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

itself breaks apart in «many confessions», national ones by type. Florovsky is not agree with the praise of paganism by Eurasians, as if it in the self-development approaching the Orthodoxy, that the same process should take place for Buddhism and Islam.

Completing his analysis of the Eurasian attitude to the Orthodoxy Florovsky comes to the following conclusion: «Eurasians consider and should consider the Orthodoxy as a cultural and everyday detail, as a historical property of Russia. Eurasians feel the Orthodox elements, experience and understand the Orthodoxy as a historical and everyday fact, as a subconscious «center of gravitation» for the Eurasian world, as its potentiality. At the same time, they determine certain historical tasks of Eurasia with reference not to this «center», not from alive Orthodox and cultural consciousness, but from reflections of theosophical, ethnic, state and organizational character... By this in their consciousness Russia turns to a «Heritage of Chingis Khan». Thus Russia is being removed from the «prospect of Christian history, christened world», and the «Byzantian inheritance» is covered by «Mongolian» one1. There is no place for Church remained, and there is place only for the state with church when the latter is being overloaded with secular content. Florovsky reproaches the Eurasian doctrine in «blood soil doctrine», i.e. only in territorial part, but not spiritual one. But spiritual soil doctrine is possible, apparently, only through the depth of orthodoxy.

Thus instead of the Eurasian geosophic concepts of geophilosophy and geohistory Florovsky put forward opposite principles of spiritual creativity, eschatological historicity and all-mankind, because for him the national spirit had not been given biologically, but is being created historically through the transcendental belief. By this he was approaching the line supported by Dostoevsky and Vl. Solovyov.

V.V. Zen'kovsky in his work «The Russian Thinkers and Europe» (1926) writes, that the Eurasian plan of creating the «Or-

1 Ibidem, p. 336 and 337.

102

thodox culture» «was pretty narrow and poor», as it had been limited by Eurasians to a reconstruction of «Orthodox way of life», «darken certain – national confession», which in any way does not complete the idea of Orthodox culture at all.

Additionally due to the fact that the pathos of the Eurasian doctrine is in the struggle against the West, there is «completely no attention to the experience of Western Christianity». In this connection the Eurasians «stand as though in a historical desert...». So N.S. Troubetskoy considered, that the European culture is not common to all mankind. «European culture, – Troubetskoy writes, – is the product of certain ethnic group history to which they give a form of universal culture with no reason». Zenkovsky sees the Troubetskoy’s fault and the Eurasian doctrine as a whole in that they have not realized the «universalism of Christian ideal» which is present in the grounds and the whole life of West-European culture and which is not identical to cosmopolitism. In opinion of Zen’kovsky, there is no chauvinism in claims of Europe for the development of universal culture, because the «ideals which inspired and still inspiring European history, have not local, but universal character»1.

Zenkovsky concludes, that the Eurasian doctrine cannot live with the hatred against the West. But his attempt to work out a positive ideology which would be based on the concept of «Orthodox culture» has remained as an attempt. Zenkovsky considers, that in general the Orthodoxy had been adopted in the Eurasian ideology superficially and accidentally.

According to S.S. Horujy’s modern researches, Eurasians had an «plebeianise materialistic approach to spiritual problems, which had been related with their predilection for simplified plans»2. This «inborn and patrimonial defect of the Eurasian doctrine» could not be removed by formal statements on adherence

1Zen’kovsky V.V. Russian Thinkers and Europe. М.: Respoublika, 1997. P. 83 and 84.

2Horujy S.S. Russia, Eurasia and Father Georgy Florovsky. p. 28.

103

to the Orthodoxy. The Eurasian methodology has resulted in, – S.S. Horujy summarizes, – that the originality began to be interpreted «in general in material categories, being reduced down to ethnic and geographical factors – so, in a result, the orthodoxy got a quality of a local or tribal cult»1. Florovsky also tried to resist this tendency to plebeianise and land spiritual problematic.

On the basis of the analysis carried out it seems to be possible to verify a negative attitude of Orthodox philosophers to the Eurasian plan. Big part in their criticism is objective, but many things come only from confessional or monoreligious arrangement while the Eurasians tried to overcome the limits of rigid religious direction, taking into account that Russia is a polyreligious and intercontinental state. Meanwhile Florovsky considered the essence of Eurasian doctrine as not contradicting to his religious outlook. Emphasizing, that the fathers’ doctrine is a single true basis, he noted, that «the antiquity» in itself does not prove the validity». The tradition of fathers for him does not consist in a constancy of ceremonies and customs: the tradition is a blossoming establishment, and the Church should not be limited by the letter. Theology is not a «science, it should be addressed to the «vision of belief»2. This is the essence of «neopatristic synthesis» by Florovsky.

For Florovsky the Eurasian doctrine is not just a collection of political slogans, though political realization quite may be a logic consequence of the developed philosophical concept. Florovsky proceeds from a «primate of culture above the public», considering, that in the basis of all there should be belief. In this connection he considered philosophical reflection instead of political strike as the most important national question. «Or we can revive culturally and rise in spirit, or Russia is already lost», – he asserted in 1921. He proposed to name the Eurasian movement not a political party, but the «league of Russian culture»3.

1Horujy S.S. Life and Doctrine of Lev Karsavin. С. XLII.

2Florovsky G.V. Dogma and History. P. 377 and 381.

3Ibidem, 126.

104

In this connection Florovsky aspired to present the deep essence of the «Eurasian» outlook for setting up consciousness, oriented on personal responsibility, creative comprehension of life problems that should result in «internal» regeneration «and salvation of Russia». The Eurasian idea is considered by him as a «true nationalism», as nationalism of not political character, but first of all of spiritual one, because «the nation is a spiritual beginning»1. As spiritual matter is based on unconditional respect for a person, Florovsky tried to avert the Eurasian movement from Bolshevism (at the same time recognizing historical necessity in revolution), but, alas, in vain. Finally this brought the given movement to degeneration. Florovsky considered, that the Eurasian ideology had been in a plane of «true nationalism» which could not be connected to the Bolshevism.

Thus Florovsky called to begin developing and realizing the Eurasian idea not with political activity, economic repair or a state restoration, and even hypostasing the nation, but with spiritual revival of a person and cultural renovation. Thus «the person should be the original criteria and directing task of cultural creativity»2.

Seeing that the Eurasian movement included rather multidirectional thinkers, Florovsky tried to accent on that positive, what could be unite all of them. He did not aspire to put forward any dogma as an uniting beginning (being an Orthodox philosopher). He put forward a general spirit, characterized by fundamental rejection of positivism, narrow rationalism and chiliastic historicism.

The latter (theory of progress) was panned by his critics for its naive, «poor-spirited and corrupted « belief in « immanent expediency. He named such a position and understanding of historical development the most « irresponsible « and a harmful mood of spirit. He considered, that «intuitively tangible «meaning of

1Florovsky G.V. From the Past of Russian Conception. p. 126.

2Florovsky G.V. Dogma and History. p. 128.

105

life» could save but not «the logic of history» and «spontaneous – inevitable process». This historical progressism has grown on the ground of «rationalistic optimism» and caused rational «philosophy of history». Therefore Florovsky subjects rigid and deep criticism the guiding ideas of German classical philosophy from Kant to Hegel which had formed the basis for various forms of social utopianism.

Stating the considered ideas Florovsky did not take responsibility for the overall movement. He admitted that he had expressed his own opinion exclusively and did not mean his colleagues from the «Outcome to the East» collection. The problem of the given manifest of the Eurasians he understood as putting for discussion a cultural – philosophical problem of sense of Russian history, drawing attention to the problems of spiritual creativity, awakening aspirations to culture, to the true values, instead of imaginary ones. And that was not his fault that his words appeared to be as a «voice in the wilderness». May be this call will be heard and creatively interpreted by descendants in the future?

106

theoretical and practical aspects. Politics is inconceiveable without morality, as it transforms into something else when outside it. Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) has understood it perfectly, as he considers that political theory is a branch of moral philosophy which starts from applying moral categories to political relations1.

eral arms reductions by the USA. As to modern scholars, B.G. Kapustin, referring to the great «humanist», Thomas Hobbes, mentions in the very beginning of his book that «morality does not guide policy or act as its ‘foundation’; on the contrary, policy ‘updates’ morality and brings it to life, whereas before that, it was just empty dreams or helpless contemplative ‘knowledge’ about the ‘things that should be’» (Капустин Б.Г. Моральный выбор в политике. М., 2004). (Kapustin B.G. Moral Choice in Politics. Moscow, 2004. P. 5). However, this statement contains lots of confusing issues. One can agree with that policy updates (or should update) morality, but only in its own sphere – that of policy and for policy’s sake. Indeed, the «natural laws are silent in their natural state» (Hobbes), and policies are needed to increase morality of the whole society. Yet morality can exist without and beyond politics, because it permeates all social relations without exception. On the other hand, daydreaming and «helpless watching» are not the qualities of morality but an indicator of its degeneracy and immorality. Morality is always active and always efficient. It cannot be different according to its mere definition. Yet ethics, the science of morality, can be dreamy and helpless. This is exactly what Hobbes means in the passage quoted by B.G. Kapustin, stating, «the science of morality of a human as such, taken out of the state organization (i. e., beyond politics – B.K.) cannot be created» (quoted ibid.). Thus, morality is wider than politics and is not exhausted by it; therefore, it does not arise due to politics, it is not absorbed by it (though the policy must be moral.) However, the position discussed here is known before in the history of political philosophy: this is Machiavelli, who will be discussed below.

Besides, one cannot agree with the distinguished political scientist’s statement that «violence is no accident, but a part of the very substance of the category of ‘politics’» (Капустин Б.Г. К понятию политического насилия //

Полис. 2003. № 6.) (Kapustin B.G. On the Concept of Political Violence // Polis. 2003. No 6. P. 6.) The policy structured around the power and due to it includes coercion whose arsenal is not limited to violence, and the latter is not even necessary within it. Moreover, it should be excluded from the political sphere when it comes to its moral aspect. Only non-violent forms of coercion and forcing are applicable (I. Ilyin).

1 Берлин Исаия. Поиски идеала // Подлинная цель познания. М., 2002. (Berlin Isaiah. In the search of the ideal // The genuine aim of knowledge. Moscow, 2002. P. 3–4).

108

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) is a key figure in the context of analyzing the issue of the interrelation between politics and morality, as his works represent a sort of division line between the classical (Plato and Aristotle) and medieval political thought, on the one hand, and new European and modern ones, on the other hand. Through the prism of his ideas, the issue of the correlation between politics and morality within the history of political philosophy may be considered. Machiavelli is regarded as the first political thinker of the new epoch, as he «has broken off from all the preceding tradition of political philosophy. He has compared his achievements with the acts of such people as Columbus, claiming that he has opened a new continent of morality… The only question is whether this continent is suitable for humans to dwell in»1, modern political philosopher Leo Strauss asks. We shall therefore examine the four possible variants of the relation between morality and politics.

§ 1. Machiavelliʹs Thesis

Machiavelli’s thesis may be formulated as follows: a good political end justifies all the means2. Thus, Machiavelli writes about a political figure as follows, «Let his actions be blamed, if they are justified by their results, and he will always be justified,

1Штраус Л. Что такое политическая философия? // Введение в по-

литическую философию. М., 2000. (Straus L. What Is Political Philosophy? // An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Moscow, 2000. P. 37).

2The problem of good ends and means used to achieve them was discussed by Francisco Suarez (1548–1617), the Jesuit. He believes that if the good intention is God himself, any means used for getting closer to him are justified. But if God, by definition, is an absolute good, means used for getting closer to him when necessary can only be good ones. In metaphysics, it is true, but the Jesuits have extended this conclusion to their own notions of God, who could desire violence for the sake of the good. The rudiments of such an interpretation can be found already in St. Augustine’s works, who mentions being «constrained to enter», i. e. assumes that violence is applicable for converting pagans to the true faith.

109

if the results turn out to be good…»1. This thesis should be understood correctly, as it is not developed for merely justifying violence. As L. Belas mentions, «politics is the basic point of Machiavelli’s meditations, where the highest political norm is represented by the self-protection of the state as a political community. Yet it should not be regarded as a goal in itself. It has turned out that Machiavelli regards the state as a guarantee of securing man’s life, freedom, and citizens’ property»2. To Machiavelli, «public welfare» has always been the goal. A political leader should «avoid deviating from good, if possible, yet be able to tread the path of evil if necessary»3.

This evil committed for the sake of good has been perfectly described by Dostoyevsky in his Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov’s ideas driving him to murder are based on the supposition that the end justifies the means, «… on one side we have a stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman, not simply useless but doing actual mischief, who has not an idea what she is living for herself, and who will die in a day or two in any case. <…> On the other side, fresh young lives thrown away for want of help and by thousands, on every side! A hundred thousand good deeds could be done and helped, on that old woman’s money which will be buried in a monastery! Hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path; dozens of families saved from destitution, from ruin, from vice, from the Lock hospitals – and all with her money. Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good

1Макиавелли Н. Государь или Рассуждение на первые три книги Тита Ливия. СПб., 1869. (Machiavelli N. The Prince, or Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. Saint Petersburg, 1869. P. 148).

2Белас Л. Власть и добродетель в «Государстве» Макиавелли //

Вестник РУДН. Сер. Философия. № 1, 2010. М., 2010. (Belas L. Power and Good in The State by Machiavelli. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Philosophy Series. No 1, 2010. Moscow, 2010. P. 45–46).

3Макиавелли Н. Соч. Т. 1. М.; Л., 1934. (Machiavelli N. Works. V. 1. Moscow; Leningrad, 1934. P. 289).

110

of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds? For one life thousands would be saved from corruption and decay. One death, and a hundred lives in exchange – it’s simple arithmetic? Besides, what value has the life of that sickly, stupid, ill-natured old woman in the balance of existence? No more than the life of a louse, of a black beetle, less in fact because the old woman is doing harm. She is wearing out the lives of others; the other day she bit Lizaveta’s finger out of spite; it almost had to be amputated» (VI, 54)1.

Dostoyevsky took the plotlines of his books from life, which supplied them abundantly. Let us consider, for instance, the passage from the program of Narodnaya Volya Executive Committee: «The end justifies the means when it comes to the government which should be treated as the enemy, – i. e., we consider any means to be applicable if they lead us to the end»2.

In general, according to P. Gaidenko, the works by Dostoyevsky are important in this context, because «he has noticed the danger of socialist doctrines spreading in Russia earlier than the others; he has evidently demonstrated that they are based on an essentially atheistic principle of self-assertion of an autonomous personality, who is convinced that the existent public order may and should be re-constructed by means of science, even if it implies resorting to violence»3.

In the late 15th – early 16th century, the Renaissance humanism in Italy was in a profound crisis. The tragic reality broke the

1Here and below quoted: Полн. собр. соч. Ф.М. Достоевского в 30-ти томах (Ленинград, 1972–1990) (Full Works by F. M. Dostoevsky in 30 Volumes (Leningrad, 1972–1990); the references to this publication are given in the text with the volume number and page indicated in parentheses.

2Революционное народничество 70-х годов XIX века. Сборник до-

кументов и материалов. В 2 т. Т. 2. М.; Л., 1965. (Revolutionary Populism of the 1870’s. A Collection of Documents and Materials. 2 Volumes. V. 2. Moscow; Leningrad, 1965. P. 174).

3Гайденко П.Л. Владимир Соловьев и философия Серебряного ве-

ка. Москва, 2001. С. 15. (Gaidenko P.L. Vladimir Soloviev and the Philosophy of the Silver Age. Moscow, 2001. P. 15).

111