Reference to the article “Obvious-impossible in vision of Good and Evil”

Abstract

The material of the article is worldviews of Russian philosophers from XIX – to the middle XX century, mainly religious of them, upholding the tradition and historical development of views from early slavophils and Vladimir Solov’ev up to the representatives of religious Renaissance, among them especially Nicolai Berdyaev. V.V. Lazarev tries to show why in the learning about Good and Evil in early Slavophils the Evil appears only as reduced level of Good. Their Evil is neither Substantial, nor Absolute. It is only the absence of Good and is nothing by itself. Nothing Substantial is opposed to Good. Such is the manner of settling Monism in early Slavophils. Their Monism is not only ethical, it is wider, it embraces the Cosmic view. The cognitive situation of Westerners is quite different. In their learning Evil appears almost as one more Substance, equal with Good, and creates dualism in moral and in knowledge.

The early Slavophils are aimed to reach the Whole. They don’t mention, that such intention may not be accomplished without the real presence of the Whole. And if the Whole is present, what is the sense of the aim as intention to reach it? It means that real beginning point in early Slavophilism is not the Whole, but something out of it, and the Whole itself is only the aim and has no real existence.

Slavophilism comparatively easily switches off antinomy at the very beginning, when it penetrates into consciousness and does not allow to be developed in it. Antinomism, being criticised, as well as ethical and cognitive dualism in western trend of Russian philosophy, is something empty, because Evil has no real existence. Even V. Solov’ev, who in early period of his philosophical development upholds the tradition of Slavophils, hides antinomism deeply in his soul as if the evil had no real existence at all. His first word is the Whole without contradiction, and everything in his learning is included into the organism of the Whole. It was closely connected with monism of early Slavophils. But being excluded from conscience (like in Khomjakov’s version) or reduced (in the manner of Solov’ev), antinomy does not disappear, but settles into sub-conscience and from this depth sends signs of its existence. Religious Renaissance as the later form of Slavophil’s learning, comes to understanding, that the primary Whole in consciousness of each great philosopher in its deep ground inevitably contains antinomy.

To the consciousness of opposers to the analyzed direction of philosophers, everything, on the contrary, appears as separated from each thing and innerly divided. Primary for them is dualism of God and World, of person and Nature, as well as dualism of idea and reality. In the surrounding world and in our souls nothing is absolute, everything is relative. Do we need to mention about Good and Evil?

Should we take as the beginning of research the undeletable Whole (keeping in mind the highest existence: the Trinity in one Christian God; or, let it be one of other cases: the organic unity of Truth, Good and Beauty)? Or we must start from this or that separated abstract side of the whole, contrary to its concrete unity? The deviating and contraposed points of view mainly between Westerners and Slavophils are given in the article not for immediate accepting or rejecting vaulting judgements, but for finding antinomies. Antinomies were something usual and normal for Orthodox Religion, even vital and inevitable for creative life as the air for breathing. The feeling of paradox gave rise and growth of spiritual energy. The best example is the Christian feeling in one: Golgotha and resurrection of Christ. One can notice the same antinomism in the reception by Christians the dogmas of their religion. But quite the same, without any intention to use their religion, demonstrates to us non-confessional life of the soul, which doesn’t reject, for example, such feeling as sainthood, not connecting it with religious belief, though this feeling is unconsciously founded on it.

There exist at least three kind of relation to antinomy. 1) The researchers stop in front of it and do not move further, just note the fact of it without any analysis and do not try to decide the problem. 2) Accept only one side of it, rejecting another one, the contrary. 3) To take into consideration just antinomy itself, and, making it vital for son soul, with the help of the thought surpassing dualism, attempt to connect it with super-rationalism, which covers in itself the phenomenon of paradox. In this trend of development from the early Slavophils to the epoch of Religious Renaissance the most important are acknowledged the gains of F.M. Dostoevskij and V.S. Solov’ev. The corresponding historical process in Russia in spiritual sphere is marked by keen tragedy of life, felt by both of them in their deep philosophical manner. N.A. Berdyaev understood this tragism as the transitive situation, previous to his own philosophy of tragic; moreover: as the disclosing of tragic in Philosophy as such and as the tragic in the World History itself, which is really full of tragic antinomies and paradoxes. Their character is such that it is impossible to isolate oneself from them. They must not only be acknowledged but we should interiorise them in our soul and make them our destiny, try to decide them with belief in success. The thinkers, who belonged to the epoch of Religious Renaissance, posed and directed their philosophic strength to the elaboration and decision of idea, which got the name antinomic monodualism.