Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

ontologically. And in this sense it is possible to say that Kant in general did not belong to classical metaphysical philosophy tradition, since he did not aim to solve philosophy problems using speculative thinking by concepts. After him it turned out that philosophy is occupied more by transcendence than by transcendent. Philosophizing is realization of transcendence, but is it really possible without relation to transcendental, even in case the latter is defined as nothingness?

Russian philosopher P.A. Florensky (1882–1937) same as Dostoevsky in his time has a fundamental sensation of abyss that gaped in consciousness of a man of XX century. The symbolic systems of Christianity upon which were based spiritual life of a man are starting to be destroyed and as a result he lapse into chaos, nihilism, violence, egoism and desperation, trying to find rose cloths for different ideologies of «philanthropy». All this is a product of «soulless civilization»1. The philosopher saw a way out of that crises in following: «Our task is to deduce the cult, that is to show the sense and inner necessity of its ordering <...> It should realize the transcendental life conditions...»2. Florensky understood cult as something that «is directing a whole life to unconditional, invisible and Eternal»3. A religious thinker saw salvation in sacral action of unsacred world in rituality of culture on the cult basis. He understood a cult in the vast sense of the word, as not only orthodox but also as a common human being attribute, finding its features in mysteries, mythology and world religions.

Florensky has disclosed a very important peculiarity of a man’s consciousness functioning, the necessity of a symbol consciousness fixation that should occur through ritual. This occurs in its due turn during all epochs and under all kinds of ideology, an example of that is «canonization» of certain persons the cult

1Florensky P. Theological works. V. XVII. Paris. P. 246.

2Ibid, P. 185.

3Ibid, P. 186.

92

of relics, celebrations and so on, regardless the fact does or does not the ideology determines itself as religious or as atheistic one, because it is impossible to cheat the consciousness: by rejecting one type of ritual a man starts to create another one still more miserable. Later that was pointed out by Mircea Eliade, according to him «the majority of men «lack religion» are still confine themselves to pseudo-religions and degenerated mythologies»1.

But is it possible to change the situation, by restoring ancient cults and by making a life of contemporary man a sacral one according to the pattern of ancient religions? And is it within man’s power to turn backwards?

In Russian culture V.V. Rozanov said against formaldogmatic and narrow-ascetic understanding of he criticized here not the Christianity but mostly the wrong concept of its idea. The philosopher tried to show that there is only one force and energy of love that has different forms of its manifestation and that cutting off of its earth and chthonic roots will result in necrosis of the whole tree. Spiritual cannot develop exclusively on the basis of suppressed sensual.

The essence of a man is a unity that is breaking apart for two implacable parts; one of them belongs to God, the other one to his adversary. Such position basically contradicts the Christian ideology. Such mythology leads not only to spiritual disease but also to distorted political and economic system. In case a man’s ideal is completely moved into the sphere of transcendental and in case an earthy live seems to a man as a temporary phenomenon that does not seem to him to be of the most precious thing in itself, then his life cannot be either comfortable in a spiritual or in material way. In order to achieve another kind of life it is necessary to change oneself spiritually here in this life on the earth as

1 Mircea Eliade. The Sacred and the Profane (The nature of religion). Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask. New York, 1961. P. 209. («…the majority of men “without religion” still hold to pseudo religions and degenerated mythologies».)

93

stated saint Simeon the New Theologian. At the same time relations of religious consciousness and earthy life are very complicated, there are a lot of contradictions here, philosophy tries to scrutinize them through opposing of transcendental and immanent, where all boundary solutions are not correct: absolute transcendentalism is a mistake, same as pantheism, and the whole history of spiritual culture is devoted to looking for the golden mean. One of possible variants of this problem solution can be concluded in hesychasm theory by St. Gregory Palamas, though this question is not jet developed well enough and we shall not spare time to it. Going back to Rozanov, it is necessary to note that he does not deny spiritual life and does not adored the idol of sensual love, he said against their formal opposition, against the views and prohibitions that contradict both the nature and spiritual life. Spiritual do not contradict life in its multiple demonstrations but it is the highest level of perception of its real needs. Spiritual do not contradict biological but ascends and perfects it and also directs it. Rozanov posed a question: «what they will use in the other world to fry us at, charcoal or bituminous coal? – And himself answered his own question. – Neither charcoal nor bituminous coal, but the coal of your conscience».

Georgy Petrovich Fedotov (1886–1951) developed from his RSDWP membership to his criticism of the intelligentsia conscience and religious culture. Researchers divide his work into the three periods listed below: the «Russian» one, the «French» one (from 1925), and the «American» one (from 1941). The controversial yet at the same time synthetic nature of Fedotov’s socio-political outlook, which combines features of Christianity and socialism, cultural conservatism and political liberalism, is stressed. His «Novyi grad» project of the future structure of Russia is analyzed.

Fedotov’s views did not coincide with the existing ideologies of the Russian emigration; sometimes his articles were regarded as troubling because of their uncertainty. However, the thinker’s publicistic works helped him gain the glory of the «new

94

Herzen». Fedotov was the creator of one of the variants of the «post-revolutionary» ideology. From 1931 to 1939, he, together with I.I. Fondaminsky and F.A. Stepun, was publishing the magazine titled «Novyi grad» (New City). Philosophical, Religious, and Cultural Review, developing the topic of Christian and democratic socialism and trying to overcome intelligentsia consciousness which was a hindrance to religious culture. He sought to combine what was seemingly incompatible: the Middle Ages and humanism, Christianity and socialism, or culture and eschatology. In his works, Christian faith is placed side by side with liberalism and universal hope, while faith in Russia and his love for it gets along with a belief in the «freedom-loving» West. He spoke against both fascism and communism hoping for the triumph of freedom. At the same time, he sought to combine freedom and socialism (considering the latter to be the «prodigal son of Christianity») and called for its rebirth, which could lead at least to justice, if not to the Kingdom of God on earth.

One can say that Georgy Fedotov supported personalist socialism in his concept (due to this fact, he is regarded as a «Christian Socialist»), and saw all the flaws of the market economy and bourgeois democracy. At the same time, he defended the freedom and dignity of the personality, and was a philosopher of culture and its true creator. In connection with the above statements, the thinker is numbered among either the camp of liberalism or that of liberal conservatism. Still, conservatism, even a liberal one, can hardly be regarded as his peculiar trait, despite his enthusiasm for medieval studies and religious culture. He regarded Christianity as a religion of constant creative renewal and edifying, heavily criticizing the forms of conservatism which existed in tsarist Russia, and positively evaluated February while maintaining a negative attitude towards October 1917. He saw the future of Russia as a multiethnic and democratic federal republic. Therefore, in our opinion, «conservative liberalism» would be the most appropriate definition of Fedotov’s political philosophy.

95

Compassionate love for a man is a distinguishable feature of Russian cultural and religious tradition this love brings to life a feeling of gilt and pertinence. A sin is a metaphysical category, recognition of which confirms the highness of a man’s spiritual level. Only a profound speculation not just by reason but also by heart leads to realization of responsibility for everything. «Mysterious stranger» in Karamazov Brothers says: «any man is responsible for all and anything beside his own sins... And this is true to a letter, when people will understand this thought than a heaven kingdom will come to them not in a dream but in reality»1. From love and sympathy comes realization of priceless value of a man’s life, in ancient India this resulted in appearance of non-violence theory – ahimsa that Mahatma Gandhi insistently tried to introduce in life in XX century and in Russia tried to do the same Leo Tolstoy but they failed to achieve understanding of compatriots.

The Eurasian movement has been declared in Sofia when in 1920 N.S. Troubetskoy had published his book «Europe and Mankind». In 1921 there had been published a collection of the articles «The Outcome to the East. Premonitions and Fulfillments», which became a manifest of the social and philosophical movement arose in Russian emigration. Someone of the founders have broken with the movement (as it’s done G. Florovsky), but someone from the joined ones took place among the leading ideologists (as L.P. Karsavin and P.M. Bitsilli).

At the beginning G. Florovsky (the «most non-Eurasian» one among all Eurasians according to S. Horujy's remark2) was the member of Eurasian movement but then he left this movement and went into opposition to it. He considered that at first this movement had been intended to be an appeal to spiritual awakening, but failed because its representatives « have taken an interest in searching easy and fast ways», «desire of fast and ex-

7 Ф.М. ПСС в 30-ти т. Т. XIV Л., 1972. С. 257.

2 Horujy S.S. Russia, Eurasia and Father Georgy Florovsky // Nachala (Religious and Philosophic magazine). № 3. М.: Ed. of MAI, 1991. C. 29.

96

ternal luck»1 and political problems. In fact the Eurasian movement began to be more politicized and ideological taking proBolshevik position. Florovsky has replied on this process by his article «Eurasian temptation» (1828) where he had gone into opposition to this trend. Researchers note that even now this work is the most thorough critical consideration of Eurasian doctrine2. He did not share any geosophic and geohistorical constructions stipulated this or that material or biological origin in the ground of originality of historical development of people or civilization.

Already in the first Eurasian collection there were a number of political directions presented ranging from national Bolshevism by P. Savitsky to counter-Bolshevism by G. Florovsky. Finally ideological divergences have broken off initial unity of the «mood». And the first rejected one, – on A.V. Sobolev's words, – was G. Florovsky, «and the most deep and significant prospect of Eurasian ideas development had been rejected along with him». This has happened because «all attempts of Florovsky to put the most talented and fruitful forces of Russian emigration in the orbit of Eurasian spiritual and intellectual work have stroked on quite explained but unfortunate political and public immaturity of his colleagues, on their ambitions and propensity to «ruling»3. Later P. Souvchinsky has become a Trotskist, opposed I. Ilyin’s participations in the Eurasian movement, ceased to consider with Savitsky and Troubetskoy, misinformed them and intrigued.

Originally G. Florovsky has joined the Eurasian manifest with enthusiasm. From the very beginning he was aimed on deep historiosophic reflections: «Outcome to the East «, – he wrote, – is not a symbolical book of a new public direction. Its task is in another field, viz to put for discussion again cultural and philoso-

1Florovsky G.V. From the Past of Russian Conception. М.: Agraph, 1998. p. 313.

2Horujy S.S. Ind.works, p. 24.

3Florovsky G.V. Dogma and History. М.: Ed. of St.-Vladimir Congregation, 1998. p. 51.

97

phic problem of Russian history and Russian revolution sense, to draw attention to the problems of spiritual creativity, to wake up fading taste to culture and pure values, not applied ones»1.

Feeling that not all statements of Eurasians meet his aspirations, he tried without hanging on words to draw others away from politics by means of his philosophical reasoning. «Eventually it is not important what Eurasians think, – he wrote in a short article «Stony loss of consciousness» (1925), – but what they think about – that truth they are searching and see. «Here there was also a statement for opponents of the Eurasian doctrine: «The main misunderstanding of the dispute is just that the majority of opponents in general don’t wish to search any truth, and blame Eurasians’ anxiety of their search»2.

Florovsky was not limited on criticism of the Western doctrine (as, for example, N.S. Troubetskoy did), giving crucial importance to the religious – metaphysical orientation based on catastrophic attitude and on a vision of historical tragic element. In certain sense its criticism of the West, nevertheless, was more thorough, compared with his colleagues from the movement. He tried to think over the limiting destinies of European culture, without rejecting it immediately but trying to open its deep illnesses. He considered history of Europe «from the perspective of Christ cause on earth», i.e. he thought in a religious and eschatological way. Also he tried to justify his colleagues because of their too complacent attitude to the Bolshevik revolution. In his opinion the Eurasians «do not accept», but take the revolution into account, and there is no pro-Bolshevism presented in it. In his opinion, «there is also Russia existing in the USSR «, and « the USSR exists hitherto just because there is Russia still exists»3. He considered, that the Eurasian doctrine marks a fight for the

1 Florovsky G.V. From the Past of Russian Doctrine. p. 131.

2 Sobolev А.V. Svoya svoikh ne poznasha. Eurasian doctrine: L.P. Karsavin and Others // Nachala № 4. М., 1992. p. 248.

3 Ibidem, p. 253.

98

Holy Russia, and tried to transfer this fight to spiritual, religiousphilosophical, historiosophical plane, but all his efforts have been failed, which in turn resulted in a break.

In one of the letters Father Georgy writes, that he has separated with the Eurasian doctrine in 1923, insisting on Christian philosophy of history1. These divergences can already be met in his work of 1921 «The Eternal and Transient in the Doctrine of Russian Slavophiles» where he opposes «false, anthropological nationalism».

In the Eurasian doctrine the understanding of religious tradition as well as the attitude to it varies. This new understanding and attitude has caused a sharp criticism from the part of orthodox tradition adherents to whom it is possible to relate G.Florovsky and V.Zen'kovsky to. First of all Florovsky criticizes Eurasians for «infallibility of history», for «rationality of the reality and the reality of intellect», for «coarse and simplified panlogism»2. In his opinion Eurasians’ conceptions on history contain «naturalistic morphologism». «Euroasian historiosophy had been cast upon morphological type», – he considers. This methodology by Eurasians «exhausts to the bottom the sense and content of cultural – historical problem». This point of view can be found in works of Vl. Odoevsky, then Gertsen (socialism is inevitable). In this methodology Florovsky sees the «old biological theory of plural kinds transferred into historical area». In this way there was composed the theory of cultural – historical types by Danilevsky and then Leontiev for whom «history of mankind is biology». Further Florovsky comes to unexpected conclusion: theory of cultural – historical types has being constructed for identification and justification of national originality, and as a result came to the strengthening of the «sharpest substantial «monism» on which peoples become to be entirely dependent even before their birth. Florovsky compares this «fatal process of all-

1Horujy S.S. Ind.works, p. 29.

2Florovsky G.V. Ind.works, p. 314.

99

mankind development and growth «with the «progress of a coral reef». To this, in his opinion, the «last wisdom of historical morphology» has come. The basic problem is that «in the Eurasian morphology of historical types the problem of Christian philosophy of history is being lost», when «plans and types cover certain and tragic destiny»1.

The reproach to Eurasians from the side of Florovsky is, that «they are busy with the morphology of Russia – Eurasia and it takes all their attention. The geographical unity and originality of the «Eurasian» territory amazes them so much, that in their conception kind of territory and not peoples are becoming the original subject of historical process and development»2. Therefore, – S.S. Horujy continues, – the Eurasian philosophy of history appeared to be parochial and party, written by the spirit of national and geopolitic discord; that the quality of all-mankind which was wholly inherent to the elder Slavophiles also has been inevitably lost, and Dostoevsky affirmed it as one of the main values in Russian culture»3.

Besides that Eurasians explain the defect of the Petersburg period in Russian history as a «break» of the government with «people». Florovsky does not deny this break, but considers, that point is not only in it, but also in a «lack of God’s fear, moral sensitiveness, spiritual humility and simplicity». From the Florovsky’s point of view, it is required to make a choice not between «intellectual sickliness» and «new national «force», but between «sinful self-affirmation and creative self-renunciation in penitential humility to the God». «Not from the spirit, but from flesh and soil they want to take strength»4. Therefore Florovsky disagree with too complacent attitude of Eurasians to the Bolshe-

1Florovsky G.V. Ind.works, p. 328–321.

2Ibidem, p. 328.

3Horujy S.S. Life and Doctrine of Lev Karsavin // Intr. to art.: Kar-

savin L.P. Religious and Philosophic Works. Vol. 1. М.: Renessans, 1992. p. XLII.

4 Florovsky G.V. Ind. works, p. 316.

100

viks. However revolutionary distemper and civil war, – Florovsky considers, – necessary first of all to overcome spiritually what Eurasians have failed to understand.

But the basic shortcoming of the Eurasian ideology, – in the opinion of Florovsky, – consists in consideration of the «religious principles « from the «territorial» point of view. These principles for them – «the same general beginning as, the beginning of «life». As a result the «religious principles «depending on» places of development», receive multiple expression and only in a package of these «local» expressions may be carried out». According to Eurasians the «religious origins» «are included in the structure of cultural – standard originality, as well as in plurality of «local clothes». Here Florovsky accuses Eurasians of religious relativity, an inconsiderate attitude to this thin substance, as it turns out, that «all historic religions and religious forms are considered as equal «individuates» or an embodiment of the general religious elements, the same «religious origins»1.

Elder Slavophiles are closer to Florovsky, as their philosophy of a history is Christ centered. The Slavophiles have realized the tragedy of the West, and the Eurasians don’t notice it; Slavophiles through the name of Christ unite Russia and the West, and Eurasians lean to the side of Asia which results in sinking Russian, orthodox features. He considers that Eurasians mix up geographical, ethnic, sociological, religious motives. Here the religious motive stands in a general line of denominators that results in its leveling when it is forgotten, that the real religious – cultural border is set by the Orthodoxy. Understanding the difference of beliefs Eurasians try to set up a religious unity of Eurasia, but «in a strange way, – Florovsky emphasizes, – without removing sides of a belief». Toleration of Eurasians also covers mystical sphere, what in any way is impossible. The «seductive and false theory» of potential Orthodoxy « is being composed2. And the Orthodoxy

1Ibidem, p. 328.

2Florovsky G.V. Ind. works, p. 333–334 and 335.

101