3l) Философ В.С. Соловьев.

The book “The Justification of Good” (2nd ed. 1899) The book deserves serious attention and discussion from people interested in moral issues, and in particular theologians, especially those who have made it their task to clarify the issue of “asceticism.” And this is determined not only by the fact that the said work represents the first independent experience in the history of Russian science in constructing an integral system of philosophical ethics, but also by the very content of this work, its essential character and main direction. The author is a deeply religious and believer, builds his system on the basis of a Christian worldview; its general and basic provisions coincide with the principles of Christian theological ethics. In particular, those who study the issue of asceticism cannot pass over this work in silence. In the ethics of V. S. Solovyov, the issue of asceticism is given a very prominent, honorable, outstanding place. The ascetic principle (together with the principles - altruistic and religious) is interpreted by him as one of the three essential foundations of morality. That's not enough. In the feeling of shame, which, in his opinion, is the original beginning and internal support of the principle of asceticism, the 1887 author sees “the primary basis of conscience, characteristic exclusively of man. 1888 If pity - the basis of altruism - “is to a large extent characteristic of many animals,” 1889 and reverence or admiration for the highest, although in a weak, rudimentary degree, is still noticeable in some animals,” 1890 then the feeling of shame “of the three elementary foundations of moral life” “belongs exclusively to man,” 1891 being, thus, specifically inherent in man, in contrast to other animals. 1892 The feeling of shame is in fact an unconditional difference between man and lower nature, since no other animals have this feeling to any degree, but in man it has appeared since time immemorial. 1893 With this definition of the meaning of the feeling of shame in V.S. Solovyov’s system, the ascetic principle naturally comes to the fore in it. Hence the entire system we are considering receives an ascetic connotation; a noticeable inclination towards the ascetic is the most striking, characteristic difference in Solovyov’s ethics. We will try to present Solovyov's view of asceticism in concise but precise terms. If the feeling of pity determines a person’s moral attitude “to all other living beings,” 1894 and the feeling of reverence bases his moral relations to a higher being, 1895 then the feeling of shame rests on a person’s moral relations to material nature, 1896 to the lower side of his own nature, and through this to material life in general, since “the material life of an individual person is only a particle of the general material life that surrounds him.” 1897 “Not serving any social benefit, being completely absent in the highest animals and yet clearly manifested in the lowest human races,” 1898 the feeling of shame is an indicator and undoubted witness of the presence in man of a non-material principle, essentially different from his animal, directly visible and tangible nature. 1899 In fact, being ashamed of his material nature, its manifestation, a person thereby shows that there is a beginning in him, in relation to which his material side is something else, alien. Both logically and psychologically it is completely unacceptable for the subject and object of shame to coincide with each other. On the contrary, “that which is ashamed, in the very mental act of shame, separates itself from that of which it is ashamed. 1900 Since material nature cannot be alien, external to itself, it cannot be ashamed of itself, 1901 because “in a feeling of shame, the main material attractions are repelled by us” and precisely “as alien and hostile.” 1902 “A person who is ashamed of a material fact cannot be himself only a material fact. 1903 In the feeling of shame, therefore, a split occurs and, as it were, separation and isolation of the spiritual side of a person from the material. In the act of shame, a person “sets himself apart from all material nature, and not only external, but also his own,” 1904 rises above it. By being ashamed of his natural inclinations and the functions of his own body, a person thereby shows that he is not only this natural material being, but also something else and higher. 1905 When a person is ashamed of some desires and actions arising from his material nature, then in this ... “he recognizes in fact ... the reality of the spiritual, supermaterial being of man,” 1906 the existence of this principle “proves beyond doubt.” 1907 But the feeling of shame not only indicates and puts above all doubt the fact of the presence in a person of a higher, different from the material, spiritual principle, but also positively determines his proper attitude towards the bodily, carnal side. 1908 Man, as a self-conscious and rational being, is able to evaluate his participation in the world process, as well as all his activities in general, according to the idea of ​​worthy and unworthy, “good and evil.” 1909 At the same time, the spirit of man, in contrast to the flesh, a being that does not control itself,” which diffuses in appearance and ends in real disintegration, 1910 is a being “according to internal determinations,” capable of self-control and not only not being resolved in appearance and not being lost in it, but also acting “by its own force on external material being.” 1911 “The feeling of shame, by its very essence, contains a negative judgment about what it opposes; what I am ashamed of, the very fact of shame declares me bad or unworthy. 1912 Hence the predominance of the spirit over the material, bodily nature 1913 - in the sense that a person should not be “determined passively by carnal desires, 1914 but should, on the contrary, dominate over material sensuality, 1915 - is a normative requirement arising from a sense of shame. 1916 Animal life in man must be subordinated to spiritual life. 1917 Regarding the lower nature, the moral law, generalizing the immediate feeling of modesty, commands us to dominate sensual attractions, allowing them only as a subordinate element within the limits of reason. 1918 Self-preservation of the spirit is, first of all, the preservation of its self-control. 1919 In view of this ethical requirement, a person must determine his normal attitude towards the bodily side. 1920 The indicator and criterion of such an attitude is the feeling of “shame.” This feeling should be analyzed in order to determine what the person is actually ashamed of, as something that is not due, what he, therefore, pushes away from himself, recognizing as alien, hostile. Such an analysis will convince us that we are ashamed of precisely that aspect of bodily life that we have in common with higher animals. 1921 A person of the highest spiritual development is not ashamed of those properties of the bodily organism that constitute the definition and accessory of material existence in general (extension, shape, weight, color, etc.), as well as those organs and functions that serve “primarily as an expression and instrument of human rational life itself” (head, face, hands). A person, in a feeling of shame, internally confronts that area of ​​his material existence, which, likening him to the highest animal beings of nature, at the same time not only does not serve as an instrument or organ of spiritual activity, but itself strives to capture the spiritual-conscious life in the blind, elemental process of material life, to dissolve and absorb into the latter, to intensify at its expense. Man is ashamed of the fact that his spirit, which in theory should represent the active side of his nature, the dominant part of his being, turns out to be in fact a passive instrument, or a useless appendage of the physical process, in the known processes and functions of life. 1922 “In the basic feeling of shame”... man resists the “fragmenting aspirations of nature.” 1923 Man is ashamed of the carnal path, because it is “the path of fragmentation, the dispersion of vital force.” 1924 The feeling of “shame” rebels against such a perversion of the normal relationship between the constituent, far from equal, aspects of a human being. And such a confrontation in man between the spirit and the animal soul is inevitable by the very essence of the matter. The spirit, being “in its ideal essence” a being heterogeneous with the material, “in its actual existence in a real person, is only a modification (transformation) of material being, that is, most immediately, the animal soul.” 1925 According to the law of conservation of energy, to which every real phenomenon and relationship in the world is “subordinated,” 1926 the spirit is strong only by the weakness of the animal soul, and vice versa. The animal soul represents the potential for the development of the spirit. “These are two types of energy, converting one into the other.” 1927 Therefore, the spirit reaches its fullest and most perfect realization only under the condition of “weakening the flesh”, transferring it from an active state to a potential one, i.e., in other words, under the condition of suppressing and ceasing its existence as an independent one. 1928 “The concept of the carnal, however, should not be confused with the concept of the bodily.” 1929 The carnal is not material existence in itself and not a material process in general, but a certain direction of this life and this process. 1930 The material then and therefore becomes carnal and, from a moral point of view, evil, bad, when and insofar as it strives from its “passive position” to move into an active and independent one, to suppress spiritual power, to deprive it of its main, essential and specific properties - self-awareness and self-control, “to involve it in its process in order to resolve it in itself and strengthen itself on its account.” 1931 Not in itself, but only in this bad relation to the spirit, the material nature of man is what, according to biblical terminology, is called flesh. 1932 Meanwhile, the goal of moral activity itself is precisely the opposite of this - “the complete transformation of our carnal life into spiritual.” 1933 “It is required... to conquer the realm of the flesh, to make animal life only a potency or the mother of the spirit.” 1934 From this point of view, the functions of nutrition and reproduction deserve special attention. “The positive feelings of pleasure associated with these functions can become a goal for the will, bind spiritual forces and draw them into the stream of carnal life. In particular, the last of these functions is completely incompatible (under ordinary conditions) with maintaining spiritual self-control.” 1935 That is why the immediate feeling of shame is associated with the latter. 1936 “The predominance of the flesh over the spirit is expressed most strongly, brightly and lastingly in the carnal union of two persons.” 1937 Shame is “the reaction of the spiritual nature of man against the suppression and absorption that threatens it from the side of lust. 1938 It embodies precisely “man’s negative attitude towards his animal nature.” 1939 At the same time, it is interesting and extremely important and significant that the feeling of shame is aroused not by the abuse of a certain organic function, but by the simple discovery of this function: the very fact of nature is felt as shameful. 1940 The feeling of shame, if we translate its testimony into the language of concepts, expresses the truth that the lower animal side “should not predominate in a person - such a predominance is something shameful, sinful.” And this is actually because sexual intercourse is the center of life,” that is, animal life, “the center of organic being,” “the main and highest manifestation of natural being.” 1941 Thus, here we stand precisely face to face with the fact of indigenous, specific animality, we approach its “source region.” 1942 It follows that if a person does not want to be an animal, then first of all and primarily he must renounce precisely this “essence of animal life”, completely take a completely negative attitude towards it, and, if possible, not take any part in it. Detachment from this animal essence is a renunciation of animality itself, an affirmation of specific human dignity in its difference from animality. Serving the “tribal essence” is incompatible with preserving the infinite significance of the individual. Generic infinity is “the abyss of bad, empty infinity,” 1943 completely opposite to the “true and complete” infinity. “Bad” and “shameful”, and, therefore, not proper, is the very essence of the law of nature to which the entire organic world is subject. 1944 Therefore, participation in the infinity of the natural process through an “ingenious” act is “unworthy” of a person, since he is precisely a person, and not an animal. 1945 If a person is truly ashamed of the “dispersion” of vital force, the violation of “integrity”, the indestructibility of his nature (chastity = modesty) - and all this is undeniable for Solovyov - then it means that he must take the opposite path of preserving the “integrity” of his nature and concentrating all its forces towards immortality and incorruptibility. 1946 “The Blind Power of Life” seeks to make man “a means or instrument of the natural process,” which consists of replacing one generation—the dying—with another—the one being born. Submission to this force is both “shameful” and “ruthless.” The fact of carnal union is shameful because “with such a union, a person submits to the blind attraction of an elemental force,” 1947 into the “abyss” of which, together with that part 1948 in a person that he has in common with this force, is drawn, absorbed, and through this the highest side of the human being, 1949 the spirit, is weakened and even destroyed. In this way, there is a real humiliation of human dignity, the fall and death of the highest side of his nature. The subject of sexual “shame” 1950 is “the deep universal meaning of this fact”, 1951 since in this case a person submits to nature “in a bad matter - completely bad”, 1952 - since he actually follows the path of animal nature, which is inherently bad for a person.” 1953 “In the most carnal act... we affirm with our own consent the dark path of nature, shameful for us in its blindness, merciless towards the passing generation and wicked, because this generation is our fathers.” 1954 “The evil of the natural way” 1955 is manifested in the fact that the “law of animal reproduction” is positively opposed to the “principle of all-human solidarity.” 1956 Nature does a merciless job, displacing previous generations with new ones. 1957 Man takes an active “participation” in this process, since, giving birth to a new generation, he, so to speak, “takes away” the place of the old one, which “can only die.” People “turn away from their fathers,” to whom they are “especially and most indebted.” 1958 “The new generation, coming to replace the old, thereby, as it were, invites the latter to clear a place for itself, eliminating and denying the meaning of its further existence on earth. In this regard and for the reasons indicated, man finds “his involuntary service to nature shameful for himself.” 1959 “Sexual shame” addresses one and all, warning one and all against this whole process of evil infinity, through which earthly nature eternally, but in vain (?) builds life on dead bones.” 1960 Feeling “the need and ability to contain within oneself the entire fullness of eternal life,” 1961 to actually realize this “ideal in reality,” 1962 a person “wants not to be a tool (?), but the owner of eternal life.” 1963 And therefore he does not want to “obey the natural law of displacement of generations, the law of eternal death - he does not want to be displaced and displaced.” 1964 He does not want to submit to sexual desire because “sexual union only confirms, strengthens and perpetuates the deep actual division or fragmentation of the “human being.” 1965 The combination of the sexes determines the fragmentation in order of succession into series of generations replacing and displacing each other. 1966 In contrast to this, a person strives to preserve his “inner potential integrity” intact, 1967 in order to “realize it in reality” without hindrance; that is, to actually create a whole person in oneself, to affirm and ensure the infinite meaning of one’s own personality. 1968 Shame condemns the path of carnal intercourse, the consequence of which is “psychophysical fragmentation.” 1969 Consequently, the norm of human behavior should be integrity, not just spiritual, but also “physical.” 1970 Shyness, otherwise chastity, “protects a person” from natural fragmentation 1971 and, according to its second designation, literally ensures the integrity, non-fragmentation of the human being. The described self-affirmation of moral dignity and at the same time the indication of the proper normal attitude of a person to the lower, material side of a person in a simple feeling of shame is distinguished by semi-consciousness and instability. 1972 The manifestation of our moral nature here has only a particular, accidental and relative character. 1973 As a result, a person cannot be satisfied with only partial indications of the feeling of shame. The human mind makes a demand for universality and necessity in the moral sphere. 1974 Therefore, the feeling of shame, or more precisely the self-affirmation of moral dignity in it, the independence of the spirit from matter, by the action of reason, according to its inherent principles of universality and necessity, is elevated to the principle of asceticism. 1975 If a person’s inability to resist carnal desires, to resist animal instincts, is even in immediate consciousness evil, then, conversely, the ability to self-control, to resist animal instincts is “good” and should be accepted as the norm. 1976 Asceticism is actually abstinence raised to the principle. 1977 “It is essentially the principle of spiritual self-preservation.” 1978 With regard to nutrition, abstinence concerns both the quantity (but there cannot be a general rule for everyone) and the quality of food. The generally obligatory and unconditional requirement of abstinence “from animal food and especially so-called meat food” is already applicable here. 1979 Meat food is more fully and easily digested into the blood, increases the energy of “carnal” life faster and more strongly, and therefore is unfavorable to the predominance and preponderance of spiritual life over carnal life. Moreover, abstinence from this type of food is useful in that it helps to exercise willpower in defeating the craving for meat food, and the craving turns out to be especially strong due to hereditary habit and predisposition. 1980 If in relation to nutrition the principle of abstinence cannot be applied consistently, then to sexual functions it must be applied in all its unconditional severity. A person should have a negative attitude towards the sexual fact in general and without exception. He must resolutely take “the path of its denial, limitation and final abolition.” 1981 “The carnal condition of reproduction for man is evil; it expresses the preponderance of the 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,” 1982 Everyone must recognize sexual intercourse as an unconditional evil, decide not to succumb to this evil, and, as far as it depends on him, conscientiously carry out this decision. When and how the actual abolition of sexual relations will be accomplished in all of humanity, or at least in ourselves, this question lies outside the moral realm. The subject of a moral obligation, rule or prescription can only and exclusively be an internal, subjective attitude “towards this fundamental manifestation of carnal life,” 1983 and for the above reasons it can be nothing other than completely negative. True, Providence “uses our carnal sins to improve humanity through new generations,” 1984, but this does not change the evil of carnal relationships into good. Providence generally turns evil into good consequences, but this does not make it good. And in this regard, this circumstance “serves to Her (i.e., Wisdom) glory, and to our consolation, but not justification.” Solovyov is not content with proclaiming the ascetic principle as the “first condition” 1985 and the initial beginning of morality, he expands its meaning to the entire area of moral life, the entire content of “human ethics”: 1986 he declares the feeling of shame (initially – sexual modesty) decisively and categorically “the natural root of human morality”, 1987 so that the primary basis of conscience is precisely “feeling of shame”; 1988 “conscience” is only a modification of shame in a distinct generalized form, 1989 is the same feeling, but has already passed through the environment of “abstract consciousness.” In the author's reasoning, which represents the disclosure and clarification of the positions expressed by us, we do not observe complete clarity and proper firmness of thought - there is obvious overexposure and obvious inconsistency in them. In fact, we have already seen that the feeling of shame actually relates to the lower side of man, which the latter has in common with higher animals, and is intended to inspire a person that “the animal life in him must be subordinated to the spiritual.” 1990 Now it turns out that “the knowledge of good and evil is given directly in the characteristic feeling of shame”, 1991 - good and evil, obviously in general, without any restrictions. Here is the author's discussion on this subject. “Animals can be good and evil, but the distinction between good and evil, as such, does not exist in their minds. In man, this knowledge of good and evil is not only given directly in his characteristic sense of shame, but from this fundamental principle, gradually expanding and refining its concrete sensory form, it passes in the form of conscience to the entire area of ​​human ethics.” 1992 “The thought of committing a violation of any of the moral requirements... causes the effects of shame.” 1993 In conscience, in comparison with the feeling of shame, a “new form” is given, 1994 and the “inner essence” 1995 of both phenomena is the same. Their content and meaning equally boil down to the fact that in the presence of a certain kind of circumstances, actions and behavior, a person hears a suggestion and a warning: “this is not good, this should not be, this is unworthy.” 1996 If this is the meaning of conscience, if it is nothing more than a modification of the feeling of shame, and if, on the other hand, “only the voice of conscience, which determines our relations to our neighbor and to God, as good or evil, gives them moral meaning,” then it is clear that “the entire moral life of a person, in all its three spheres, grows, as it were, from one root, i.e., the feeling of shame.” “The feeling of shame, being in a very real way connected with the facts of the sexual sphere,” 1997, having undoubtedly “a special sexual meaning,” 1998 and initially and predominantly manifesting itself “in relation to the facts of sexual life,” 1999 in its further development, however, goes far beyond the boundaries of material life, and as an expression of formal disapproval, 2000 “accompanies any violation of a moral norm, no matter what area of ​​relations it belongs to.” 2001 “Thus, all of it (i.e., morality) grows out of a feeling of shame.” 2002 “In the feeling of shame”... lies an implicite “moral imperative, forbidding us to yield to the powerful attempts on it from the side of lower nature, and reproaching us for concessions already made.” 2003 But the feeling of shame is also inherent in the formal beginning of duty. 2004 This “formal-moral element of shame, merged there (i.e. in the feeling of shame) with its psychophysical basis, here (i.e. in the feeling of pity) stands out in the form of that more subtle and abstract feeling called conscience (in the narrow sense of the word). 2005 “Conscience itself is a feeling of shame, which has developed not from the material, but only from its formal side.” 2006 Thus, the “feeling of shame” 2007 “accompanies any violation of a moral norm” precisely “as an expression of formal disapproval.” 2008 However, the fundamental, inaccurate meaning of the feeling of shame for all human morality is not limited to the indicated formal side. The feeling of “shame” also contains a positive, qualitative basis for the feeling of “pity”. If the feeling of “shame” is directed against the violation of the “integrity” of a human being, against its real fragmentation in posterity, then “pity” is directed actually against the “bad consequences of this matter,” by the way and above all, and “against the selfishness of a multiplied person. 2009 “A particular definite moral reaction against this new evil (i.e., selfishness) is psychologically expressed as pity.” This feeling restores “the moral unity of an already physically fragmented person.” 2010 This is – in general and essential – the line of reasoning of our Russian philosopher. As we see, the central point of Solovyov’s reasoning is the emotion of shame. All his conclusions and provisions are based on determining the origin, essence and primary, in the author’s opinion, meaning of this feeling in the moral field. In particular, the ascetic principle in Solovyov’s ethics rests entirely – in its essence and content – ​​on this feeling. Meanwhile, the feeling of “shame” belongs to such mental phenomena that are insufficiently studied in psychological science in terms of their genesis and distinctive, specific features. According to, for example, K.D. Ushinsky, “the feeling of shame has been investigated almost less than all other elementary feelings, which mainly depends on the fact that it is mixed with several complex sensory states, namely repentance, conscience and, finally, shyness.” 2011 Therefore, naturally, we must dwell first of all on the question of whether V.S. Solovyov correctly defines the essence, meaning, and significance of the emotion of shame. According to Solovyov, the feeling of shame expresses the fact of the duality of human nature with a direct, intuitive indication of their essentially equal value. For him, shame is a feeling that specifically designates and determines the relationship between the physical and spiritual natures in a person. A person in this feeling seems to push away bodily manifestations and functions as alien and hostile to his highest ideal nature. One can hardly agree with such reasoning of the philosopher. And first of all, there are no grounds - and Solovyov did not present any of them - in favor of the position that shame is a feeling specifically related to the difference between two natures in man. Shame, as a moral feeling, is associated with all, without exception, consciously free mental states, actions, and human behavior in general that have moral significance. A person is ashamed of his cruel or unfair actions towards his neighbors - hypocrisy, deception, cunning, pride, arrogance, vanity, anger, and sometimes also ashamed of his immoral relations towards God - unbelief, indifference, etc. From this fact it follows that shame is not at all connected, necessarily and exclusively, with material and animal processes. The author himself allows this limitation when he states, for example, the following: the direct subject of struggle (i.e. in asceticism) is not the functions of the body, but mental states - voluptuousness, intoxication, voluptuousness. These sinful affects, which can turn into passions and vices, become a number of other excitations, such as anger, envy, greed, etc. These other evil passions, and not just shameful ones, are subject to the judgment of non-ascetic morality in their subject matter (attitude towards others). 2012 “When assessing other people’s feelings and actions, anger, injustice, arrogance, wickedness are more hateful and outrageous to us than shameful. 2013 From these words it is clearly clear that Solovyov himself recognizes the violation of the altruistic principle of morality as not only evil, but also shameful. In the same way, he considers neglect of the ascetic principle not only shameful, but also an evil deed and state. 2014 Hence, in order to be consistent and true to himself, Soloviev can only affirm the position that ascetic morality is primarily (but not exclusively or specifically) associated with the feeling of shame - more than altruistic, but this position is not entirely true in fact. 2015 Without expressing the relationship between the two constituent natures of man, as Solovyov asserts, the feeling of shame does not contain either indirectly or directly an indication of the relative superiority of one nature over the other. Of course, the fact that a person is ashamed of both his bad deeds and some functions of his physical nature testifies to his ability to rise above his own states and functions, and thereby confirms the fact of self-awareness and self-control of the individual, but this applies equally to the physical and purely spiritual functions of human nature. Being connected, precisely as a moral feeling, with a violation of a moral norm in general, in its origin and manifestation it is closely related to public and social factors. A person is ashamed of his bad, immoral act precisely and primarily in view of the awareness of the disapproving attitude towards him on the part of other individuals. In this feeling, a noticeable role is played by the fear or fear of public contempt or general disapproval. This can be partially confirmed by the fact that in children the color of shame and embarrassment flares up equally not only in the truly guilty person, but also in the innocent person to whom others attribute some crime or misdemeanor. True, these states are not entirely identical (consciousness of guilt is present in the first case, absent in the second), but their strong similarity is beyond any doubt. Likewise, the social nature of shame, as embarrassment before public opinion, is also visible when a person, valuing the public opinion of an environment in which violation of chastity and drunkenness are considered valor and youth, is ashamed of his chastity and sobriety. Aristotle also noted the fact that no one is ashamed of babies and animals; in general, this state is the more intense, the more the subject has respect for the person present, feeling shame for some reason. 2016 It is also known that the Romans and Roman women, not having any respect for their slaves, had very little and were ashamed of them. And in modern society, masters are less ashamed of their servants than of people of equal status, and even more so of superiors, especially revered and respected. All these are well-known facts. True, they sometimes say that “a person is ashamed of himself,” 2017 but everyone who says this is well aware and feels that he is using such an expression in an improper, not entirely accurate sense; in any case, such a condition should be recognized not as primary, but as one that developed subsequently on the basis of social factors. Its original character is undoubtedly, therefore, predominantly social. 2018 This feature of the feeling of “shame” was noticed and emphasized by Aristotle. According to him, “shame is an unpleasant feeling related to such evil that, according to our concepts, leads to disrepute.” (Rhetorik p. VI). We find a similar definition of the feeling of “shame” in patristic writing. According to, for example, St. I. Damaskin, fear is divided into six types, among which shame is indicated (εις αιδώ, εις αιοχύνην). “Bashfulness” is defined as fear, due to the expectation of censure (αιδώς, φόβος επί προσδοκία ψόγου); “shame is fear, as a result of a shameful deed committed” (αίσχυνη, φόβος επ ’ αίσχρω πεπραγμένψ)). 2019 - “Sin not only deprives you of virtue, but also makes you alien to God, and also clothes you with shame and dishonor when they learn about it.” 2020 St. Gregory of Nyssa explains the feeling of shame as the expression of disappointed hope in some object that was falsely presented as beautiful. 2021 Only from this point of view does it become clear why certain functions are hidden from others. The most shy person is ashamed of revealing these functions in front of others, and does not experience this feeling at all, since this last condition is not present. Consequently, “being ashamed” and “hiding” a certain “physiological act” does not necessarily mean recognizing it as “improper.” 2022 Inexplicable from Solovyov’s point of view is also the fact, brought to his attention by B. N. Chicherin, that man “is not ashamed of filling himself with matter, but he is ashamed of being freed from excess matter.” 2023 Soloviev, in his polemic against the aforementioned article by Chicherin, gives the following explanations for this phenomenon: “the physiological fact indicated by him (i.e., Chicherin) is only a partial and, so to speak, chronic manifestation of that anomaly, the acute detection of which is given in the death and decay of the body. In both cases, the anomaly lies in the preponderance of matter over form, in the biological regression due to which the creativity of life gives way to phenomena of a lower order and turns into processes of chemical decomposition. It is clear that if a person showed enough vital force to transform into himself or revive everything that the external environment feeds him with, then the unpleasant phenomenon indicated by Mr. Chicherin would be impossible, just as death itself would then be impossible.” 2024 But, if the point of view and explanations of the presented fact were correct, then the most intense feeling of shame would manifest itself at the sight and in view of the fact of death, which in reality does not exist. As for, in particular, the relationship of the feeling of “shame” to sexual functions, from the moral side this feeling is not associated with the sexual fact itself, as Solovyov claims, but only with the perversion or abuse of sexual relations, and from the side of its external manifestation, this fact causes a feeling of shame precisely because of the latter’s connection with the feeling of disgust. We agree with prof. M. Filippov that, contrary to Solovyov’s statement, “with the exception of persons suffering from a disorder of the sexual sphere,” people in general “do not at all regard the sexual act itself as something shameful and improper, but are only ashamed of its public performance.” 2025 For our part, we must only add that this is how most people treat it, i.e., not considering sexual intercourse shameful and improper, having protected it within a certain framework of legality and obligations, that is, in a legal marriage, with which the doctor himself indirectly agrees. 2026 Equally true is the remark of another critic that “deprivation of a capacity (i.e., sexual) is (usually) considered a disgrace for a man.” 2027 We leave aside the ethical, normative assessment of these facts, since Soloviev himself derives his conclusions from a sense of shame, as an empirically and directly given fact, interpreting its actual findings. That the feeling of shame does not generally relate to sexual intercourse in itself, this, in our opinion, is also evident from the fact that the fact of the birth and existence of children is not considered a shameful matter for parents, but, on the contrary, completely natural, normal, and proper. The fact that sexual intercourse is carried out covertly and secretly cannot indicate that it is considered shameful. This can only speak of its intimacy, depth, just as, for example. The fact that parents are sometimes ashamed to caress their children in the presence of others does not at all mean that they consider this act improper or shameful. Solovyov views the act of sexual intercourse with unconditional condemnation because, according to him, this function is completely incompatible (under ordinary conditions) with maintaining spiritual self-control; 2028 it expresses “the preponderance of the meaningless material process over the self-control of the spirit.” 2029 Obviously, here the author means that the higher, spiritual life is temporarily, as it were, suspended by this process, its continuous and undisturbed flow is disrupted by it. But it should be taken into account that in a normal marriage, which is the only thing we can talk about in ethics, natural attraction comes under the control of the moral principle of mutual devotion and respect of the spouses, as a result of which the egoistic desire softens, losing to a large extent its rudeness and animal character. Sexual intercourse in such a union can no longer be considered solely as an expression of one egoistic carnal desire; it is also often an expression of self-devotion and mutual compliance. “The husband, showing due favor to his wife, likewise the wife to her husband. The wife has no power over her body, but the husband does; Likewise, the husband has no power over his body, but the wife.” 2030 Sexual attraction is deeply embedded in human nature, and everyone has to reckon with it, with very rare and insignificant exceptions. It is impossible to end it with one simple, albeit intense, decision of the will. One way or another it affects spiritual life, since a person is precisely a person, but not a spirit. Celibacy, which can be accomplished and achieved only at the cost of constant internal anxiety, by combating restless irritations and desires, is much more harmful to spiritual life than the normal, regulated satisfaction of sensual impulses, “for it is better to get married than to get inflamed.” 2031 The author seems to forget that he is talking about a person, and not about an angel. In response to a completely reasonable remark to him, on this point, by Chicherin, that “here we have a real law of nature, extending to the entire organic world and ensuring a change of generations,” that “immortals may not reproduce; but earthly creatures that are born and die cannot help but multiply, otherwise the race will cease,” 2032 - Solovyov responds in the “polemic” with sophisms. "G. Chicherin, he says, assures me that I cannot be unproductive,” 2033 but personal experience irrefutably testifies to the contrary. If... he had in mind not physical, but moral necessity, according to which every person must, or is obliged by conscience, to be fruitful, then instead of the dubious law of nature, he should have directly referred to the moral law. But such a law obliging all people to bear children does not exist... This law (i.e., the higher will) does not contain an unconditional prescription of marriage, but, on the contrary, a conditional prescription of celibacy: “he who is able to accommodate, let him accommodate.” 2034 Generally unlimited reproduction of people. is not based on any physical, much less moral, law.” 2035 All these reasonings of Solovyov are broken by one expressive remark of the Apostle: “everyone has his own gift from God, one this way, another another,” 2036 i.e. one received from God a gift for married life, the other for celibate life. In the same way, the words of the Savior, which Solovyov cites: “whoever can contain, let him contain,” 2037 contains the idea that celibacy is mandatory only and precisely for those persons who have received a special ability and predisposition for it. What is especially noteworthy is that the above words are preceded by Christ’s confirmation of the heavenly law regarding marital cohabitation as a normal and usual order for humans, in relation to which persons capable of celibacy are a rare, although, in some respects, happy exception. How can one then assert that marital cohabitation is not a physical and moral law for man in general? Exceptions to the law - to use a stereotypical phrase - only confirm the general rule. Preaching the moral obligation of universal celibacy, teaching about the natural-physical side of marriage as a moral evil are absolutely useless. The author himself admits that “the preaching of sexual abstinence, even the most energetic and successful (?) cannot prematurely stop the physical (?) reproduction of the human race and lead it to death.” 2038 He considers this assumption alone to be absurd. Man, serving the cause of the continuation of generations, does not favor the law of death, but, on the contrary, limits and weakens it, does not allow this law to finally triumph over the human race. “He can still not be displaced,” but not to be “displaced” is not up to him. According to Solovyov, the birth of grandchildren allegedly indicates that there is no place left on earth for grandfathers and reminds them that it is time for them to retire to the eternal peace of death. However, this is unfair. The mere existence of even numerous offspring and many generations does not yet express or cause the need for an ancestor to consider himself superfluous, obsolete, unnecessary. Let us remember the longevity of the patriarchs, who saw their numerous offspring with feelings of joy and satisfaction. Even innocent and sinless man, destined for immortality, was given the commandment to multiply and fill the earth. On the other hand, those extremely loving, cordial relationships that usually exist between grandfathers and grandchildren, which are unthinkable given the kind of competition between them that our philosopher assumes, do not harmonize with the provisions of V.S. Solovyov. As for the attitude of Mr. Solovyov’s ethics to the function of nutrition, here we see recognition of the need for fasting, but not Christian, but vegetarian. The author resolutely and unconditionally rebels against the use of “meat food” on the main grounds that meat, being more fully and easily transformed into blood, quickly increases the energy of carnal life. But here we have the right to ask the author: why does it necessarily and always increase the energy of carnal, and not just bodily life? The author himself fundamentally and decisively distinguishes between the concepts of “carnal” and “bodily.” The first means according to him only a certain (morally bad) direction of mental and physical life, since animality, that is, the lower, sensual-egoistic inclinations and desires of a person suppress the higher and ideal aspects and needs of his nature. Why does “physical” strength inevitably lead to the predominance of “carnal” life over spiritual? Can’t a person with a strong will control his material nature and use its health and strength to realize and manifest in external reality the ideal side of his being? Speaking about the use of wine, Soloviev himself categorically states that... “at higher levels of moral life, which were achieved in the pagan world, for example. – Socrates, – the energy of the body serves more spiritual than carnal purposes. 2039 The author himself says that only “excess nutrition determines the preponderance of animal life or flesh over the spirit.” 2040 But does moderate consumption of meat necessarily lead to excess nutrition? Sometimes, at the request of a hyena, it is necessary to compensate for the lack of nutrition with meat food. Although the author states categorically that “the object of a negative attitude in shame and asceticism is neither material nature in general, taken by itself, nor our own body,” 2041 however, in reality it turns out that the struggle is transferred specifically to the body. 2042 Between the body and the spirit he holds, however, a hidden and obscured dualism, which is not at all reconciled with his own teaching about the flesh as a potential force of the spirit, about the possibility of their mutual transition into each other. The ambiguity and instability of Solovyov’s basic concepts of “carnal”, “bodily” and “spiritual”, the uncertainty and vagueness of the idea of ​​​​the relationship of these elements lead to the fact that the essence of asceticism, as elevated to the principle of abstinence, is defined in his ethics inaccurately and directly incorrectly. “The real meaning... of the moral norm or principle that says that the flesh must be subordinate to the spirit,” 2043 is to deprive the flesh of its independent existence, to make it what it “should be, in its essence, both from the physical and mental side,” 2044 i.e., “matter or the hidden (potential) basis of spiritual life.” 2045 The animal soul, according to Solovyov, serves as a potential force for the human spirit. They can mutually transform into each other according to the law of conservation of energy. “How is it possible, Chicherin rightly notes in this regard, that the life or action of one essence is only a modification of another, completely different kind of essence - this remains completely incomprehensible to the reader. The life or action of an entity is its own appearance; if this phenomenon is a modification of another essence, then the latter is identical with the first. All actions of matter are reduced to mechanical movements, only the physical law of conservation of energy applies to them. How can one, from the point of view of the law of conservation of energy, speak “about an inextricable internal connection and continuous interaction between the spiritual and carnal sides of human existence,” 2048 when, according to the author’s own description, “flesh is a being that does not control itself, entirely turned outward - a being that diffuses into appearance and ends in real disintegration,” meanwhile, in contrast to this, the spirit is a being according to internal definitions, entered into itself, self-possessed and acting outward by its own force, without turning into appearance.” 2049 One thing: either the human spirit has a completely different and special nature, essence and origin from the soul of animals, and then, indeed, we can talk about the subordination of the soul and body to the spirit, or these are two types of energy, convertible into one another, and in this case, Solovyov, if he wants to be true to logic, should abandon the position about the possibility and necessity of subordinating the animal soul or flesh to the spirit. Tertium non datur. Then we can only talk - at most - about the transition and transfer of the animal soul into another higher form of the same genus, into another, higher manifestation of the same animal essence. If we do not recognize the essential, substantial difference between the human spirit and the soul of animals, then we can only talk about the struggle of gross impulses, common to man and animals, with motives of a higher order, rudimentary in animals and significantly developed in humans. 2050 Soloviev sees the difference between man and animals, among other things, in the fact that animals implement the principle of only generic infinity, while man can – and must – fulfill the requirement and obligation of personal infinity, “eternal life” of the individual. In these arguments we see a substitution of concepts, as if even a play on words. In fact, what kind of “infinity” can we talk about, meaning the continuous existence of every animal species? And do we even have the right to use the term “infinity” itself in this case? After all, we mean here only the conclusion from incomplete induction. When we talk about the “infinite” standard imposed on a person, we mean the ideal of qualitative perfection, determined by the requirements of “godlikeness.” It is easy to see that we have before us concepts that are completely dissimilar in their content, of two different orders, special categories. Therefore, we do not have the right to interpret them from one point of view. There are no logical grounds to assert their unconditional, decisive incompatibility, so that the presence of one would certainly exclude the possibility of the other. Perhaps the “infinity” of both orders is compatible with each other. In any case, this question remains open. Equally, it is very difficult and even impossible to establish with certainty what actually is, from Solovyov’s point of view, an object of “shame”, or otherwise, what exactly he recognizes as absolutely inappropriate for a person. In fact, Soloviev positively states in one place that “the capture by material life, which strives to make the rational being of man a suffering instrument, or a useless appendage of the physical process,” causes opposition from the spiritual principle, directly expressed “in a feeling of shame.” 2051 Elsewhere, the philosopher asserts that “sexual shame does not refer to a physiological fact, taken separately, and in this separately indifferent, and also not to sexual love in general, which can be unshameful and constitute the greatest good - the warning and then condemning voice of sexual shame refers only to that path of animal nature that is inherently bad for man, although, perhaps, given the current state of human life, it is a lesser evil, necessary, i.e. e. relative good.” 2052 “The subject of sexual shame is not the external fact of the animal union of two human individuals, but the deep and universal meaning of this fact.” 2053 As a result, sexual intercourse is, according to Solovyov, a violation of the “integrity” of human nature, a violation of “chastity.” The feeling of “shame” calls specifically for “preserving or restoring “chastity.” It is difficult to agree with the interpretation of the meaning of the essence of “chastity” that Solovyov gives to it. And first of all, it is not clear why in “chastity” Solovyov sees a requirement for integrity, in the sense of the inseparability of human nature, spiritual and physical, when the direct philological meaning of this concept gives the thought only of integrity and soundness of mind, of complete possession of one’s mind (prudence). 2054 Russian "prudence" exactly corresponds to the Greek "σωφροσύνη" (σαοφροσυνη), which means a healthy, normal state of mind, thought, soul, 2055 when it observes due measure in its phenomena and aspirations. 2056 Hence σωφροσύνη generally means “moderation”, “modesty”, even “humility” (modestiam, demissionem, humilitatem), and in this latter meaning it is sometimes even directly opposed to “pride”, excessive self-confidence and conceit (ή υπερηφάνεια 2057 In a narrower sense). in scope and special meaning, σωφροσύνη means “moderation” precisely in relation to satisfying the instincts and urges of nature, and in this case means “freedom from passions” (την τών παθών ελευθερίαν), 2058 – more specifically, “moderation” in satisfying sexual needs, 2059 not allowing the possibility of a person indulging in “shameful thoughts.” 2060 In this latter case, of course, sometimes – and often – moderate and normal satisfaction of these needs “in marriage 2061 and in this sense, σωφροσύνη is found not only among the holy ascetic fathers, 2062. and in St. Scriptures of the New Testament. According to the teaching of Holy Scripture, “chastity” seems possible and obligatory in marriage, since about a woman, for example, it is said that she “will be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith, and love, and in holiness with chastity” (μετα σωφροσυνης), 2063 and from the bishop, who can have “one wife husband”, “who manages his house well, keeping his children in obedience “with all honesty” - it is required that he, at the same time, be “chaste” (σώφρων). 2064 Thus, according to the meaning of Christian teaching, “chastity” is not at all excluded by the marital state and is completely compatible with “childbirth”, and therefore with sexual intercourse. Thus, Soloviev does not agree with Christian teaching on this point. According to the meaning of Christian teaching, the relationship of Christian spouses, blessed and carried out “in the image of Christ with the church,” organizes the sensual and physiological side of marriage, restrains and regulates the lower instincts of human nature, his sexual instincts, subordinating them to the higher reason - the moral principle of mutual respect between husband and wife for the personality of the other - spiritualized and ideal human love. In this case, the desire of one sex for the other loses in a normal marriage the character of a crude, blind instinct of physical nature. Then the physical side of marriage cannot represent anything shameful and shameful for a person - it cannot humiliate his moral dignity or hinder his religious perfection. According to St. I. Chrysostom, Ap. Paul teaches the law of marriage and is not ashamed (ουκ αίσχύνεται). Marriage is not a vicious matter, but adultery is vicious (ή μοιχεία); a vicious deed is fornication, and marriage is a medicine that destroys fornication." The saint knows well that “many are ashamed” (πολλοί αίσχύνονται) of what he is talking about, about which he seeks to establish the correct view - that is, of course, the copulation of spouses. The saint sees the reason for this circumstance in the “immoderation and intemperance” of people (τουτου). αίτιον ή ασέλγεια καί ή ακολασία ), “spoilers”, “humiliating” an “honest” and “not bad” business. “Why be ashamed,” asks the saint, of an honest deed? Why blush at something that is pure?” “The gift of God, the root of our being, is despised.” 2067 “And all because there is a lot of manure and dirt near this root.” 2068 Thus, the sexual relations of spouses, becoming under the control of the moral principle, still acquire a different character compared to animals. Soloviev somehow strangely forgets about this when he says, for example, that “the matter of procreation in humans, as well as in animals, ... is accomplished very successfully through ordinary organic functions without any high pathos of personal love.” 2069 Thus, Soloviev considers some organic functions, and above all sexual ones, to be unnecessary, harmful and essentially disastrous for spiritual life. Not only that. If Solovyov’s views are carried out consistently, then not only “fleshness”, but also “corporality” is essentially a principle completely opposite to “spirituality”. For Solovyov, the moral ideal is “unconditional” not only in its content and the quality of the normative requirement contained in it, but also in a direct, broad sense and, in the sense of independence from any external conditions and restrictions. From this point of view, an extremely undesirable, harmful condition that hinders the purely spiritual development of a person is the entire structure of world existence, spatial, temporal, etc. restrictions. This direction does not agree with the basic principles of Solovyov’s own philosophizing. In his own words, “the Christian worldview has eliminated metaphysical dualism: it recognizes matter as a product of the spirit; therefore, it must bear on itself the signs of the spiritual principle from which it originated... If the human spirit develops in a material body, if its improvement is connected with the states of bodily ages, then this connection is not external; it is determined by the meaning of human life, its purpose or idea.” 2070 “The material basis for the fulfillment (by a person of his purpose) is the given nature, and above all the given nature of each person, that is, the totality of natural properties, drives and instincts and interests that make up his external empirical character, which, thus, serves as a necessary lining for the real being or manifestation of the eternal essence of man... Our material being should not be suppressed; it must be developed and processed as a necessary instrument for a higher purpose.” 2071) 2072) It is also difficult to agree with the way Solovyov explains the origin and meaning of the feeling of “pity” that underlies the moral attitude towards other people. He uses the feeling of “shame” to explain “pity” tendentiously, without any need. The origin and meaning of the feeling of “pity” is already much more directly explained elsewhere and completely satisfactorily by Solovyov himself. According to him, “the feeling of pity expresses the inner solidarity of living beings,” 2073 of course, without any indication of the abnormal way of their origin, which is egoistic, carnal, and therefore improper in its very essence. After all, a person feels “pity” not only for people, but also “for all living things, for all creatures.” 2074 According to Solovyov himself, “the feeling of pity has no external limits to its application.” 2075 The natural, organic connection of all beings, as parts of one whole, is a given of experience, and not just a speculative idea, and therefore a psychological expression of this connection - the internal participation of one being in the suffering of others, compassion or pity - something understandable from an empirical point of view, as an expression of the natural and obvious solidarity of all that exists. This participation of beings in each other corresponds to the clear meaning of the universe." 2076 Thus, the feeling of pity turns out to be an expression of the “natural” state of nature, and not a reaction against an abnormal method of reproduction. To derive “conscience” from “shame” is also hardly fair. The manifestation of “conscience,” indeed, is often accompanied by “shame,” but they themselves are not always observed together with the latter. Consequently, from here we can conclude that although “conscience” and “shame” are in close relationship with each other, 2077 they still do not cover each other, and their actual closeness cannot be exaggerated and elevated to identity. Not everything is condemned by “conscience” that arouses feelings of “shame” towards oneself. 2078 At the same time, which is also very important, the feeling of “shame” cannot even be attributed in all cases to a favorable role in the matter of moral development. In the fair words of K. D. Ushinsky, “there are offenses that cannot be corrected otherwise than by opening them, and such and such are very often not corrected, suppressed by a sense of shame.” In this case, we see that the feeling of shame is as harmful as it is useful in others, and that, therefore, from a moral point of view, this feeling, considered independently of the ideas with which it is combined, is indifferent, neither good nor bad, like all other elementary feelings.” 2079 ) 2080 As for the patristic teaching, it really recognizes the feeling of “shame” as having great pedagogical ascetic significance. According to St. Gregory N., “another hostile and lawless thought cannot be extinguished except by destroying it with shame” (μή αισχύνης αύτοΰ τον άφανισμον έμποιούσης). 2081 “The great and strong means for avoiding sin” is usually the “inherent shame of people” (η εναποκειμενη τοις ανθρωποις αιδως), for this purpose, put into people by God, so that such a disposition of the soul would produce in them disgust from the worst." 2082 According to the teachings of Rev. Isaac S., “shame and fear prevent wavering of the mind. And as there is a lack of fear and shame, the mind is given the urge to continually spin around.” 2083 In general, according to the observation of Gregory N., “shame often taught more than fear to avoid doing inappropriate things.” 2084 At the same time, manifestations of “shame” are sometimes associated with the predominance of “passion” in a person’s life. 2085 In general, if, according to patristic psychology, “shame” has a close and direct relationship to “fear,” and this latter undoubtedly has an important ascetic meaning, then the ascetic meaning of “shame” cannot be denied. 2086 However, no matter how important the importance attached to the feeling of “shame” in patristic ascetic writing, this feeling was never relied upon as the basis of Christian asceticism, was not considered as its starting point and characteristic, specific, main driving motive. This principle could not express the specific features of Christian asceticism, as such a life activity that stems completely and entirely from the mood of self-devoted love for God and is carried out in order to achieve direct communion with God. That is why, although the feeling of “shame” appears in the patristic interpretation of asceticism, it is only as a secondary, subordinate moment, and not in the sense of the main, original and source principle. And this is especially true since “shame” is not a necessary part of normal human nature. “Man is clothed with shame for his fall,” 2087 - therefore, only after it and as a consequence of it. Likewise, the achievement of the perfection of “love” is accompanied by the absence of “shame.” 2088 If we turn to the history of ascetic manifestations in the human race, as far as they are known and understandable to us from their deepest, hidden foundations, then in it we will hardly see confirmation of Solovyov’s thesis that the basis of these manifestations was a feeling of “shame”, moreover, having as its main object the discovery of a physical, “animal” nature. The most serious and thorough researcher of the “History of Asceticism” Zöckler puts the emergence, essence and characteristics of “asceticism”, as a universal human phenomenon, in close connection with the suggestions of “conscience”, which leads a person to the awareness of the abnormality of his relationship with God, and the reason for this indicates that the person sinned and moved away from God, angered Him. The desire to make amends and return to a normal attitude towards God lay at the basis of all the most important, significant and characteristic ascetic manifestations. 2089 In fact, the fact of the close internal connection of “asceticism” with religion, its religious basis can hardly be disputed. It is extremely interesting and significant that Ap. Paul, in the only place where our term is used explicitly, “asceticism” is placed in close connection with “conscience”: its goal is precisely the desire to achieve a state of “immaculate conscience” “before God and people.” 2090 Thus, the internal force leading to “asceticism,” according to the teachings of the Apostle, is “conscience” itself, - that force that determines his normal relationship with God and people - “asceticism strives to ensure that these relationships are impeccable”, so that a person “lives before God with all his good conscience,” 2091 or, in the words of another Apostle, so that the “heart” - this is the inner sanctuary of a person - “does not condemn him.” 2092 Thus, that moment of “asceticism”, which is the most important and most characteristic of Solovyov - the attitude towards the physical side of a person - is not even indicated by the Apostle. This, of course, does not mean that the named moment does not take place at all within the scope of the concept of “asceticism”, as it was thought and presented by the Apostle. However, it still follows from this that the named moment in Christian “asceticism” should not have an independent, primary and independent meaning - on the contrary, it has a secondary, subordinate and dependent place. The main goal and essential basis of this “asceticism” is precisely the correct, human-worthy attitude towards God and people - selfless love for them. Of course, the concept of this “self-sacrifice” also includes a corresponding, expedient attitude towards the body, its needs and desires, but the essence of the matter does not allow us to put at the “head of the corner” what should, in fact, occupy an incomparably more modest place. Abba Dorotheus speaks especially clearly about the meaning of “conscience” in the process of ascetic religious and moral perfection. According to this ascetic, “conscience” (ή συνείδησις) “always resists our evil will and reminds us what we should do, but do not do; in the same way, we do what we should not do, and for this she reproaches us.” 2093 Conscience convicts of both good and evil, and shows us what to do and what not to do; she will condemn us in the next century.” 2094 In particular, it is “conscience” that helps a person establish and maintain a proper attitude “towards God” (προς τον Θεόν), “towards one’s neighbor” (προς τον πλησίον) and “towards things” (πρός τάς ϋλας ). In the latter respect, for example, it happens that someone can satisfy his needs with a small amount of some kind of vegetable - or lentils, or a few olives, but he does not want this, but is looking for other food, more tasty and tender - this is all against conscience (ταυτα πάντα παρά σονείδησίν έστιν). 2095 The Fathers say that a monk should never allow his conscience to convict him of any thing. 2096 There is even less reason to derive a sense of “duty” from the feeling of “shame” and place them in a direct and necessary genetic connection. The feeling of “ought”, the nature of normativity, is not characteristic of only one circle of phenomena, the so-called moral ones. It is undoubtedly inherent in both theoretical-cognitive activity and the aesthetic field. Hence, there are three normative sciences: aesthetics, logic and morality, whose subject is the study of facts not as such as they are in themselves, but as achieving or not achieving their inherent goal - studying them insofar as they turn out to be consistent or untenable in relation to the criterion applied to them. – The fact that in children the feeling of “shame” appears relatively late, undoubtedly later than pity, which is revealed earlier, and more intensely, and directly than the feeling of “shame,” is also not favorable to Solovyov’s position under consideration. The latter, as we know, is diligently instilled, aroused and supported by parents, educators and people around in general and therefore - to a large extent - is an instilled, educated feeling. Solovyov does not quite accurately define the meaning or moral significance of “asceticism.” At this point, instability and hesitation are noticeable. In one place he decisively declares that the immediate, empirically known to man, feeling of shame, along with other fundamental moral feelings - pity and reverence, is elevated by reason from a simple mental fact to the level of an unconditional norm of life and activity. 2097 Elsewhere, he no less categorically declares that the principle of “true asceticism”, as the principle of “spiritual self-preservation” of precisely “an individual person, a being, although spiritual (i.e., possessing reason and will), but nevertheless limited or relative, cannot be an unconditional good or the highest final goal of life. 2098 Immediately following this, the author declares that the power of the spirit over the flesh, or willpower, acquired through correct abstinence, can be used for immoral purposes, and then it is an evil will.” 2099 “There have been and are successful ascetics, not only people devoted to spiritual pride, hypocrisy, vanity, but also downright evil, insidious and cruel egoists. Admittedly, such an ascetic is much worse in a moral sense than a simple-minded drunkard and glutton or a compassionate libertine. So, asceticism in itself is not yet good and, therefore, cannot be the highest or unconditional principle of morality. A true (moral) ascetic acquires power over the flesh not to strengthen the formal powers of the spirit, but to better promote good.” 2100 Consequently, as Solovyov himself admitted, asceticism cannot be an independent moral principle. He is not a goal, but only a means, a condition for achieving a moral goal - a proper attitude towards God and neighbors. Gluttony, drunkenness, debauchery, etc. vices are reprehensible because these states are logically and psychologically incompatible with the mood of love for God. That is why Christianity recognizes only one actual moral principle - love for God and neighbors and does not talk about asceticism as the fundamental, guiding principle of morality. It turns out to be impossible to consider asceticism separately and detachment from love for God and neighbors. Ap. Paul decisively makes “asceticism” dependent on the mood of Christian love. 2101 Only in the latter does asceticism acquire solid ground, reliable support, correct direction and proper limitation. Otherwise, isolated or implemented as an independent principle of morality, asceticism can easily receive a perverted direction, a false goal - and then, instead of the expected benefit, it will only bring harm in religious and moral life. 2102 As a result of analyzing Solovyov’s views on “asceticism”, it turns out that the excessive exaggeration of the importance of the ascetic principle for the spiritual life of a person, elevating it to the level of the original and primary principle of moral life is not justified by the essence of the matter - the ascetic principle has only a derivative and secondary meaning, as a beginning only auxiliary in relation to the religious and moral duty of nurturing and realizing “love” for God and people, i.e. to the beginning religious and mystical. Finally, the following works, which have one or another, but in any case more distant relation to the issue we are studying, are only listed by us. Bolotov V.V., prof. Origen's teaching on the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg. 1879. Brilliantov A.I., prof. The influence of Eastern theology on Western in the works of John Scotus Erigena. St. Petersburg, 1898. Bronzov A. A., prof. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in relation to their teaching on morality St. Petersburg, 1884. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, creation and moral worldview. T. I. Life and creation of Rev. Macarius of Egypt. St. Petersburg, 1899. "" Several data to characterize the moral worldview of the Rev. Macarius of Egypt. St. Petersburg, 1900. "" Moral Theology in Russia during the 19th century. St. Petersburg, 1901. Burgov A., priest. Orthodox dogmatic doctrine of original sin. Kiev, 1904. Butkevich T.I., prot. prof. Sermon on the Mount. An experience in explaining the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ with a refutation of the objections indicated by the negative criticism of modern times. Part I About the Gospel beatitudes. Kharkov, 1898. "" Evil, its essence and origin. Kharkov, 1893. Belyaev A.D. prof. Roman Catholic doctrine of satisfaction to God on the part of man. Kazan, 1876. Love Divine. The experience of revealing the most important Christian dogmas from the beginning of Divine Love. Moscow, 1884. Benjamin, hierodeacon. Asceticism or asceticism about Christ the Savior God. Kiev, 1906. Vertelovsky A. Western medieval mysticism and its relation to Catholicism. Historical research. First issue. Kharkov, 1888. Glubokovsky N. V., prof. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity. Church historical research. T.T. I and II. Moscow, 1890. "" The gospel of Christian freedom in the message of St. Ap. Paul to the Galatians. A condensed overview of the apostolic epistle from its original readers, the conditions of origin, content and dogmatic-historical significance. St. Petersburg, 1902. "" Annunciation of St. Apostle Paul according to his origin and essence. Biblical and theological study. Book one. St. Petersburg, 1905. Golubinsy D.F., prof. The wisdom and goodness of God in the destinies of the world and man (about final causes), Moscow, 1885. Gorodensky N.I., prof. Moral consciousness of humanity. Trinity-Serieva Lavra, 1903. Grot N. Ya., prof. The meaning of feeling in human cognition and activity. Moscow, 1889. "" Essay on Plato's philosophy. Moscow, 1896. Zamyatin A. Repentance and its significance for the moral life of a Christian. Kiev, 1904. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) bishop. Composition. Volume one. Ascetic experiences. Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1886. "" Volume two. Ascetic experiences. Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1886. "" Volume three. St. Petersburg, 1886. "" Volume four. Ascetic sermons and letters to the laity of St. Petersburg., 1886. "" Volume five. An offering to modern monasticism. St. Petersburg, 1886. Innocent Archimandrite (now bishop). Consecration into monasticism. Experience in historical and literary research into the rites and rites of monastic tonsure in the Greek and Russian churches up to the 17th century inclusive. Vilna, 1899. Monastic question. 1872. Kazansky P.S., prof. History of Orthodox monasticism in the East. Moscow. Part 1., 1854; Part II. 1856. Katansky A. L, prof. The doctrine of the Grace of God in the works of the ancient saints. Fathers and teachers of the Church to Blessed. Augustine. Historical and dogmatic research. St. Petersburg, 1902. Kerensky, prof. Richlian School of Theology in Lutheranism. Kazan, 1903. Kirill Archimandrite (Lopatin). Opponents of monastic vows - Jovinian and Vigilantius and the denunciation of their false teaching by Bl. Jerome. St. Petersburg, 1894. Korsunsky I. E., prof. Translation LXX. Its significance in the history of Greek language and literature. St.-Tr. Sergeeva Lavra. 1898. Maltsev A. I, prot. Moral philosophy of utilitarianism. Historical-critical research. St. Petersburg, 1879. Martensen. Christian teaching on morality translated by Prof. Lopukhina. T.T. I and II. St. Petersburg, 1890. Mirtov D.P., prof. The Moral Teachings of Clement of Alexandria. Myshtsyn V.N. prof. The teaching of St. Apostle Paul about the law of works and the law of faith. Sergiev-Posad, 1894. Nesmelov V.I., prof. Science about man. Volume one. Experience in psychological history and criticism of the basic issues of life. Third edition, corrected and expanded. Kazan, 1906. Olesnitsky M, A., prof. From the system of Christian moral teaching. Kyiv, 1896. Ostroumov M. A., prof. History of philosophy in relation to revelation. A look at the conditions of the historical development of philosophy. Kharkov 1886. Pisarev L.I. prof. The teaching of the blessed Augustine about man and his relationship to God. Kazan, 1894. Plotnikov V. (Bishop Boris). The history of Christian enlightenment in its relationship to ancient Greco-Roman education. Kazan, 1885. Popov K.D., prof. Tertullian. His theory of Christian knowledge and the main principles of his Theology. Kiev, 1880. Porfiry Bishop. The first trip to Athos monasteries and monasteries in 1845. Part 1, department 1,2, Kyiv, 1877. 1846 Part II, department. 1st. 1846. Dept. 2nd. Moscow, 1880.. Appendix to the 2nd part. Moscow, 1881. The second journey along the holy Mount Athos in the years 1858, 1859 and 1861 and a description of the monasteries of Athos. Moscow, 1880. The first trip to the Sinai monastery in 1845, St. Petersburg, 1856, The second trip to the Sinai monastery in 1850, St. Petersburg, 1856. Travel through Egypt and to the monasteries of St. Anthony the Great and St. Pavel of Fiveysky in 1850. St. Petersburg, 1856. "" History of Athos. Part I. Kyiv, 1877. Part II. Kyiv, 1877. Part III. St. Petersburg, 1892. "" The book of my existence. Part I. St. Petersburg, 1894 Part II. 1895 St. Petersburg, 1896. Posnov M. The idea of ​​the Covenant of God with the Israeli people in the Old Testament (An experience in a theological and philosophical review of the history of the Israeli people). Boguslav, 1902. Primogenov P. The Rule of Monastic Life of Basil the Great and its Comparison with the Rule of St. Pachomia. Kazan, 1900. Sagarda N.I., prof. First Council Epistle of St. Apostle. and Ev. John the Theologian. Isagogical-exegetical research. Poltava, 1903. Sadov A.I. prof. Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius. St. Petersburg, 1895. Skvortsov K. prof. Philosophy of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. The period of apologists. Kiev, 1868. Smirnov S. Philological remarks about the New Testament language in comparison with the classical one when reading the epistle of the Ap. Paul to Ephesians. Moscow, 1873. Smirnova S.I., prof. Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church. (History of clergy in the East). Research in two parts. Part I (Period of Ecumenical Councils). Sergiev Posad, 1906. Sokolov I.I. , prof. The state of monasticism in the Byzantine Church from the half of the 9th century to the beginning of the 842–1204 century. Experience in church historical research. Kazan, 1894. Sokolov L. Psychology of sin and virtue according to the teachings of the saints. ascetics of the ancient church in connection with the condition of pastoral counseling. Vologda, 1905. Tareev M.M. , prof. Temptation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Commentary on (Matthew 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13.) New edition M., 1900. "" The humiliation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Phil 2:5–11. Exegetical and historical-critical research. M. 1901. Tikhomirov D.I. St. Gregory of Nyssa as a moralist. Ethical and historical research. Mogilev on the Dnieper, 1886. Book Trubetskoy S.N., prof. The doctrine of Logos in its history. Philosophical and historical research. T. I. Moscow, 1900. Chistovich I. prof. The ancient Greek world and Christianity in relation to the question of immortality and the future life of man. St. Petersburg, 1871. Theodore hierome. (now archim.) (Pozdeevsky). The ascetic views of St. John Cassian the Roman (presbyter of Massilia). Kazan, 1902. As for the review of theological works that reveal the meaning and meaning of various forms of manifestation and implementation of Christian asceticism, it will be presented in the proposed second volume of our study, which will be devoted to a special disclosure and analysis of Orthodox teaching on the meaning and meaning of various forms of ascetic aspiration in Christianity. Page 70. Wed. pp. 193 (59, 57). Numbers in parentheses indicate page numbering for the 1st edition. Page 68 Wed. page 66 (55). Page 60 (48) Wed. page 62. Page 213 (193). Wed. 577, 236. Wed. p. 75. Wed. p. 235. Page 74 (65). Wed. page 189. Page 77 (68) Wed. page 189. K. D. Ushinsky. Man as a subject of education. Experience of educational anthropology. Ed. 9th. St. Petersburg 1896. T. 2, p. 169. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, “every vicious passion” is “shameful” Oratio Catechet. P. VIII. T. XLIV, col. 41A. Rhetorik. V. II. S.VI. § 23. Cf. Ushinsky T. II, p. 169. As is known, αιδώς in Greek “means not only shame, but also respect. D. I. Tikhomirov. Quote cit., p. 88. This expression is sometimes found in ascetic writing. According to, for example, St. Isaac S., “he is a virgin who has not only preserved a body undefiled by intercourse, but is ashamed even of himself when he is alone” (παρένος έστιν, ουχ o τό σώμα αυτού φυλάξας άπο τής συνουσίας άμόλυντον , άλλ ’ about αιδουμλενος εαυτού , δταν κατ ’ ίδιάν γένηται ). Λ. LVI, σ. 330. The very nature of this feeling is indicated by the first mention of it in the book. Genesis. Before the Fall, the first people were naked and unashamed (2:25). After the Fall, they began to be ashamed of each other and therefore made themselves aprons (3:7). When the Lord appeared to them, they were afraid and ashamed of Him (v. 10) I. Damascene. De fide orth. L. II, p. XV, col. 932C. This definition completely coincides with the one we find in Nemesius De natura hominis, p. XX, col. 688D-689A. Wed. Gregory N. De anima et resurrestione, col. 92B. In Eccles. 652A, 649D. – In this case, as in many others, patristic psychology reflects the noticeable influence of Aristotle. According to the teachings of this philosopher, “bashfulness (αιδώς. Eth. Ν ic. 1. IV, p. IX) is the middle between “shamelessness” (άαισχυντία), on the one hand, and “tetanus” κατάπληξις, stupor), on the other (Ibid., 1. II, p. VII, v. 14). As more of a passive state than an active act, modesty is not actually any virtue. (Eth. Niс. I. IV, p. IX, ν. I. Cp. ibid. v. 7–8. Compare also 1. II, p. VII, v. 14). This is a certain kind of fear, fear of shame, fear of disgrace, manifested externally, like fear of something terrible, terrible, with the difference, however, that whereas fear makes itself felt by the pallor appearing in the body), modesty - with paint (Ibid. 1. IV, p. IX, v. 2). As dependent to a certain extent and sense on the body, modesty and fear are affects rather than moral habits, and, as such, they occur only in relation to youth (bashfulness does not allow youth to succumb to one or another influence of passions), and not to perfect age (Ibid. v. 3). Prof. A. A. Bronzov. Aristotle and Thomas Akainate, p. 163. Ancient Patericon. XVIII, 49, p. 427. εΐ διαψευσθείη του κρείττονος, είοώλω τινί καλού, παρασοφισαμενης τήν ψυχήν τής έλπίδος , ή έπακολουθοΰσα τοις γινομένοις μνήμη αισχύνη γίνεται. De anima et resurrectione. T. XLVI, col. 92B. Prof. B. N. Chicherin. On the principles of ethics. Questions of philosophy and psychology, book. 39, p. 597. Ibid., p. 677 (end 678 beginning). M. Filippov. The fate of Russian philosophy. Scientific Review. 1898 No. 9, p. 1560. B. N. Chicherin. Questions of philosophy and psychology, book. 39, p. 596. Page (77). Justice requires recognizing that in patristic writing there are views similar to some points of Solovyov’s revealed worldview. According to the teaching, for example, Bl. Augustine, in heaven, sexual intercourse was not combined with the currently common feeling of modesty; then even the genital organs were not considered shameful / De nupt et conc. II. 22. T. X. p. 548. Opus imperf. VI. 25. T. X. col. 1560. De genes, ad litt. XI. 32. p. 447, etc.). The feeling of shame at the sight of the nakedness of the human body and during the sexual act itself appeared only as a result of the disorder of harmony between spirit and flesh, revealed in the act of falling. According to the divine plan, the higher should dominate the lower; the spiritual nature must keep the bodily nature of man in subjection. Since the spirit, in the act of the Fall, lost dominion over the body and the body came out of its power and subordination, then, naturally, “the rational soul should have been ashamed; precisely because she could no longer retain weakness and disobedience in the body over which she had received the right to dominate.” (De peccat. merit. II. 22. T. X. r. 173). “For the soul it is a shame that the body resists it - this lower side of human nature, subordinate to it.” See prof. L. I. Pisarev. Accounting Bl. Augustine... pp. 71–72. Wed. pp. 168–169. “Since this disharmony between spirit and body is especially noticeably and vividly revealed in the act of carnal lust (concupiscentia), then, hence, the feeling of shame for a rational soul should have been especially manifested in the act of disordered carnal movements, at the sight of bodily nudity, exciting these movements (De civ. Dei, XIV, 23. T. VII. p. 431. Cp. De nupt. et conc. II. 9; II. X. p. As a result of the good goals that marriage pursues, namely the birth of children, the very evil of carnal lust is in some way paralyzed and directed towards good consequences. (De peccat. merit. 1, 29, § 57. T. X. p. 142). L. I. Pisarev. Op. op. cit., pp. 218–219. Questions of philosophy and psychology. Book 39, p. 600. Questions of philosophy and psychology. Book 39, pp. 678 –679. Vindicating the Good, pp. 85–86 (78). Justification of the Good, pp. 82 (73). Questions of philosophy and psychology, book. 39. p. 672. See definition of flesh on page 77 (69). Justification of the Good, p. 69. Questions of philosophy and psychology, book. 39, p. 605. Justification of the Good, p. 70. Ibid. Page (57). Wed. page 69. Wed. Dahl. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. T. IV, p. 595. Cp. Schmidt. V. III, SS. 634–685: φρονεΐν refers to the whole being of the sentient soul, which distinguishes between joy and suffering, is conscious of itself and knows external objects through its own experience; σωφροσύνη means caution, prudence, prudence, and also moderate behavior. Cp. Suicerus. Lib. cit. r. 1225–1226. For example, at Bl. Theodorit. See Suicerus for more details. T. II, p. 1226. Σώφρων εστιν , δστις ούκ έν τω κόπω , και τω καιρω της πάλης και τοΰ άγώνος λέγων , οτι παύονται ές αύτοΰ οί αισχροί λογισμοί , άλλ ' ος τη αλήθεια τής καρδίας αύτοΰ σωφρονίζει τήν θεωρίαν της διανοίας αυτοΰ τοΰ μή άτενίσαι άναιδώς τοιάκολάστοις λογισμοΐς. Cp. ρ. 1227:... in specieam, quae in conjugio observatur. 1Tim 3:2–5. Wed. Titus 1:8, 2:4–5. In. illud: propter fornicationes uxorem etc., p. II, T. LI, col. 210. Cp. De continentia. T. LVI, col. 293–294. De virginitate, p. XIX, col. 547. Homil. XLIX in Math. T.LVIII, col. 582–3. In Ep. ad Ephes. Homil. XX, p. IX, T. LXII, col. 447. In illud: vidi Dominum Homil. IV, p. I. T. LVI, col. 123–124. Expos, in Psalm. IX, p. IV, T. LV, col. 126. Clement A. Stromat. Lib. III, p. VI, T. VIII, col. 1152; ibid., p. XII, col. 1185V. Bl. Augustine. Confessionum lib.1V, p. I,n; 2. T. XXXII, col. 694. Epiphanius K. T. XLI, col. 841: about γάμος ου πορνεία έστίν ουδέ μυσος ουδέ βδέλυγμα. XIII. Homil. XXXIII. clause 2. υβρισται το του θεου δώρον, ή ρίζα της ήμετέρας γενέσεως. In Ep. ad. Colos. Hom. XII. T. LXII, col. 588 – 589. Cp. Kliment A. Strom, lab. II p. XXIII, col. 1093BC. V. S. Soloviev. About the philosophical works of P. D. Yurkevich. Poly., collected. op. T. I, p. 177. Collection op. T. II, p. 167. Cp. T. III, p. 1. In our theological literature, the idea of the possibility and necessity of realizing the unconditional destiny of a Christian is revealed in the writings of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. The “Divine” is “available” to man precisely “in the limitations and conditionality of his life, and even only in this limitation. Therefore, the divine, as the ideal of human life, not only does not require a mechanical struggle with natural limitations, or an external expansion of the boundaries of earthly existence, but does not put up with man’s passive attitude towards his earthly destiny.... To affirm and manifest divine glory precisely in the conditions of natural limitations and the suffering of life - such is the calling of man; on this particular path it has great significance."... Temptations of our Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 180–182; Wed pp. 34, 236–237; 333, 141, 280, 138, 162, 127, 173. Wed. Isaac S. Λ . LXXXI, σ. 452. Wed. and at Rev. Isaac S. Λ . I, σ. 5: οτε ή σεμνότης τής συνειδήσεως αύτου μαρτυρεί εκ τής θέας των οφθαλμών αύτου το πιστόν , ή αιδώς ώσπερ καταπέτασμά έστι κρεμαμένη έν τω κρύπτω χώρω των λογισμών. “Conscience” and “shame” are sometimes put in close connection in patristic writing. So, for example, speaking of eternal torment, St. Gregory of Nyssa, incidentally, mentions “the undying worm of conscience, always gnawing the soul with shame” ( τον άει μυζώντα τήν ψυχήν οι αισχύνης ). In psalmos. De octava. T. XLIV, col. 612C. According to the observation of D.I. Tikhomirov, αιδώς corresponds to moral feeling, and αισχύνη corresponds to conscience. St. Gregory of Nyssa, as a moralist, p. 88. Ushinsky. Quote cit., p. 170. This is definitely expressed elsewhere by Soloviev himself. “In all acts condemned by conscience, one thing is actually condemned: selfishness, a general and constant element, independent of the changeable and conditional factual content of bad actions; and in the same way, what is required by conscience, what is affirmed by it as due or normal, is not this or that particular moral rule, but something universal, unified and unconditional, namely altruism - the recognition of independent significance for another, the recognition of another as a goal. In this regard, psychological analysis can easily distinguish conscience from two other related phenomena: shame and religious fear. I may be ashamed of such an act with which I did not offend anyone except myself, appearing, for example, funny in the eyes of others - but this is not conscience; I can further feel religious fear as a result of such an act, which also does not offend anyone, but which contradicts my own beliefs in the metaphysical field - but this is not conscience either. We can only be ashamed of an act in which, in one way or another... we offended some other being, treated it as a means or an external thing.” T, II, p. 339. Gregory N. In psalmos. De octava. T. XLIV, col. 616A. In Ecclesiasten. Homil. III, col. 649D. Isaac C. Λογ. I, σελ. 6: ή αιδώς καΐ ό φόβος τη ροπή τής διανοίας . καί κατα τήν αναλογίαν τής λείψεως του φόβου και τής αίδουαιτία γίνεται τω νοΐ ρέμβεσθαι αεί. In Ecclesiasten. Homil. III, col. 649D: έπαιδαγώγησεν. Cp. De beatitudinibus. Or. VII, T. XLIV, col. 1288 Simeon Nov. God. Or. III, col. 336A. Or. Catechet., p. VIII, T. XLV, col. 41A: εν κατά φύσιν μόνον των πάντων έστίν αισχρόν , τό κατά κακίαν πάθος τό δέ κακίας έκτος παντός αίσχους έστίν άλλότριον . Wed. Rev. Isaac S. A. I, σ . 6–7: ή διάνοια βαρονθεΐσα υπό του φόβου τοΰ Θεοΰ καί τής αίδοΰς, ου ραδίως τρέπεται υπό των σαλευόντων αυτήν. Macarius E. Homil. XLV, S. I, col. 785D: νυν ένοέδυται διά την έκπτωσιν aio χύνην . Wed. Gregory B. Or. XLV, p. VIII, T. XXXV, col. 633A. Isaac C-Λογ. LVIII, σελ. 350: ή αγάπη ού γινώσκει την αιαω. I Ιο an. IV, 18. Askese und Mönchtum. V. I, SS. 3–4. Acts XXIII, 1. According to St. Gregory N. “Ap. Paul, by a good conscience, means a disposition filled with love towards one’s neighbor” ( In Cant. Homil. XIV, T. XLIV, col. 1080A. αυτή άντίκειται πάντοτε τω θελήματι ήμών τω κακω , και λέγει ημάς εις ο οφείλοντες ποίησα᾿, ού ποιοΰμεν και πάλιν, εις δ μή οφείλοντες ποιησαι, ποιοδμεν καί αυτή κατηγορεί ήμών. Doctr.III. With. I, col. 1653C. ... τί ποιησαι και τί μή ποιήσαι . Καί au τη πάλιν κατηγορεί ήμικαί έν τω μέλλοντι α ’ ώνι . With. II, col. 1656B. S. III, col. 1656B-1657A. Justification of the Good, p. (57), cp. page 69.