Konstantin Antonov

A Political Dimension of the Russian Religious Philosophy

Konstantin Antonov - Head, Chair of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Aspects of Culture, Department of Theology, Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University of the Humanities (Moscow, Russia). konstanturg@yandex.ru

In this interview, Dr. Konstantin Antonov, historian of the Russian religious thought, gives a diachronic overview of the political ideas and attitudes of the religious thinkers, starting with the Slavophils and ending up with the post-igiy emigre philosophers. Antonov stays within the scope of the so called "religious philosophy" which emerged in the secularized culture of the 19th - 20th centuries in distinction with the regular church theology. The philosophical aspect of the political discourse within this scope is under particular scrutiny in the interview. Antonov also tries to explain the reasons of why the works of the religious philosophers are now neglected or even ignored, both within the church theological milieu and beyond it.

Keywords: Russian religious philosophy, secularization, political, liberal conservatism, church and state, Russian school of law, Christina socialism, religious and secular, post-secular.

What is the correct way to say: "Russian philosophy "(meaning national philosophy) or "Russian religious philosophy"?

page 265
It depends in relation to what. The national philosophical tradition as a whole, of course, cannot be reduced to religious and philosophical thought alone. At the same time, religious philosophy is a rather specific phenomenon, and not exclusively Russian.

Religious philosophy presupposes secularization, it exists in a secularized society, in which religious needs are awakened, or renewed, or re-emerged. This need requires justification, a language, but it cannot directly get this language from the religious tradition or the church culture that is contemporary with it, and therefore begins to invent it itself, to create it from scratch. And then we can talk about religious philosophy within the framework of a certain national philosophical culture.

How does religious philosophy differ from just philosophy that uses some religious ideas, concepts, and so on?

Religious philosophy is usually associated with the phenomenon of conversion.

Appeals from the philosopher himself?

Yes, and also some audience that has also experienced conversion, because the philosopher addresses someone, creates this language for someone. Vladimir Solovyov, especially in the "Readings on God-Manhood", which were originally a course of public lectures, is just such a case. Religious conversion here is not just something that happens to people, but rather it is an event in the light of which people begin to view their lives, history, and existence as a whole.

Our main question is: can we talk about the political dimension of Russian religious philosophy?

Since the secular project is, in general, always a somewhat political project, the attempt to build an alternative to it must, apparently, carry a certain political element. And we really find it in Russian thought-as an attempt to revise the current situation in the world.-

page 266
In particular, in the political sphere, as a critique of the main socio-political alternatives to the modern project. First of all, the existing status quo related to the relationship between church and state is seen as inadequate, worldly, as the subordination of the church to the state, as the transformation of the church into an "agency of the Orthodox confession" and so on.

That is, the question here is about the attitude of the church to the state in the era of Russian secularization?

Yes. But the church itself, from this point of view, is being secularized, at least its institutions are not the Church as the Body of Christ. And the secularization of the Church is primary in relation to all secularization processes.1 The Art Nouveau project as a whole is criticized, including in its political dimension. But the origins of the problems are seen in earlier times. Even in Solovyov's work, modernity is only a natural continuation of the"Konstantinovsky era". So this criticism is very specific and fundamentally different from, for example, the traditionalist campaign "against the modern world "in that it recognizes all the achievements of modernity and seeks to preserve and"churchize" them.

When does this approach occur?

Among the Slavophiles. Another dimension here is the idea of the Western captivity of Orthodox theology, which for the first time is clearly and distinctly expressed by Samarin. But already in Kireevsky, Khomyakov, and Aksakov we find the feeling that the church is in a kind of inauthentic state, that it needs more freedom in relation to the state, that the existing relations are largely hindering it, and therefore it would be good to change them.

Where do we have in the nineteenth century thinking and philosophizing about the political?

It should be borne in mind that the Slavophils basically have no philosophical system. But there are reflections, journalism, correspondence,

1. See, for example: Solov'ev V. S. O dukhovnoi vlasti v Rossii [On Spiritual Power in Russia]. Solov'ev 5. S. Sochineniya v 2-kh tt. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1989, pp. 43-58.

page 267
where a political topic arises in one way or another. For example, Kireevsky has a wonderful memorandum "What changes would I like in Russia at the present time" with the paradoxical main thesis that he would not want any significant changes - neither domestic political reforms nor foreign policy actions.2
Why this conclusion? Did he think it was all right?

He does not say that everything is right, on the contrary, he directly points out the meaninglessness or obsolescence of a number of institutions and institutions; the main idea is rather that if you start to change, it will be worse. Here is an important point among the Slavophiles, which they were the first to introduce: changes are not necessary precisely because political changes in themselves cannot give any positive result. It can be said that the Slavophiles for the first time restricted the sphere of the political in our country.

A significant point that should be taken into account here is the situation in Russian society at that time. After the Decembrists, it became impossible to speak publicly on political topics. Therefore, the same Kireevsky began his famous article "The Nineteenth Century" with the words: "I'm not talking about politics"3. And of course, immediately followed by a denunciation, which said that this is all for a diversion, but in fact...

That is, a religious thought arises at a time when it is forbidden to talk about politics...

...and so I really want to. And so the entire discourse becomes politicized. All conversations become political, and even the phrase "I'm not talking about politics" is in some sense a political statement.

Here are the radicals-Herzen, Bakunin, Belinsky, and later Chernyshevsky... Everything they write, even when they are engaged in literature-

2. Kireevsky I. V. What changes I would like to have in the present time in Russia / / Kireevsky I. V. Razum na puti k istine [Reason on the Path to Truth], Moscow, 2002, pp. 27-31.

3. Kireevsky I. V. The nineteenth century / / Kireevsky I. V. Criticism and aesthetics. Moscow, 1979. pp. 79-101, here p. 79. For more information about the history of the article, see: Fridman L. G. Ivan Kireevsky and his magazine "Evropeets" / / Evropeets. Journal of I. V. Kireevsky, 1832, Moscow, 1989 ("Literary Monuments"), pp. 385-485.

page 268
It has a fundamental political connotation. And everything they read is political for them.

How do these radicals, which in a certain sense determine the general atmosphere, have a philosophical presence?

They come from Stankevich's circle. Unlike the Lubomudrovs, from which Kireevsky and Khomyakov came out, who at that time were limited to Schelling, the members of this circle for 6 - 7 years (1833 - 1839) mastered the entire main body of German classics in the original language. It is striking that for Herzen, for example, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit is an algebra of revolution, whereas it is a conservative work.

Radicals are always looking for political overtones from Slavophiles. And Khomyakov is surprised: "The funny thing is that they assume their feelings in us" 4-meaning: and we are talking about completely different things...

Can we say that the Slavophils, as the first, so to speak, religious thinkers, do not have a political theme?

Everything is pretty amorphous there. But the Slavophiles are taking the first and very important step to divide and differentiate between the political and the non-political. They don't have the full, complete politicization that Westerners have. And this immediately puts them, if not in the reactionary category, then, say, in the category of conservative thinking. Because for them it is always clear: first-life, and then-politics. Just as in the beginning - life, and then-thinking.

But for opponents, on the contrary: is the whole life through the prism of the possibility of political transformation?

Yes. Moreover, transformations of a very specific kind: "Down with autocracy!" and everything that follows from this...

4.Cit. by: Koshelev V. A. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov. Biography in documents, reasoning and research, Moscow, 2000, p. 272.

page 269
When is there a new twist?

I think that this is the second half of the XIX century - Nikolai Danilevsky (1822-1885) with his book "Russia and Europe" (1869). This is indeed the philosophy of politics in its purest form. This is indirectly confirmed by Solovyov, who accused him of Machiavellianism5. The main problem of this book concerns the subject of history: is humanity as a subject of a single history? Danilevsky's approach to this problem is based on political realities: where does this constant mutual misunderstanding of Russia and Europe come from? Then the question is raised about historical knowledge, the problem of Eurocentrism in historical science and, accordingly, in political discourse, about the subject of history in principle (one or many), and then a return to political realities. Of course, this is the philosophy of politics.

Also-with Konstantin Leontiev (1831-1891). So, Leontiev can rightly be called a political philosopher. For him, everything is determined by politics, but at the same time, unlike the radicals of the 1840s, he knows exactly its limits.

Where is the limit of the political here-compared to the Slavophiles?

I think it is conducted in the same way, but more clearly and distinctly, with a greater emphasis on the current political situation and issues.

What is its main political idea?

"Byzantium and Slavism "(work of 1875). For him, Byzantium is not only a religious ideal, but also a political one, or rather, in this idea Leontiev thinks out, with rare consistency, political conclusions from a certain religious ideal. All his ideas are formulated in titles: for example, "The average European as an ideal and an instrument of world destruction"; " How and how is our liberalism harmful?";"Tribal politics as an instrument of world revolution". Further, the law of development, which he considers universal, but thinks first of all culturally-poly-

5. Solov'ev V. S. Mnimaya borba s Zapadom [Imaginary struggle with the West]. Issue 2 / / Solov'ev V. S. Soch. v 2-x tt. T. 1. Moscow, 1989. pp. 531-554 (here p. 544).

page 270
tic. "Secondary simplification" as a process of cultural degradation, which has a pronounced political component. Politics largely determines the state of culture. There is a strong government that allows for great diversity, which means that this society and culture are on the rise. If the government weakens or tries to take everything under control, then the movement downhill begins...

For him, this is a tool for analyzing specific things, for example, church disputes between Bulgarians and Greeks.

And where is Vladimir Solovyov?

This is where Vladimir Solovyov and Leo Tolstoy appear on the scene, for whom this religious-social and religious-political constellation is also of fundamental importance, but who are largely reacting to Leontiev.

Tolstoy offers a religious version of the anarchist approach: for him, politics is bad. Here we can partly draw a parallel between Tolstoy and Konstantin Aksakov, for whom the law is bad, and politics, which is based on law, is bad. The Russian people are not a political people: at some point they gave power and political issues to the Sovereign and since then they have been engaged in their own non-political affairs.6
How much can this be said about the church, which also gave power to the Sovereign and is engaged in its own purely religious affairs?

Yes, but here, starting with Peter, there was a hitch. Because the state exceeded its authority in relation to the "land" and began to restore its own order. Among the Slavophiles, "land" is a metaphysical concept: "a place where people live." The political, as well as the legal, is connected with certain guarantees, with a "social contract". And when is there a need to conclude a social contract? When we have previously entered a war that is ravaging the "earth". Here Hobbes ' idea of a natural state of-

6. But the Slavophiles counterbalance this Aksakov anarchism-the ideal of "legality" in I. Kireevsky and Yu. See: Kireevsky I. V. Zapiskaia ob otnoshenija russkogo naroda k tsarskoj vlasti [Note on the attitude of the Russian people to the Tsar's power]. Kireevsky I. V. Razum na puti k istine [Reason on the path to Truth], pp. 49-82.

page 271
as a "war of all against all". And the Slavophiles are fundamentally opposed to the idea of the natural state as a war of all against all. On the contrary, the natural state is a state of peace, and if there is a need for guarantees of law and politics, this means that the state of peace is violated; and therefore these legal and political guarantees are not needed, but the state of peace must be restored, because love does not need guarantees. This is the train of thought of, say, Aksakov. This idea is also present in Tolstoy, although his dialectic of war and peace is immeasurably more complex.

What can be said about Vladimir Solovyov as a political thinker?

Solovyov gives, so to speak, a liberal version. If Danilevsky and Leontiev are the conservative version, and Tolstoy is the anarchist one. Because for Solovyov, the idea of law is fundamentally important, and it is natural law as a starting point, and he introduces this idea into Russian thought. For him, the theme of church freedom and freedom of conscience is fundamentally important, although in many ways it goes back to the Slavophils, despite the fact that his main work "The National Question in Russia" is anti - Slavophil. It is here that Solovyov contrasts Danilevsky's "Machiavellianism" - in fact, his strict distinction between politics and morality, that is, the real and ideal order of things - with the idea of Christian politics, trying to demonstrate that such a division cannot be drawn and that those who do not serve true ideals in politics serve idols. From his point of view, the real discussion in the philosophy of politics should be about the correct identification of the sphere of what is truly due, and not about certain acts or processes in the sphere of being.

What is Solovyov's political idea?

Fundamentally new, what it brings is a religious justification of the liberal idea through the concept of natural law. This begins in the "National Question", is scattered in many works, and in the "Justification of the good" is summed up in the chapter "Morality and Law". At the same time, he maintains the line of limiting the political, the idea that this is secondary to the integrity of human life, as is the rule of law.-

page 272
v is secondary to morality. And here its eschatology is important.

This eschatology has a certain history. It has an optimistic version of eschatology, which has a pronounced political dimension: the ideal of a "free theocracy". This is exactly what Solovyov sees as the meaning of the"Russian idea". The point is that the hierarchy of ecclesiastical, political and economic matters is built up as if by itself, because there is a natural hierarchy that has been violated all the time in history. This is a paradox, because the natural state is ahead. The medieval version is bad because it is a violent theocracy that causes a revolt 7. Overcoming this revolt of the New Age, which is essentially correct, is achieved precisely in a free theocracy, in which all these liberal values are included, but on a religious basis. This is the God-human culture as a unity of free theocracy, free theosophy and free theurgy, the crown of the historical and, at the same time, cosmic process.

To what extent is Solovyov's political ideal political in the sense of European political philosophy? Politics here is not thematized as such, but is a kind of subordinate sphere?

The policy is assigned a specific place in the hierarchy. On a "primitive" level, these are the Pope of Rome, the Russian emperor, and a certain prophet... By the way, this is quite consistent with Weber's classification of types of government, only they are considered as complementary.

But the "Russian idea" has a wide foothold here - one step to Rome...

...and others-to Jerusalem.

In principle, there is nothing extraordinary here. If we say that this is a utopia, then were there no utopias in European thought? And Solovyov clearly says that this is the Christian answer to socialism-

7. See: Solov'ev V. S. Ob upadke srednevekovogo mirosozertsaniya [On the Decline of the medieval world outlook].

page 273
moo. We are offered an atheistic utopia, and we are offered a religious one, even stronger.

It turns out that in Russian thought the political is presented as a utopia, and not as a normative description of the state, society, and the system of power?

In principle, there is also a political normality here, because there is a political level that no one cancels. There is a basic set of freedoms that are necessarily inherent in a person, which in this free theocracy are not canceled, because if it cancels them, it will cease to be free. They are a necessary condition for this free theocracy to be realized.8
Where is the main difference from Slavophiles here?

Universal claim and clear separation of the legal and political spheres. The Slavophiles thought within the framework of Russia, the purpose of Russian culture, perhaps, the "enlightenment of Europe", but they do not have a swing at eschatology. And here, in Solovyov's work, there is a global scale that persists to the end, despite the fact that this ideal is transformed, certain restrictions are placed on it. At the end of his life, Solovyov treats him rather self-critically-most of all in "Three Conversations", where we see a pessimistic version of eschatology, but this is also present in correspondence, where he directly says that he does not believe in any progress and that Christianity does not give any sanction to progress. And we must admit that he largely accepted Leontief's counterarguments.

And other names - in connection with our topic? Maybe the second row?

First of all, of course, Boris Chicherin (1828-1904). It is quite possible to call him a figure of the first row, because he is the largest Russian philosopher of law before the Silver Age. This is such a serious, systematic right-wing Hegelian. He has

8. See the chapters on the foundations of law in the Critique of Abstract Principles.

page 274
both the individual and the state, and the problem of their coordination, in general - a conservative-liberal ideal 9.

And if we look at it from the other side, so to speak: did Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) ' s theological teaching on tsarist power have any influence or response in the general discussion of "political philosophy"?

This requires special study. I think that there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, religious and philosophical discourse, which is formed in a secularized culture and speaks the language of this culture, that is, in the Russian literary language - the language of Pushkin, and, on the other hand, the church culture, which speaks another, its own language and speaks the language of the church. Pushkin considers blasphemy. You can not speak a sermon in the language of Pushkin, and even talk about Pushkin in any language in public - it is indecent for a clergyman. On this "burned" Archimandrite Theodore (Bukharev)...

Is it possible to speak about politics in this church language?

And it is possible to speak about the political in this language, because sacred history has its own "political dimension", and Saint Philaret speaks, but only speaks in such a way that no one understands him. Because he speaks his own language - the language of a church sermon.

What does this mean: stylistics or its own terminological tradition?

Of course, stylistics, but also related terminology, more precisely, this is a fundamentally different categorical series. Princi-

9. Chicherin's philosophical and political (not to mention general philosophical) legacy is very great. These are the five-volume "History of Political Doctrines" (1869-1902)," Property and the State "in 2 volumes (1882-1883)," Course of State Science "in 3 volumes (1894-1898)," Philosophy of Law "(1900)," The Constitutional Question in Russia" (1906), a whole series of historical studies on certain problems of the philosophy of law and politics, etc. Not much has been written about Chicherin, although recently a number of monographs have appeared, including the latest in time: Evlampiev I. I. Political philosophy of B. N. Chicherin. SPb., 2013.

page 275
The idea of a "Sacred Kingdom" as a link of events in "sacred history" determined by the existence of the Church in the world is contrasted with the fundamentally secular problems of the central dichotomies - monarchy/republic, social contract/natural law, individual/society, etc. Moreover, he speaks absolutely freely, including such things that greatly irritate the highest authorities... But it is a sacred word in meaning and style of preaching, based on the Holy Scriptures, a word that is closely intertwined with such liturgical forms as a moleben, as a service dedicated to the memory of certain events (even if this word refers to modern times), with personal prayer. 10 But read, say, Herzen's reviews of Filaret - Herzen looks at him and says: "What does this Filaret want anyway? Maybe his ego is hurt...?"

But even among the Slavophiles, who had excellent personal relations with Filaret, we do not find any reaction to his political preaching. Kireevsky writes that the only thing that we have significant in theology is the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret, where there are many "diamond stones" (in contrast to Metropolitan Makarii). But nothing about his political statements, his understanding of the nature of tsarist power.

So this church speech does not affect public discussion and exists in parallel?

Unfortunately, yes.

To what extent does this ecclesiastical speech contain the political terminology of the time, or does it rely on its own sources - say, Byzantine ones?

It is clear that there is neither Byzantine nor Moscow. Saint Philaret is a very independent thinker with a huge intellectual outlook, but the basis of his thinking is rather biblical.

10. For more information, see: Khondzinsky P. St. Philaret of Moscow: The Theological Synthesis of the Epoch. Istoriko-bogoslovskoe issledovanie [Historical and Theological Research], Moscow: PSTGU, 2010, pp. 256-272.

page 276
And what about Bukharev - in the context of our topic?

I don't know how much Bukharev can be regarded as a political thinker. After all, this is the theology of culture. He is important because he acted as a destroyer of unwritten prohibitions, like Chaadaev and Gogol: they destroy the unwritten prohibition of a secular person to speak on religious topics, and Bukharev, on the other hand, destroys the unwritten prohibition of a cleric to speak on secular culture.

What happens next - chronologically?

Then there is the Silver Age, which provides an extension of this political dimension. Because former Marxists are coming to religious philosophy. Politics is in their blood; they are determined to fight autocracy; they stumble upon their own intellectual integrity and inquisitiveness, and Marxism does not seem to them solid enough to fight autocracy; and through neo-Kantianism and Nietzsche, they get to religious philosophy quite quickly, but for quite a long time, as is now clear, they retain this principle. its original fuse.

As Kolerov has well shown, their own emigrant ideas about the drift from Marxism to idealism, to religious philosophy, etc., are, of course, very stylized. There is no simultaneous transition from Marxism to religious thinking and from radicalism to conservatism in political thinking. After the fact, this is probably how they imagined it, but it is not so if we begin to analyze texts and correspondence with an open mind. For example, "Problems of Idealism" is still full of radical pathos 11.

At the same time, another trend is represented by Solovyov's students, direct and indirect, who, in addition to being religious philosophers, are also quite respectable university professors. And they bring themes of natural law, liberalism, and criticism of secular utopia. First of all, they are Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev (1866-1924) and Evgeny Nikolae-

11. For more information, see: Kolerov M. A. Collection " Problems of Idealism "[1902]: history and context, Moscow, 2002; Kolerov M. A. Ne mir, no mech. Russian religious and Philosophical press from "Problems of Idealism" to "Milestones". 1902-1909. SPb., 1996.

page 277
Vladimir Trubetskoy (1863-1920). A school of natural law is emerging, which also has a philosophical and political dimension. Novgorodtsev's work " The Idea of Law in Solovyov's Philosophy "(1901) is devoted to Solovyov's criticism of the Slavophils (in Aksakov's version) from the point of view of the need for legal and political normativity, which has its own character, not reducible to ethics, to "universal love" , etc.

That is, the school of law in a real political situation somehow concerns the religious and philosophical understanding of the political...

..and it is all the more concerning that they also become active politicians as ideologues, as founders of the constitutional democratic party, as famous cadets...

And here we meet Bulgakov and Berdyaev?

Yes, because they are Marxists who are turning into religious philosophers, idealists, and therefore they are largely concerned with political issues. For Bulgakov, this is directly a problem of the political ideal, which cannot be deduced from a scientific analysis of socio-economic reality, as Marx tried to do. The neo-Kantians put a ban on this, since it is impossible to jump from being to due. And this is the basis of all criticism of utopianism. It is necessary to look for some other sources in order to formulate this ideal and strive for it. And this is precisely what gives philosophical idealism, and in the end-a properly understood religion. And specifically-Orthodoxy, and over time it becomes more and more clear. And at some point, the conservative drift really begins. This is a general trend. Radicalism and liberalism are becoming increasingly "conservative".

Bulgakov's collection "From Marxism to Idealism" (1903) is still in a radical attitude, and in 1909 he already loves the Russian tsar... And his political ideal of 1914 is a "White Tsar" at the head of his people 12.

12. See: Feromov K. Ya."...All thought and care... "About Him, about the Anointed One": S. N. Bulgakov on the " fall of the Russian autocracy "(1917-1922) / / Voprosy filosofii. 2014. N 4. pp. 99-112.

page 278
Or, for example, Pavel Florensky has a youth sermon "The Cry of Blood" (1906), dedicated to the shooting of Lieutenant Schmidt, and later we meet with his monarchism, which is manifested in the "Philosophy of the Cult" (1918).

But Florensky does not belong to these former Marxists, and meets with them later...

No, he met them on political grounds, in 1904-1905, when they formed the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle. It includes, on the one hand, Bulgakov, and on the other - the Tiflis company of Florensky: Yelchaninov, Ern and Sventsitsky, who joined them. They then create the religious and philosophical Society in memory of Vladimir Solovyov. Another thing is that only Bulgakov was a "professional" Marxist, simply because he was older. They have already found themselves in a different situation compared to the era of all these disputes between Narodniks and Marxists.

They found themselves in a situation where the autocracy had already cracked...

They tried to do their best by publishing newspapers and putting up leaflets... They tried to combine radicalism in the spirit of " Down with autocracy!" and ascetic Orthodoxy in the spirit of the Holy Fathers 13.

And what is the political ideal of these political activists?

Christian socialism. The manifesto is the very first published text of Vladimir Ern (1882-1917)" Christian Attitude to Property " (1906), where socialism is based on the Christian ideal and a reference to the practice of the Apostolic community.14
13. See: Kolerov M. Ne mir, no mecha.

14. See about him: Somin N. V. Literary debut of V. F. Erna // Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1.Bogoslovie [Theology]. Philosophy. 2006. Issue 1: 16, pp. 114-126.

page 279
This is only a sketch, not a developed ideal. How does it differ from the Slavophil "sketch"?

Slavophiles were alien to social design, and here we are talking about a political program. For Slavophiles, this is unthinkable, because they understand specific social and even political tasks. For example, Samarin may write a manifesto for the emancipation of the peasants; or he may go to Riga to deal with the relations between the Courland nobility and the Orthodox peasantry. For them, this is always a specific case, which, of course, corresponds to the ideal scheme, but there is never an idea of rebuilding the world or even arranging Russia. Any revolution, whether left - wing or conservative, is bad for them, simply because it is a revolution that adapts the life of "earth" to an abstract scheme.15
And here there is an appeal to church history, to church praxis, from which some models are taken for possible social reconstruction?

If we go back to Ern and the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle, then, of course, yes. Their logic of reasoning is something like this: the apostles had it like this; we are Orthodox Christians; the Orthodox Church is a continuation of the apostles; so there is an Orthodox social ideal that is based on Christian love for one's neighbor, the desire for spiritual perfection, and as a model-the unanimity and associated communion of the first Christian community's property, and we we must implement it... If not at the level of society and the state (where only concrete social work is possible to realize the ideal), then at the level of a specific community.

15. See: Samarin Yu. F., Dmitriev F. Revolutionary conservatism. R. Fadeev's book "Russian Society in the present and future" and the assumptions of St. Petersburg nobles about the organization of an all-family parish. Berlin, 1875. The most complete political biography of Samarin to date: Nolde B. E. Yuri Samarin and his time. Paris, 1926.

page 280
And Bulgakov?

Bulgakov is close to this at certain moments. There are texts in which he speaks as a Christian socialist and tries to suggest ways to implement this idea, and there are texts in which he already treats this idea critically: socialism is a certain structure of economic life (as, by the way, in Solovyov's work), it cannot be Christian, Muslim, etc., and it is impossible for him to be a Christian, Muslim, etc. it is necessary to evaluate purely pragmatically 16.

That is, Bulgakov eventually departs from this issue?

Yes, but many researchers believe that the main problem of sophiology is still a social problem. All this late, huge theological synthesis of Bulgakov has a certain outlet in social practice, is its justification. He took up the justification of the church's social activism and its place in society and politics, but went very deep into this justification... In addition, it should be borne in mind that his son, Fyodor Sergeyevich, was actually left in Russia as a hostage, and Bulgakov did not have the opportunity to make a direct political statement. Unfortunately, the "dispute about Sofia" largely cut off the opportunities for drawing conclusions from Bulgakov's thought, including in relation to politics, which follow from it. And no one did. At the same time, for example, the "Orthodox Work" of Mother Mary can be considered as a practical consequence of his research.

And what is happening at this time with the boundary between ecclesiastical and secular religious thought-in comparison with the XIX century?

This boundary is, of course, violated. The church-theological discourse begins to perceive many elements of religious and philosophical thinking, it often begins to criticize itself, accepting the criticism expressed in its address. A bright, perhaps key, figure here is Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky; 1863-1936), who builds moral theology on the basis of works of art.

16. See: Somin N. V. S. N. Bulgakov: logika razvitiya sotsial'no-politicheskoi mysli [Bulgakov: the logic of social and political Thought development]. Philosophy. 2007. Issue 3 (19). pp. 57-70.

page 281
Dostoevsky. Then there are his students. For example," The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation " (1895) by Sergius (Stragorodsky; 1867-1944) is all built on the opposition: holy fathers/scholasticism: the first is "our", this is good, and the second is a legal Western theory, this is bad. In many ways, this is a projection of religious and philosophical ideas.

What about political issues?

But here it is difficult. Because the same Vladyka Anthony in politics is an ardent monarchist, a conservative.

And the idea of an Orthodox tsar?

The idea of an autocrat is more political than ecclesiastical. This is not explicitly mentioned, even after 1905.

Here an important milestone is the departure of Pobedonostsev from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. After that, there are talks about the need for church reforms, the idea of restoring the patriarchate arises (it was practically absent before), and pre-council preparations are underway. Political themes intrude here, but this is not some stream coming from Byzantium or from Moscow in the 16th century. These are the actual problems of relations between church and state; the problems of freedom of conscience-for and against; the demand for freedom of the church-for example, it sounds in the well - known "Reviews of diocesan bishops on the issue of church reform" (1905-1906) in the framework of pre-conciliar preparation: there are a lot of revolutionary ideas... And in terms of practice, they easily accepted the Provisional Government...

What else about our topic-before the Rubicon of 1917?

Berdyaev - he also sees a movement towards conservatism, which ends with the Philosophy of Inequality (1918) and a book about Leontiev. Also key figures are Peter Struve (1870-1944) and Semyon Frank (1877-1950).

Can Frank be called a political philosopher?

Yes. It has thematization of society and politics. Before the Revolution-the article "The problem of power", a well-known pathos text

page 282
"The Dead are silent "(eve of 1917). But this is still very early, because the main political topics are developed by him in exile, and in connection with the Second World War. And in connection with the first war and the revolution, he has a terrible disillusionment with politics. In The Collapse of Idols (1924), the idol of politics appears as a separate idol, which we used to worship, but which has now lost its power over us. The post-revolutionary Frank withdraws from politics altogether for a while and says that there is no need to engage in politics. This is their only encounter with Struve, because Struve continued to engage in politics while in exile, and for him the meaning of emigration was solely to organize the unification of forces, resistance, intervention, and so on. 17
Does Frank need to understand the spiritual meaning of the revolution?

Yes. And we need to change something in ourselves (here he is faithful to the milestone idea), and only then, maybe, something will change around us. This is the main meaning of his philosophical sermons in The Crash of Idols (1924) and The Meaning of Life (1926).

Does Struve have a theoretical dimension, or only a practical one?

I think there is. Of course, he is more of a doer, but for him this activity always has a theoretical and philosophical basis and at the same time serves as a starting point for theoretical reflection. He has the idea of natural law (in this sense, he and Frank are very close), the idea of the nation as a political unity, the idea of the state as a special kind of ontological structure, the idea of "personal fitness", which has both economic and political dimensions, the idea of "secession" as a special political and at the same time spiritual state..
17. See Frank S. L. Vospominaniya o P. B. Struve [Memories of P. B. Struve].

18. On Struve's political thought, except for the above memoirs of Frank, see: Pipes R. Struve: the Left Liberal (1870-1905). Vol. 1. Moscow, 2001; Pipes R. Struve: the Right liberal (1905-1944). Vol. 2. Moscow, 2001; Poltoratsky N. P. P. B. Struve as a political thinker. London, 1981; a number of modern monographs. For a discussion of the elements of its concept in relation to current issues, see: Lux L. Rus-

page 283
And the religious dimension?

And this is just a necessary condition, because only religion provides the basis for internal work, gives a person the prospect of finding this very "personal fitness". And without self-improvement, politics makes no sense, and this is the basis for all his criticism of the Russian political establishment, both left and right, which talks a lot, but which does not have this inner work.

What else was significant before the revolution?

Vladimir Ern during the First World War ("From Kant to Krupp", "Time Slavophiles"...). Evgeny Trubetskoy - as a philosopher of law, as the founder of the party "Peaceful Renewal", as the editor of the magazine "Moscow Weekly" (1906-1910), later-as one of the leaders of the Council of 1917-1918. and the ideological inspirers of the White Movement. And a very important polemic about nationalism at that time, the central figures of which were he and Struve. 19 And, of course, Vekhi (1909) -although it does not contain political recommendations, it does reflect on the foundations of political activity. Why did the first revolution fail? But because the people who made it are designed in such a way that it could not succeed... This is the anthropological dimension of politics.

In addition, Novgorodtsev's work "On the Social Ideal" (1917-1918), a critique of the social utopia, which has a clear political meaning. It has already affected emigration, although not all of it, because in the end, the movement of thought we are talking about has never been very politically influential. It was a reflection that had a negative effect on practical political success: the more you think about the basis of political action, the less successful your political action is...

You can describe the process as follows. On the one hand, a conservative, protective policy under Orthodox banners and slogans (say, Tikhomirov's monarchism), and on the other - liberal-

Forum of the newest Eastern European History and Culture. 2014. N 1. pp. 124-144 [http://wwwl.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/fo rum/inhaltruss21.html; accessed 27.08.2014].

19. See: Nationalism. Polemics of 1909-1917 / M. A. Kolerov, comp. Moscow, 2000.

page 284
a conservative movement associated with the mainstream of Russian religious thought. The second - they are always on the move, all the time arguing with each other...

Here we should also mention Dmitry Sergeyevich Merezhkovsky (1865-1941) as the only consistent thinker who tried to give religious sanction to the revolution. Now there are even works where his ideas are compared with the "theology of liberation" 20.

And what can we say about Rozanov in this regard?

He made so many zigzags, including in political terms... But he has brilliant insights and ideas. For example, criticism of terror in "Black Fire";" Apocalypse of our time "- reflection on the revolution; some passages in"Fallen Leaves". For example, such a well-known aphorism: "What to do?" "What is it?" asked an impatient Petersburg youth. - How to do what: if it's summer - peel berries and make jam; if it's winter-drink tea with this jam " (1918). A brilliant philosophy of politics, but difficult to conceptualize.

What happens in emigration?

The central trend of liberal conservatism remains as a movement based on a Christian vision of the world and seeking spiritual sources of politics "beyond the right and left". This trend is represented primarily by the Franc, especially the late Franc. "Light in Darkness" (1949), the article " Christian Conscience and Politics "(recently translated from English and published by Anna Reznichenko 21) is a polemic against the idea of real politics at that time; the statement that politics that is guided by the principles of Christian conscience is real politics. Understanding in this regard the problems of war and, in particular, the problems of the end of the war, the transition to peace: "In war, the winner is the one who first begins to forgive; this means that God wins."

20. See, for example: Aksenov-Meerson M., prot. Contemplation of the Holy Trinity... The Paradigm of Love in the Russian philosophy of the Trinity. Kiev, 2008.

21. See: Reznichenko A. I. On the meanings of names: Bulgakov, Losev, Florensky, Frank et dii minores. Moscow, 2012. pp. 137-156.

page 285
Here, the "Heresy of Utopianism" is a common, constant theme among various authors.

Frank's work "The Spiritual Foundations of Society" (1930) was written earlier, but he did not like it very much and did not republish it... Although it deals with the foundations of the political, with the ontology of politics, and no one has done this at this level in Russian thought.22 From the demonstration of the correlation of the principles of "I", "you" and "we", the fundamental dualism of "conciliarity" - as an internal organic harmony and the public - as an external mechanism of society's life, on the basis of which pairs of categories are further developed: law/morality, grace/law, church/world, ideal/empirical in society. social life; and further forms of understanding the social ideal: hierarchy/equality, conservatism/creativity, planning/spontaneity, state/society.

Is it correct to say that the other figure is Berdyaev, who always has a political dimension?

Sure. And in which his immediate political position does not coincide with what he writes in the philosophical sense. He can "left" or "right" depending on who is more unpleasant to him at the moment... It has a pathos of freedom and at the same time a recognition of the importance of objective structures. Even in the most conservative period, he is a liberal conservative who recognizes the fundamental value of the individual; but he also likes to write about communism, recognizing its legitimacy in some way. Thanks to his personalism, he thinks out a very subtle dialectic of relations between the individual and the state, society, and seeks ways to transcend any political forms in the ideal of "communotarity".

22. The St. Petersburg State University Publishing House is preparing to publish a collection of articles on Frank's philosophy of religion and politics. The latter is considered in a number of its dimensions, including the analysis of the "Spiritual Foundations of Society" offered there by A. L. Dobrokhotov. Frank's political thought is discussed in detail in: Bubbayer F. S. L. Frank: The Life and Work of a Russian Philosopher. 1877-1950. Moscow, 2001.

page 286
And Georgy Fedotov (1886-1951), what is his place here?

In the political sense, he has more journalism than philosophy. And to a large extent, it is secondary; perhaps, it is better to say, it is continuous in relation to the"Milestones". The idea of the Novy Grad magazine was more clearly formulated by Stepun: "The Christian idea of absolute truth, the humanistic-enlightenment idea of political freedom, and the socialist idea of socio-economic justice." 23
In general, the Russian emigration gave a wide variety of political ideas, programs and projects. Of course, it is impossible to fully describe them, and not all of them have a philosophical dimension.

We should also mention Eurasianism: of course, this is a political thought first of all, which has religious and philosophical grounds, regardless of the scale of this thought. And this is not an easy idea, to reduce it exclusively to the theory of cultural and historical types and so on would be an oversimplification.

Ivan Ilyin (1882-1954)?

His book "On Resisting Evil by Force" is, of course, a religious and philosophical text. It is sometimes misread as almost a justification/justification for violence - as, in fact, then it was read by both those who were for and those who were against. In fact, it takes a long time to describe cases where violence should never be used. A lot of phenomenological work has been done there to identify the conditions for making sense of the problem itself, to define the very concept of "evil", the boundaries of violence and the problems associated with it. In his later works, we will find a very interesting attempt to describe the ideal types of monarchical and republican legal consciousness, which, I think, largely goes back to Leontiev. However, the enthusiasm that exists around his political journalism of the emigrant period seems to me counterproductive. The fact that these very ideas of his have gained incredible popularity in the modern "average" Orthodox consciousness speaks more about the roll call of bo-

23. Stepun A. F. O cheloveka "Novogo grada" [About the man of the "New City"]. 1931. N 1. P. 18.

page 287
complexities of the Russian emigration of the XX century and post-Soviet Russia, which survived the collapse of the USSR and the hard times of the 1990s.

Other names?

Boris Vysheslavtsev (1877-1954), who was a critic of Marxism. In creative terms, this is a person of the same generation as Ilyin, they started together before the revolution, just at the school of Novgorodtsev and Evgeny Trubetskoy. His later work " The Crisis of Industrial Culture "(1953) contains an analysis and criticism of the main socio-political and economic projects of the mid-20th century. His apology for democracy is based on an analysis of the antinomies of power and law, the autonomy of the individual and the autonomy of the people, which are solved in the spirit of Christian personalism.

"Reconstruction of Holy Russia "(1856) by A. V. Kartashev (1875-1960) is a very nice project, it is so intelligently written... In essence, this is an attempt to rethink the ideal of the symphony in the context of Solovyov's "free theocracy "and Frank's" spiritual foundations of society", so that the Church enters into a symphonic relationship not with the state apparatus, but" with the elements of a free society", renouncing formal legal privileges in the name of preserving"internal and external freedom".

Unfortunately, the "dispute about Sofia" largely cut off the opportunities for drawing conclusions from Bulgakov's thought, including in relation to politics, which follow from it. And no one did.

Is Russian religious philosophy over? If so, when?

Of course, it ended its existence. With the death of Berdyaev, Frank, Lossky Sr. I would say that Losev still belongs to it, but people like Averintsev and Bibikhin no longer belong to it.

In emigration, perhaps, it is also necessary to mention Sergei Alexandrovich Levitsky (1908-1983). This is actually the last representative of the actual philosophical thought of emigration. Another well - known trend of emigrant political thought is associated with his name-solidarism. Its ideal is a harmonious combination of individual freedom and social solidarity, pea-

page 288
This ideal is very close to the Western Christian-democratic parties, but it is polemically sharpened against Bolshevik collectivism. He is largely secondary to Novgorodtsev, Frank, Berdyaev, and especially Lossky the elder.24
Do Russian authors think of politics as an autonomous sphere, distinguishing between the religious and the secular?

Yes, because they are inside the New Time. They are not inside the Byzantine mindset. They may turn to it in search of certain productive intuitions, first of all not specifically political, but of a general anthropological or theological order ("neo-patristic synthesis"), but this is always an appeal from outside, from the sphere of modernity.

On the other hand, the "philosophy of politics" as a separate independent discipline, perhaps, was not institutionalized. It almost always, with the exception of individual authors and works, balanced between the philosophy of law (which was just institutionalized, since it was based on the corresponding department of the Faculty of Law), the philosophy of history, social philosophy and ethics. As a result, political issues were sort of spread across different "domains". Therefore, the philosophical synthesis around the political idea put at the forefront could not be formed. However, this is, in my opinion, on the one hand, an institutional problem, and on the other-the problem of political unfreedom, which we have discussed and which cannot be discounted. This does not mean that one cannot distinguish between the religious and the secular. Rather, religious thinkers found themselves in a situation in which the religious and the secular are already always distinguished, and tried to treat this situation reflexively.

For Solovyov, this is an attempt to remove the distinction between religious and secular, but one that takes into account the distinction itself. Therefore, Solovyov describes in detail the process of disintegration of the original and medieval theocracy, and points out the secularization potential of Christ himself.-

24. For a new edition of his political legacy, see: Levitsky S. A. Svoboda i otvetstvennost ' [Freedom and Responsibility]: "Fundamentals of organic worldview" and articles on solidarism, Moscow, 2003.

page 289
Only then does he speak of a free theocracy, in which the levels remain distinct, but in which there is a certain hierarchical relationship between them, taking into account the specifics of each level. 25
There is a sphere of socio-political life that is irreducible to the personal sphere, which is autonomous. But after establishing this autonomy, we must look at how it interacts with neighboring regions. There is a person who lives in the family, in society, in politics, in the church and in other spheres, and he wants to establish some kind of correlation between all these types of life activities within himself.

Is it a search for harmony?

Someone has a search for harmony. Someone has an idea, and it prevails, that harmony is good to look for, but it is impossible to find it, because harmony is in the realm of what is due, and we are in the realm of what is, and a leap is impossible (Novgorodtsev, Frank). There are extreme athletes for whom the search for harmony is an encroachment on the dignity of a person as an image and likeness of God (Dostoevsky, Shestov). There are very astute people who believe that the search for harmony leads, in fact, to the establishment of new and terrible forms of tyranny (Leontiev).

One gets the impression that religious philosophy always thinks of a person not as he is, but as he should be...

No. The fundamental category of religious philosophy, starting with Chaadaev, is the category of original sin.

But if we rely on the idea of original sin, then we must build laws and policies based on the fact that man is a greedy, greedy, envious animal...

The thinkers we are talking about see a paradoxical thing: those people who start from the reality of the primordial

25. See: Solov'ev V. S. O zakone istoricheskogo razvitiya [On the law of Historical development] / / Solov'ev V. S. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy i pis'mov. Vol. 2. 1875-1877. Moscow, 2000. pp. 185-216.

page 290
They create theories of progress that tell us how to move from this realm of the greedy, evil, and bad person to a realm where all people will be kind and live together in universal harmony. And this is criticized from the very beginning, from the Slavophiles at least. Because here you see the blurring of the line between what is and what should be.

Isn't this blurring of the line just happening in religious philosophy?

No, it's not happening. First, because criticism of utopia extends to religious utopia, which is largely self-criticism. For example, Vladimir Solovyov's "Three Conversations" is a self-criticism of the idea of a free theocracy. And secondly, because the transcendent intervention that results in a new being is not the mechanism by which we move from the realm of being to the realm of due, or reduce due to being.26
Of course, we can talk about some anthropological utopianism in Russian thought. But gradually, all this is thought out, somewhere it gets used to, somewhere it is written in more detail.

It is interesting that the current representatives of the so-called post-secular philosophy, such as "radical Orthodoxy", turn to Russian religious philosophy, finding there a kind of post-secular synthesis.

Yes, Russian philosophy can be considered as "post-secular" - in relation to the Petersburg period of Russian history: Peter, Catherine, Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II... The Academy of Sciences, the university system, the bureaucratic state, atheistic thought, the synodal church system, the almost self-sufficient world of extra-ecclesiastical spiritual pursuits, secular painting, music, architecture, literature - all these are examples and characteristic features of a secular society, a secularized religion, in general-one of the variants, even if specific, of a secular society.-

26. According to Novgorodtsev, religious consciousness has the right to speak about such things in its own language; problems and paradoxes arise when this language is spoken by people "far from religious ideas", dreaming of the bliss of an earthly paradise. See: Novgorodtsev P. I. About the social ideal. Moscow, 1991. pp. 57-58.

page 291
go project of Art nouveau culture. A different attitude to this period of our history seems to me to be a mythologization. And such phenomena as religious conversion or religious revival, in this context, acquire the characteristic features that we see both in Russian culture and in Russian thought. Religion returns to the public sphere, as they now say, and it turns out not to be archaic, but an avant-garde in thinking, culture, social life, personal practices and anthropological experiments. It turns out that religion can become an integrative foundation without denying the autonomy of other spheres and areas of life.

To what extent is Russian religious thought characterized by attention to the formal side, to the development of institutions and procedures?

It's spoken. And here the central figure is Chicherin. Solovyov - to a lesser extent, although they later liked to refer to him more. Also Evgeny Trubetskoy in his legal works. They very clearly express the idea of the need for a procedural consolidation of legal consciousness, the idea that legal nihilism has fatal political consequences (Kistiakovsky in "Milestones"). On the other hand, it also gives rise to the idea that procedures don't work without a sense of justice. In the context of the idea of the post-secular, I would draw attention to such institutions of the early twentieth century as the Religious and Philosophical Assemblies of 1901-1903 and later Religious and Philosophical societies: I would see them as the beginning of the procedural formalization of the" process of mutual complementary learning " of the ecclesiastical and secular communities, which Habermas and Cardinal Ratzinger discussed in 2004.27

Why is there a kind of contempt for Russian religious philosophy among us today, both within and outside the church?

I think there are a number of reasons for this. In many ways, this is the inertia of the Soviet legacy. On the one hand, the influence of diamat and isthmat still remains: see how the test tasks are formulated

27. Habermas Y., Ratzinger Y. (Benedict XVI). Dialectic of secularization. On Reason and Religion, Moscow, 2006.

page 292
and exam questions in philosophy, as the answers to them are formulated in thin paperback manuals, according to which students, in fact, are prepared. On the other hand, the religious consciousness itself, which survived, of course, under the yoke of "militant atheism" and "scientific atheism", but survived at the cost of archaization and primitivization, largely internalizing the ideas imposed on it about itself, about its place in culture and life. Unfortunately, these forms are almost dominant. For them, the complex forms of religious life and rationality that have developed on the basis of Russian religious philosophy are unacceptable. The most interesting thing is that selective reception is still taking place here, and it is often based on a political principle. Take, for example, monarchist philosophers, Ilyin or Tikhomirov, and "canonize" their ideas and personalities, forgetting about the context and origins, without which they are really incomprehensible. Or, say, they take Vekhov's criticism of the intelligentsia, forgetting that it was self-criticism that remained fundamentally within the framework of the project of modernity, and use this criticism to shut up the "intelligentsia". And at the same time, in reality, the same nihilistic complex that Vekhi described in relation to the intelligentsia is working, but it is working within the church consciousness.

Another important aspect is disdain from disappointment. Russian philosophy was expected to give quick apologetic answers, but it turned out to be a difficult question. Specific arguments and lines of thought of Russian thinkers do not work now, as well as their specific policy recommendations concerning the arrangement of Russia, for example. An adequate understanding of some of them requires knowledge of the context of that time-both political, cultural, and philosophical. And the holistic development of their political thought, involving the study of its origins, both European and domestic, and even more so the adequate actualization of this thought in the context of modern political and social ideas and discussions - all this requires significant costs and considerable work. It is much easier to "throw off the steamer of modernity" this cargo.

Another point is to criticize a thinker who can't answer you, as a convenient way to raise your own self-esteem. After all, it is much easier to point out what this or that thinker "did not understand" than to think about what he did understand that I do not understand. This approach is common as

page 293
in church circles (and then it turns out that Russian philosophers did not understand the holy fathers, the idea of the symphony of the authorities, etc.), and in secular circles (and then they do not understand certain philosophical or political ideas).

Finally, one of the reasons for the disdainful attitude towards Russian philosophy is the position of many of its researchers, who try to present Russian religious thought as something archaic, spiritual, unearthly, prophetic, traditional, etc. - anything but philosophical. And all this is done in order to show the alleged superiority of Russian thought over Western-with "rationalism", "lack of spirituality" and other things of the latter. This is how people try to put Russian thought at the service of their projects. However, in reality, these projects repeat the figures of self-criticism of the West that Russian thinkers once used to formulate the initial premises of their own position. In our time, all this has turned into meaningless cliches and slogans that can either be exploited or deconstructed. In any normal person, including a student, this causes rejection. It seems to me that the "Westernist" disregard for Russian thought, when they say that it does not reach the level of phenomenology, or Heidegger, or psychoanalysis, or analytical philosophy, arises largely as a reaction to these exaggerations and mythologems.

In this regard, historians of Russian political thought face the urgent task of including it in the context of world thought, its adequate comparison with the current ideas of the main political thinkers of the XX and early XXI centuries.

Does the church / secular environment division still apply to religious and philosophical thought?

And where is our secular "religious thought"? It's not there. There are some people who try to think about something. But there is no "movement" or even a field of interaction .

Interviewed by Alexander Kyrlezhev and Dmitry Uzlaner

page 294

Permanent link to this publication: