)). 3) But in God, ideal perfection has full reality, and we, conscious of divinity as an idea or imagining it in ourselves, are not content with this, but want, like God, to be truly perfect; and since our actual existence is the opposite of this, we strive to transform it, improve it, assimilate (assimilate) our bad reality to the absolute ideal. Thus, being opposite to the deity in our given (or inherited) state, we become like him in what we strive for - the goal of our life, that for which we exist (ου ένεκα, causa finalis), is this “God's likeness” (d'mut) (goal (Greek), target reason (Latin)). A religious attitude necessarily involves discrimination and comparison. We can have a religious attitude towards the highest only by recognizing it in this quality - as the highest or by recognizing its superiority over ourselves, therefore, our unworthiness. But we cannot recognize ourselves as unworthy or imperfect if we do not have the idea of ​​the opposite, that is, of perfection. Moreover, our consciousness of our imperfection and divine perfection, if it has active force, cannot stop at this opposition, but certainly causes a desire to eliminate it through the transformation of our reality according to the highest ideal, that is, in the image and likeness of God. So, a complete religious attitude is logically composed of three moral categories: 1) imperfection (in us), 2) perfection (in God) and 3) perfection (or coordination of the first with the second) as our life task. The logical analysis of the religious attitude in its trinitarian composition is fully confirmed both from the psychological and from the formal-moral point of view. Psychologically, that is, as a subjective state, the basic religious attitude manifests itself in a feeling of reverence, or, more precisely, reverent love. 72 This feeling necessarily contains: 1) self-condemnation of the one who experiences it, or his disapproval of his present reality; 2) a positive feeling of the highest ideal as another reality or as a truly existing thing - it is psychologically impossible to revere a deliberate fiction or one’s own fantasy; 3) the desire for a real change in oneself and one’s reality in the sense of approaching the highest perfection - without this desire, a religious feeling turns into an abstract thought. On the contrary, the real desire for the deity is already the beginning of union with Him. In religious love, distinguishing ourselves from God, we at the same time feel our inner connection with Him. Feeling His reality within ourselves, we thereby find ourselves united with this higher reality and lay the beginning (internal, subjective) for the upcoming complete union of the whole world with God. Hence the feeling of inner elation and bliss inherent in a true religious mood, which the apostle calls “the joy of the Holy Spirit” and “the deposit of the Spirit in our hearts.” This is a prophetic spirit, anticipating the fullness of our final assimilation and union with the Divine: it has not yet been completed, but it is already really beginning and has begun, and we are already anticipating the joy of fulfillment. From the formal-moral side, consciousness (in religious feeling) of the highest ideal as a truly existing one and our inconsistency with it obliges us to real improvement. That which evokes in us a feeling of reverence thereby asserts its right to our devotion, and if we are aware of the real and unconditional superiority of the deity over us, then our devotion to him must be real and unlimited, that is, constitute the unconditional rule of our life. Religious feeling, expressed in the form of the imperative mood (categorical imperative), tells us not only to desire perfection, but to be perfect. And this means: not only have good will, be honest, kind and virtuous, but also be painless, be immortal, incorruptible, and not only that, but also make sure that all your neighbors, having become morally perfect, at the same time are painless, immortal and incorruptible in their bodies. In fact, the true perfection of each person must capture him as a whole, must extend to his entire reality, and this reality includes other beings. If we do not want to make them painless, immortal and incorruptible beyond their moral improvement, then it means that we do not have pity for them, that is, we are internally imperfect, and if we want, but cannot, then it means that we are weak, that is, our internal perfection is not enough to manifest itself objectively, which means that it is only subjective, half perfection, or - which is the same thing - imperfection. In both cases, we did not fulfill the unconditional command: be perfect. But what does this command mean? After all, it is quite clear that by one act of our will, even the purest and most intense, we not only cannot resurrect the dead, but even contrary to the claims of the doctrine of “mental healing” we cannot always rid ourselves or our neighbor of toothache or gout. Clearly, this means that the command “be perfect” does not require individual acts of will, but sets the task of life. A simple act of pure will is necessary to accept this task, but it alone is not sufficient to fulfill it. A process of improvement is required as an inevitable path to perfection, so the absolute command “be perfect” means in practice: become perfect. Perfection, that is, the fullness of goodness, or the unity of goodness and goodness, is expressed in three forms: 1) unconditionally existing, eternally valid perfection - in God; 2) potential - in human consciousness, which contains the absolute fullness of being as an idea, and in human will, which sets it as an ideal and norm for itself; finally, 3) in the actual implementation of perfection or in the historical process of perfection. here, from the side of abstract moralism, the question is posed (and predetermined): why is this third type needed - perfection, actively realized, why is historical work with its political and cultural tasks needed? If we have the light of truth and pure will, then what else should we worry about? But the goal of historical making is precisely the final justification of the good given in our true consciousness and better will; the entire historical process develops real conditions under which good can become a truly common property and without which it cannot be realized. All historical development - and not only of humanity, but also of the physical world - is a necessary path to perfection. No one will prove that a mollusk or a sponge can perceive the truth and freely harmonize its will with absolute good. This means that it was necessary for more and more complex and refined organic forms to be developed in the world, until such a form was created in which the consciousness and desire for perfection could be revealed. But this consciousness and desire are only the possibility of perfection, and since a person is aware of and wants what he does not have, it is clear that this consciousness and will cannot in any way be the completion - they are only the beginning of his life and activity. A drop of living protoplasm, the creation of which also required considerable creative forces, although it contains the possibility of the human body, the implementation of this possibility required an entire biological process, very complex and lengthy. But just as neither a formless lump of organic matter, nor an insufficiently formed living body, such as a sponge, a polyp, a cuttlefish, can by itself give birth to a person, although it potentially contains him within itself, in the same way, from a formless crowd of savages or even from an insufficiently formed organism of barbarian states, it is impossible to directly give birth to the kingdom of God, that is, to the perfect image of human and universal communication of life, even if the remote possibility of such communication was already contained in the feelings and thoughts of these savages and barbarians. Just as the human spirit in nature, in order to really manifest itself, requires the most perfect of physical organisms, so the Spirit of God in humanity, or the Kingdom of God, for its actual manifestation requires the most perfect social organization, which is developed by world history. Just as the simplest element of this historical process - an individual person - is more capable of conscious and free action than the simplest element of a biological process - an organic cell, so the very creation of a collective, universal body has a more conscious and volitional character compared to the organic processes that determined the origin of our bodily being, although there is no absolute opposition here, for, on the one hand, the beginnings of consciousness and will are undoubtedly inherent in all living beings, without, however, having a decisive significance in the general process of improving organic forms, and on the other hand, the course and outcome of world history are far from being covered by the conscious and intentional activity of historical persons. But in any case, at a certain degree of mental and moral development of an individual person, the question of how he should relate to historical tasks inevitably arises. The significance of the historical process (as opposed to the cosmic process) lies in the fact that it takes place with the ever-increasing participation of personal figures. And isn’t it strange, at the present time, when this character of history has become sufficiently clear, to assert that man must renounce all historical activity, that the perfect state of humanity and the entire universe will be achieved by itself? This “by itself” does not mean here, of course, the play of blind physical forces, which do not at all strive and cannot in any way create the Kingdom of God from themselves - “by itself” means here: by the direct action of God. But how can we explain from this point of view that God has not yet acted directly? If for the realization of perfect life, or the Kingdom of God, only two principles are needed: God and the human soul, which (potentially) perceives Him, then the Kingdom of God could be established with the appearance of the first man. Why were all these long centuries and millennia of human history needed? And if this process was necessary, because the Kingdom of God can just as little open up among wild cannibals as among wild animals, if it was necessary for humanity to evolve from an animal, formless and scattered state to a certain organization and unity, then it is clearer than day that this process has not yet ended and that just as historical division was necessary yesterday, so it is necessary today and will be necessary tomorrow, until all the conditions for real and perfect implementation are created Kingdom of God. The historical process is a long and difficult transition from bestial humanity to divine humanity, and who will seriously argue that the last step has already been taken, that the image and likeness of the beast has been internally abolished in humanity and replaced by the image and likeness of God, that there is no longer any historical task requiring the organized action of social groups and that all we have to do is recognize this fact, testify to this truth and then calm down? And yet, despite the absurdity of such a view, simply and directly expressed, what mainly boils down to it is the now fairly widespread preaching of social decay and individual quietism, which passes itself off as a confession of an unconditional moral principle. But the unconditional principle of morality cannot be a deception. But isn’t this a deception when an individual person presents his own powerlessness to actually realize the ideal of universal perfection as the uselessness of such implementation? This is an obvious deception. But here is the truth that conscience and reason tell us - on the basis of real religious feeling: I alone cannot actually accomplish what should be done, I alone cannot do anything. But, thank God, I don’t exist alone at all; my powerless loneliness is only a subjective state that depends on me. I can separate myself from everything in my thoughts and will, but this is only self-deception. Outside of these false thoughts and this bad will, nothing exists separately; everything is inextricably connected internally and externally. I'm not alone. God Almighty is with me and there is peace, that is, everything that is contained by God. And if they exist, then there is a positive interaction between them. For from the very concept of divinity it is clear that something to which God would only have a negative relationship, or which He would absolutely not want, could not exist at all. But the world exists, therefore, there is a positive action of God in it. But the world cannot be the goal of this action, because the world is imperfect. If it cannot be an end, then it must be a means. It is a system of conditions for the implementation of the kingdom of goals. That which is capable of perceiving perfection in him will enter this kingdom with full rights, while the rest serves as material and a tool in its creation. Everything that exists exists only by virtue of approval from God; but God approves in two ways: one is good as an instrument, and the other is as a goal and tranquility (Shabbat). Each degree of world-creating activity has approval from above, but the word of God distinguishes between simple and enhanced approval; about all the creations of the six world days it says that they are good (tob, καλά), but only about the last of them - man - is good (tob method, καλα λίαν) (good (Hebrew, Greek); very good (Hebrew, Greek)), as in another St. The book says about the Wisdom of God that she dealt with all creations, but that her joy was in the sons of men. In their consciousness and freedom there is an internal opportunity for each of them to independently relate to God and, therefore, to be His direct goal or a full citizen in the kingdom of goals. The realization of this possibility for everyone is world history. The person participating in it, through his own experience, through his interaction with others, achieves real perfection, and this perfection achieved by himself, that is, complete, conscious and free union with the Divine, is exactly what God ultimately wants - unconditional good. Inner freedom, i.e. voluntary and conscious preference for good over evil in everything is the main, fundamental condition of this perfection, or complete goodness (tob meod). Man is dear to God not as a passive instrument of His will—there are plenty of such instruments in the physical world—but as a voluntary ally and accomplice of His universal work. This human participation is certainly included in the very goal of God’s action in the world, for if this goal were conceivable without human activity, then it would have been achieved from eternity, since in God himself there can be no process of improvement, but one eternal and unchanging fullness of all goods. And just as it is unthinkable for an absolute being to succeed in goodness and perfection, so for a person, on the contrary, it is unthinkable to achieve perfection at once, without the process of improvement. After all, this is not a thing that one can give to another, but an internal state achieved only through one’s own experience. Without a doubt, a person receives every positive content of life, and even more so its perfection, from God; but in order to be able to receive it, in order to become a receptive form of divine content (and this alone constitutes human perfection), it is necessary for a person to be freed by actual experience and cleansed of everything incompatible with this perfect state, which is achieved for the totality of all people in the historical process, through which the will of God is thus carried out in the world. This will is also revealed to the individual, but, of course, not in his deception, but in his truth; the truth of man consists in not separating himself from everything, but in being together with everything. The moral duty of religion requires us to unite our will with the will of God. But the will of God is all-embracing, and by uniting with it or entering into real agreement with it, we thereby receive an unconditional and universal rule of action. The concept of God, deduced by reason from the data of actual religious experience, is so clear and definite that we can always, if we want, know what God wants from us. First of all, God wants us to be conformed and like Him. We must manifest our inner affinity with the deity, our ability and determination to possess free perfection. In the form of a rule, this can be expressed as follows: have God within you. He who has God within himself treats everything according to the thought of God, or “from the point of view of the absolute.” So, treat everything God's way. But God’s attitude towards everything is not indifference. God is above the contradiction between good and evil, but this is not indifference. Soulless objects are indifferent as to good and evil, but this lower state cannot be attributed to a deity. If, according to the Gospel word, God raises his sun over the good and the evil, then this single light, illuminating different faces and deeds, precisely shows their difference; and if, according to the same word, God sends his rain to both the righteous and sinners, then this single moisture of God’s grace produces different fruits on different soils and from different seeds. It is impossible to allow either that God affirms evil, or that He denies it unconditionally: the first - because then evil would be good, and the second - because then evil could not exist at all, but, however, it exists. God denies evil as final or abiding, and by virtue of this denial it perishes, but He allows it as a superior condition of freedom, that is, of greater good. God allows evil, because, on the one hand, its direct denial or destruction would be a violation of human freedom, that is, a greater evil, since it would make perfect (free) good in the world impossible, and on the other hand, God allows evil, because in His Wisdom he has the ability to extract from evil the greatest good, or the greatest possible perfection, which is the reason for the existence of evil. 73 Thus, evil is something official, and to deny it would certainly mean to treat it unrighteously. And we must treat evil in God’s way, that is, without being indifferent to it, remain, however, above the unconditional contradiction with it and allow it - when it does not come from us - as an instrument of improvement, since greater good can be extracted from it. In everything that exists, we must recognize the possibility (potential) of good and contribute to ensuring that this possibility becomes reality. The direct possibility of perfect good is given in rationally free beings, such as we ourselves. Recognizing our unconditional significance due to our inherent consciousness of the absolute ideal (the image of God) and the desire to fully realize it (the likeness of God), we must rightly recognize the same for all others and understand our obligation to improve not only as a task of personal life, but also as an inseparable part of world-historical work. So, we can give the unconditional principle of morality the following complete expression: In perfect inner agreement with the highest will, recognizing for all others the unconditional significance or value, since they also have the image and likeness of God, take as full a part as possible in the work of your own and general improvement for the sake of the final revelation of the Kingdom of God in the world. Having reached the unconditional beginning of morality, we can easily see that in it all positive moral principles are combined and realized and that at the same time it gives complete satisfaction to the natural requirement of bliss in the sense of the possibility of possessing the highest good. Demanding that a person be a friend and helper of God, the unconditional moral principle does not cancel the private requirements of morality, but, on the contrary, affirms them and gives them the highest illumination and sanctification. First of all, it refers to the religious basis of morality as its direct development and final expression. The highest requirement here presupposes the lower ones. Just as a nursing baby essentially cannot be a friend and helper of his father, so a person who is spiritually immature has an internal significant obstacle to being with God in relation to immediate free solidarity. In both cases, it is equally necessary to first have authoritative leadership and education. This is the complete justification of external religious institutions - victims, hierarchy, etc. Regardless of their deep mystical meaning, which makes them an abiding connection between heaven and earth, they undoubtedly have paramount pedagogical significance for humanity. There was not and could not be a time when all people would be spiritually equal to each other. Taking advantage of this inevitable inequality, Providence from the beginning appointed the chosen, the best, as the spiritual educators of the crowd. Of course, the inequality here was only relative - the mentors of the savages were half-savages, and therefore the nature of the religious institutions themselves changes, improving in accordance with the general course of history. But until the historical process is completed, of course, there will not be a person who could, in conscience, consider completely unnecessary for others, and even for himself, any mediation of religious institutions that connect him with the action of God that has already been accomplished in history. Yes, even if such a person could be found, then in any case he would not have a negative attitude towards religious “appearance”. For him, it would not be just an appearance, since he would understand the fullness of the internal meaning inherent in it and its real connection with the future implementation of this meaning. Anyone who has left school age and reached the heights of education, of course, has no reason to go to school, but he has even less reason to deny it and instill in schoolchildren that all their teachers are parasites and deceivers, and they themselves are perfect people, that educational institutions are the root of all evil and therefore must be wiped off the face of the earth. A true “friend of God” understands and cherishes all manifestations of the divine in the physical world, and even more so in human history, and if he is on one of the upper steps of the divine-human ladder, then he, of course, will not cut down those lower steps on which his brothers stand and which still support him. Religious feeling, elevated to the unconditional and all-encompassing principle of life, then raises to the same height two other basic moral feelings with the obligations arising from them, namely the feeling of pity, which determines our proper attitude towards our fellow men, and the feeling of shame, on which our due attitude towards the lower, material nature is based. The pity that we feel for a being like us takes on a different meaning when we see in this being the image and likeness of God. Here we recognize the unconditional dignity of this being, we recognize that it is a goal for God and even more so should be a goal for us, since God himself does not make it only an instrument of his action, and even less do we have the right to make it such an instrument for ourselves - we respect this creature, since God respects him, or, more precisely: we must take it into account, since God takes it into account. Pity, in those cases where it would be natural in itself, does not disappear even with this higher point of view - on the contrary, it only intensifies and deepens. I regret in this being not only his suffering, but also the cause of it - I regret that his reality is so far from his essential dignity and possible perfection. The duty arising from the altruistic feeling is also elevated. We can no longer limit ourselves to refraining from offensive actions towards this neighbor, we cannot be content with helping him in his troubles, but must contribute to his improvement for the sake of realizing in him the image and likeness of God, which we recognize in him. And since no person alone can realize, either in himself or in anyone else, that infinite fullness of perfection, the desire for which makes us like God, then altruism at this highest religious level obliges us to take an active part in the general historical process that creates the conditions for the manifestation of the Kingdom of God, and, consequently, in those collective organizations (especially the state, as it embraces all others), through which this process is carried out by the will of Providence. Not everyone is called to political activity or to government service in the strict sense, but everyone is obliged to serve in his place that very goal - the common good - which the state itself should serve. And just as in the religious field, the unconditional moral principle instills in us a positive attitude towards the institutions and traditions of the church in the sense of educational means leading humanity to the goal of the highest perfection, so in the field of purely human relations, guided by pity and altruism, the same unconditional moral principle prescribes us active service to those collective organizations (like the state), through which the same Providence protects humanity from material decay, unites it and makes its real improvement possible. We know that only by relying on what the historical forms of religion have given and are giving to humanity can we truly achieve that free and perfect union with the Divine, the possibility and guarantee of which is given in our inner religious feeling, and in the same way we know that without that concentrated and organized social force, which is represented by the state, we cannot really provide all our neighbors with the help to which both the simple moral feeling of pity for their misfortunes and the highest persistently urge us the religious principle of respect for their unconditional dignity, which requires implementation. In both cases, linking our subordination to church and state forms of common life with the unconditional principle of morality, we thereby recognize such subordination as conditional, precisely because it is determined by this highest meaning of life and depends on it. Those institutions that should serve the Good in humanity can more or less evade their purpose and even completely change it, and then the duty of a person faithful to the Good cannot consist in relation to these institutions either to unconditionally deny them for the sake of their abuses, which would be unfair, or to blindly obey them in evil, as well as in good, which would be both wicked and unworthy - his duty then becomes active effort correct these institutions by insisting on their normal task. If we know why and in the name of what we must submit to a certain institution, then we thereby know the method and extent of this submission; it will never be limitless, blind and slavish for us, we will never become weak-willed and meaningless instruments of external forces - we will never put the church in the place of deity and the state in the place of humanity. We will not accept the transitory forms and instruments of the providential work in history as the essence and purpose of this work. By subordinating our personal weakness and insufficiency to historical forces, in our higher consciousness we relate to these forces in God’s way, use them as tools and conditions for perfect good, and through this we do not, of course, renounce our human dignity, but, on the contrary, we affirm and realize it as unconditional. If, without any derogation, but, on the contrary, with an increase in my moral dignity, I use material strength and the movement of my hands to pull a drowning person out of the water or give food to a hungry person, then why is the use of the spiritual and material forces of the state for the benefit of entire nations and all mankind a detraction, and not an increase, of our morality? This unconditional contempt for material force echoes with dualism, equally repugnant to reason and morality. If it is a shame to submit to the material elements, then it is unfair and harmful to deny them the right to exist. In any case, the unconditional principle of morality extends to the realm of matter. The only feeling of shame testifies to the independence of our being and protects its integrity from the destructive invasion of alien forces. At the lower stages of development, where the sensory sphere exclusively predominates, bodily chastity is of particular importance, and the feeling of shame is initially associated with this side of life. But with the further development of moral feelings and relationships, a person begins to understand his dignity more comprehensively; he is no longer ashamed only of his concessions to the lower, material nature, but also of any violations of what is due in relation to people and gods. Here the unconscious instinct of shame turns, as we have seen, into a clear voice of conscience, reproaching a person not only for carnal sins, but also for all untruths - for all feelings and actions that are unjust and merciless, and at the same time a special feeling of fear of God develops, keeping us from any collision with that in which the holiness of God is expressed for us. When the connection between man and the deity rises to absolute consciousness, then the feeling that protects human integrity is raised to a new and final level. Here it is not the relative, but the unconditional dignity of man that is protected - his ideal perfection, as something that must be realized. The negative voice of shame, conscience and fear of God at this height becomes in man a direct and positive consciousness of his divinity, or his consciousness of God in himself. If this consciousness still reproaches him, it is no longer because he is doing something bad and harmful, but because he feels and acts as an imperfect being, while perfection is his purpose and duty. Instead of the demon who kept Socrates from doing wrong, we hear the divine voice: “Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” But for perfection to be realized in a perfect manner, it must extend to the realm of material life. From the point of view of the unconditional beginning, material-ascetic morality also receives a new meaning. Here we abstain from carnal sins not out of an instinct of spiritual self-preservation and not to strengthen our inner strengths, but for the sake of our body itself as the last limit of the divine-human process, as the intended dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Chapter Nine. The reality of the moral order Logically developed from a religious feeling, the unconditional moral principle not only represents the fullness of good (or the proper relationship of everything to everything) as an idea or requirement, but also reveals the real forces contained in it that carry out this requirement, creating a perfect moral order, or the Kingdom of God, in which the unconditional significance of every being is realized. Only by virtue of this highest principle can moral good give us final and complete satisfaction, or be for us a true good and a source of endless bliss. We experience the reality of God not as something vaguely divine - δαιομόνιόν τι, but in His own property, as all-perfect, or absolute. And we find our soul in inner experience not only as something different from material facts, but as a positive force fighting against material processes and overcoming them. In the experience of physiological asceticism, the foundations are given not only for the truth of the immortality of the soul (which Kant did not go further in his postulates), but also for the hoped-for bodily resurrection, since in the victory of the spirit over matter, as we already know from our own preliminary and embryonic experiences, matter is not destroyed, but is perpetuated as an image of spiritual quality and an instrument of spiritual action. What matter itself is, we do not know from experience - this is the task of metaphysical research. But experience - both immediate, personal, and general, natural science and historical - shows without doubt that, despite the qualitative incommensurability of mental and physical phenomena in terms of their cognizability (for we know the former directly with an internal sense, and the latter through external senses), there is no separation between the real being of spiritual and material nature, but there is a very close connection and constant interaction, due to which the process of universal improvement, being divine-human, it is necessary to also be divine-material. The main concrete stages of this process, given in our experience, bear the traditional and significant name of kingdoms - significant because it really only approaches the last, highest stage, which is usually not taken into account here at all. With it there are five of them: the mineral kingdom (or the general - inorganic), the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom, the human kingdom and the Kingdom of God. Minerals, plants, animals, natural humanity and spiritual humanity - these are the typical forms of being from the point of view of the ascending process of universal improvement. From various other points of view, the number of these forms and degrees can be multiplied or, on the contrary, reduced to four, three and two. It is possible to unite plants and animals into one organic world; It is possible, further, to combine the entire area of ​​physical existence, both organic and inorganic, in one concept - nature, thus leaving only a threefold distinction: the Divine, human and natural kingdoms; One can finally dwell on the simple opposition between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. Without in any way rejecting these and any other distributions, it should be recognized that these five kingdoms represent a series of the most firmly defined and characteristic increases in being from the point of view of the moral meaning realized in the divine-material process. Stones and metals are distinguished from everything else by their extreme complacency and conservatism; if it had depended on them alone, nature would never have emerged from a deep sleep, but without them, its further growth would not have had solid ground and support. Plants in motionless dreams unconsciously reach for light, warmth and moisture. Animals, through sensations and free movements, seek the fullness of sensory existence: satiety, sexual replenishment - and the joy of existence (their games and singing). Natural humanity, in addition to all this, intelligently strives through the sciences, arts and social institutions to improve its life, actually improves it in various respects and, finally, rises to the idea of ​​unconditional perfection. Spiritual humanity, or born of God, not only understands with the mind, but also accepts with heart and deed this unconditional perfection as the real beginning of what should be in everything, and strives to realize it to the end, or to embody it in the life of the whole world. Each previous kingdom obviously serves as the closest matter for the next one. Inorganic substances nourish plant life, animals exist at the expense of the plant kingdom, people live at the expense of animals, and the Kingdom of God is made up of people. If we consider any organism from the point of view of its material composition, we will not find in it anything except the elements of inorganic matter, but this substance ceases to be only a substance, since it enters into a special plan of organic life, which uses the chemical and physical properties and laws of matter, but cannot be derived from them. In a similar way, human life, from the material side, is composed of the processes of animal life, but these processes no longer have meaning here in themselves, as in the animal world, but serve as means and tools for new goals and objectives arising from a new, higher plane of rational or human life. The goal of an animal (typical) is satiety (stomach and sexual), but a person who is content with this is rightly called a beast, not only for the sake of abuse, but precisely in the sense that he falls to another, lower level of existence. Just as a living organism consists of a chemical substance that ceases to be only a substance, so humanity consists of animals that cease to be only animals. In the same way, the Kingdom of God is made up of people who cease to be only people, entering a new, higher plane of existence, in which their purely human tasks become only means and instruments of another, final goal. A stone exists, a plant exists and lives, an animal is moreover aware of its life in its actual states, man understands its meaning from ideas, the sons of God actually realize this meaning, or perfect moral order, in everything to the end. The stone exists - this is clear from the tangible effect it has on us. Anyone who denies this truth, as has long been noted by many, can easily be convinced of it if he hits his head on a stone. 74 The stone is the most typical embodiment of the category of being as such, and in contrast to Hegel’s abstract concept of being, it does not show any tendency to transition into its opposite: 75 the stone is what it is, and it has always served as a symbol of unchanging being. It only exists, but does not live, just as it does not die: its disintegrated parts do not differ qualitatively from the whole. 76 The plant not only exists, but also lives, which is clear from the fact that it dies: life does not presuppose death, but death obviously presupposes life. There is a definite and essential difference between a growing tree and firewood, between a blooming flower and a withered flower, which has no corresponding counterpart in the mineral kingdom. Just as it is impossible to deny life in plants, so it is impossible to deny consciousness in animals, except with the help of arbitrary and artificial terminology, not binding on anyone. According to the natural meaning of the word, consciousness in general is a definite and correct mental combination or relationship between the internal, mental life of a given being and its external environment. This relationship undoubtedly exists in animals. Just as the presence of life in the plant world is clearly demonstrated by the difference between living and dead plants, so the presence of consciousness in animals (at least the higher ones, typical of the entire kingdom) is clearly demonstrated by the difference between a sleeping animal and a waking animal, for what does this difference consist of, if not that the waking animal consciously participates in the life around it, while the mental world of the sleeping animal is cut off from direct communication with this life. 77 – An animal not only has sensations and ideas, but it connects them with correct associations, and although its life is dominated by the impressions and interests of the present moment, it remembers its past states and foresees future ones, without which it would be impossible to raise or train animals, and this training is a fact. No one would dare to deny memory in a dog or a horse, and yet to be in memory and to be conscious are the same thing, and the denial of consciousness in animals is only an aberration of human consciousness among some philosophers. Already one comparative anatomical fact would be sufficient to eliminate this gross error. Denying the consciousness of animals reduces their entire life to the blind suggestions of instinct. But how can we explain from this point of view the gradual development in higher animals of the organ of conscious mental activity - the brain? How could this organ appear and develop in animals if they do not have the corresponding functions? After all, unconscious, instinctive life does not need a brain, which is clear from the fact that it not only generally appears before this organ, but also reaches its highest development precisely in brainless creatures. The superiority of social, predatory and constructive instincts in bees and ants is, of course, not associated with the brain, which, strictly speaking, they do not have at all, but only with the abdominal nodes (sympathetic nerve), which they really have highly developed. Man differs from animals not by the presence of consciousness, which they are not lacking, but by the assimilation of reason, or the ability of general concepts and ideas. Direct evidence of consciousness in animals is their purposeful movements, facial expressions and the language of various cries; the fundamental evidence of human rationality is a word that expresses not only the states of a given consciousness, but the general meaning of everything, and ancient wisdom rightly defined a person not as a conscious being - which is too little for him - but as a verbal or rational being. Inherent in the very nature of reason and speech, the ability to comprehend the all-unifying and all-unifying truth acted in a variety of ways in various peoples separated from each other, gradually forming the human kingdom over the soil of animal life. The ultimate essence of this human kingdom lies in the ideal demand: a perfect moral order, that is, in the demand for the Kingdom of God. In two ways—prophetic inspiration among the Jews and philosophical thought among the Greeks—the human spirit approached the idea of ​​the Kingdom of God and the ideal of the God-man. 78 Parallel to this double internal process and naturally slower than it, there was an external process of cultural and political unification of the main historical peoples of the East and West, which took place in the Roman Empire. In Greece and Rome (natural or pagan) humanity reached its limit - to the affirmation of its unconditional divine significance: in a beautiful sensual form and speculative idea - among the Hellenes, in practical reason, will or power - among the Romans. The idea of ​​an absolute man, or man-god, appeared. But this idea, in its essence, cannot remain abstract or purely speculative; it requires embodiment. Meanwhile, it is just as impossible for a person to make a god out of himself as for an animal to achieve human dignity through his own efforts, to become a rational and verbal being. Remaining on the same plane of development, within the same kingdom, animal nature could only reach the ape, and human nature could only reach the Roman Caesar. Just as the pre-appearance of the ape relates to man, so the pre-appearance of the deified Caesar relates to the God-man. While the pagan world contemplated its spiritual collapse in the person of the imaginary man-god - Caesar, powerlessly posing as a deity, individual philosophical minds and believing souls awaited the incarnation of the divine Word, or the appearance of the Messiah, the Son of God and the King of Truth. The man-god, even in the person of the universal ruler, is only an empty deception; the god-man could reveal his reality in the form of a wandering rabbi. The historical existence of Christ, as well as the reality of His character as preserved in the Gospels, cannot be seriously doubted. There was no way to invent it, and there was no one, and this completely historical image is the image of a perfect man, but a man who does not say: I became god, but who says: I was born and sent from God, and before the creation of the world I was one with God. Reason forces us to believe this testimony, for the historical appearance of Christ, as the God-man, is inextricably linked with the entire world process, and with the denial of this phenomenon, the meaning and purposefulness of the universe falls. When the first plant forms appeared among the inorganic world, which later developed into a luxurious kingdom of trees and flowers, it would have been completely absurd to assert that these forms appeared of themselves, out of nothing, and the same, only disguised, absurdity to assume that they arose from random combinations of inorganic substances. Life is some new positive content, something greater compared to lifeless matter, and to deduce this greater from the less means to assert that something actually comes from nothing, i.e. pure absurdity. Let the phenomena of plant life continuously adjoin the phenomena of the inorganic world: what appears in both kingdoms is essentially different, and this heterogeneity is revealed more and more clearly and sharply with the further development of the new kingdom. In the same way, although the world of plants and the world of animals seem to emerge from the same root, the elementary forms of both creatures are so similar that biology knows a whole division of animal plants (zoophytes), but under this apparent (manifest, phenomenal) homogeneity undoubtedly hides the main and essential difference in types, which then manifests itself in two divergent directions or principles of existence - plant and animal. And here again, what is new and greater in the animal type compared to the plant type cannot in any way, without obvious absurdity, be reduced to the lesser, i.e., to their common properties, for this would mean identifying a † b with a, or recognizing something as equal to nothing. In the same way, despite all the proximity and close material connection (in the order of phenomena) between the human and animal worlds, the essential feature of the first - manifested, of course, more in Plato and Goethe than in the Papuan or Eskimo - as a new, positive content - a certain plus of being cannot be derived from the old, animal type. A cannibal in himself is little higher than a monkey, but the whole point is that he does not represent a complete human type and that continuous series of improving generations lead from this cannibal to Plato and Goethe, while a monkey, while it is a monkey, does not significantly improve. We are connected with our semi-wild ancestors by historical memory, or the unity of collective consciousness, which animals do not have: they have only the memory of individual consciousness, and on the other hand, a physiological-clan connection, expressed in heredity, but not passing into their consciousness; therefore, the improvement of animal forms (according to the theory of evolution), although it occurs with some participation of the animals themselves, but in its results and goals remains an external and alien fact for them. The improvement of humanity is conditioned by those abilities of reason and will that also exist in the savage, although only in their infancy. But just as these higher abilities cannot be deduced from animal nature, and therefore form a special human kingdom, so exactly the properties of a spiritual man - a man who is not perfected only, but a perfect, or God-man - cannot be deduced from the properties and states of natural humanity, and, therefore, the Kingdom of God cannot be understood as a consequence of the continuous development of the purely human world - the God-man cannot be understood as a man-god, although among natural humanity there could exist and there were premonitions of the coming higher life. But just as the sea lily at first glance appears to be an aquatic plant, while it is undoubtedly already an animal, so the embryonic bearers of the Kingdom of God, apparently, did not and do not differ in any way from the people of this world, having, however, already within themselves the active beginning of a new way of being. From the fact that the highest forms, or muds, of being appear or are revealed after the lower ones, it does not in any way follow that they are the product or creation of these lower ones. The order of being is not the same as the order of appearance. Higher, more positive and complete images and states of being exist (metaphysically) before the lower ones, although they appear or are revealed after them. This does not deny evolution; it cannot be denied, it is a fact. But to assert that evolution creates higher forms entirely from lower ones, that is, completely out of nothing, means to substitute a logical absurdity for the fact. The evolution of lower types of being cannot of itself create higher ones, but it produces material conditions or provides the appropriate environment for the manifestation or revelation of a higher type. Thus, each appearance of a new type of being is, in a certain sense, a new creation, but one that can least of all be designated as a creation from nothing, because, firstly, the material basis for the emergence of a new type is the former type, and secondly, the own positive content of the higher type does not arise again from non-existence, but, existing from time immemorial, only enters (at a certain moment in the process) into another sphere of existence, into the world of phenomena. The conditions of the phenomenon come from the natural evolution of nature, the manifestation comes from God. 79 The relationship between the main types of being (which are also the main stages of the world process) is not exhausted by the negative fact by virtue of which these types, each having its own peculiarity, are irreducible to one another: there is a direct connection between them, giving positive unity to the entire process. This unity (the inner essence of which we cannot explore here) is revealed from three sides: firstly, in the fact that each new type represents a new condition necessary for the realization of the highest and final goal - the actual appearance in the world of a perfect moral order, the Kingdom of God, or “the revelation of the freedom and glory of the sons of God.” In order to achieve its highest goal, or to manifest its unconditional significance, a being must first of all exist, then it must be alive, then it must be conscious, then it must be intelligent and, finally, it must already be perfect. The defective concepts of non-existence, lifelessness, unconsciousness and irrationality are logically incompatible with the concept of perfection. The concrete embodiment of each of the positive degrees of existence forms the actual kingdoms of the universe, so that the lower ones also enter into the moral order as necessary conditions for its implementation. But the world connection is not exhausted by this instrumental relationship (explicit, given in experience): the lower types themselves gravitate towards the higher ones, strive to achieve them, having in them, as it were, their limit and their goal, which also reveals the expedient nature of the whole process (the most obvious manifestation of this desire is the already indicated fact of the ape’s anthropomorphism). Finally, the positive connection between the gradual kingdoms is that each type (and the further, the more fully) embraces or includes the lower ones, so that the world process is not only a process of development and improvement, but also a process of gathering the universe. Plants physiologically absorb their environment (inorganic substances and physical influences through which they feed and grow); Animals, in addition to feeding on plants, psychologically absorb into themselves (into their consciousness) a wider range of phenomena related to them, through sensations; man, in addition, with his mind also includes distant, not directly felt circles of existence, he can (at a high degree of development) embrace everything in one or understand the meaning of everything; finally, the God-man, or the existing mind (Logos), does not only understand abstractly, but actually realizes the meaning of everything, or the perfect moral order, embracing and binding everything with the living personal power of love. The highest task of man as such (pure man) and the purely human sphere of existence is to collect the universe in idea; the task of the God-man and the Kingdom of God is to collect the universe in reality. And just as plant life does not abolish the inorganic world, but only shows it its lower, subordinate place, just as we see the same thing at further stages of the universal process, in the same way at the end of it the Kingdom of God, by its appearance, does not abolish the lower types of being, but puts them all in their proper place, but not as special spheres of being, but as inextricably united spiritual-physical organs of the assembled universe by unconditional internal solidarity and interaction. That is why the Kingdom of God is the same as the reality of an unconditional moral order, or - which is the same - the general resurrection and restoration of all (αποκατάστασις των πάντων) (general (complete) salvation (Greek)). When the God-man, who lays the foundation for the Kingdom of God, is designated as an ideal, this is not true in the sense that he is only conceivable, unreal, but only in the sense in which it can be said that a real man is an ideal for an animal or a real plant is an ideal for the earth from which it grows. Representing a more ideal being (in the sense of greater dignity), this plant has not less, but, on the contrary, greater reality or fullness of existence compared to a block of earth, just like an animal compared to a plant, a natural man - with an animal, and a god-man - with a natural man. In general, the elevation of the ideal content is directly proportional to the increase in real strength: a plant has such real abilities (for example, it is expedient to process inorganic substances) that a piece of land does not have at all, a person is much more powerful than a monkey, and Christ has incomparably more power than the Roman Caesar. The difference between natural and spiritual man is not that the former is completely devoid of a higher, spiritual element, but that this element in him does not in itself have the power of perfect realization and, in order to receive it, must be fertilized by a new creative act, or the action of what in theology is called grace and which gives the sons of men “the power to become children of God.” Grace, and according to the teaching of orthodox theologians, does not abolish nature in general and the moral nature of man in particular, but completes it. The moral nature of man is a necessary condition and presupposition of God-manhood. Just as not every inorganic substance, but only certain certain chemical compounds can perceive the action of vital force and be part of plant and animal organisms, in the same way not every living being, but only those with a moral nature can perceive the action of grace and become part of the Kingdom of God. And indeed, man, by his very nature, reveals the beginnings of spiritual life in his inherent feelings of shame, pity, reverence and in the resulting rules of life, protected by conscience, or consciousness of what is due. This natural good in man is imperfect good, and it is logically inevitable that it in itself always remain imperfect, for otherwise one would have to admit that the infinite can arise from the growth of finite quantities, the unconditional from the conditional, and, ultimately, something from nothing. But if human nature does not contain within itself, and therefore cannot create from itself, real infinity, or the fullness of perfection, then it already, according to its inherent reason or universal meaning, contains within itself the possibility of this moral infinity and the desire for its implementation, that is, for the perception of divinity. Like a dumb being, gravitating towards reason, there is only an animal, but a creature that truly possesses reason ceases to be an animal and is a man, forming a new kingdom, not deducible from the simple continuous evolution of lower forms, in the same way this new, rational, but not realizing its reason to the end, not perfect and only gravitating towards perfection, is only a man, while a being possessing perfection cannot only be a man, but opens a new and final Kingdom of God, in in which it is not the relative, but the unconditional Good that is realized, or the dignity of being, which cannot be derived from the relative (for the difference here is not quantitative or power, but qualitative). The God-man differs from the common man not as an ideal represented, but as an ideal realized. That imaginary idealism, which recognizes the ideal as unrealizable and does not need its implementation, is idle talk that does not deserve criticism. But there is another question here that must be taken into account. By admitting in general the real, and not merely imagined, significance of the God-man, or perfect man, one can deny the historical fact of His appearance in the past. Such a denial, however, does not have any reasonable grounds for itself, and - moreover - it directly takes away all meaning from the general course of world history. If the historical person known to us from the books of the New Testament was not a manifestation of the God-man, or a realized “ideal”, according to Kant’s terminology, then he could only be a natural product of historical evolution; but in this case, why did not this evolution go further in the same direction and produce other, more perfect individuals? Why after I.Kh. progress is seen in all areas of life, but not in the root area of ​​personal spiritual power? Anyone who does not deliberately close his eyes must recognize the vast distance between that noblest type of natural, searching wisdom, which is immortalized by Xenophon in his memoirs and Plato in his conversations, and that radiant manifestation of triumphant spirituality which is preserved in the Gospels and blinded Saul to regeneration. Meanwhile, less than four centuries passed from Socrates to Christ, and if in this short period of time historical evolution could produce such an increase in spiritual strength in the human person, then how is it that in a much longer period of time and with accelerated historical movement, this evolution turned out to be decisively powerless not only to correspondingly increase personal spiritual perfection, but also to maintain it at the same level? Why, for example, can Spinoza and Kant, who lived 16 and 17 centuries after Christ and represent very noble types of natural wisdom, be compared with Socrates, but no one would even think of comparing them with Christ? Is it just because they acted in a different sphere? But here are figures glorified in the field of religion: Muhammad, Savonarola, Luther, Calvin, Ignatius of Loyola, 80 Fox, Swedenborg - all powerful manifestations of human nature, but try in good conscience to compare them with Christ! Why, finally, are those historical figures who come closest to the moral ideal, for example St. Francis, resolutely acknowledge their direct dependence on Christ as the supreme being? If we see in Christ only one of the relative degrees of moral perfection, then the absence of further degrees during the almost two thousand years of spiritual growth of mankind is a completely meaningless fact. If we recognize in Him an unconditionally higher degree, although it occurred naturally, then, firstly, He should then appear at the end, and not in the middle of history; and secondly, He still could not appear as a simple product of historical evolution, since the difference between absolute and relative perfection is not power or quantitative, but qualitative and essential, and it is logically impossible to deduce the first from the second. So, the reason of history, by its very actual course, forces us to recognize in Jesus Christ not the last word of the kingdom of mankind, but the first and all-one Word of the Kingdom of God - not the man-god, but the God-man, or unconditional individuality. From this point of view, it is also completely understandable why He first appeared in the midst of history, and not at the end of it. Since the goal of the world process is the revelation of the Kingdom of God, or the perfect moral order, realized by a new humanity growing spiritually from the God-man, it is clear that this universal phenomenon must be preceded by the individual appearance of the God-man himself. Just as the first half of history before Christ prepared the environment, or external conditions, for His personal birth, so the second half prepares the external conditions for His universal revelation, or the appearance of the Kingdom of God. And here the general law of the world order (logically reliable) is valid, that the highest type of existence is not created by the previous process, but is only determined by it in its appearance. The Kingdom of God is not a work of Christian history, just as Christ himself was not a work of Jewish and pagan history: history has developed and is developing only the necessary natural and moral conditions for the appearance of the God-man and God-manhood. By his word and the feat of his life, beginning with the victory over all temptations of moral evil and ending with the resurrection, that is, the victory over physical evil - over the law of death and corruption - the real God-man revealed the Kingdom of God to people; but the revelation here cannot coincide with the achievement, in the very meaning and law, of this new Kingdom. By realizing the unconditional significance of each person, a perfect moral order presupposes the moral freedom of everyone. But real freedom for the finite spirit is acquired only by experience: only one who has known or experienced what he chooses and its opposite can choose freely. And although Christ finally conquered evil in the true center of the universe, i.e. in Himself, the overcoming of evil on the circumference of the world, i.e. in the collective whole of humanity, had to be accomplished through humanity’s own testing, which required a new process of development of the Christian world, which had been baptized, but had not yet put on Christ. 81 The real foundation of a perfect moral order is the universality of the spirit of Christ, capable of embracing and regenerating everything. This means that the essence of the matter for humanity is to, having accepted Christ, relate to everything in His Spirit and through this enable His Spirit to be incarnate in everything. For this incarnation cannot be only a physical event. Just as for the individual incarnation of the Word of God the consent of the personal female will was required: let it be done to me according to Thy word, so for the universal incarnation of the Spirit of Christ, or the manifestation of the Kingdom of God, the consent of the collective will in humanity for the reunification of everything with God is necessary. And in order for this agreement to be, firstly, completely conscious, it is necessary that Christ be understood not only as the unconditional beginning of good, but also as the fullness of good, i.e. so that a Christian (and anti-Christian) attitude towards all aspects and areas of human life is determined; and secondly, in order for consent to be completely free, so that it is not the work of an overpowering higher power, but a real moral act, or the fulfillment of inner truth - for both of these, Christ had to withdraw into the transcendental sphere of invisible existence and retain his obvious action in history. It will be revealed when not just individuals, but the whole human society is ready for a conscious and free choice between unconditional good and its opposite. Thus, the unconditional moral demand (“be perfect, like your Heavenly Father”), addressed to each person, but not individually, but only together with others (be, not be), this demand (if only it is understood and accepted as a real life task) inevitably takes us into the realm of conditions that determine the current historical existence of society, or collective man. See about this and further in my articles The Meaning of Love (“Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, 1892 – 94). In church prayer, human infirmities are placed on a par with sins and iniquities: “Lord, cleanse our sins; Master, forgive our iniquities; Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities” (words from Morning Prayer). These infirmities are especially opposed here to holiness. Kant's main work in his pre-critical era (“General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens” was written by Kant in 1755). We limit ourselves here to only these two, since the question of free will enters into a different order of thought. The German language expresses this subjective basis of religion better than other languages ​​in the words “Ehrfurcht, ehrfurchtsvolle Liebe” (reverence, reverent love (German)). You can even call it ascending love, amor ascendens, see the conclusion of this book. Here, of course, I must limit myself to a general logical indication. A real solution to the question is possible only on the basis of metaphysical research about the essence of God and the origin of evil in the world. Such an argument, as Kant rightly believes, is insufficient for theoretical philosophy, and in our epistemology we will still deal with the question of the existence of things; but in moral philosophy one can limit oneself to the indicated argument, since it is, in all conscience, convincing. As is known, according to Hegel’s dialectic, pure being turns into pure nothingness. In view of one scientific criticism, I note that, while recognizing a stone in general as the most typical embodiment and symbol of unchanging existence, I in no way identify a stone with the category of existence and do not deny the mechanical and physical properties of any real stone. Everyone considers, for example, a pig to be the most typical embodiment and symbol of the moral category of unlimited carnivory, which is why it is called swinishness, and it is not at all denied, however, that every real pig, in addition to swinishness, has four more legs, two eyes, two ears, etc. Here we speak of stone as the most characteristic and concrete example of inorganic bodies in general. Such a body, taken separately, does not have its own and real life, which in no way predetermines either the question of the life of nature in general, or the question of the animation of more or less complex natural aggregates, or wholes, such as the sea, rivers, mountains, forests. These questions must be referred to metaphysics. – However, individual inorganic bodies, such as, for example, stones, without having life in themselves, can serve as constant conductors of the localized living action of spiritual beings. These were the sacred stones, the so-called. betels or betels (houses of God), with which the appearance and action of angels, or the powers of God, as if living in these stones, was associated. In a dream, for an animal, the usual ways of its mental relationship with a given external environment are closed. But this in no way excludes the possibility of a different environment and other methods of mental interaction, that is, a different area of ​​consciousness. But in this case, the periodic transition of a given mental life from one sphere of consciousness to another would even more clearly prove the consciousness of this life in general. These two paths - biblical and philosophical - coincided in the mind of the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who from this point of view is the last and most significant thinker of the ancient world. The original relationship of God to nature lies outside the boundaries of the world process and is a purely metaphysical subject, which we will not touch upon here in passing. It is known that Aug. Comte, in letters written by him shortly before his death, placed Ignatius of Loyola above Christ, but it is precisely this assessment, as well as other similar opinions and corresponding actions of the founder of positive philosophy, that force all impartial critics to admit that this thinker, who survived a two-year brain illness in his youth, was again on the verge of mental breakdown in the very last years of his life. See my article Comte in the Brockhaus-Efron encyclopedic dictionary. Any attentive reader will see that I have not given the slightest reason for serious criticism to attribute to me the absurd identification of the Kingdom of God with historical Christianity, or the visible church (which one exactly?). This identification, as well as the recognition of every baptized scoundrel as a “spiritual” person, or “son of God,” is excluded from my thought not only implicite, but also explicite (indirectly, but also directly (lat.)).