Religious synthesis in the philosophy of V. S. Solovyov

The philosophical system of V. S. Solovyov is a remarkable experience of comprehensive synthesis. First of all, his philosophical synthesis included, as building material, almost all significant philosophical and religious trends. Then, his philosophical system embraces all parts of philosophical thinking, solves all philosophical questions: in it we find epistemology, ontology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of history, aesthetics, moral philosophy, and his philosophical thought was deepened by mystical contemplation, animated by poetic creativity and excited by ardent journalistic attention to the issues of current life. Finally, from the side of content, by its very essence, his philosophy strived for the highest reconciliation of the opposites of human existence. “Man, according to Solovyov, combines all kinds of opposites, which all boil down to one great opposition between the unconditional and the conditional, between the absolute and eternal essence and a transitory phenomenon or appearance. Man is both a deity and a nonentity” 1. The solution to this opposition, which lies at the very root of our being, constitutes the main driving nerve of his philosophical thinking. At the same time, Soloviev consciously gravitates toward a religious-Christian point of view. To the direct question: “what does Vladimir Solovyov teach?” He, with good reason, briefly and definitely answered: “I don’t have my own teaching; but in view of the spread of harmful counterfeits of Christianity, I consider it my duty from different sides, in different forms and on different occasions to clarify the basic idea of ​​Christianity - the idea of ​​the kingdom of God, as the fullness of human life, not only individual, but also social and political, reunited through Christ with the fullness of the Divine.” Being interested in the problem of higher synthesis itself, I will not present the philosophy of V. S. Solovyov in the entirety of its constituent parts. I will not touch upon his epistemology and ontology at all. Regarding the epistemology of V.S. Solovyov, it can be said that it, completely consistent with the content of his philosophical thought, serves only as a general and broad basis for its idealistic direction and has no fatal connection with the specific content of his philosophical constructions. This is so certain that Soloviev began the last mature revision of his system not with theoretical, but with moral philosophy, declaring its decisive independence from theoretical philosophy in general and, in particular, from that part of it that considers the rights and boundaries of our cognitive abilities. “Creating moral philosophy (to which Solovyov indicated the task of establishing in an unconditional moral principle an internal and comprehensive connection between true religion and sound politics), reason only develops, on the basis of experience, the idea of good inherent in it from the very beginning and to that extent does not go beyond the limits of its internal domain, or, in school language, its use here is immanent and therefore not determined by one or another solution to the question of (transcendent) knowledge of things themselves in yourself." Only at the end of his moral philosophy does the author “make the transition to theoretical philosophy.” In the same way, we can leave Solovyov’s metaphysical concepts aside without any prejudice to the religious question. For this, the following indication of repetition in Solovyov’s philosophical judgments would be a completely sufficient basis. But in addition, we mean a significant difference between religious thinking and philosophical thinking, or in other words, religious-philosophical thinking from metaphysical-philosophical thinking. The latter is developed by two methods, either mystical-gnostic or metaphysical-logical (rationalistic); of these, the first is based on the conviction that mystical intercourse with the other world, or faith, gives our mind positive (positive) and definite knowledge, and the second assumes the possibility of logical knowledge of the other world 2. On the contrary, the essence of religion is a mystery surrounded by positive reality, shrouded in positive appearance. To stretch this mystery into the very visibility, permeating the latter with a network of miracles and predictions, or, what is the same, to plunge positive logical thought into the depths of the mystery is equally contrary to disinterested religious thinking. The religious mystery lies in the failure of the positive plane into the bottomless depths. To look at a fact religiously means to look at it with a double gaze: one sees in it what simple positive knowledge sees, and the other sees a higher reality behind this shell. “Everything is a mystery,” says the believer, “in everything is the mystery of God.” In every tree, in every blade of grass, this very secret is contained. Whether a small bird is singing, or the stars are shining in the sky in a whole host in the night - it’s all one mystery, the same... And this secret will remain forever, despite all the successes of biology, geology, and astronomy. Moreover, it is not difficult for faith. - And since it’s a secret, it’s even better: it’s scary. heart and marvelous; and this fear brings joy to the heart... It is even more beautiful because it is a mystery... Mystery is to religion what water is to fish. The ability to not know in religion is the same as chastity in love. Only selfish interest in magical practice or frivolous passion for abstract gnosis makes one forget about the joy of religious mystery and eat from the forbidden tree of knowledge. To dwell on positive reality is just as irreligious as to eliminate mystery with gnosis. It is irreligious, for example, to consider Christ a simple man or to construct the idea of ​​a heavenly Logos outside the historical Christ; religiously - to know the Son of God in the man Jesus. The religious view of life knows neither a detached supermundane existence, nor a detached past and future. Religious knowledge of God is knowledge of Him in nature, history and personal experience. To know the beginning of the world religiously means to recognize one’s origin from God. The religious history of sin and salvation lies entirely in man and, in particular, the beginning of world sin cannot be understood apart from human sin... A religious mystery is not a dead, abstract mystery; it is revealed in human experience, and religious knowledge is based on experience. Religious philosophy, as the highest religious knowledge, is a theoretical organization, or systematization, of religious experience. However, in religious philosophy, positive knowledge has as its subject only religious experience, and it is not gnosis, direct knowledge of the other world; therefore, religious knowledge does not eliminate mystery. Religious knowledge is based on critical philosophy, which is of irreplaceable importance in the matter of expelling all Gnostic superstitions from the field of religious thinking; but philosophy has no positive meaning in religious thinking; it does not contribute anything to its content. Religious creativity and knowledge, like artistic creativity and knowledge, forms a completely autocratic area, which is compatible with real-positive knowledge, but cannot be replaced by philosophical gnosis. I will not substantiate the thesis expressed. I will limit myself to only pointing out the nature of the evangelical religion, which does not contain Gnostic elements. But in this case, I can refer to the remarkable article by Solovyov himself, “The Concept of God.” He explains here that our concept of God is established in two ways: theoretically - through the consistent and unconditional denial of all definitions from God, and in a positive way - experimentally. “In contrast to theoretical discussions about religious subjects, in any real religion the Divinity, that is, the highest object of reverence or religious feeling, is certainly recognized as given in experience. This is the first sign of this concept, which does not risk encountering any instantia contraria.” Let me note from myself that this is exactly the case in Christianity, where the highest religious knowledge that “God is love” is entirely based on the experience of love, and where, on the contrary, all humanoid and spatio-temporal ideas are rejected as applied to the other world. The new revelation of the gospel is given not in the form of new theoretical knowledge, but in the form of a new experience of the divinely filial experiences of Christ, which are assimilated by believers. All Christian knowledge develops only from this experience and has absolutely no mystical-gnostic or rationalistic character. The Son himself does not know about the time of the revelation of the kingdom of God. The other world cannot be imagined in terms of earthly thinking. The mystery perceived by faith is that God exists, and that He is, that is, knowledge of Him, is given exclusively by experience, experiences and demands of religious life. We know that God is a rewarder, that He is omniscient, omnipresent, because we ourselves live continuously and everywhere in the consciousness of God and His truth; but this knowledge is in no way theoretical knowledge about the image of divine omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence. So Soloviev writes that “the Divinity should not be conceived as impersonal, weak-willed, unconscious and aimlessly acting,” but at the same time we cannot “recognize Him as a person” in a certain, anthropomorphic sense of the word. “If we exclude from the concept of personality all the empirical content that does not belong to the Deity of monotheists, then no specific positive signs will remain in the concept of person, and only logical positivity will result through a series of double negatives: the Deity is not impersonal, not unconscious, not weak-willed; and if it is impossible to connect any data of self-observation or psychological analysis with this definition, all these double negatives can be replaced by the position of not personal, but supra-personal existence. The most positively religious person, alien to any philosophical pantheism, will immediately understand and agree with us if we tell him that although the Divine thinks, it is not at all like us, that although it has consciousness and will, it is not at all like ours, etc. Similarly, in another place, Solovyov drops the phrase: “We don’t know anything reliable about the nature of the afterlife, and therefore we won’t talk about it”... This anti-Gpostism should be called religious-evangelical. But Soloviev cannot stand on its solid ground and plunges without a rudder or compass into the boundless ocean of metaphysics. When constructing his worldview, Soloviev proceeds from the principle that “the eternal or divine world is not a riddle for the mind, - not the eternal divine world, but on the contrary, our nature, in fact, the real world given to us is a riddle for the mind” 4. For him, the eternal world is clearer than reality, because he creates the idea of ​​the other world, like a web, from himself, from his mind. It’s whatever you want, just not religion, not a religious view of the world. From a religious-evangelical point of view, we can call the philosophical concepts that fill the Readings on God-Humanity and other similar (LaRussieetl’église universelle) works of Solovyov masterly in execution and insignificant in religious significance. The eternal pre-natural world with its divisions, the world soul, τοαπειρον, μητηρ της ζωης, the relation to the world soul of the eternal Logos, the divine humanity of Christ, or Sophia, the transfer of the root of evil and suffering to the area of pre-worldly existence, the recognition of the actual existence of the natural world as improper, or abnormal - all these are bizarre images of philosophical fantasy, testifying to the decisive preponderance of abstract thought over religious creativity. About one of these Gnostics, Irenaeus of Lyons said approximately the following: “he talks about divine creations, as if he were God’s obstetrician.” It is easy to assume that everything in this fantasy is extremely arbitrary and full of sharp contradictions. But the most important thing here is that this game of metaphysical concepts does not in the least affect the Christian gospel content. This is a specific area of ​​pagan Gnosticism. True, the church-dogmatic movement clothed the gospel truth in the forms of pagan philosophy; but this was precisely the expression of Christian truth in the language of existing pagan philosophy, and not spontaneous philosophical creativity - this was a matter of historical tasks that weighed heavily on Christian thought, and not its ideal flight. We need to break through this historical convention to the pure gospel idea, and not obscure the gospel content with historical form. The fact that Solovyov was a philosopher constituted the most fatal weakness in his theology 5 . It never occurred to him that the real content of the gospel was far from coinciding with these forms of thought - and he, with amazing complacency, operated on these forms, on abstract concepts, almost without touching on evangelical Christianity 6 . Whether we read his “History and Future of Theocracy,” or look at his entire religious and philosophical system, we will find in him, in place of the Gospel, a brazenly sparkling hole, a disgusting emptiness. It’s scary to think that Soloviev, who wrote so much about Christianity, did not reveal the feelings of Christ in a single word. Playing with the words “Logos”, “God-man”, “Sophia” with the dexterity of a virtuoso, he did not sense the mystery of the historical Christ. The Logos-God-Man was for him an abstract concept, and not an object of living contemplation. In the person of Christ, the Son of God was born, in Him a filial relationship with God was revealed, which made God truly the Father of humanity: Solovyov reduced the great mystery of this historical fact to precise logical formulas, in which the greatness of the mystery completely evaporated. Religiously, for us, the Son of God is entirely contained in the man Jesus, and with His birth God became our Father, His visible life ushered in a change in God’s relationship to the world and introduced a new beginning into human nature and history: for Solovyov there was no visible, tangible, natural-historical mystery here, because his thought began with logical operations and Christ seemed to him a simple and clear logical conclusion from the data of the world. He did not stop before the striking individuality of this historical phenomenon, because for him everything was covered up by the formula of God-manhood, the combination of the Logos with the world soul - he saw in the “positive religion” of O. Comte, in his idea of ​​​​humanity, the main side of God-manhood and proposed to place the philosopher of positivism in the Christian calendar, although Comte himself did not give Christ a place in his calendar. For Solovyov, the Bible and “sound logic” have the same content, and he most often speaks of “universal Christian concepts” 7 . Finally, we must pay attention to the fact that one thing would be a sufficient reason for us to leave Solovyov’s metaphysics aside, namely, that the metaphysical solution to the problems of life turns out to be completely useless in Solovyov’s system itself, and therefore the solution to these questions is repeated in his application to real life. The fall of the world soul and its saving combination with the Logos does not replace or explain the facts of human fall and salvation. To see evil in the material isolation of earthly creatures, and the first steps of victory over evil are already in the forces of gravity, chemical affinity 8, doesn’t this mean waving a cardboard sword and taking the aim too high? In such an abstract sphere it is easy to achieve complete harmony, which, however, will in no way reconcile the opposites of our life, will not comprehend our real suffering. Not a single individual evil, no matter how insignificant it may be, not a single real tear can be calmed by a transmundane synthesis. And Soloviev himself finds himself forced to repeat the explanation as applied to real life. That a person carries within himself the opposition between the unconditional and the conditional, Solovyov first asserts about the “eternal, ideal person”, and then applies the same to a real person. “Perceiving and carrying in his consciousness the eternal divine idea and at the same time, by his actual origin and existence, inextricably linked with the nature of the external world, man is a natural mediator between God and material existence... This role, which initially belonged to the world soul, as eternal humanity, in natural man, that is, who occurred in the world process, receives the first opportunity for actual implementation in the order of nature” 9, etc. The pre-worldly fall and salvation is repeated: man “falls away or is separated from God in his consciousness, just as the world soul initially separated from Him in its entire existence” 10 and so on. However, it cannot be said that Solovyov’s metaphysical concepts represent only a useless superstructure over his explanation of real life - his passion for metaphysics also has an unfavorable effect in the methods of his interpretation of actual life. Soloviev is one of those philosophers who cannot and do not know how to listen to historical reality and, instead of studying the laws of history, are inclined to prescribe laws for it. The extent to which historical perspectives elude Solovyov and he tramples on the most elementary demands of historical criticism is loudly stated in his “History and Future of Theocracy.” Eg. Solovyov thoughtfully explains the double story of the first chapters of the Bible about the creation of man with the highest philosophical considerations. “The duality of the story expresses the very truth of the matter.” Anyone who knows that there are many such double stories in the Bible and that this is explained by the history of the biblical text cannot help but smile at the sight of this profundity... If in Solovyov’s philosophy history is rolled up like a scroll, then life itself fades in it. This is an ascetic-pessimistic philosophy. Solovyov has the asceticism of an abstract view of life, the asceticism of an idea put into the explanation of the world, the asceticism of autocratic thought, which does not know any secret, wrapping its webs in all the colors of life. It is enough to mention Solovyov’s asceticism and refer to his article “On the Meaning of Love” and to his discussion of shame in “The Justification of Good.” “The carnal condition of reproduction for man is evil; it expresses the predominance of a meaningless material process over the self-control of the spirit, this is a matter contrary to the dignity of man, the death of human love and life: our moral attitude towards this fact must be decisively negative.” Such vivid asceticism is not often seen. He once again testifies that Solovyov’s thought moves in the sphere of extra-Christian opposition of flesh and spirit, and not in the field of evangelical absoluteness and Christian freedom. His mysticism is too abstract, cerebral, not connected with the real facts of life, and therefore it is significantly inclined towards asceticism. Too busy thinking about the eternal origin of life and the final destinies of man, he did not feel the mystery of life itself, each of its given moments, its temporary origin. Solovyov’s pessimism is equally pronounced. Assessing the entire historical reality not from the point of view of Christian freedom and natural-historical necessity, he pronounces a harsh verdict on Christian history: “In reality, all universal human affairs - politics, science, art, social economy, being outside the Christian principle, instead of uniting people, scatter and divide them, for all these affairs are governed by selfishness and private gain, competition and struggle, and give rise to oppression and violence. This is reality, this is a fact” 11. So, leaving aside the metaphysical superstructure, we turn to that part of Solovyov’s philosophical system, which can be called the philosophy of real life, in which he establishes a synthesis of real antinomies. Soloviev finds the same duality that characterizes the world soul in every real person. Every living person carries within himself two principles - the absolute and the conditional, with his final goal being the reconciliation of this duality. Thus, from the first words of Solovyov’s philosophy of life, it is clear that he poses the religious question with complete certainty. It is equally certain that the last formula of his synthesis, in its general content, leaves nothing to be desired: he does not sacrifice, apparently, any of the fundamental principles of human life, he wants a comprehensive synthesis, universal reconciliation. Soloviev shows with equal persistence that the absolute principle is essential for conditionally positive reality, giving it the highest sanctification, and conditionally positive reality constitutes the necessary environment in which spiritual absoluteness is realized. Solovyov's entire life philosophy represents a steady and consistent substantiation and revelation of the highest religious synthesis. A clear consciousness in posing and solving the religious problem of life gives Solovyov’s philosophical and journalistic works high value and unfading interest. The poles of the main opposition that breaks up our lives fall apart in Solovyov’s broad view into many polar pairs, along which he tirelessly pursues his unifying principle. Absolute and relative, perfect and conditional, personality and society, morality and law, religion and progress, Christianity and society, church and state - these are the various sides from which he reveals the highest synthesis. Perfection, or the fullness of goodness, is expressed in three types: 1) unconditionally existing, eternally valid perfection - in God; 2) potential perfection 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. From the side of abstract moralism, the question is posed (and predetermined): why is this third type needed - perfection, actively realized, why is historical activity with its political and cultural tasks needed? If we have the light of truth and pure will, then what else should we worry about? Solovyov answers this question with a decisive statement that 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. Just as the human spirit in nature, in order to really manifest itself, necessarily 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 in comparison with the organic processes that determined the origin of our bodily being, although there is no absolute opposition here. If for the realization of perfect life, or the kingdom of God, only two principles were 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 beasts, 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 work was necessary yesterday, so it is necessary today and will be necessary tomorrow, until all the conditions for real and perfect implementation are created the kingdom of God... From here Solovyov establishes the most important moral rule: take the fullest possible part in the work of your own and general improvement for the sake of the final revelation of the kingdom of God in the world 12. Based on the same principle, our philosopher defines the mutual relationship of the human personality, as a special form of infinite content, and society, as the environment of historical progress. Society is an augmented or expanded personality, and personality is a compressed or concentrated society. Armed against the extremes of individualism and collectivism, moral subjectivism and social realism, Solovyov puts beyond doubt the truth that just as the dignity of human society is determined by the internal value of individuals, so the infinite content of personality can truly be realized only through society, through its historical development 13 . The truth of moral subjectivism is that a perfect or absolute moral state must be internally fully experienced, felt and assimilated by an individual person, must become his own state, the content of his life. But another question is: how is this moral perfection achieved by individuals - is it solely through the internal work of each on himself and the proclamation of its results, or with the help of a certain social process that operates not only personally, but also collectively? Undoubtedly the latter. To think that the mere virtue of a few of the best people is enough to regenerate everyone else morally means moving into the realm where babies are born from rose bushes and where beggars, for lack of bread, eat sweet pies. The insufficiency of subjective good and the need for its collective embodiment is proven by the entire course of human history. Subjective good must be replenished by the social organization of morality. Experience clearly shows that when the social environment is not organized morally, then the subjective demands of good from oneself and from others inevitably decrease. Therefore, the real question is not about subjective, not about personal or social morality, but only about weak or strong morality, realized or unrealized. The moral will must be determined to act exclusively through itself; any of its subordination to any order or command coming from outside violates its self-legitimacy - this is the true beginning of moral autonomy, but when it comes to organizing the social environment according to the beginning of unconditional good, then such an organization is not a limitation, but the execution of personal moral will. But if moral subjectivism is wrong, depriving the moral will of real ways of its implementation in general life, then social realism is also wrong, according to which these social institutions and interests are of decisive importance for life in themselves, so that the highest moral principles turn out to be, at best, only means or instruments for protecting these interests. But in fact, not only a certain form of society, but also the public as such is not the highest and unconditional definition of a person. If he were defined essentially as a social animal and nothing else, then the content of the concept “man” would be extremely narrowed, and at the same time the scope of this concept would be significantly expanded: humanity would have to include some animals for which sociality, as such, is an essential feature no less than for man. And if, however, we do not want to recognize their equality with ourselves, then it means that a person has another essential feature, independent of society, but, on the contrary, determining the distinctive character of human society. This sign is that every person, as such, is a moral being, or a person who, regardless of his social usefulness, has unconditional dignity and an unconditional right to existence and to the free development of his positive powers. It directly follows from this that no person, under any conditions and for any reason, can be considered as merely a means for any extraneous ends, even for the so-called common good. The right of a person is essentially unconditional, while the rights of society to a person, on the contrary, are conditioned by the recognition of personal right. No public group or institution has the right to forcibly retain anyone among its members. The degree of subordination of a person to society must correspond to the degree of subordination of society itself to moral good. Individual individuals, more gifted or more developed than others, can be carriers of a higher social consciousness, which then strives to be embodied in new forms and orders of life corresponding to it. The independence of a person is the basis of the strength of a social union. The principle of human dignity, or the unconditional importance of each person, by virtue of which society is defined as the internal, free consent of all - this is the only moral norm 14. Corresponding to the indicated extremes, the extremes in the economic field are economic anarchism, which denies all ethical principles and all organization in the field of economic relations, and socialism, which allows more or less complete confusion between the economic and moral areas. The reconciliation of these extremes in the subordination of the economic field to moral ideals. To recognize in a person only an economic figure - a producer, owner and consumer of material goods, is a false and immoral point of view; in the same way, the subordination of material interests and relations in human society to some special, self-acting economic laws is only a fiction of bad metaphysics, which has not even a shadow of a basis in reality. Therefore, the general demand of reason and conscience remains in force, so that the economic area is subordinate to a higher moral principle, so that in its economic life society is an organized implementation of good. For a true solution to the so-called social question, one must first of all recognize that the norm of economic relations does not lie in them themselves, but that they are subject to a general moral norm, as a special area of ​​its application. If the subordination of the economic area to a moral norm is necessary for a true solution to the social question, then, conversely, moral consciousness can be fully realized only through the moral organization of economic relations. An elementary moral feeling of pity demands from us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty and warm the cold - and this demand, of course, does not lose its force when these hungry and cold people are counted in millions, not just a few. And if I alone cannot help these millions, and, therefore, am not obliged, then I can and am obliged to help them together with others, my personal responsibility turns into a collective one - not into someone else’s, but into my own, broader responsibility, as a participant in the collective whole and its common task 15. The issue of the mutual relationship between morality and law is also being addressed. This is essentially a question about the connection between ideal moral consciousness and real life; The vitality and fruitfulness of moral consciousness itself depends on a positive understanding of this connection. Between ideal good and evil reality there is an intermediate area of ​​law and law, serving to embody good, limit and correct evil. Law and its embodiment - the state - determine the actual organization of moral life in all of humanity, and with a negative attitude towards law as such, moral preaching, devoid of objective means and supports in a real environment alien to it, would remain, at best, only innocent idle talk, and law itself, on the other hand, with the complete separation of its formal concepts and institutions from their moral principles and goals, would lose its unconditional basis and, in essence, would no longer be anything would be different from arbitrariness. In particular, the importance of law for morality can be shown in the following train of thought: the moral principle requires that people freely improve themselves; but for this the existence of society is necessary; but society cannot exist if everyone who wants is free to kill and rob their neighbors; Consequently, a compulsory law, which really does not allow evil will to such extreme manifestations that destroy society, is a necessary condition for moral improvement and, as such, is required by the moral principle itself, although it is not its direct expression 16. Determined by the highest moral principle, the state is collectively organized pity. Therefore, it is necessary to call the view according to which the state is rejected in the name of higher morality extremely erroneous. If we recognize pity in principle, then it is logically necessary to admit that historical organization of social forces and affairs, which brings pity out of the state of a powerless or tightly limited feeling, gives it reality, widespread application and development. If I take the point of view of pity, then I cannot deny the institution, thanks to which one can actually feel pity, that is, give help and protection instead of tens and at most hundreds of units - to tens and hundreds of millions of people 17. Christianity, as the “gospel of the kingdom,” has an unconditionally high ideal, with the requirement of absolute morality. But Christianity is not only an absolute requirement. True Christianity is the perfect unity of three inextricably linked foundations: 1) an absolute event - the revelation of the perfect personality of the God-man Christ; 2) an absolute promise - consistent with the perfect personality of society, or the Kingdom of God, and 3) an absolute task - to contribute to the fulfillment of this promise through the regeneration of our entire personal and social environment in the spirit of Christ. With the oblivion or neglect of one of these three foundations, the whole thing is paralyzed and perverted, which is why, although Christianity is the unconditional and final revelation of the truth, the moral development of mankind, as well as its external history, did not cease after the appearance of Christ. What has come true and what is promised stand firmly within the bounds of eternity and do not depend on us. But the task of the present is in our hands; we ourselves must act for the moral regeneration of our lives. Connected with this general task is the special task of moral philosophy; it will have to determine and clarify, in the conditions of historical reality, the proper relationship between all the basic elements and areas of the personal social whole according to its final form 18. From here it logically follows that development is essentially included in the concept of the church. The true concept of the church is guided by the general rule of religious reasoning: to distinguish in unity, evenly avoiding confusion and division. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish, but not separate, the divine and human principles in the church. We do not know in the church any human personal or popular forces naked from the Divine. Such forces can operate anywhere they want - in worldly politics, in the market, in the theater - but they have no place in the church. On the other hand, divine forces, acting in the church, have always been and are combined with nature and human will, and have always been and are clothed in human elements. In the church there is neither a detached Divinity nor a detached humanity, but only their inseparable and unfused union, which also forms the special theanthropic being of the church, equally abiding, but manifested differently in these two sides of its existence. Hence the general law of life for the church. If the Divinity itself is absolutely unchangeable, if humanity itself is subject to random changes, then God-Humanity develops correctly, that is, while maintaining its essence and its basic forms unchanged, it grows not only in external volume, but also in the internal completeness and perfection of its manifestations in all spheres of its existence 19 . Christianity, as the embodiment of an absolute moral ideal, is as universal as the moral principle itself. The universality of Christianity is expressed in the absence of external, national, confessional and other barriers, but even more so in freedom from internal limitations: to be truly universal, religion should not be separated from mental enlightenment, from science, from social and political progress. A religion that is afraid of all this obviously does not even believe in its own strengths; it is internally imbued with disbelief and, with its claim to the monopoly of a moral norm for society, it lacks the most elementary moral condition - sincerity 20. Demons believe and remain demons because they do not trust in God and do not hope for their salvation and reunification with the kingdom of God. Many people have a similar faith, believing that between the kingdom of God and our human world there is an infinite distance and an impassable abyss, claiming that divine life and our human life run parallel to each other and can never meet. On such faith, demonic in its hopelessness, all the lies and all the contradictions of this century are based, such as: the division between religion and life, between church and state, between spiritual and secular science, in a word, the separation of everything that should only be distinguished in unity 21. Since the advent of the kingdom of God is not a Deus ex machina, but is conditioned by a world-historical theanthropic process in which God acts only in conjunction with man and through man, we must recognize as a gross counterfeit of Christianity such a view according to which man has only a purely passive role in the work of God. But in fact, Christianity consists only in this: that the work of God has become at the same time a completely human work. This divine-human solidarity is the kingdom of God, and it comes only to the extent that it is realized... Only the Christian idea of ​​the kingdom of God, consistently revealed in the life of humanity, gives the meaning of history and defines the true concept of progress. Christianity gives humanity not only the ideal of absolute perfection, but also the path to achieving this ideal; therefore, it is essentially progressive. On the basis of the Christian religion, neither the preservation nor the destruction of any worldly order in itself can interest us. If we care about the cause of the kingdom of God, then we must accept that which serves this cause worthily, and reject that which is contrary to it; we must care not about preserving and strengthening at all costs these social groups and forms in worldly humanity, but, on the contrary, about their rebirth and transformation in the Christian spirit, about their true introduction into the sphere of the kingdom of God. The idea of ​​the kingdom of God necessarily leads a conscious and sincere Christian to the obligation to act - within the limits of his calling - for the realization of Christian principles in the collective life of humanity, for the transformation in the spirit of the highest truth of all our social forms and relations - that is, it leads us to Christian politics. From the fact that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, it does not in any way follow that it cannot act in the world, take possession and rule the world - on the contrary, precisely from the fact that the kingdom of Christ is not from the world, but from above, it follows that it has the right to rule and rule the world. One of two things: either societies that call themselves Christian must renounce this name, or they must recognize their duty to coordinate all their political and social relations with Christian principles, that is, to bring them into the sphere of the kingdom of God - and this is what real Christian politics consists of. If all political and social forms were alien or even contrary to Christianity, then it would directly follow that true Christians must live outside of all political and social forms. But this is clearly absurd. And if, on the one hand, it is impossible to abolish social and political forms of life (which would be tantamount to the abolition of man himself, as a social and political being), and, on the other hand, it is undoubtedly that these forms in their given reality are far from corresponding to Christian principles, are far from being introduced into the kingdom of God, then the task of Christian politics directly follows from this: to improve, elevate these forms, to transform them into the kingdom of God 22. The shortcoming of the medieval worldview, which put it in direct contradiction with the very foundation of Christianity, was its one-sided spiritualism 23. On the contrary, a true understanding of Christianity requires the existence of a Christian family, a Christian society, a Christian people, a Christian state, a Christian army, etc. Solovyov’s main conviction was to apply the principles of true religion to all social and international relations, to solve all significant issues of social and political life in a Christian way 24 . In particular, he acted on this conviction in his widely staged and unusually brilliant and victorious polemics on the national issue. Here, as on other issues, he reflected two extremes - cosmopolitanism and nationalism (adopted by Slavophilism) - he contrasted both with national service to the Christian idea. Both for a Christian person and for a Christian people, he makes it a direct and indispensable duty - humble and selfless service to other peoples 25. For Solovyov, all questions about the relationship of the true, i.e., Christian religion, as expressing an absolute moral principle, to the conditional social principle are crowned with the question of the relationship of the church to the state: it is in this last question that the most specific and responsible task for a Christian and the Christian people appears. The general connection between law and morality makes it possible to talk about a Christian state. But in fact, the state becomes Christian not from the mere fact that it is an organized pity, but from the fact that from a Christian point of view, the state, as a part in the organization of collective humanity, is determined by another, higher part - the church, from which it receives its sanctification and final purpose - it serves indirectly in its worldly sphere and with its means the absolute goal that the church directly sets - the preparation of humanity and the whole earth for the kingdom of God. Soloviev is strongly against the separation of church and state. The church has the highest spiritual authority, denoting the general direction of the good will of mankind and its final goal, and the state has the full power to coordinate worldly interests with this will. Without a connection with the state, the church would not have a real weapon for acting on the world, and without a connection with the church, the state would not have the highest justifying goals 26. The question of the relationship of the church to the state in Solovyov’s worldview is related to his favorite idea of ​​the triple ministry - priestly, royal and prophetic. This is, in its fundamental part, Solovyov’s philosophy of life. It contains a lot of undoubted truth along with amazingly weak thoughts generated by the spirit of an abstract system. We must note the point from which the turn from living truth to the one-sidedness of abstract thought begins in this philosophy. Let's start with the upper floors of this grandiose construction project. With the first entry into these floors we encounter the most undeniable sign that not everything is going well here. On the question of the relationship between the state and the church, between state power and church power - a question that is the most concrete and living, where we would rightly expect a strict formula, programmatic precision - Solovyov’s views contain contradictory ideas. He gives three answers to this question, each of which excludes one of the other two. Firstly, he expresses the idea that from a Christian point of view, “supreme state power is only a delegation of the truly absolute divine-human power of Christ 27 . It follows that secular power must be subordinated to ecclesiastical power: “If there is on earth a special successive union of God’s servants par excellence, if there is on earth a special power to which extraordinary powers have been given from above and promised extraordinary help for the leadership and management of Christian humanity, then without any doubt all other powers and principles in the world and all the forces of society must be subordinated to this sacred and directly divine power. If the church is truly the emerging kingdom of God on earth, then all other social forces and authorities must be its instruments.” However, it does not in any way follow from this that “special representatives of spiritual interests take upon themselves worldly affairs, that spiritual power takes upon itself state functions, just as from the duty of subordinating the physical life of a person to his rational will it does not follow that our rational will itself can produce physiological processes: in addition to the general guidance of the mind, these processes obey their own special laws and engines, beyond the jurisdiction of reason. The highest authority in any matter and the material management of this matter are two completely different things 28. Secondly, Solovyov holds the view that “the essence of true Christianity is the rebirth of humanity and the world in the spirit of Christ, the transformation of the worldly kingdom into the kingdom of God” 29. What he said elsewhere that “secular politics must be subordinated to church politics, but not through the assimilation of the church to the state, but through the gradual assimilation of the state to the church,” would be better expressed this way: state power should be subordinated to church power with the goal that the state gradually becomes like the church. In any case, “worldly reality must be recreated in the image of the church” 30. Thirdly, we encounter the idea of ​​​​the heterogeneity of the areas of church and state. “Since the highest spiritual and highest secular power are essentially heterogeneous and have their own special areas, their coexistence in no way violates their independence and does not create dual power. There is no fundamental legal basis for the clash and confrontation between these two authorities” 31. Between the second idea of ​​​​the transformation of the worldly kingdom into the kingdom of God, of the assimilation of the state to the church, and the third idea of ​​​​the heterogeneity of the areas of church and state, there is a radical and striking contradiction. In the first idea of ​​the subordination of state life to church authority there are elements of both the second idea, according to which state power is only an instrument of the church, and the third idea of ​​the heterogeneity of spheres, but this is explained by the fact that here, on the one hand, the well-known church thought about the grace-filled rebirth of the worldly kingdom and natural life in their essence, a thought that no longer gives room for an analogy between the church-grace-filled action and the attitude of the mind to physiological processes, on the other hand, it is not sustained here the idea of ​​the heterogeneity of the areas of reason and physiological. Strictly speaking, in mental-physical life, either the dominance of the mind over the body is manifested, and it is necessary to understand only the external relations of the body, but not physiological life, which is subject to its own laws, since it depends on the mind whether we praise God with the tongue or curse people, whether we kill with our hands or do good, but physiology is not affected by this dominance of the mind, - or the unity of mental-physical life is revealed with a significant heterogeneity of the mental and physiological areas, but in this case One can no longer talk about the dominance of reason; one cannot call physiology an instrument of the spirit. To talk about the subordination of state life to church authority in the name of likening the state to the church and pointing to the analogy of the relationship of the mind to physiology, which is subject to its own laws, is at least strange. To put it differently, Solovyov’s first idea contradicts both the second (by analogy used) and the third. Such a blatant contradiction in the words of a philosopher, who usually delights readers with the crystalline clarity of his thoughts, is quite eloquent. The third view fully adheres to the gospel point of view on God’s attitude towards Caesar’s; the second corresponds to the church-dogmatic concept of the ascetic and grace-filled rebirth of the world; the first presentation is the most superficial, feuilleton - ecclesiastical and political. Solovyov drops the second and third ideas en passant, but his soul clings to the first. Soloviev says about himself that he was a metaphysician and publicist 32. Both metaphysics and journalism are not conducive to a religious attitude towards the phenomena of life: the first is too abstract for this, the second is too superficial. Soloviev was the most magnificent of publicists, but still with the shortcomings of a publicist. For a religious attitude to life, superficial clashes between the authorities of the church and the state are completely unimportant, because it occurs in the subterranean depths - for a religious thinker, issues of church politics are not interesting, but for a publicist these are issues of essential importance. It will naturally occur to many that, apparently, the foundations of the kingdom of God and theocracy, from which Solovyov proceeds, are the essence of the gospel. In fact, in Solovyov’s views, the concept of the kingdom of God is not at all an evangelical concept, but a philosophical and humanistic one: for him, the bearer of the kingdom of God is all humanity 33 and therefore the path of cultural unification of all peoples, from his point of view, is a direct path to the realization of the kingdom of God. This idea is closer to the philosophy of Auguste Comte than to the gospel. I must limit myself to this simple indication, assuming this presentation of the Gospel teaching, but for anyone familiar with the Gospel my words are quite understandable. On the other hand, the idea of ​​theocracy is an idea, true, religious, but pre-Christian, Jewish, rejected by the gospel. The Jewish theocratic idea is essentially religiously limited, as inextricably linked with the concept of the people's chosenness of God. Of course, in the preaching of the Jewish prophets there is an undeniable tendency towards universalism, fully realized in the gospel, but this potential Jewish universalism is related to Jewish theocratism as an embryo is to a shell: when the embryo matures, the shell necessarily bursts. Soloviev holds onto the idea of ​​theocracy, but wants to fill it with humanistic, universal content: an enterprise that is fundamentally doomed to complete failure and throws our philosopher, like a pendulum, from the extreme of humanistic universalism to the extreme of religiously limited theocratism. As a philosopher and religious publicist, both extremes are equally dear to him, equally distracting him from the gospel idea of ​​heterogeneous spheres. The limitations of Solovyov’s theocratic idea are too well known to dwell on it for a long time: he said that the church “is not at all indifferent to this or that form of government - it values the principle of the Christian king”, that “a true prophet - a Christian as well as a Jewish one - does not rebel against the royal power, but sticks to it”, he spoke about the state advantages of the dominant church, he spoke about the independence of the Orthodox autocratic tsar from the godless elements modern society 34, he was timid in his judgments about the liberation movement, 35, denied the peculiarity and independence of the economic sphere of relations, 36 etc. Admirers of Solovyov, explaining and excusing in many different ways the “weakness” of his philosophy in these points, insist on the absence of an organic connection between them and his general teaching. I do not think that such an attitude towards the memory of a philosopher is a matter of serious thinking. Amicus Plato, sed magis arnica veritas. We will call objects by their proper names. It is only necessary to properly evaluate this “weakness” and indicate its roots. The idea of ​​theocracy, one of the main ones in Solovyov’s worldview, limited in its essence, required this sacrifice. It should be emphasized once again that Solovyov precisely could not withstand the idea of ​​worldly life, inspired by the analogy of physiological processes, obeying its own special laws and engines. We will avoid the need for this useless sacrifice, however, only if we recognize this idea, if we recognize that from a religious point of view there is no independent value of one or another form of government, but there are laws in different areas of worldly life. If the limited idea of ​​theocracy was the real reason for the “weakness” of Solovyov’s political views, then his humanistic universalism served as a weak cover for his pseudo-Christian coverage of issues of life. Solovyov tirelessly repeats that the family, society, people, and state must serve Christian goals, that the highest leadership of religious and moral ideas is the only determining principle of international relations, state policy, and family and social economic tasks. How family, society, people and the state could serve Christianity is a question of fascinating interest, but one that absolutely does not admit of a positive answer. If Soloviev answers him positively, and with hasty self-confidence, then he could do this only because he replaced Christian goals with general cultural tasks. I already mentioned. that his idea of ​​the kingdom of God is not specifically evangelical, but humanistic and universal. This idea can now be developed and confirmed. “Recognizing the final goal of hysteria,” Soloviev writes, “is the complete realization of the Christian ideal in the life of all humanity, the realization of truth and love, or the free solidarity of all positive forces and elements of the universe, we understand the comprehensive development of culture as a general and necessary means for this goal, for this culture in its gradual progress destroys all hostile partitions and exclusive separations between different parts of humanity and the world and strives to unite all natural and social groups into one infinitely diverse in composition, but a morally solidary family. We do not oppose humane enlightenment to religious faith, but we believe that such enlightenment is necessary for faith itself. The immediate goal of the historical process and our social activity is the complete development and dissemination of humane culture, which constitutes a necessary element of Christianity itself, as a divine-human religion. We can and should work together on this immediate and urgent task, despite any differences in personal views on the further and final goal of history. From the moral side, such cultural work is nothing more than the most expediently organized help to our neighbors, taken together, and such help, according to the general moral law, is obligatory for everyone, whether he is a Christian by faith, or simply a humanist, as long as he recognizes moral obligations to humanity. In the sense of the tasks and results of historical work, there is only one universal human culture for all peoples, as one truth for all, one justice, one Divinity 37 - a universal Christian culture 38. In the field of moral precepts or norms of activity, no specifically Orthodox principle exists. By the will of God, one truth in its two degrees is prescribed to all confessions and all peoples - as the law of justice and as the commandment of perfection. The second presupposes the first, and only the first, i.e. the law of justice is unconditionally obligatory - always, everywhere and in everything. Therefore, he is the only one and can be a moral guide for the state, the area of ​​which does not go beyond the bounds of the obligatory” 39. So, when Solovyov says that “Russia’s task is a Christian task, and Russian politics must be Christian politics” 40, this means nothing more than that Russia must follow the path of universal human culture 41. The service of the family, society, people, and state to Christian goals coincides with the own benefit of the family, society, people, and state. “The moral bankruptcy of nationalism (rudely thinking only about the material benefits of its people) is exposed by history, which loudly testifies that peoples prospered and exalted themselves only when they served not themselves as an end in themselves, but the highest and universal ideal goods... The history of all peoples - ancient and new - that had a direct influence on the destinies of mankind, tells us the same thing. All of them, in the eras of their heyday and greatness, believed their significance, asserted their nationality not in itself, taken in the abstract, but in something universal, super-national, in which they believed, what they served and what they realized in their creativity - national in source and methods of expression, but completely universal in content or objective results... If the people themselves, with their true creativity and self-awareness, affirm themselves in the universal, - in that what matters to everyone, or in which he is in solidarity with everyone, then how can a true patriot, for the sake of the supposed “good” of his people, break off solidarity with others, hate or despise foreigners? If the people themselves see their real good in the good of everyone, then how can patriotism place the good of its people as something separate and opposite to everything else” 42? It is extremely clear what Solovyov is talking about, and it is extremely certain that the truth is on his side, unless we arbitrarily put into his words a meaning that is alien to them. He speaks of universal human ideals, and he sees true love for family, people and state in leading each of these groups onto the broad road of unification with other groups and movement along the path of universal human progress. Before this position of the philosopher, Slavophilism and any patriotic chauvinism turn out to be completely powerless. But it must be borne in mind that this path of cultural unification does not have a single feature of specifically Christian service and self-denial. And in order to trample on patriotic chauvinism, there is absolutely no need to resort to the gospel. “Inhumanity in international and social relations, the policy of cannibalism” 43 - all this is dangerous not only for the highest morality, but is directly harmful to the well-being and cultural success of a given social group. And all this is expelled from family, folk and state morals not by the special preaching of Christianity, but by the natural course of development, just as the appearance of Shakespeare, Byron, Lessing, Kant is due to the super-volitional creativity of the people's spirit, but not to conscious principles and efforts. To call these ideals of universal human culture, this matter of natural benefit, this super-volitional creativity, by the name of Christian self-denial means confusing completely different things. Soloviev writes: “Personal self-sacrifice, victory over egoism, is not the destruction of the ego itself, the personality itself, but, on the contrary, is the elevation of this ego to the highest level of existence. The same applies to the people: by rejecting exclusive nationalism, they not only do not lose their independent life, but only here they receive their real life task” 45. But these are precisely two things that are completely different. When the gospel talks about how a person who has lost his soul (life) in self-sacrifice can preserve it, then of course the preservation of the individual soul into eternal life, of course, to put it simply, the salvation of man for the kingdom of heaven. It is in no way possible to apply the same idea to family, national and state groups, since there is no reason to think about the preservation of these unions in the heavenly kingdom (cf. Matt. XXII, 30) and the reward for collective exploits can be promised only in the form of earthly prosperity and prosperity 46. In other words, the benefits of absolute spiritual life are accessible exclusively to personal inner sensation - and here lies an impenetrable abyss that separates the individual from the family and the people in religious terms. Whatever Solovyov says about the natural and historical connection of the individual with society, all this is valid only against the extremes of abstract philosophical individualism or naive subjectivism, but in no way goes against the highest spiritual and personal religious and moral creativity: he himself insightfully reveals the idea that a moral person, due to his desire for unconditional good, outgrows this limited form of moral content embodied in society and begins to relate to it negatively 47 . The natural and historical inextricable connection between the individual and society is fully reconciled with their decisive opposition from the point of view of absolute life. The bearer of absolute content, or eternal life, filling the gospel formula of the kingdom of God, can only be a person. And the subject of specifically Christian self-denial can only be an individual, but not a family, or a people, or a state. Only a person (at a certain height of self-awareness) can, in the self-denial of Christian love, decisively forget himself, live only for others, sacrifice his very life - and at the same time not lose his inner value, “find” himself for eternal life. Such self-denial for the family, the people and the state is certainly impossible, because the inner essence of these unions is a certain selfishness and only this selfishness can inspire these groups to exploits, keep them at the height of dignity and well-being. Eg. family: for anyone who does not hover in the realms of transcendental fantasy and does not set unimaginable goals for marriage, it is obvious that all the warmth in which children are born and grow up is the most holy of holies in our world - all the warmth of the family is selfish. And note - from the point of view of the individual, with a certain vocation, family egoism can be called limited in the reprehensible sense of the word: but from the point of view of the mutual relationship of families, there is nothing unfair or reprehensible in family egoism: each family is recognized as having the right to warm itself with its warmth. The real meaning of speeches about family self-denial can only be in the destruction of the family, in common wives and common children - whether this will be better for the world is another question. As long as the family exists, it exists and develops only through its egoism, before the force of which speeches about self-denial will turn out to be a web of dreams. In the same way, the people and the state are strong only in their self-awareness and pride. And in relation to them this dilemma matters: either selfishness or destruction (of course, more possible and even desirable in the question of the state than in the question of the family). And those examples of national and state self-denial that are indicated do not at all go beyond the limits of egoism: they only prove that egoism can be unreasonable, self-consciousness can be pretentious, and egoism can be reasonable, but it remains undoubted that, inspiring heroic deeds, the power of the family, nation, state is essentially selfish. And from a universal human point of view, this force is beneficial. And the family and people can serve Christianity only in their own way, only on their own path, only by pursuing their own, rationally understood, interests, only in moving towards universal human ideals. The Christian personality should not disappear either in the state, or in the people, or in the family, but Christianity needs only a selfish family (and the people and the state). Personal Christianity and family-national-state culture are heterogeneous spheres. It is not my task at this moment to reveal the positively evangelical idea of ​​diverse spheres of life. I just want to show that neglect of this idea entails forced concessions that cast a suspicious shadow over the entire worldview. In fact, properly evaluate this statement by Solovyov that there is no specifically Christian principle for national, state and family life, that the immediate cultural tasks are the same for a believing Christian and a simple humanist. I personally certainly agree with this, this is exactly my idea, and I am glad that I find support in Solovyov’s words. But it is beyond any doubt that Soloviev expresses this truth against his will, not fully realizing and evaluating his words. Indeed, between these two thoughts that, on the one hand, all family, social, national and state issues need to be resolved in a Christian way, from a religious point of view, and that, on the other hand, there is no specifically Christian solution to these issues, that the area of ​​these issues is a universal, cultural, humanistic area - between these two thoughts there is an impenetrable abyss. After all, this is the most decisive dilemma: either one Christian point of view is possible both on personal life and on family-national-state forms, or the personal-religious and cultural-humanistic (family-national-state) spheres are heterogeneous spheres... However, this point is the most tempting for worldly, humanistic thinking. Many will think: what’s the matter? What's the harm in recognizing the Christian and general cultural spheres as coinciding? From a worldly, humanistic point of view, there is no harm in this, but the absorption of the Christian-religious worldview by the world-cultural worldview certainly cannot be called an indifferent matter from a religious-Christian point of view. After all, this would in any case mean that Christianity is smoothed out, equalized with the universal world, melts into it, but what possibility remains in this case to talk about a religious-Christian worldview? And what position does Solovyov’s philosophy find itself in, which from the very beginning has made Christian thought its distinctive feature? The essence of the matter is that it is possible to save both the religious-Christian principle and the socio-cultural principle only by recognizing the heterogeneity of the personal sphere, as religious-Christian, and the family-national-state sphere, as cultural-humanistic. Otherwise, a smoothing of the Christian principle and a confusion of different principles, fluctuations between them, are inevitable. For me now the most important thing is to note this inevitability for Solovyov’s philosophy. This is how Solovyov smoothes out and humanizes the gospel, proving again and again that his thought moves on a philosophical-humanistic basis, and not on a religious-Christian one. He talks about the gospel commandment, about hatred of one’s own. “By prescribing to love everyone, even our enemies, the gospel, of course, cannot exclude our neighbors and family from this true love. However, it is directly said: “unless anyone hates.” This means that there is a kind of hatred that does not contradict true love, but, on the contrary, is required by it. This means that there is also such apparent love that contradicts true love; You need to renounce this false love; in this sense, you need to hate not only yourself, but also your family, and all your loved ones and your people. It is this true hatred, which abolishes false love, false and blind attachment to one’s loved one - it is that self-denial - not only personal, but also family, tribal, and national, which is proclaimed in the New Testament. Gospel “hatred” does not contradict true love, but is its necessary manifestation. By renouncing our exclusive attachments in order to follow Christ, to participate in His work - the work of universal salvation, we thereby contribute to the true good of both our family and our people,” 48, etc. These reasonings of Solovyov must be called downright pathetic. Christ demanded from His disciples to renounce not only blind and false attachment to their own, but also from all natural love - and He demanded this hatred of others not for the sake of the true good of the family and people, but solely for the sake of the gospel, for His own sake. “I have come to divide a man with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies are those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me... He who loses his soul for My sake will save it” (Matt. X, 35 – 39). There is not a single word here about the good of the family or the people, as well as about the self-denial of the family or the people; the whole conversation is only about a person’s relationship to Christ, and it is required of him that for the sake of Christ he “renounces all” of himself (Luke XIV, 33). Undoubtedly, there is false love for one’s own and true love - and for those who have not moved from false love to true love, the Christian question has not yet arisen, just as the moral question does not yet arise before those who have not learned to fulfill legal duties. The explanation of these fundamental truths of universal, philosophical morality, against which false Christianity also sins in the form of blind attachment to its own religion, to the religion of its people, constitutes Solovyov’s invaluable merit. But replacing false love with true love does not solve the Christian question—it is only then that it rises. For the sake of Christ, one must sacrifice not only lies, but also the very truth of natural love, the very good of national and family life; one must sacrifice love for one’s own, not because it is false, but because for the sake of Christ one must sacrifice every earthly good, everything dear. One can call this self-sacrifice the greatest absurdity, a matter completely useless for human life, but Christianity is only in this self-sacrifice, only in it does it have its own distinctive feature, only in it is the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God justified, and if the whole religious issue was in the cultural unification of families and peoples, in the difference between nationalism and nationality, then the philosophy of the Moscow publicist would be enough to save the world... By cutting back Christianity at its evangelical root, in the main question of the personal sacrifice of love, Solovyov can no longer escape the shackles of earthly conventions and human predilections in national matters. Masterfully drawing the line between blind nationalism and rational patriotism, he cannot realize his claims to a Christian attitude towards nationality. He writes: “having overcome senseless and ignorant national enmity with moral will, we begin to know and appreciate foreign nationalities, we begin to like them. But this “love of approval” cannot be identical with that which we feel for our people, just as the most sincere love for neighbors (according to the Gospel commandment), ethically equal to love for oneself, can never be psychologically the same with it. For oneself, as well as for one’s people, the invariable primacy of the starting point remains” 49. Thus, the liberal employee of Vestnik Evropy leaves a loophole in his broad-based Christianity to cover up patriotism: a Christian, equal in everything to a humanist, will not sacrifice either his family, his people, or his state. And that this “primacy of the starting point” is not empty words is shown by Solovyov’s reasoning about war: justifying war in the past with solid historical considerations, he is “not indifferent” to victory in future wars 50... All this is absolutely true from a cultural-historical point of view, but what does Christianity have to do with it? After all, if Christianity is involved in these questions about marriage, about war, if we talk about Christian marriage, about Christian war, then where is the limit of the amazing absurdities that can be reached? After all, you will have to argue with Solovyov that firing long-range cannons is not contrary to the Christian conscience, since the enemy is invisible from a distance, but in cases of hand-to-hand combat, a question of conscience arises for Christian soldiers 51 . It turns out that Christian troops can only use long-range rifles and are unsuitable for hand-to-hand combat. Corresponding distinctions should probably be assumed in the field of male-female relations, in accordance with Solovyov’s article “On the Meaning of Love”... No, if you approve of family, patriotism, war, then you need to give room to all the heat of family love that creates peaceful heroes, all the fire of patriotic and abusive inspiration, and not preach that lukewarm hypocrisy, which is too much in our lives. We need to repeat Christ’s words “about division” again and again, to use His cutting sword again. And the fault of medieval Christianity was not at all in the division between God and Caesar, - on the contrary, in the constant confusion of these areas, and the legacy of this confusion continues in the church-state politics of our days. It is our sacred task to carry out this separation to the end in order to achieve a true union, a true reconciliation of personal absoluteness and social convention. Hasty mixing of disparate spheres of life has fatal consequences for life and thought. These consequences for Solovyov’s philosophy are not yet exhausted by these consequences. Covering all aspects of life, not only personal creativity, but also conditional social development, with Christian light forces Solovyov not only to generally adjust Christianity to world-cultural ideals, to smooth out its specific features, but also to call Christian those aspects of worldly life that either in fact or in the minds of public figures go against Christianity. I have already said that the past history of Christianity, both Western Catholic and Byzantine, followed the path of mixing the ecclesiastical and civil spheres, contrary to the opposite opinion of Solovyov. Confusion was generally expressed in the symbolic sanctification of all aspects of social life, which, without changing in their essence, were already considered Christian. This symbolic consecration was of great significance in the sense of the struggle of Christianity against pagan religion, but over time this significance evaporated. And as this negative meaning evaporated, social life found itself stripped of past pagan ideals, which, however, could not be replaced by Christian ones, since Christianity does not provide its own special social ideals. Subsequently, simply cultural ideals emerged, but on the eve of this cultural revival, a time when only the church symbol was operative was conceivable. For Solovyov's philosophy, this moment of social life should seem the highest, but in reality it turned out to be terrible. For Russia, for example, such a time was the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Soloviev writes: “From Ivan the Terrible, the truest and most complete formula of the Christian monarchical idea has come to us: the earth is ruled by God’s mercy and the Most Pure Mother of God by the mercy and all the saints by the prayers and blessings of our parents and follow us, our sovereigns, and not judges and governors, and hedgehogs and strategists. This formula, Soloviev notes, is impeccable; the Christian view of the earthly kingdom cannot be better expressed.”52 But what a terrible reality! Solovyov explains it by saying that Grozny was lower than his ideal and professed it hypocritically. However, this view does not exhaust the deepest tragedy of this reign. After all, understand - this, the most perfect reign according to the Christian formula, was not only the worst of the Christian reigns, but it was the worst in comparison with the bad pagan reigns. This was clear even to Grozny’s contemporaries. Philip’s words addressed to him are known: “Oh, Sovereign! Here we make sacrifices to God, and innocent Christian blood is shed behind the altar. Since the sun has been shining in the sky, it has not been seen or heard of pious kings disturbing their own power so terribly. In the most unfaithful pagan kingdoms there is law and truth, there is mercy for people, but in Russia there is none. The property and lives of citizens are not protected. There are robberies everywhere, murders everywhere - and they are committed in the name of the king.” This is the terrible tragedy of the Christian kingdom; only the tragedy of a Christian family can compare with it. The forms of natural life, determined only by Christianity, remain in the essence of the matter without any ideal guidance and inevitably fall below pagan reality. Progressive phenomena of social life, highly valuable culturally, but anti-Christian in the minds of public figures, present the same difficulty for Solovyov’s philosophy. These are the case of Peter the Great, February 19 and the later liberation movement in our history. About the first, Solovyov writes: “Contrary to all appearances, the reform of Peter the Great had in essence a deeply Christian character, for it was based on a moral and religious act of national self-condemnation” 53 . The same goes for the second: “The great act of February 19 was a true Christian feat, despite the fact that no one stuck this label on it and that official representatives of the church did not take any active part in it” 54. Finally, about the later liberation movement and about humanitarian progress in general, Solovyov says: “The majority of people who have made and have made this progress do not recognize themselves as Christians. But if Christians by name betrayed the cause of Christ and almost destroyed it, then why cannot non-Christians by name, who renounce Christ in words, serve the cause of Christ? In the gospel we read about two sons; one said: I will go - and did not go, the other said: I will not go - and went. Which of the two, Christ asks, did the will of the Father? It is impossible to deny the fact that the social progress of recent centuries has been accomplished in the spirit of philanthropy and justice, that is, in the spirit of Christ. The abolition of torture and cruel executions, the cessation, at least in the West, of all persecutions of non-believers and heretics, the abolition of feudal and serf slavery - if all these Christian transformations were made by non-believers, then so much the worse for believers” 55... The high assessment of the progressive movement cannot be honestly disputed. But what is the basis for calling it Christian if its representatives and supporters themselves do not call themselves Christians, if in recent days its non-religious character is becoming more and more clear, if it becomes directly hostile to official church Christianity? You can’t play with words, calling white black and black white. It is necessary to recognize the fact that conscious service to Christianity in the sphere of social forms leads to anti-Christian results, and, conversely, the free development of these forms turns out to coincide with the latest Christian goals. This cannot be said about personal Christianity, excluding, of course, its hypocritical bearers: here the consciously free effort corresponds to the degree of achieved benefits and perfection. But it’s different in the area of ​​family-national-state relations: these relations go the more in the direction of Christian ideals, the more freely they are revealed, the more they follow the natural laws of development. The family, the people, the state serve Christ in their own way, following their interests and their laws: in order to serve Christ, the family should have no other immediate goal than the birth and upbringing of healthy and beautiful children, other than gathering family warmth, i.e., the goal of every human family; the people should have no other immediate goal than free progress in unity with all peoples, fair relationships between the groups within it and general welfare, i.e. that is, except for the pursuit of one’s reasonably understood interests. However, we need to clarify one point that can easily mislead our thoughts. This point is the personal attitude of a Christian to social tasks, to social progress. The essence of Christianity - everyone agrees on this - is love, the subject of which, of course, is the person, the Christian. But an inextricable connection can be established between love and culture. Soloviev does this. “True love,” he says, “is necessarily expressed in active help to others and, therefore, uses all the necessary means for this help. But culture is precisely the totality of all historically developed means and instruments for the sustainable provision and comprehensive improvement of human life, that is, the life of all people. If the beginning of moral activity is love, and its goal is the good of all, then culture is a system of necessary means for the full manifestation of love as a moral principle and for the complete achievement of the common good as a moral goal. Culture, like everything in general, can be abused and its means used for purposes that are foreign to its true purpose or even directly opposed to it. But because of a false culture, to deny culture in general and to oppose any external realization of love to love itself, as an internal subjective principle, is unfounded” 56. Thus, Soloviev provides a Christian basis for the ethical rule: take the fullest possible part in the matter of general improvement. He tramples into the mud the theory of exclusively personal morality, which places all hope on the achievement of personal holiness by everyone and does not allow for an active social struggle against social evil. He calls this ideal of personal holiness the world-Pharisee ideal - he explains that the true ideal of Christian love is necessarily the ideal of social truth and progress, that is, the practical implementation of Christianity in the world 57. These speeches by Solovyov are filled with the deepest truth. The theory of exclusively personal holiness, which preaches decisive abstinence from social activities, non-resistance to evil, must be considered completely buried after Solovyov’s polemics - and this polemic alone would be enough to make the name of our philosopher immortal. But the Christian problem is not exhausted by the victory of this polemic. The deepest essence of the matter lies in the difference between personal participation in public affairs, personal Christian illumination of the latest goals of culture, and the nature of social development, the nature of the very forms of social relations. It is possible to fully accept personal Christian participation in public affairs, but at the same time define the nature of social development differently: either to grant freedom to social development, or to impose a Christian character on the very forms of social relations, in other words, or to recognize the freedom of social development according to natural historical laws, or to preach a Christian family, a Christian state. I personally have a negative attitude only towards the latter, and in this I disagree with Solovyov: what was said above about the failure of the consciously Christian direction of social forms and the success of their free-natural development confirms my opinion, and not Solovyov’s opinion. The matter of personal Christian service to social progress remains our common basis, and I think that this basis is more likely to be maintained with my opinion about the freedom of social development. It is in favor of my view that the circumstance recognized by Solovyov speaks that there is no specifically Christian culture, that the immediate tasks of family, national and state life are the same for a Christian and for a humanist, that these tasks can unite people of different (cultural) religions and different worldviews. This general cultural area of ​​family-people-state relations does not in the least constrain my Christian convictions, my ultimate Christian aspirations; just as my personal religious-Christian view of the world and history does not at all require that social development formally stand under the banner of Christianity, that special Christian forms of family and state life be created. A Christian looks at the world and history completely differently than a socialist who is a supporter of historical materialism, but they can adhere to the same practical program - one for altruistic motives of love for one’s neighbor, for the disadvantaged, and the other for selfish attachment to earthly goods and the subjective idea of ​​justice. My personal religious-Christian view, embracing all people and the latest goals of world history, like an invisible person permeates the sphere of cultural relations, common to people of all worldviews and following its own laws of development, and is completely reconciled with the self-legitimacy of this sphere. After all, if a Christian, in the name of the commandment of Christ, in the name of Christian love, feeds the hungry, it would not occur to him to wish that this feeding was free from the laws of physiology, that it was some kind of special “spiritual” nutrition: the spirituality of his love coexists peacefully with the natural necessity of organic life, subject to its own laws. Likewise, the participation of a Christian in cultural and social activities does not encroach, for the sake of his unique motives, on its natural-historical pattern. This heterogeneity of personal absoluteness and social convention cannot be explained by superficial reasons alone, which could be eliminated by a certain evolution of moral consciousness - it lies in the very property of the social organism, which is determined by its natural-historical laws of development, and does not represent only the resultant of colliding individual consciousnesses. However, even superficial reasons - the mere fact that society does not consist only of conscious and sincere Christians - is sufficient to establish the difference between the laws of social life and the freedom of personal religious consciousness. In this case, as in many others, we will find support for ourselves in the words of Solovyov. He writes: “The principle of human dignity, or the unconditional significance of each person, by virtue of which society is defined as internal, free, the consent of all, is the only moral norm... If we see in Christianity the true basis and norm of all good in the world, it is only because Christianity, as a perfect religion, also contains an unconditional moral principle. And with any separation of the Christian community from the demands of moral perfection, the unconditional significance of Christianity immediately disappears, which then turns into a historical accident” 58. But the only moral norm obligatory both for personal practice and for the public presupposes that society consists of homogeneous perfect units. Is this really true? Soloviev himself gives a negative answer to this. In his words: “In the current existence of mankind, it is also impossible for the people and for the individual that any satisfaction of material needs and requirements of self-defense directly follows from the dictates of moral duty. And for the people there are matters of the current moment, the evil of the historical day, without a direct connection with its highest moral tasks” 59. And one more thing: “at the basis of the entire economic field lies something simple and fatal, which in itself does not flow from a moral principle - the need for labor to maintain one’s existence” 60 . Let us also recall his words already quoted above: “In addition to the general “guidance of reason, physiological processes obey their own special laws and engines, beyond the jurisdiction of reason. (So) spiritual power, by its very nature, cannot assume state functions” 61. From these confessions, apparently, it irresistibly follows that there can no longer be any talk of a single moral norm that embraces both personal ethical activity and the public, that there can be no talk of a Christian state, of Christian politics, of Christian economics. However, Soloviev not only does not draw these conclusions, but also directly rejects them, and we are especially interested in listening to his argumentation. “Just as the free play of chemical processes can occur only in a corpse, and in a living body these processes are connected and determined by organic goals, so the free play of economic factors and laws is possible only in a dead and decaying society, and in a living and having a future, economic elements are connected and determined by moral goals, and to proclaim here laisser faire, laisser passer means to say to society: die and decay!.. Since Christianity did not abolish the law, it could not abolish states. But from this reasonable and necessary fact - the non-abolition of the state as an external force, it does not at all follow that the internal attitude of people towards this force, and through this the very nature of its activity - in general and in particular - remains without any change. The chemical substance has not been abolished in the bodies of plants and animals, but has acquired new characteristics in them, and it is not for nothing that the whole science of “organic chemistry” exists. There is a similar basis for Christian politics. The Christian state, unless it remains an empty name, must have certain differences from the pagan state, although both of them, as states, have the same basis and common task” 62. It must be admitted that the analogy of organic chemistry used by Solovyov has a significance for the moral teaching of society that must be taken into account. We may recall that in modern sociological science the concept of the (social) organism as applied to society is considered more or less established. However, the same sociologists who use this concept warn against limitless assimilation of the social organism and the biological organism: one of the most important differences between one and the other is the greater freedom and originality of the elements of the social organism - individuals, than can be said about organic cells. Soloviev also knows about this freedom of the individual from each given social union, as we saw above. Forgetting this truth and misusing the analogy between biological and social organisms leads to significant errors, primarily in ethical terms. It is in this case that a historical-social theory of morality naturally arises, which reduces morality to the level of a product of social development. Let us not deviate to the side, let us not enter into a discussion of this theory. In any case, Soloviev, deriving from this analogy the idea of ​​Christian politics, i.e., moral illumination of social issues, makes a gross logical mistake. After all, from the fact that the personal elements of a social organism are connected and determined by social goals, just as chemical processes in a living body are connected and determined by organic goals, it necessarily follows that the moral consciousness of the personal elements must be subordinated to social-historical laws, and Solovyov makes the opposite conclusion. There is some truth in this submission, since the Son - the bearer of absolute morality, religious love - will submit to the Father of life (1 Cor. XV, 28), but so that this subordination does not come to the detriment of a person’s moral identity, it is necessary that it falls on a foreign area of ​​family-social relations, and that this subordination of a person, in his external relations, to socio-historical laws is parallel to the personal religious and moral illumination of all social life. The highest goals come not from society, which is subject to conditional development, which also includes the elements of society, but from man, and for these goals to have real force, it is necessary that this force be heterogeneous with socio-historical forces. Even the threat of “the free play of chemical processes” is not terrible in view of the fact that “but” can remain in its place under different schools of thought: one can say that the chemical substance has not been abolished in the bodies of plants and animals, but has acquired different characteristics in them,” and one can say that “the chemical substance in the bodies is subordinated to an organic purpose, but has not lost its special laws.” And there is no doubt that just as physiological processes obey their own special laws, beyond the jurisdiction of reason, so, along with the moral duty and moral goals of individuals, socio-historical laws operate, beyond the jurisdiction of moral goals. It remains for me to accurately indicate the point where I disagree with Solovyov. This point is the central idea of Solovyov, that rational-ideological moral law cannot be reduced to psychological necessity, just as, in turn, psychological necessity cannot be reduced to mechanical determinism, that different kingdoms - natural, human and divine - are mutually conditioned, the higher kingdom by the lower, but not reducible to one another, the higher to the lower, so it cannot be said that evolution creates higher forms entirely from lower ones, and, in particular, the kingdom of God cannot be understood as a consequence of continuous natural-human development, but can be called in a certain sense a new creation 63. This idea of the heterogeneity of kingdoms, the natural-human and the divine-absolute, so brilliantly expressed by Solovyov, but not sustained in his system, I decisively accept and disagree with him where he deviates from this idea... Collection composition vol. III, p. 111. Both of these methods are used by Solovyov, who turns out to be as much a mystic as a rationalist. However, in this place and below I avoid quoting from the first three and especially the first two volumes of V. S. Solovyov and for the reason, among other things, that here each excerpt would have to be accompanied by indications of the degree of his dependence on other philosophers, the gradual change in his views and the internal contradictions in them And if this is the “green tree” of Solovyov’s brilliant philosophy, then what can we say about the pitiful seminary philosophy, about the unfortunate scholastic reasoning, which completely drowns out religious Christian thought in our theology! In addition, Soloviev was absolutely not familiar with, or at least, resolutely did not take into account the conclusions of critical theology. Likewise, the ideas of immortality and the kingdom of God, which share first place in Solovyov’s religious-philosophical system with the idea of ​​God-manhood, have a philosophical-pagan and universal appearance for him, and not a specifically Christian one. III, 121 – 124, 135 – 136. III, 138 cf. "La Russie et l'église universelle", 2 ed. p. 256 – 257. VII, 211 ff. 260 words 273 words V, 11 and in general this volume is passim. III, 15. 369 ff. IV, 566 ff. V, 513. IV, 148, 151, 156; V, 505, etc. VII, 344 ff. His ascetic and pessimistic tendencies are also adjacent here, receiving here a church-religious basis. As noted in Solovyov V, 13.