XIV. Послесловие

Now, at the end of a long journey, it is appropriate to look back and, from the height we have reached, examine our path and point of departure. There are two worlds, and this whole world crumbles into contradictions, unless it lives by the forces of that world. In the mood - counter-feelings, in the will - counter-desires, in thoughts - counter-thoughts. Antinomies split our entire being, all created life. Everywhere and always there are contradictions! And on the contrary, in faith, which overcomes the antinomies of consciousness and breaks through their all-suffocating layer, a stone affirmation is found, from which one can work to overcome the antinomies of reality. But how to approach that Stone of Faith? Contradictory feelings push towards will, but even here there are cries of discordant voices; then we turn to reason. However, it is not whole, and it crumbles into antinomies. There are countless of them; there are as many of them as there can be acts of reason. But, nevertheless, as was said earlier, antinomies, in their essence, lead to a dilemma: “finiteness or infinity.” This opposition between finitude and infinity in the sinful mind, or reason, is an expression of the deepest contradiction of the fundamental norms of reason itself in its modern, fallen state. By its sinful nature, reason has an antinomian temperament, for reason is two-legal, two-centered, two-centred. Namely, in the mind, its statics and its dynamics exclude each other, although, at the same time, they cannot exist without each other. On the one hand, on the static plane, on the plane of the immovable givenness of concepts, every A is an A, and the whole power of thinking lies precisely in distinguishing every A from non-A, and firmly adhering to this distinction. In order to think A, we must isolate it from everything that is not A, that is, we must isolate, delimit A, separating it from non-A. And, as something conceivable, in essence, there is something finite. We cannot think of a process without decomposing it into a sequence of stationary states - into a sequence of moments of invariability. 819 And we also cannot think of the continuous, continuum, without decomposing it into a discontinuous collection of point elements. 820 We decompose movement into a series of states of rest, as in cinema, continuous - into a multiplicity of already indivisible elements. This is the basis of Zeno’s ever-true, no matter what anyone tries to argue against them, ever-true “paradoxes”: about the flying arrow, etc. 821 This is on the one hand. And on the other hand, - in terms of dynamic, in terms of striving to substantiate the concept - that is, in terms of definition and proof - each A must have its basis in non-A; the essence of any explanation is precisely in bringing A to that which itself is not A, to non-A, for otherwise the explanation would be an identity. When we ask: “What is A?”, they give us the answer: “A is B,” i.e., in other words, they deduce A from its self-identity “A = A” and equate it to B, which is not identical to A. “Thinking clearly and distinctly” means by A we mean exactly A and nothing more; “explain” and “prove” - this means going beyond A, to B. “Thinking clearly and distinctly” - this means standing on A and not straying from it into non-A. “Explain” - that is, “define” and “prove” - this means going from A to B, - to what is not-A. But in order to go from A to B, one must first establish A as A, that is, in order to “explain” or “prove” A, one must first “think about it clearly and distinctly.” In order to “think clearly and distinctly,” one must understand this A, that is, one must “explain” it—that is, “define” and “prove”—one must establish A as not-A. But for the latter, again, it is necessary to establish A as A. And so the process goes on ad indefinitum. One function of the mind presupposes another; but, together, one excludes the other. Every non-identical explanation leads A to not-A. Any clear and distinct thinking establishes the identity A=A. The affirmation of A as A, and the affirmation of it as non-A - these are the two main moments of thought. On the one hand, there is a static plurality of concepts, for each of the many A is fixed in its opposition to all the others; on the other hand, their dynamic unity, for each of the many A is led to another, this to a third, etc. The static plurality of concepts and their dynamic unity are incompatible with each other: on the one hand, the understanding must stand on the given, that is, the individual, and the finite, that is, the limited, and on the other hand, go beyond any given, that is, singularity, and finitude, that is, limitation, because any explanation requires an infinite series of explanatory or evidential links, each of which violates the self-identity of the concept of what is being explained. This violation of self-identity, I repeat, can never be completed, because each definition requires a new definition and each proof requires a new proof. If we have defined or proved A through B, then the previous questions are now repeated in relation to B. It is worth giving an answer to them for B, having defined or proved it through C, so that they are repeated now for B, etc. So, the first of the norms of reason requires stopping thought, and the second requires the unlimited movement of thought. The first forces us to establish A, and the second to reduce it to B. The first is the law of identity, and the second is the law of sufficient reason. It hardly requires a deliberate reservation that the law of identity, throughout the entire study, meant the totality of analytical laws of thinking, or the so-called logical “law of form”, 822 i.e. the law of identity, and its inevitable companions, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, for they, all three, speak from different sides about one thing - namely, as G. Hagemann points out, 823 express the requirement “to think of the object of thought as this and no other and to combine in it all those determinations that are inherent in it.” Or, as V. Wundt notes, 824 “the law of identity simply means the coherence – Stetigkeit – of our thinking.” Being the “fundamental law of cognition,” it means, first of all, “the behavior of our thinking regarding an object.” Similarly, R. Schubert-Soldern 825 considers the laws of identity and contradiction “only two sides of the law that everything is given in some initial difference, since they come from multiplicity - Vielheit - and that there is no such multiplicity, where there is no difference.” It would be possible to provide further confirmation of the view that all three analytical laws reveal one activity - separation, delimitation and establishment of the object of thinking, static thinking, a kind of logical jealousy. 826 But let us be satisfied with what has been said. All norms of reason are reduced to the law of identity, understood in the sense just explained, and to the law of sufficient reason, but these fundamental, reductive norms are incompatible with each other and destroy reason by their discord. The basis of reason is the law of identity, and its weft is the law of sufficient reason. The fabric of reason, woven from finitude and infinity, bad infinity, infinity, is torn apart by contradictions. Reason equally needs both of its norms, and cannot work without one, that is, without the beginning of finitude, or without the other, that is, without the beginning of infinity. It cannot work, however, even when using both of them, because they are not compatible. Standards of reason are necessary, but they are also impossible. Reason turns out to be thoroughly antinomic, in its subtlest structure. Kant's antinomies only open the door behind the scenes of the mind. But, being presented with full consciousness and in the face of the era of enlightenment, with a challenge to the rationalism of the 18th century, they are a great moral merit of Copernican philosophy. The just indicated antinomy of the basic structure of the understanding raises an essential question about reason, namely: “How is understanding possible?” The entire present work, in its entirety, is an attempt to answer the question posed. The answer to the question posed read: “Reason is possible not in itself, but through the object of its thinking, and precisely in that and only in the case when it has such an object of thinking in which both contradictory laws of its activity, i.e., the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason, coincide; in other words, it is possible only with such thinking in which both foundations of reason, i.e. the beginning of finitude and the beginning of infinity - become, in fact, one”; or again: “Reason is possible in the case when, by the nature of its object, the very identity of reason is also its other-affirmation, and vice versa, when its other-affirmation is its self-identity"; or again: “Reason is possible when the finitude conceived by it is infinity, and, conversely, when the infinity conceived by reason is finitude”; or finally: “Reason is possible if it is given Absolute Actual Infinity.” But what is this Infinity? It turned out that such an Object of thinking, making it possible, is Trinitarian Unity. Trinitarian Unity is the subject of all theology, the theme of all worship and, finally, the commandment of all life - It is the root of reason. Reason is possible because there is a Triscendent Light, and - insofar as he lives by His Light. Our further task was to find out what are the formal, and then what are the real conditions for the givenness of such an Object, such a Finite Infinity or Consubstantial Trinity. The question of the faith of the believer, fides quam creditur, turned into the question of the faith of the believer, fides qua creditur, and, consequently, to the image of its origin. Having figured out the “what?” faith and “how?” her, we were brought face to face with a new question - about the conditions for the emergence of faith. “Either-or” characterizes these conditions, according to the freedom of the act of faith. The first “or” is Gehenna; the second “or” is a feat. Either one or the other: between Gehenna and the feat tertium non datur. But both means are based on the dual nature of the one who has to believe. It was this duality of the creature that needed to be dealt with further, and here the question split into two. First, the unconditional nature of the creature was considered, and then those living conditions under which the empirical character is developed. The first question, based on the idea of ​​the image of God in man, is in fact a question about the mystical Church; the second, based on the idea of ​​​​the likeness of God in man, is the question of the Church in its earthly and strictly human side, as an environment for everyone to accomplish their feat. The psychological basis for this side of Church life is love and friendship, ἀγάπη and φιλία. This is how consciousness moves towards the “Pillar and Ground of Truth”. So, again asking ourselves what is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, we run our minds through the series of answers given here. The Pillar of Truth is the Church, this is authenticity, this is the spiritual law of identity, this is feat, this is Trinitarian Unity, this is the light of Tabor, this is the Holy Spirit, this is chastity, this is Sophia, this is the Most Pure Virgin, this is friendship, this is again the Church. To come to the Truth, one must renounce one’s self, one must get out of oneself; and this is absolutely impossible for us, for we are flesh. But, I repeat, how exactly, in this case, can one grasp the Pillar of Truth? – We don’t know, and we can’t know. We only know that through the gaping cracks of human reason the azure of Eternity is visible. It's incomprehensible, but it's true. And we know that “the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and not the God of philosophers and scientists” 827 comes to us, comes to us overnight, takes us by the hand and leads us in a way that we could not even imagine. For men this is “impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27). And so, “The Truth itself encourages a person to seek the truth - ἐπιζητεῖν, 828 – The Triune Truth itself does for us what is impossible for us. The Trinitarian Truth itself draws us to Itself. AND TO HIS SONS, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, HOLY TRINITY IN ONE BEING, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY LORD!” This idea is special. Bergson insistently states in “Tvor. ev." [2 to 5]. The definition of continuous, given in modern mathematics by G. Cantor (Fondements d’une théorie générale des ensembles. “Acta Mathem.”, 1883, 2: 4, pp. 405–406) and representing it as a collection of point elements, goes hand in hand with the modern desire to introduce the concept of discontinuity everywhere. Thus, electricity has already been decomposed into indivisible electrons; “quantum hypothesis” (M. Planck and A. Poincaré, - Newest theories in thermodynamics. Translated by S. A. Alekseeva, St. Petersburg, 1913, “Physice”) tries to do something similar for heat; An attempt was made to renew the “theory of outflow”, i.e., to split the light into a kind of atoms. Finally, one cannot fail to mention the attempt of Fr. Serapion Mashkin understands space and time as composed of finite, then indivisible elements. – Cantor’s very definition of continuous has now grown into an extensive “Continuumproblem”, the controversies of which are neither possible nor necessary to enter here. On Zeno's antinomies, see among other things: Tannery, – Le concept. scientifique du continu (“Rev. philos.”, 1885, No. 10). – It is on these antinomies, and how to overcome them, that all philosophy is based. system o. Serapion. I. Vvedensky liked to use this expression † Al-ey. G. Hagemann, – Logik und Noëtik, 4-te Aufl., Freib. im Br., S. 23. W. Wundt, – Logik. 2-te Aufl., Bd. I, S. 558 f. Schubert-Soldern, – Grundlagen zu einer Erkenntnis-theorie, 1884, S. 172. This idea was very subtly developed by G. Cohen in his “Logic”.