Critical remarks made at the master's colloquium by I.Ya. Chalenka as the second official opponent

Independence of the Christian teaching on morality from the ethics of ancient philosophers. In connection with the religious and metaphysical foundations of Christian teaching, on the one hand, and the teachings of Greek and Roman philosophers, on the other. Part I. Historical review of the literature of the subject. Page 1–18 1–614. – Part II. The history of ancient philosophical ethics, in its relation to the Christian teaching on morality. Page 1–1190. Poltava, 1912 The question of the relationship of the revealed Christian teaching on morality to the ethics of ancient philosophers has long occupied the attention of the most thoughtful and learned men of the Christian Church and science, who have given and continue to give until recently many and often very valuable experiments in resolving this issue, which is important in essence and - especially - in its apologetic significance. Answers to this question have been and are being given in a wide variety of directions, of which in this case it is important to note only the most characteristic and basic ones. Some, exaggerating the weak and seductive aspects of ancient ethics, declare it, like everything pagan, devoid of any valuable content and see in it absolutely nothing approaching the Christian teaching on morality. The opposite extreme is represented by a view that does not see anything essentially new in Christian morality in comparison with ancient ethics, and some representatives of this trend, blinded by the brilliance of the aesthetic form in which ancient paganism was clothed, tend to place the latter - even in its religious and ethical content - directly above Christianity. So, for example, Jacobs says: “Christians existed even before Christ was born in Bethlehem - they existed not only in Palestine, but in the whole world” (Reden und Abhandlungen I, 35). However, most researchers of the free direction still do not go to such an extreme. They prove their thesis about the origin of the Christian teaching on morality, as well as Christianity in general, through purely natural, evolutionary development, constituting the alpha and omega of all scientific existence and their confession, by attracting as elements allegedly associated with a genetic relationship with Christianity, not only the ethics of ancient philosophers, but also the teachings of Eastern religions, etc., presenting the matter in such a way that in the era of origin, spread and revelation Christianity there was an extraordinary rapprochement and interaction of the most diverse elements, apparently. Christianity appeared as if only as a result of such an interaction, although it is still not always possible to decompose its teaching into its original component elements, because in the whirlwind of the supposed syncretistic circulation of the most heterogeneous elements, these latter could change almost beyond recognition, could enter into the most unexpected combinations... And defenders of the origin of Christian morality, independent of the previous development of the ancient world, as a divine revelation, take different directions in their apologetic constructions. Some argue that the pagan world, in the person of even its best and noblest representatives, could not only produce from itself, through natural development, the Christian teaching on morality, but was not even able to approach it. Others admit that the soul, by the nature of Christianity, did not lose in paganism the ability to perceive natural revelation from God - in external nature and in the suggestions of conscience, and therefore in the ethics of ancient philosophers they do not deny gradual improvement and approach to Christianity. The pagan world, therefore, did not prepare for the Christian revelation in a negative way, but also in a positive way, in the person of its most worthy representatives, it met it halfway with its aspirations and requests, with its concepts of good and evil - although incomplete, vague and insufficient, but still true in essence - and accepted Christianity as the “aspiration of the tongues”, as a direct and desired answer to its urgent requests of the mind and heart. In Hellenic “wisdom”, therefore, a positive anticipation and anticipation of Christianity was revealed, moreover, in such a way that in it humanity was prepared and educated for the assimilation of Christianity from a different side than in Judaism. “The Greeks, the people of “wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22, 23), revealed the ideal of human love and for man, raising it to its highest reason and idea (λόγος, world of ideas). Israel, the people of “signs,” showed the world the love of God and for God, as the chosen one of this love, the bearer of God’s covenant with man, the keeper of wonderful signs and revelations (λόγια) of God’s love for people and people’s love for God (Rom. 3 cf. Rom. 9:4–5). With its philosophy and history, Hellenism prepared humanity for the assimilation of the mind of New Testament love; with its religion and history, Judaism prepared the appearance in the flesh of the Virgin Mother - the One who realized this love. There - λόγος σπερματικός, here - the Seed of the Woman. There, love is like the contemplation of the divine world of ideas or the Logos; here, love is like the birth of the sinless flesh of the Logos from the Wife. In the realization of the Christian ideal of love or the “birth” of the God-man “from the Woman,” - in this “great piety of the mystery of the appearance of God in the flesh,” expressed in John the Theologian with the words: “The Word became flesh - Λόγος σάρξ έγένετο, - the Word - Λόγος” corresponds Hellenism, the flesh - σάρξ - Judaism, and the very realization of the ideal, this great and mysterious became - έγένετο belongs to Christ the God-man (John 3:16, 4:9, 10; Rom. 5:9; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1 and many others. 1 "). Researchers have done a lot to clarify the question of what exactly is similar to Christianity - as it is revealed in its primary sources - seen in the ethics of ancient philosophers. In addition to numerous attempts to compare the ethical views of Greek philosophers, mainly one or another of the outstanding philosophers individually, with the moral teaching of Christianity from the side of general principles and particular provisions, back in the 17th century the noteworthy experience of Observationes from Greek writers was presented, in comparison with the corresponding sayings of the New Testament revelation. Thus, the scholar James Price collected this material - mainly for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - in his publication: Pricaeus, Commentaria in varios Novi Testamenti libros 1660. Much more extensive material from Jewish and Greco-Roman literature was collected as parallels to the teaching of the New Testament by Iohann Iacob Wetstein in his hitherto unimportant edition of the New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amstelaedami, t. I and II 1751–1752). Although the necessary criticism is not applied to the proper extent here, so that Valckenaeer about Wetstein’s work in this regard even expresses that in it, as in the canvas that Ap. Peter contemplated in a vision that one can see clean and unclean animals side by side 2 - however, the famous Adolf Deissmann claims that to republish Wetstein's work, using, of course, all the available means and information that we now have in this area - would be a worthy life task for a serious researcher 3. Among the works of the last century, Schneider's book deserves attention. Christliche Klänge aus den Griechischen und Römischen Klassikern. Götha, 1865, where, among the philosophers, only Plato is involved, but in the “preface and introduction” quite valuable fundamental considerations are given. Among the works of the current century, the works of Georg Heinrici should be mentioned - especially on the organization of the Corinthian community (in the commentary on 2 Cor. (1887)) and "Die Bergpredigt, begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht." Leipzig 1905. All this is only an approximate illustration of the situation that taken by I.Ya. Chalenko's area of ​​research, which is in itself essentially important, already abounds in many valuable works that explain this issue from various angles and in various directions. There are also studies of this kind that, in terms of the main point of view and conclusions, come quite close to the main theses of I.Ya.’s dissertation. Chalenka. All this naturally prompted the author, after presenting the systematic part of his research, to raise and resolve the question of what his work actually represents in relation to previous experiments in studying the issue at hand and on what its very raison d'âtre in scientific literature is based. This is where part 1 of I.Ya’s research comes from. Chalenko: “Historical review of the literature on the subject.” The author himself stipulates that his review “in terms of its objectives belongs to the lower type of “historical and literary reviews”, being, as it were, an “introduction” to the second part” 4 . “It is hardly possible to attribute independent scientific significance to such a historical review of the literature of a given subject, and the very term “historical review” in this case does not quite accurately correspond to the concept it denotes, since the center of gravity in such a “review” lies not so much in indicating the historical development of various opinions and judgments about a given subject, but in the logical distribution of these opinions and judgments among known groups. This kind of work can be of some interest and have some scientific significance only as more or less systematized preparatory material for a historical-critical review of the literature on a given subject in the strict sense of the word” 5 . However, even this kind of simplified task of “review” was not fully accomplished by the author. “Systematization” by I.Ya. Chalenka limits himself only to summarizing the views expressed here on the issue of interest to the author of very numerous scientists - under several headings, of which there are two main ones. The first group includes scientific researchers who place Christianity in a genetic dependence on the natural historical course of the religious and moral development of pre-Christian humanity. This category is broken down into three divisions. The scientists assigned to each of the headings noted by the author have, of course, more similarities than differences. There was no consistent presentation of the views of each of them, therefore, in my opinion, there was no particular need. This could sometimes result in tedious monotony, frightening the reader with an abundance of material, without clear and separate conclusions. It would seem to be more appropriate in each of the indicated types of views to highlight and characterize both the common basis for all of them, as well as various particular, most typical shades of argumentation and features in the disclosure and justification of theses common to all of them. Such a statement would require significant work from the author, but would give truly meaningful results, in a concise form it would convey a clear idea of ​​each type of view in its essential provisions and main justifications, and its strengths and weaknesses would be sufficiently visible. In its present form it is indeed given, as I.Ya himself admits. Chalenko, is only preparatory work that the author himself needed to do, but there was no urgent need or serious motivation to offer it to the reader in its present form. AND I. Chalenko undertook and carried out a huge, colossal work, which amazed the famous writer V.V. Rozanov - especially because it was done in the provinces, but the author did not complete his work and thus, of course, devalued it to some extent. Considered in its present form, the “review” is generally distinguished by rare completeness and thoroughness, but there are also gaps that can be a liability for the author, especially taking into account the method he follows. For example, the review refers to the treatise of Prof. I.V. Popov "Elements of Greco-Roman culture in the history of ancient Christianity." But the interested I.Ya. Chalenko, the issue is touched upon by Prof. I.V. Popov and in his master's thesis: “Natural moral law (Psychological foundations of morality).” Sergiev Posad. 1897, ch. IV, p. 402 next. Here the thesis is proven that “the ideal of unity and harmony in various forms received its expression already in pagan antiquity. But its completion is the moral teaching of Christianity” (p. 403). The essay (actual speech) by Prof. was also not mentioned in the review. M.D. Muretov “The New Testament song of love compared with Plato’s Symposium and the Song of Songs.” 1903, - containing many valuable and deep thoughts and observations 6. The study (actual speech) of Prof. is also omitted. Vl. A. Nikolsky: “The Christian teaching about love for enemies in its relation to the teaching of classical antiquity.” Kazan, 1911, - clarifying the question of the relationship of Christian teaching to ancient ethics at that point, which represents, in the opinion of very many and authoritative scientists, the most characteristic and specific difference and the most striking in the remarkable superiority of revealed religion compared to paganism. When “reviewing” the views of foreign scientists, attention is drawn to the fact that sometimes less characteristic views are presented in some detail, and only the names of authors are briefly mentioned, to whose point of view the author himself is approaching. As an example, we can mention A. Bonhöffer, author of the works “Epiktet und die Stoa” Sttutg. 1890. "Die Ethik des Stoikers Epiktet". Stuttg. 1894 7, as well as “Epiktet und das neue Testament”. Giessen, 1911. Such cases are especially annoying, because they are an obstacle to the implementation of the purpose of the review, so that “it provides material for a critical judgment about whether the author of a given work has brought something essentially new and valuable from himself to what has already been done” 8 . Sometimes the “review” examines the views of such writers, who expressed them only in passing and generally did not specifically deal with the issue under study. There was no particular need or good reason to involve such cases by increasing the length of the book. But all this is not so important and, in any case, not the most important. It seems to me that this is the fact that there is no correspondence between the second - systematic - part and the first, since it sets forth views that affirm the dependence of the Christian teaching on morality on the ethics of ancient philosophers. These views - in most cases - presuppose and indicate in Greek philosophy only elements and individual moments that served - along with other factors and under their influence - i.e., the material from which the Christian teaching on morality was formed, whereas in the study of I.Ya. Chalenko compares each of the philosophical systems taken by the author for consideration in its entirety with the Christian teaching on morality, without regard to other supposed factors. In this regard, the following remarks about Socrates are characteristic: “in any case, it is certain that Socrates has a deep conviction in personal immortality... there wasn’t” 9; “Socrates does not have a clear and definite conviction in the personal immortality of the human soul and, moreover, there is absolutely no mention of the resurrection from the dead in the former body” 10; about Plato: “Plato can in no way talk about God as an objective measure of knowledge of all things in the sense of Christian teaching, according to which God announced to people through Jesus Christ the truth in its ready-made and, moreover, adequate form” 11. Of course, isolating one of several factors - for the purpose of a detailed scientific study of its nature and influences - is quite legitimate, however, when general conclusions are drawn, other factors should certainly be kept in mind. The views with which I.Ya. Chalenko has to deal with, they do not deny the important difference between philosophical ethics and Christian ethics, but they hope to eliminate its significance by reminding that there is philosophy, and here is religion, each is a sui generis phenomenon, which is why “the conditions for the formation of concepts in the field of philosophy, on the one hand, and religion, on the other, as well as philosophical and religious teaching, are different” 12. Those who deny the supernatural origin of Christian morality actually argue that this teaching does not contain anything new in essence, for which it would not be possible to find precedents and inclinations, basic elements in the previous course of cultural and historical development. To make their argument easier, supporters of this view strive, as already mentioned, to expand the volume of materials they attract almost to infinity. In particular, in order to bring closer to Christianity, not only Judaism, but also Eastern religions, especially the so-called Western Asia, mystery cults, etc. are involved. In view of these prerequisites, sometimes they consider it necessary to emphasize the fruitful influence on the early Christian ethics of not philosophical, but rather folk ancient ethics 13 . However, perhaps the very nature and features of the ethics of ancient philosophers were such that they did not allow the attachment of foreign principles and significant transformation to them? AND I. Chalenko believes exactly this, and this is the thesis that we should now dwell on. The author establishes two main moral and mental types: rational-intellectual and cardio-volitional, “so fundamentally different from each other that there is no direct psychological transition between them, as a result of which the change from one of them to another, opposite to it, implies a simple evolution, but a radical revolution in the entire mental structure of a given person or society” 14. AND I. Chalenko characterizes both types in detail - and, first of all, apparently, on the basis of a priori data 15, because, having completed this characterization, the author poses the question: “to which of these two moral and psychological types should we classify, on the one hand, the type of a true Christian, as it is outlined in the sacred New Testament books, on the other hand, the type of an ancient philosopher - moralist?” And he gives the answer that “the New Testament ideal of moral perfection, in its main features, turns out to coincide with the characteristic features of the heart-willed moral type noted above” 16. Meanwhile, the teaching of ancient philosophers belongs “to the antipode” of the moral-psychological type – “to the rational-intellectual type” 17 . So both types, apparently, belong to the field of natural psychological phenomena, however, on the other hand, both in essence and in I.Ya. Chalenki, of course, assumes that the heart-willed moral type - given in its true form only in Christianity - cannot manifest itself and reveal itself in its true perfection on the basis of natural human unregeneration and is conditioned by grace-filled rebirth. As such, the heart-willed type cannot actually be placed in parallel with the rational-intellectual type, and the latter immediately turns out to be not only insufficient and one-sided in its direction and content, but - directly and decisively - a distortion and perversion of what is normal and proper. In any case, when posing such a cardinal thesis, I think it was necessary to formulate it with all certainty and clarity. Meanwhile, I.Ya. Chalenko does not say clearly and categorically: could the heart-willed type - in theory and life - at least in its infancy - manifest itself and reveal itself before and outside of Christianity, by the own forces of the unregenerate person himself - or here there was not only room for it, but also no place. Regarding ancient philosophers I.Ya. Chalenko came to a completely bleak and negative conclusion. But what was the situation in other areas of pre-Christian humanity? On this issue one can find only a hint from the author. On page 99 I.Ya. Chalenko writes: “and if the ancient world did not, nevertheless, show such extreme inertia and passivity, which characterize the history of the eastern peoples, then this is most naturally explained by the fact that the naturalistic worldview in the ancient world was not carried out with such strict consistency as among the eastern peoples, a clear proof of which can be the presence in ancient society of such protests against the extreme humiliation of the individual human personality, such as, for example, the one whose exponents, by the way, were the sophists” 18. Consequently, among other - eastern - peoples, things in this regard - according to the author - were even worse than among the Greeks. What about the Jewish people? What about the moral teaching of the Old Testament? What type was it? It was urgently necessary to give a definite answer to this question, since Judaism is considered by many as an important factor in the syncretism as a result of which Christianity was supposedly formed. On the other hand, it is said about the “moral-psychological type of a true follower of Christ” that it “undoubtedly contains features of the heart-willed type at the highest stages of its consistent and normal development.” Are not the lower stages of development of the cardio-volitional type assumed here? However, the main point of view of I.Ya. Chalenka, his fundamental conviction in the polar opposite of the two main moral types, in which a direct transition from one to the other is completely impossible, is not only expressed quite definitely, but also placed “at the forefront” of the research of I.Ya. Chalenko and carried out in it with all consistency. But this thesis needs, in my opinion, serious reservations and significant limitations, and the emphasis given to it by I.Ya. Chalenkom's overly categorical formulation is not even entirely correct. 1) from the point of view of the concept of the soul and its abilities, as it is established by modern psychology. She looks at the individual abilities of the soul only as different manifestations of the same force. From this point of view, “one can hardly recognize, for example, the following remark of the author as convincing: “the energetic moment in Aristotle’s concept of virtue, of course, is expressed quite clearly and definitely, but the fact is that in this case he is talking about the energy, or activity, of our theoretical mind, and not about volitional energy and not about tension in the life of the human heart, therefore, not about energy in the narrow sense of the word” 19 . But the thesis under consideration does not stand up to strict criticism from a historical point of view either. It is considered indisputable that the Greeks naturally had an aesthetic sense, especially a sense of proportion. It significantly reinforced the moral feeling. It is impossible to deny in them the presence of a feeling of tenderness, or a sympathetic feeling. And in the dissertation of I.Ya. Chalenka notes, for example, that Socrates was largely characterized by an aesthetic feeling, which often received a shade of feeling close to religious” 20 ; “justice, this highest of the virtues and, as it were, the synthesis of all other virtues, in Plato coincides with the concept of the health of the soul of a person possessing this “virtue”, or with the concept of mental peace and harmony” 21. The aesthetic feeling did not lose its significance even among the Stoics, as noted by the author himself. “Chrysippus, for example, in his work “Περί τού καλού”, tries to reduce all the individual predicates that, in his opinion, good has, in the end, to the concept of “beautiful”, and this latter, in turn, identifies with the concept of good - so that among the Stoics, especially Chrysippus, we are no longer talking about a comparison of these concepts, but about their identity in essence. At the same time, Chrysippus also identifies the concept of virtue with “good” or “beautiful”. The beauty, or goodness, of the soul and its health, or virtue, lies in its symmetry” 22. And what is “happiness”, which, not to mention Socrates 23, Aristotle 24, even according to the teachings of the Stoics, is “the ultimate goal of all human desires, aspirations and all virtuous activities of man” 25 and which, according to Marcus Aurelius, a person, thanks to his reason, can achieve to such an extent that he, in fairness, can be considered equal to God 26 - what is this “happiness” if not an expression of the deepest need of the human heart? About Aristotle, the author says that eudaimonism, in all fairness, should be recognized as a characteristic feature in his teaching about the ultimate goal of human aspirations” 27. “Aristotle believes that the highest good of every person is bliss, and the latter, in his opinion, lies in rational, or consistent with virtue, human activity, which receives the character of a durable, unchanging skill and is continuously accompanied, as its natural consequence, by a feeling of pleasure and pleasantness” 28. The contemplative life, according to Aristotle, gives a person pleasures that are amazing in purity and strength, complete peace of mind and self-satisfaction 29 . Even about Marcus Aurelius it is reported that although he was disappointed to the depths of his soul in everything earthly, the desire to drink the cup of pleasures here on earth to the dregs was highly developed in him 30. The author also speaks about the good “aspirations of ancient man, the growth and development of which was facilitated, among other things, by the philosophical and reformatory activity of Socrates, and the final and complete satisfaction of which was given by Christianity” 31 . Consequently, and on the basis of the data found even in the book under review, it is impossible to say about the ethics of ancient philosophers that they completely ignored the heart and volitional abilities of man, and that their ethical type did not even have any points of contact with the heart-willed type, as its “antipode.” On the contrary, the author himself states the presence in the ethical teachings of ancient philosophers of characteristic elements, which I.Ya. Chalenko considers it to be a specific affiliation of the cardio-volitional type. For example, about Plato we read: “both tendencies - theistic-spiritualistic and naturalistic-pantheistic - run like a red thread through the entire philosophy of Plato, coexisting in his mind, despite their apparent logical incompatibility” 32. “Plato’s theology, precisely thanks to the presence in it, along with the naturalistic-pantheistic moment, also of the theistic-spiritualistic moment, albeit vague and purely theoretical, played a fairly large global role in preparing ancient society for the assimilation of the Christian teaching about God, in the sense of creating in the ancient world a mental mood favorable to this” 33. And in general, according to I.Ya. himself. Chalenka, representatives of ancient philosophy “developed in their followers a desire for supranaturalistic and altruistic moral ideals,” so Christianity, with its supranaturalistic and altruistic ideals of morality, was the desired historical answer to these spiritual needs of the ancient world 34. And here, finally, is another significant recognition, unfavorable for the defense of the thesis under consideration in all its categoricalness. “In real life, both types, in their pure form, are, of course, relatively rare; in most cases, we only have to state the fact that in one person or another the traits of one or another of both moral and psychological types predominate” 35 . 2) If the ethical views of the ancient Greek philosophers represented the diametric opposite of Christian teaching and did not have any points of contact with the latter, then the fact that even in the New Testament writings terms taken from the field of modern philosophy would seem incomprehensible and inexplicable, and in the writings of the patristics such terms are widely used. Of course, from the fact that identical terms are used here and there, one cannot yet draw the conclusion that the concepts expressed by them are completely identical, as, for example, Deissmann often admits 36 . In Christianity, concepts that were already known to the pagan world are significantly transformed, elevated, sometimes spiritualized beyond recognition, but the very fact of using them proves that the ethical concepts of ancient philosophers also had a sound core, correct content, although far from perfection 37 . In any case, Christianity found a positive point of support for the expression of its truths in contemporary philosophy, and not just a hostile and opposing one. “So many elements of the true and correct, and at the same time consistent with the worldview given in Christianity, were found that since the time of Clement, Alex. the view of the wisdom of the Hellenes was definitely expressed or tacitly assumed as a preparatory process for perfect knowledge, fully revealed in Christ." 38 The result of the work of theological thought in the patristic period was "not the transformation of Christianity into Hellenism, but on the contrary: the conversion of Hellenism into Christianity... Both in other areas of life, and here, in the sphere of philosophy, the Christian religion extracted all the fresh juices, transformed them in accordance with its own spirit and took it for herself as her own property” 39 . 3) How to explain from the author’s point of view the fact that on the basis of Christianity there was an intellectualist trend in ethics, and, moreover, in such an area as mysticism. Depending on whether the intellect or the will seems to predominate in the implementation of mystical aspirations, two directions are distinguished in Christian mysticism 40 . P. Minin notes two main directions in ancient church mysticism - one abstract-speculative, the other moral-practical. In the first direction, “the center of mystical life is placed in gnosis, and the process of deification occurs mainly along the path of abstract speculative activity of thought” 41 . In my opinion, the author was in vain to take as the basis for the classification of ethical types or ideals a formal distinction between them according to those abilities that assumed predominant importance in the creation of these ideals and left their mark on them. The author, in my opinion, had all the data and grounds to base their distinction on real principles - love, on the one hand, and selfishness, on the other. This data is scattered in abundance throughout the dissertation under consideration. For example, “Plato places the personal, egoistic happiness of the individual at the center of all human aspirations in life.” “In this case, Plato has no talk of renouncing our personal happiness in favor of other people, of suppressing the egoistic inclinations of our individual “I”” (II, 510 see also pp. 534–535, 537, 549, 671, 704, 711, 985, 939, 943, 990, 996, 997, 1086, 1182, etc. of the second volume). Is it not because extra-Christian ethical teachings gave the author the impression of dryness, harshness, coldness, as if dry rationality and heartlessness, because they were not warmed by the beginning of that true love for God and neighbors, which was revealed to the world only in Christ? But the basis of pagan morality was also the activity of the heart (Rom. 2:14–15), and not the mind. The author, it seems to me, was confronted with the full force of the question: is true love even for people possible on a pantheistic basis, not to mention love for God, which is excluded by the very essence of the pantheistic worldview - and in general - the question of the relationship of pantheistic ethics to Christian morality, the basis and essence of which is the revelation of the “living God,” God-Love 42 . In such a formulation, the obvious question would also receive a broader apologetic meaning - clarification of the relationship of ethics based on pantheistic foundations to Christian ethics and the fundamental, essentially, insufficiency of the first in view and in comparison with the second. But I.Ya. Chalenko not only asserts that “the types of the ancient moral philosopher and the Christian differ from each other in a fundamental, fundamental way, but also that the historical development of the first of these types did not go in the direction of convergence with the type of Christian, but in the opposite direction 43. The author states “the gradually developing decomposition of the foundations of traditional ethical views of the ancient world and the gradual degeneration of the moral and psychological type of the ancient moral philosopher, since this decomposition and degeneration was reflected in the works of the most prominent representatives of ancient philosophy” 44. For my part, I believe that this position in all its categoricalness has not been proven in the essay and is not provable at all. The author himself makes such reservations that deprive this thesis of the unconditional significance that the author sometimes attaches to it. In his own words, I.Ya. Chalenko, “in the works of ancient philosophers not only of the first, but also of the second periods, along with a negative attitude towards the traditional ancient worldview, which was basically one-sided intellectualistic and narrowly naturalistic, there is also a noticeable positive tendency to find new foundations of worldview and moral behavior. Hence the supranaturalistic and partly altruistic tendency that we noted among the most important representatives of ancient philosophy” 45, “although those supranaturalistic ideals with which ancient moral philosophers tried to replace the traditional moral ideals of ancient society were of an abstract theoretical nature and could not revive man” 46. According to the author’s own description, the ancient moral philosophers were undoubtedly characterized by a deep need and intense search for the highest good and truth, and this is evidenced by the entire history of ancient moral philosophy, although it could not teach him to love deeply. She turned out to be powerless to revive the pre-Christian world to a new life, showing it new life paths to goodness and truth and imparting to it the necessary grace-filled forces for this” 47. But one can only talk about the progress of ancient philosophy in relation to Christianity from the side from which it can be expected by the very essence of the matter. In this same regard, the postulates, aspirations, and self-awareness that favored the acceptance of Christianity as the gospel of salvation and rebirth are important. And in this case, it is precisely progress that should be noted in ancient philosophy, since the need for this salvation became more and more clear to humanity. The author does not deny, at least, the external closeness of the moral teaching, for example, of Seneca to the Christian teaching on morality, especially if attention is paid to the theoretical and logical side of the matter, to the proclaimed moral concepts 48. He admits that “in the field of the progressive development of moral ideas and concepts, Stoicism has rendered an enormous service to humanity, perhaps more significant than earlier philosophical systems. In this case, we mainly mean those lofty ideas of universal humanity and universal altruism, which Stoicism preached in theory and which none of the philosophers we examined above proclaimed with such breadth and certainty as in Stoicism. And in this regard, Stoicism indirectly to a large extent prepared the historical ground in the Greco-Roman world for the triumph of the Gospel of Christ here: the Christian understanding of selfless love for all people, not excluding enemies, thanks to Stoicism, with its preaching about universal equality and brotherhood of people, to the theoretical consciousness of the Greco-Roman world no longer seemed to be something essentially incomprehensible or even absurd" 49 . “In the moral philosophy of Epictetus, as in other Stoics, many high moral concepts are given, but too few high moral feelings and corresponding internal movements of free will” 50. - AND I. Chalenko sometimes sees the expression of “degeneration” and “psychopathism” where, with great right, it seems to me, one can see the manifestation of the noble side of the human spirit, languishing in the consciousness of its helplessness in the fight against evil and the disasters of life, and, in any case, a phenomenon that is completely understandable in that part of humanity that was allowed to go its own way” and was deprived for the time of special Divine help. About Marcus Aurelius I.Ya. Chalenko, for example, writes: “M. Aurelius... came to the conviction that the power of evil in the world is so strong that there is no way to defeat it. From extreme optimism, M. Aurelius, like other Stoics, was forced to move to equally extreme and already final pessimism, i.e. take a point of view diametrically opposed to Christian teaching on a given subject" 51 . But if we remember the words of St. Apostle: I am a damned man; whoever delivers me from the body of this death (Rom. 7:24), then we will not see a symptom of degeneration and psychopathism in the pessimistic mood of the royal philosopher. AND I. Chalenko expresses that in “the psyche of Seneca, Epictetus, M. Aurelius, etc. representatives of ancient philosophy, one can note undoubtedly painful symptoms" 52 . It seems to me that it would be fair to highlight in them the presence of consciousness of their abnormal, painful state, but such consciousness already marked progress, and not regression, since it served as a necessary precondition and ethical-psychological soil for the emergence and revelation of repentant faith in the Divine Savior... The ancient world was intensely awaiting a Savior and Healer of mental and physical infirmities 53, and found one in the Lord Jesus Christ. To justify his thesis that the ethical teachings of ancient philosophers did not progress, but regressed, did not approach Christianity, but found themselves further and further away from it, I.Ya. Chalenko, when there is an opportunity to comment on a philosophical worldview in both a more and less favorable sense, often takes a point of view that is less favorable for their positive assessment. In this regard, I.Ya. Chalenko not only radically diverges from the trend that tendentiously strives to bring them closer to Christianity at all costs, but also noticeably diverges from those scientists who can no longer be suspected of such a tendency. To prove this point, many examples could be given, but in this case I will limit myself to only a few. About Socrates I.Ya. Chalenko says that he “consciously sought to, if possible, weaken the connection between human practical activity and religion. This is clearly evidenced, for example, by Socrates’ instructions to resort to mantics as little as possible (in order to find out the will of the gods), and to pray to the gods only in the most general sense of the word - about granting people good in general, and not certain particular goods” 54 . “Socrates rejected the object of religious consciousness, i.e. behind the Divine, the character of a personal Being with whom a person could enter into living, personal communication and nurture a certain kind of feeling towards Him” 55. “Socrates could, in principle, not reject the existence of God, which is not directly related to practical life, he could even talk about the properties of God, etc.; but this abstract god of theoretical reason, in the sense of an abstract idea, had to appear to the inner consciousness of Socrates as something alien and indifferent to the fullness of the spiritual life and activity of man, coinciding with the logical laws of our theoretical reason and with the natural laws of soulless nature" 56 . “In this respect, the popular ancient religious ideas, against which Socrates fought all his life, stood closer to Christianity than the religious views of Socrates himself. In the matter of positively preparing the ground for the triumph of Christianity among the ancient world, Socrates, in the respect we are considering, did not, therefore, go towards Christianity, but went precisely in the opposite direction” 57. Prof. M.I. Karinsky, for example, characterizes Socrates’ views on this issue differently and gives a different assessment of them in this regard. “Socrates is the first to try to eliminate the shortcomings contained in the popular and philosophical representation of the deity, and to formulate a concept about him that, on the one hand, would satisfy the requirements of developed thought, on the other, would be able to influence the heart and will of man... For the first time, Socrates encounters a teleological proof of the existence of God in a form that presupposes a clearly conscious thought that everything is arranged for human good. If we trace the later forms of teleological proof, it is easy to see that the essence of the matter has not changed, only the formal side has changed. The concept of the deity of Socrates is superior to the popular concept of the deity, since it is freed from all the mythological features that the poets abundantly endowed with it, and to the understanding of the deity of earlier philosophers, since Socrates, considering the deity by analogy with the human soul, and in the very proof of the existence of God, paying special attention to the providential activity of the Deity in relation to man, more vividly than earlier philosophers, makes one feel the connection of the Deity with man and that elevates the importance of religious ideas for moral life.” To Socrates, as well as to others criticized by I.Ya. Chalenko to philosophers, he sometimes makes too strict demands, which in some cases can be considered downright unfair. “Socrates did not have a deep conviction in personal immortality 58. “The contrast between Socrates’ teaching about God and the Christian teaching is noticeable both in the degree of depth and intensity of religious convictions, which Socrates’ philosophy requires, on the one hand, and Christian teaching, on the other, in the comparative degree of interest in theological issues that Socrates and Christian teaching reveal” 59 . Of course, I.Ya. Chalenko can object to this that the very setting of his work prompted him to highlight precisely the points of difference between the Christian teaching of morality, on the one hand, and the ethics of ancient philosophers, on the other, while points of similarity naturally remained aside. However, not only the objectivity of the presentation of the case, but also the impressiveness of the apologetic argumentation would be more accurately and expediently achieved, in my opinion, if more attention were paid specifically to the real or, for the most part, imaginary points of similarity, with clarification, characterization and assessment of their real meaning. But let us even assume that the thesis about the gradual decline of ancient ethics in the chronological framework considered by the author is completely fair. And in this case, it cannot be said that the author managed to finally get rid of the evolutionary claims of supporters of the origin of the doctrine of Christian morality from elements of philosophy and culture that preceded Christianity and contemporary it. On the contrary, from the point of view of some scientists, where I.Ya. Chalenko ends his review; in fact, the most important and most productive moment of the evolutionary movement along the path to Christianity is just beginning. E. Vacherot. the author of a three-volume old, but hitherto not outdated, work on the Alexandrian school (Histoire critique de l'ecole d'Alexandrie) admits that before the appearance of Christianity in the world, at approximately the moment at which the author ends his work, pronouncing his final hopeless verdict on ancient ethics, Greek philosophy was indeed not only inclined to decline 60, but also represented, in essence, a corpse, still striking in its forms and its proportions, but already threatening to crumble into dust 61. What saved him from this collapse was contact with a new foreign genius, who breathed life into him with its powerful influence 62 . It was the genius of the East imbued with the spirit of enthusiasm and mysticism. The connecting link that united East and West in this regard, the cement that reconciled the apparently disparate religious and philosophical elements of the East and Greece in a holistic worldview, was Platonism. Platonism has already absorbed a strong element of eastern origin, brought to Greece with the cult of Dionysus. That is why it was Plato’s philosophy - and it alone - that could serve as a mediating principle of reconciliation between the Eastern and Western elements, and that is why it is this philosophy that again comes to life and grows stronger in the last period of Greek philosophy, having felt a similar and favorable atmosphere in the Eastern religious elements. Under such circumstances, Platonism comes to life with renewed vigor and becomes the soil on which the merger and mutual assimilation of the Greek and Eastern elements took place. The East, for its part, brought mysticism as a mood, and Greece brought idealism as a theory. Christianity and Neoplatonism are the great results of the fruitful union of the East and Greece. Both, coming from the same principle, but differing in origin, their similarity and difference show this unity of principle and difference of origin... In Christianity, the Eastern principle predominates, in Neoplatonism, the Greek one. Hence, despite the identity of the spirit that animates both of these doctrines, equally idealistic and mystical, there is their inevitable opposition and struggle, which could only end in the triumph of Christianity” 63. The most active and almost the only direct organ of the Eastern genius in this significant union of Greece and the East, which led to such important consequences, was Judaism 64, and the first most systematic experience of merging Eastern and Greek ideas was given by the famous representative of the Jewish school - Philo (1st century BC). His writings served as a model for subsequent experiments of the same kind, and for many, even as a source of awareness of the philosophical ideas that he used. AND I. Chalenko writes: “the final moment in the history of the development of ancient philosophy is Neoplatonism. Consideration of the basic provisions of the ethics of Neoplatonism to clarify the question of the genetic relationship between the Christian teaching on morality and the morality of ancient philosophers is not of significant importance, since the school of Neoplatonists arose at a time (III century AD), when Christianity had already spread significantly in the ancient world and, to a certain extent, had already received its own philosophical justification” 65. However, I will say to this, the transition from Platonism to Neoplatonism did not take place immediately, but gradually, and in the history of doctrines mediating between Platonism and Neoplatonism, Philo’s system is very important. “Philo elevates the combination of Greek philosophy with the principles of mosaicism into a principle, trying to consistently and systematically carry it through his entire worldview. Therefore, he indicates the grounds for such a connection, the means by which it can be achieved, etc. Everything that is best in Greek philosophers, Philo attracts all this into his system and tries to unite everything - against the general background of Mosaic legislation” 66. And if I.Ya. Chalenko set out to trace the process of gradual disclosure of philosophical ethical teachings from the point of view, so to speak, ideological-genetic, then reaching the last ideological moment of this process is not only important, but also necessary. It is essential to analyze what could the mind, left to itself, create as a result of a long historical process, using a wide variety of materials and exhausting all its energy? Now I.Ya. Chalenko may be objected that he cut short his work by bringing it precisely to the most important moments of the genetic process along the path of approaching Christianity and omitting the most characteristic and important final stages of its development - when a special energy was discovered in religious and philosophical creativity and previously missing elements were brought into the creative process 67 . If I.Ya. Chalenko took this point of view, this would not at all mean that the scope of his work would expand further. In this case, his attention and research would be directed precisely to the indicated moments, which are usually presented as not only immediately preceding Christianity, but also completely preparing the latter in its essence, so that the latter is supposedly only its final result and the most mature fruit. Many would be much more willing to welcome I.Ya. Chalenka’s answer to the question about the attitude of Philonism and Neoplatonism to Christianity, rather than a detailed criticism of the worldview of the Sophists, Epicureans and some other representatives of the smaller philosophical fraternity. With his comments, although they relate mainly to the main and essential aspects of the study of I.Ya. Chalenka, this note is in no way intended to undermine the serious scientific significance of this dissertation. Most of the comments have only the meaning that the valuable work of I.Ya. The chalenka could have been done even more expediently, even better. But what kind of work cannot this be said to a greater or lesser extent? It is incomparably easier to criticize than to do work. In his objections, the writer of these lines primarily had in mind to indicate those aspects that, in his opinion, to one degree or another weaken the apologetic significance of the work of I.Ya. Chalenka, but they do not eliminate it at all. The author took for his research a modern question, very important in its essence and in its apologetic significance, without being daunted by the enormous amount of work involved in studying the vast literature of the subject, mainly in foreign languages, without stopping at the intense mental work that appeals simultaneously to philosophical and theological competence and erudition - and carried out this work with rare energy, outstanding dedication and serious success. He gave a criticism of the ethics of ancient philosophers, in comparison with existing homogeneous experiments, the most thorough and detailed from the point of view of the Christian teaching about morality, i.e. from the point of view - essentially - ideal and normative. The author’s main method, which, of course, had predecessors, was applied with complete consistency and straightforwardness over such a long historical period by I.Ya. Chalenkom. One can argue about the appropriateness of this method, but the serious significance cannot be denied for the reasons that prompted the author to focus on the method he adopted. AND I. Chalenko completed the work with his characteristic thoughtfulness and seriousness, and in great detail. In this regard, he may have even gone overboard: the study could have been significantly shortened. But even this feature of the dissertation reflected his self-devotion to the truth. On certain issues, the author contains very practical, thorough considerations and subtle observations (see, for example, p. 6). As a result of the study by I.Ya. Chalenka turns out that ancient philosophy not only could not give the human heart vital energy, revive the human personality in its depths and foundations, but it was not even able to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of the meaning of life. If in one or another philosophical system there are often grains of truth, which sometimes seem to closely resemble certain Christian traits, then these grains could not merge by themselves into one organic whole. R. Schneider 68 to clarify the fundamental difference between the Christian teaching on morality and the ethics of ancient philosophers uses an apt comparison of them with two rainbows: Christianity is a natural rainbow, the teaching of ancient philosophers, in general, is an artificial rainbow. Although an artificial rainbow contains all the colors, they remain separate and cannot merge into one white color, as in a natural rainbow. Likewise, the elements of the ethics of ancient philosophers, which in parts contained particles of truth, could never by themselves form an organic unity and create a Christian accounting. Christianity is a spiritually grace-filled organic creativity (cf. Eph. 2:10, 4:24), and not the result of a random fusion of heterogeneous elements. Clarification of this idea by I.Ya. Chalenko served with all conviction and sincerity and achieved serious success in this direction. He worked ideologically, with sincere passion for his topic, as a true devotee of science, with that noble “stubbornness” that provided the Germans with great importance in science and culture and which, unfortunately, is not so often found among Russians - he worked in unfavorable conditions for scientific concentration, with the need to spend his limited material resources on purchasing books and printing a dissertation. And for this feat of his labor and patience, only sincere sympathy and gratitude can be expressed to him... I wish there were more such dedicated and capable scientists and such detailed, serious scientific works!.. Prof. M.D. Muretov, The New Testament song of love compared with Plato’s Symposium and the Song of Songs. St. Trinity. Sergius Lavra. 1903, p. 74. G. Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt, S. 13. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch – römischen Welt. Tübingen, 1909, S. 2. Other works by prof. M.D. Muretov are mentioned: “The Doctrine of the Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian.” Moscow, 1885; “The Doctrine of the Logos of John the Theologian in its relation to the philosophy of Philo of Alexandria” and “Ernest Renan and his “Life of Jesus”. S. Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt, S.S. 4–6. That Christianity defeated Stoicism precisely as a religion - this statement is one of the main theses of Bonhöffer's Epiktet und das neue Testament. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, S. 233 ff. II, 814, cf. pp. 817, 1168. Page 622. See also 671, 688, etc. II, 243, 252; Wed also 261, 403–404, etc. See "Bibelstudien" and "Neue Bibelstudien" as well as "Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt.” Tubingen, 1909, SS. 23–230. Cp. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, S. 50: in der religiös schöpferischen Urzeit ist die Wortbildende Kraft des Christentums bei weitem nicht so gross, als seine begriffsumbildende Wirkung. Prof. N.I. Sagarda, Ancient ecclesiastical theological science in the Greek east in its heyday (IV-V centuries), p. 55. Prof. A.A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils. T. I. Sergiev Posad 1906, pp. 650–651. See F.A. Bernard, Beiträge zur mystischen Theologie. Augsburg, 1847; A. Harnack, Lehrbuch Dogmengeschichte I, SS. 564–567; III, S. 382; 144–145; Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex. 1886, p. 51 ff. The main direction of ancient church mysticism. Theologian Vestn. 1911, December, p. 830. The pantheistic worldview turns out to be powerless in explaining the origin, essence and significance of evil in the world, which is why it is forced to completely eliminate this problem by denying “moral evil, i.e. sin in the objective sense of the word" (II, p. 869 - about Seneca), and even requires the justification of evil as a completely normal phenomenon (see, for example, II, pp. 960-961 - about Epictetus). See also in the book. Baudissin'a, Adonis und Esmun. Lpz., 1911, S. 526. II, p. 147; Wed also II p. 245 – about prayers. T. I. Paris, 1846, b. 96. V.F. Ivanitsky. Philo of Alexandria. Life and review of literary activity. Kiev, 1911, p. 513. See, for example, Baudissim's indication of the inclusion, in particular, of the religious ideas of the Canaanite peoples. Adonis und Esmun. SS. 520, 527. You might be interested in: