home Boiler room I. Socio-political and theoretical-methodological views of S.M.

I. Socio-political and theoretical-methodological views of S.M.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many pressing issues of his time, such as law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution, and the fate of Russia. In his master's thesis "The Crisis in Western Philosophy. Against Positivism" (1881), he relied heavily on the critical generalizations of I.V. Kireevsky, on his synthesis of philosophical and religious ideas, on the idea of the integrity of life, although he did not share his messianic motives and opposition Russian Orthodoxy of all Western thought. His own criticism of Western European rationalism was also based on the arguments of some European thinkers.

Subsequently, the philosopher softened his general assessment of positivism, which at one time became not just a fashion in Russia, but also an object of idolatry. As a result, “only half of his teaching was presented as the whole Comte, while the other—and in the teacher’s opinion, the more significant, definitive—was kept silent.” Comte’s teaching contained, according to Solovyov’s conclusion, “a grain of great truth” (the idea of humanity), however, a truth that was “falsely conditioned and one-sidedly expressed” (The Idea of Humanity in August Comte. 1898).

Being a patriot, he at the same time came to the conviction of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. “Russia possesses, perhaps, important and original spiritual forces, but in order to manifest them, in any case, it needs to accept and actively assimilate those universal forms of life and knowledge that were developed by Western Europe. Our extra-European and anti-European originality has always been and is an empty claim; to renounce this claim is the first and necessary condition every success."

Among the positive social forms He attributed the rule of law to the life of Western Europe, although for him it was not the final embodiment of human solidarity, but only a step to the highest form of communication. On this issue, he clearly moved away from the Slavophiles, whose views he initially shared.

His attitude towards the ideal of theocracy developed differently, in the discussion of which he paid tribute to his passion for the idea of a universal theocracy under the leadership of Rome and with the participation of autocratic Russia. In discussing the problems of organizing theocracy (the “divine-human theocratic society”), Solovyov identifies three elements of its social structure: priests (Part God), princes and rulers (the active human part) and the people of the earth (the passive human part). Such a division, according to the philosopher, naturally follows from the necessity of the historical process and constitutes the organic form of a theocratic society, and this form “does not violate the internal essential equality of all from an unconditional point of view” (i.e., the equality of all in their human dignity). The need for personal leaders of the people is determined by the “passive nature of the masses” (History and future of theocracy. Study of the world-historical path to true life. 1885–1887). Later, the philosopher experienced the collapse of his hopes associated with the idea of theocracy.

His discussions of social Christianity and Christian politics turned out to be more fruitful and promising. Here he actually continued to develop the liberal doctrine of Westerners. Soloviev believed that true Christianity must be social, that along with individual salvation it requires social activity and social reforms. This characteristic constituted the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy (Justification of Good. 1897).

Political organization, in Solovyov’s view, is primarily a natural-human good, as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Christianity gives us the highest good, spiritual good, and at the same time does not take away from us the lower natural goods - “and does not pull out from under our feet the ladder along which we walk” (Justification of Good).

Here the Christian state and Christian politics are called upon to have special significance. “The Christian state, if it does not remain an empty name, must have a certain difference from the pagan state, even if they, as states, have the same basis and a common basis.” There is, the philosopher emphasizes, a moral necessity for the state. In addition to the general and traditional protective task that every state provides (to protect the foundations of communication, without which humanity could not exist), the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of this existence, promoting the “free development of all human forces that should become bearers of the coming Kingdom of God."

The rule of true progress is that the state should constrain as little as possible inner world man, providing him with the free spiritual action of the church, and at the same time, as accurately and widely as possible, provided external conditions “for the worthy existence and improvement of people.”

Another important aspect political, organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here Solovyov traces the contours of a concept that will later be called the concept of a social state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a dignified existence. The normal connection between church and state finds its expression in the “constant consent of their highest representatives” - the high priest and the king." Next to these bearers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there must be in society a bearer of unconditional freedom - a person. This freedom cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be “an attribute of democracy” - a person must “earn real freedom through internal deeds.”

The right of freedom is based on the very essence of man and must be ensured externally by the state. True, the degree of implementation of this right is something that entirely depends on internal conditions, on the degree of achieved moral consciousness. French revolution had undeniably valuable experience in this area, which was associated with the “declaration of human rights.” This announcement was historically new in relation not only to ancient world and the Middle Ages, but also in later Europe. But in this revolution there were two faces - “the proclamation of human rights first, and then the unheard-of systematic trampling of all such rights by the revolutionary authorities.” Of the two principles - “man” and “citizen”, incoherently, according to Solovyov, juxtaposed side by side, instead of subordinating the second to the first, the lower principle (“citizen”), as more concrete and visual, turned out to be stronger in fact and soon “overshadowed the highest, and then absorbed it out of necessity.” It was impossible to add the phrase “and citizen” after “human rights” in the formula of human rights, since this would confuse heterogeneous things and put “conditional” on the same level. With unconditional." It is impossible for a sane person to say even to a criminal or a mentally ill person, “You are not a man!”, but it is much easier to say, “Yesterday you were a citizen.” (The idea of humanity in August Comte.)

Solovyov’s legal understanding, in addition to a general respectful attitude towards the idea of law (law as a value), is also characterized by the desire to highlight and highlight moral value law, legal institutions and principles. This position is reflected in his very definition of law, according to which law is, first of all, “the lowest limit or some minimum of morality, equally obligatory for everyone” (Law and Morality. Essays on Applied Ethics. 1899).

Natural law for him is not some kind of isolated natural law that historically precedes positive law. Nor does it constitute a moral criterion for the latter, as, for example, with E. N. Trubetskoy. Solovyov’s natural law, like Comte’s, is a formal idea of law, rationally derived from general principles philosophy. Natural law and positive law are for him only two different points of view on the same subject.

At the same time, natural law embodies the “rational essence of law,” and positive law personifies the historical manifestation of law. The latter is a right realized depending “on the state of moral consciousness in given society and from other historical conditions." It is clear that these conditions predetermine the features of the constant addition of natural law to positive law.

“Natural law is that algebraic formula into which history substitutes various real values of positive law.” Natural law comes down entirely to two factors - freedom and equality, i.e. it, in fact, is the algebraic formula of any law, its rational (reasonable) essence. At the same time, the ethical minimum, which was mentioned earlier, is inherent not only in natural law, but also in positive law.

Freedom is a necessary substrate, and equality is its necessary formula. The goal of a normal society and law is the public good. This goal is general, and not only collective (not the sum of individual goals). This common goal essentially internally connects everyone. The unification of each and every one occurs through joint actions in achieving a common goal. Law strives to realize justice, but the desire is only a general tendency, the “logos” and meaning of law.

Positive law only embodies and realizes (sometimes not quite perfectly) this general tendency into concrete forms. Law (justice) is in the same relationship with religious morality (love) as the state and the church are. Moreover, love is the moral principle of the church, and justice is the moral principle of the state. Law, in contrast to the “norms of love and religion,” presupposes a compulsory requirement for the implementation of the minimum good.

“The concept of law, by its very nature, contains an objective element or a requirement for implementation.” It is necessary that the right always has the power to be realized, that is, that the freedom of others “regardless of my subjective recognition of it or of my personal justice can always in fact limit my freedom to the same extent as everyone else.” Law in its historical dimension appears as a “historically mobile definition of the necessary forced balance of two moral interests – personal freedom and the common good.” The same thing in another formulation is revealed as a balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good.

Solovyov’s legal understanding had a noticeable influence on the legal views of Novgorodtsev, Trubetskoy, Bulgakov, Berdyaev, as well as on the general course of discussions on the relationship between church and state during the “Russian religious renaissance” (the first decade of the 20th century).

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874–1948) was one of the authoritative participants in the Russian religious revival at the beginning of the century, the initiator of the creation of the Academy of Spiritual Culture (1918–1922). In 1922 he was expelled from the RSFSR, lived in France, published the magazine “Put” (1925–1940), wrote a lot himself and published in almost all European and many eastern languages. He grew up in a military family, originating from an ancient Russian noble family and Tatar families, the count family of Choiseul and from the descendants of French kings. For participation in a socialist circle, he was expelled from the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv and exiled to the Vologda province. In exile, he met with B. Savinkov, G. Plekhanov, A. Lunacharsky and other future prominent figures of the revolutionary movement. University education was cut short forever, but Berdyaev managed to become an extremely educated person and was elected professor at Moscow University. Having moved from liberal Marxism to the position of idealism, he turned to the search for a “new path” in religious consciousness and problems of a historiosophical and eschatological nature. He was also involved in building a unique version of personalist philosophy, which made him a recognized authority in the field of the philosophy of existentialism.

Together with S. Bulgakov, P. Struve and S. Frank, Berdyaev was a participant in all three manifestos of Russian idealist philosophers of the first quarter of the century - the collections “Problems of Idealism” (1902), “Milestones” (1909), “From the Depths” (1918) . They are sometimes called "Vehovism" manifestos. These publications became, in fact, an external fixation of the movement from liberal Marxism through a kind of moral liberalism to a national-patriotic outlook in the spirit of liberal conservatism with such foundations as religion, idealism, liberalism, patriotism, traditionalism and democracy.

The main theme of the collection "Vekhi", published after the revolution of 1905, focused on the call to break with the traditions of Bakunin, Chernyshevsky, Lavrov and Mikhailovsky, which led the country to the abyss, and to return to the objective foundations of Russian history and to the tradition represented by the names of Chaadaev, Dostoevsky and Vl. Solovyova. Berdyaev addressed this topic in subsequent years.

Characterizing the relationship between Marxism and the Russian revolutionary movement, which he often also calls Russian communism, Berdyaev in a 1929 pamphlet. “Marxism and Religion (Religion as a Tool of Domination and Exploitation)” wrote that Marxism is in any case “a very serious phenomenon in the historical destinies of mankind.” At the same time, he believed that “classical Marxism is very outdated and no longer corresponds at all to either modern social reality or modern level scientific and philosophical knowledge." Marxism claims to be a complete worldview, answering all the basic questions of life, giving meaning to life. It is politics, morality, science, and philosophy. It is a religion - a new religion, replacing the Christian one. Marxism inspired and inspired by the increasing organized power of the social collective over the world. Unlike Russian populist socialism, which was inspired by compassion for the people and sacrifice for the sake of their liberation and salvation, Marxist socialism, according to Berdyaev, is inspired by the power and control over the world on the part of the proletariat. "Strong and the organized proletariat, ruling over the world, is the earthly God, which must replace the Christian God and kill all old religious beliefs in the human soul." The messianic role of the proletariat constitutes the main myth of Marxism. The nightmare of Russian Marxism lies, first of all, in what it brings with it death to human freedom.Communism is the negation not only of God, but also of man, and both of these negations are interconnected.

Berdyaev called the topic of power and the justification of the state “a very Russian topic” and agreed with K. Leontyev that Russian statehood with strong power was created thanks to the Tatar and German elements. Developing this theme in “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism” (1937), Berdyaev wrote that in Russian history we see “five different Russias” - Kiev Russia, Russia of the Tatar period, Moscow Russia, Peter's Russia, imperial Russia and, finally, the new one. Soviet Russia. He considered it very characteristic that anarchism as a theory and practice was the creation of mainly Russians, and the anarchist ideology itself was primarily created by the highest layer of the Russian nobility - such was the main and most extreme anarchist Bakunin, such was Prince Kropotkin and the religious anarchist Count L. Tolstoy.

Berdyaev believed that Russians feel the evil and sin of any power more strongly than Western people. But one may be surprised by the contradiction between Russian anarchism and love of freedom and Russian submission to the state, the consent of the people to serve the formation of a huge empire. The increase in state power, sucking all the juice out of the people, had the reverse side of Russian freemen, withdrawal from the state, physical or spiritual. The Russian schism is the main phenomenon of Russian history. On the basis of the split, anarchist movements formed. The same thing happened in Russian sectarianism. The departure from the state was justified by the fact that there was no truth in it; it was not Christ who triumphed, but the Antichrist.

Russian communism in Soviet Russia, according to Berdyaev, was a perversion of the Russian messianic idea. Russian communism affirms the light from the East, which should enlighten the bourgeois darkness of the West. Communism has its truth and its lies. Truth is social, revealing the possibility of the brotherhood of people and nations, overcoming classes; the lie is in the spiritual foundations, which lead to the process of dehumanization, to the denial of the value of every person, to the narrowing of human consciousness, which has already been observed in Russian nihilism. Communism exists Russian phenomenon, despite the Marxist ideology. “Communism is the Russian destiny, the moment of the inner destiny of the Russian people. And it must be overcome by the internal forces of the Russian people. Communism must be overcome, not destroyed. The truth of communism, but freed from lies, must enter the highest stage that will come after communism "The Russian Revolution awakened and unleashed the enormous forces of the Russian people. This is its main meaning."

Revolutionism, according to Berdyaev, consists in the radical destruction of the rotten, lied and bad past, but it is impossible to destroy the eternally valuable, authentic in the past. Thus, the most valuable positive traits of the Russian person, discovered by him during the years of revolution and war, – extraordinary sacrifice, endurance to suffering, the spirit of communitarianism (sociability) - these are Christian traits developed by Christianity. The opposite of such a revolution is a revolutionary utopia, which, unfortunately, also has a chance to become a reality. “Utopias, unfortunately, are feasible. And perhaps the time will come when humanity will puzzle over how to get rid of utopias.” This last thought captivated the famous English creator of dystopian novels, Aldous Huxley, who took it as the epigraph to the novel “This Fearless New World.”

Berdyaev went down in the history of Russian political thought as a recipient of the traditions of social-critical philosophy, which has always been distinguished in its best examples by increased sensitivity to the diseases of the century and its social environment. In the first half of the century, many studied Russia according to Berdyaev, and he himself was called either an apostle, or a captive of freedom, or a rebellious prophet, intolerant of servility and compromise. He himself admitted that all his life he fought for freedom and that all his clashes with people and trends occurred because of freedom.

Berdyaev outlined his political credo in the chapter of his autobiography devoted to issues of revolution and socialism. “The entire political structure of this world,” he wrote, “is designed for the average, ordinary, mass person, in whom there is nothing creative. The state, objective morality, revolutions and counter-revolutions are based on this. At the same time, there is a divine ray in every liberation. Revolutions "I consider them inevitable. They are fatal in the absence or weakness of creative spiritual forces capable of radically reforming and transforming society. But every state and every revolution, every organization of power falls under the rule of the prince of this world."

Unlike Vl. Solovyov Berdyaev unambiguously expressed his deep doubt about the possibility of the existence of a “Christian state” for the reason that Christianity itself only “justifies and sanctifies the state” and government itself a phenomenon of the order of “natural, not grace.” In addition, every state, by its nature, is also an ambiguous phenomenon - it has a positive mission (“not in vain, providential” meaning) and at the same time it “perverts this very mission with the sinful lust of power and all untruths” (Philosophy of Inequality. 1923).

Socialism and anarchism - as the last temptations of humanity - ultimately “reach non-existence” due to their thirst for equality (socialism) or their thirst for freedom (anarchism). In this regard, the church (it is called upon to “protect the image of man” from the demons of nature), the state (it “protects the image of man from the bestial elements” and from “evil will that goes beyond all limits”), law (it “protects freedom man from the evil will of people and the whole society"), the law (it exposes sin, sets limits to it, "makes possible a minimum of freedom in sinful human life").

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many pressing issues of his time - law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution, the fate of Russia.

Vl. Over time, Soloviev became perhaps the most authoritative representative of Russian philosophy, including the philosophy of law, who did a lot to substantiate the idea that law and legal beliefs are absolutely necessary for moral progress. At the same time, he sharply distanced himself from Slavophil idealism, based on an “ugly mixture of fantastic perfections with bad reality” and from the moralistic radicalism of L. Tolstoy, flawed primarily by the total denial of law. Being a patriot, he at the same time came to the conviction of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. He considered the rule of law to be one of the positive social forms of life in Western Europe, although for him it was not the final embodiment of human solidarity, but only a step to a higher form of communication. On this issue, he clearly moved away from the Slavophiles, whose views he initially shared. His discussions on the topic of social Christianity and Christian politics turned out to be fruitful and promising. Here he actually continued to develop the liberal doctrine of Westerners. Soloviev believed that true Christianity must be social, that along with individual salvation it requires social activity and social reforms. This characteristic constituted the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy. Political organization, in Solovyov’s view, is primarily a natural-human good, as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Here the Christian state and Christian politics are called upon to have special significance. There is, the philosopher emphasizes, a moral necessity for the state. In addition to the general and traditional protective task that every state provides, the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of this existence, promoting “the free development of all human powers that should become bearers of the coming Kingdom of God.”

The rule of true progress is that the state should constrain the inner world of a person as little as possible, leaving it to the free spiritual action of the church, and at the same time, as accurately and broadly as possible, provide external conditions “for the dignified existence and improvement of people.”

Another important aspect of political organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here Solovyov traces the contours of a concept that will later be called the concept of a social state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a dignified existence. The normal relationship between church and state is expressed in “the constant consent of their highest representatives - the high priest and the king.” Next to these bearers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there should also be a bearer of unconditional freedom in society - a person. This freedom cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be an “attribute of democracy” - a person must “earn real freedom through inner feat.”

Solovyov's legal understanding had a noticeable influence on the legal views of Novgorodtsev, Trubetskoy, Bulgakov, and Berdyaev.

Psychological school of law in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Political conservatism in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The views of the later Slavophiles were generally marked by patriotic cultural nationalism and an increased degree of distrust of the European political experience with its representative government, the idea of equality and respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822–1885) in the book “Russia and Europe. A look at the cultural and political relations of the Slavic world to the German-Roman world" (1871) developed the theory of cultural-historical types human civilization. He believed that no special guarantees of political and civil rights were possible, except for those that the supreme power would want to provide to its people. Danilevsky ridiculed the idea of a “social Russian parliament,” but unlike other neo-Slavophiles, he highly valued the importance of freedom of speech, considering it not a privilege, but a natural right.

Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev (1831–1891) was concerned about the danger of change for the identity and integrity of the national body, and above all, the dangers of the impending egalitarian-liberal progress. Leontiev shared the position of the author of “Russia and Europe” in the sense that all history consists of nothing more than a change of cultural types, and each of them “had its own purpose and left special indelible traces. Discussing the topic of “Russian statehood,” Leontyev was inclined to derive its nature from the Byzantine and partly European heritage. Leontyev’s assessments of the situation in Russia and Europe were based on an analysis of trends and general patterns in the life of state organisms, which they discovered in the course of social history. At the beginning of the development of the state, the aristocratic principle manifests itself most strongly; in the middle of the life of the state organism, a tendency towards individual power appears, and only “in old age and death does the democratic, egalitarian and liberal principle reign.” IN Russian history- “Great Russian life and state life” - he saw the deep penetration of Byzantism, that is, the unity of a strong state with the church.

Among the great Russian writers who left a noticeable mark in the history of social and political thought, F. M. Dostoevsky (1821–1881) occupies a significant place. He wrote the words: “We Russians have two homelands: our Rus' and Europe” (in a note on about the death of George Sand). Later, Dostoevsky significantly changed this opinion, especially after a trip to Europe, and began to agree with Eve. Aksakov in the perception of Europe as a “cemetery”, recognizing it not only as “rotting”, but already “dead” - of course, for a “higher view”. However, his denial did not seem final - he retained faith in the possibility of “the resurrection of all of Europe” thanks to Russia (in a letter to Strakhov, 1869). Dostoevsky raised and illuminated the question of the relationship between the material and spiritual needs of man in the process of radical social change, and the contradiction between “bread and freedom.” Russian religious and philosophical thought represented by Vl. Solovyov, F. Dostoevsky, K. Leontyev, and later S. Bulgakov and N. Berdyaev made a very original attempt to synthesize all their contemporary ideas about the role of Russia in the world-historical process and about the peculiarities of the assimilation of the values of European culture. The implementation of this plan in practice is nevertheless marked by the stamp of one-sidedness: in Dostoevsky due to the predominance of soil orientations, in Solovyov due to the utopian nature of his plans, in Berdyaev due to the “deep antinomy” discovered by him and greatly exaggerated in its influence in Russian life and the Russian spirit.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many pressing issues of his time - law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution, the fate of Russia.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many pressing problems of his time - law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution, the fate of Russia.

Vl. Over time, Soloviev became perhaps the most authoritative representative of Russian philosophy, incl. philosophy of law, which has done a lot to substantiate the idea that law and legal beliefs are absolutely necessary for moral progress. At the same time, he sharply distanced himself from Slavophil idealism, based on “an ugly mixture of fantastic perfections with bad reality” and from the moralistic radicalism of L. Tolstoy, flawed primarily by the total denial of law. Being a patriot, he at the same time came to the conviction of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. He considered the rule of law to be one of the positive social forms of life in Western Europe, although for him it was not the final embodiment of human solidarity, but only a step to a higher form of communication. On this issue, he clearly moved away from the Slavophiles, whose views he initially shared. His discussions on the topic of social Christianity and Christian politics turned out to be fruitful and promising. Here he actually continued to develop the liberal doctrine of Westerners. Soloviev believed that true Christianity must be social, that along with individual salvation it requires social activity and social reforms. By the way, this characteristic constituted the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy. It is worth saying that political organization in Solovyov’s view is primarily a natural-human good, as necessary for our life as our physical body. Here the Christian state and Christian politics are called upon to have special significance. There is, the philosopher emphasizes, a moral necessity for the state. In addition to the general and beyond the traditional protective task, which every state provides, the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of its existence, promoting “the free development of all human forces, which should become bearers of the coming Kingdom of God.”

The rule of true progress is that the state should constrain the inner world of man as little as possible, leaving it free to the spiritual action of the church, and at the same time, as accurately and broadly as possible, provide external conditions “for the dignified existence and improvement of people.”

Another important aspect of political organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here Solovyov traces the contours of a concept that will later be called the concept of a social state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a dignified existence. The normal relationship between church and state finds its expression in “the constant consent of their highest representatives - the high priest and the king.” Next to these bearers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there must also be a bearer of unconditional power in society - a person. By the way, this body cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be an “attribute of democracy” - a person must “earn” a real body by inner feat.

Solovyov's legal understanding had a noticeable influence on the legal views of Novgorodtsev, Trubetskoy, Bulgakov, and Berdyaev.