Preface (1–3). Instructions and promises of the Lord to the apostles before the ascension and His ascension (4-11 vv.). The first speech of the Apostle Peter is about the election of a new apostle to the place of Iscariot and the election itself (vv. 12–26)

. I wrote the first book for you, Theophilus, about everything that Jesus did and taught from the beginning.

“The first book” - glory. “first word” - Greek. τόν μεν πρῶτον λόγον - an obvious reference to St. The Gospel written earlier by Luke for Theophilus (). By placing your new work in relation to the first, as second, St. Luke wants to show that both in the external and internal essence of the events narrated, this second book of his is a direct continuation and development of the first, giving along with it the most detailed history of the founding, spread and establishment of the Church of Christ on earth.

"Everything Jesus Did". According to Chrysostom’s explanation, “about everything that is especially important and necessary,” “without omitting any of the essential and necessary things, from which the divinity and truth of the sermon is learned” (Theophylact). Such reservations are made by holy interpreters in view of the fact that another Evangelist, John, recognized it as impossible to describe All events in the life of the Lord ().

The literal meaning of the above phrase is significant: “about everything that began Jesus to create and teach" ( ῶν ήρξατο ο Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τι καί διδάσκειν ). The writer seems to want to say that with all his earthly activities the Lord Jesus only began, laid the foundation for His works and teachings. The continuation of this beginning will be everything further in the affairs of His envoys and their successors until the end of the century (), constituting as a whole the completion of the great work of Christ, however, not limited by any times and periods.

. until the day on which He ascended, giving commands by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He had chosen,

"Until the day that He ascended". The Ascension of the Lord is only briefly mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (). This event was the end Gospel story and the beginning of the apostolic. Therefore St. Luke chooses to report this event in more detail in Acts.

The Ascension precedes commandment– the Lord’s testament to the apostles – "Giving commandments to the apostles by the Holy Spirit"- Greek εντειλάμενος τοις αποστόλοις διά Πνεύματος άγίου ; more literally glory: "having commanded the apostles by the Holy Spirit". Here, of course, either His “promise” is to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles, with the command to wait for this promise in Jerusalem (), or commandment It is for them to be witnesses and preachers "in His Name there was repentance and remission of sins on all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" ().

This promise or commandment and command of the Lord is given, in the words of the Writer, “by the Holy Spirit.” “This is what it says,” explains Blessed Theophylact, “not because the Son needed the Spirit, but because where the Son creates, you cooperate and are co-present with the Spirit, as one in essence”... This Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father, fulfilling His Son according to humanity - “beyond measure” abundantly (; ); promised to the apostles as the unifying principle of the Father, the Son and humanity redeemed by Him.

"Whom He Has Chosen"- an indication of the exclusivity of the powers and rights of the apostles, in contrast to other believers. The justification for this exclusivity is that the Lord and "showed himself alive" according to His suffering, so that they could be convinced and unfalse witnesses and preachers about Him for the whole world.

. to whom He revealed Himself alive, after His suffering, with many true proofs, appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God.

"According to His suffering"– i.e. together and after His death, which concluded His suffering.

"With many true proofs", – i.e. that He really resurrected , which for a long time they neither knew how nor dared to believe; - that he has risen really Himself - crucified and died, and not another who replaced Him; that not an apparition of Him, but the real He Himself again became alive among them, for which He ate before them and was even touched by the hand of Thomas, and for 40 days again continued His preaching to them about the Kingdom of God. All this, finally, until then incomprehensible and unlikely to the apostles, turned out to be in accordance with the Divine Scriptures, for the understanding of which the Risen One opened their minds, revealing in these writings all the many other evidences for faith in Him as the true Son of God, worthy of the faith of all nations.

"For 40 days". This exact indication of the time of the Risen Lord’s stay on earth after the resurrection is available only in this place of deeds. – The Gospel narratives of Mark and Luke do not give any indications of this time and speak about the ascension of the Lord very briefly, in the general connection of previous events. And the other two Evangelists (Matthew and John) do not mention the ascension at all. This makes the passage in question from the book of Acts especially valuable, as it fills in such important aspects of the last Gospel events.

"About the Kingdom of God", i.e. about everything that concerned the new life of people redeemed by the sufferings of the Savior and called to form a new Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of the Messiah, the Kingdom of the new Israel, of Christ. How much the disciples of Christ needed this and how little they still penetrated into these mysteries of the true Kingdom of God is proved by what follows in v. 6. The full initiation of the apostles of Christ into the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and into worthy heralds and planters of it followed after the descent of the Holy Spirit (), according to the promise of the Lord.

. And having gathered them together, He commanded them: Do not go away from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from Me,

“And having gathered them”, Greek. καί συναλιξόμενος , glory more precisely - “The poisonous one is with them”. Literally - “and in their assembly they ate food.” Eating food and the command not to leave Jerusalem - at first glance, somehow they do not seem so easily connected into one sentence. This combination of thoughts will not seem strange, however, if you introduce into them one note that escapes during a quick reading. The apostle’s thought then takes on the following course: “He ascended, giving commands by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He revealed Himself alive after His suffering, with many true proofs, appearing to them for forty days and telling them about the Kingdom of God, making them glad.” and having proved himself before them to the point that he even ate food before them, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem.”... Thus the expression “The poisonous one is with them”- συναλιξόμενος - as if crowns the greatest foundation of the joy of the apostles and their faith in the Savior, Who again set Himself alive before them after His suffering, assuring this with many true proofs, among which the surest and most joyful for the apostles who did not believe with joy and marveled () was eating food that is obvious to everyone.

"Don't leave Jerusalem"– The Lord commands the apostles so that, having begun preaching in remote places, they would not be slandered, i.e. called liars (synaxarion for the Ascension of the Lord). In Jerusalem, this would have been much more difficult to achieve, for, in addition to the apostles, there were so many other witnesses and reliable messengers of the events they preached. And so the preached One Himself was still alive in everyone’s memory!

With the command not to leave Jerusalem - the covenant is connected - to wait "Promised by the Father", i.e. sending down the Comforter of the Holy Spirit - etc.

"Promised by the Father"- Greek ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός , or rather glory. "the promises of the Father"(compare also), the promises of the Father, the promises of the Father. The Lord calls the sending of the Holy Spirit “the promise of the Father,” Who is still Old Testament(etc.) through the prophets gave such a promise about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during the time of the Messiah.

"What have you heard from Me", more precisely Greek and Slavic texts: ήν ηκούσατε μου, “hedgehog (i.e., the promise of the Father) hear from me". Here, therefore, the Lord makes it clear that His Promise is precisely the same promise of His Father, which was given in the Old Testament and now once again expressed through the mouth of the Son. The Lord’s words also echo the idea that He, as “one with the Father,” spoke His promise, and this promise took on force, as at the same time the promise of the Father, whose will in this case was done by the Son. Explaining in more detail the essence of this Father-Sonial promise, the Writer cites it in the words of the Son (John 1 and parallels).

. for John baptized with water, and a few days after this you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

"For John baptized with water". Slav. “For John baptized to eat with water”. Greek ότι Ιωάννης ... etc. This ότι stands in obvious connection with the previous ἠκούσατε, explanatorily connecting both sentences, which should be translated as follows: “wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard from Me, namely: that John baptized with water , and you...”, etc. The Russian “for”, if you translate the Greek ότι, is completely incorrect; if μέν (ότι Ιωάννης μέν), then it is completely unnecessary, since μέν ...δέ are untranslatable particles. Actually, the direct connection between ότι must be assumed with further "Imate to be baptized". In this case, the expression "John baptized with water" takes on the meaning of a simple insertion of the Writer, not implied in the Lord’s expression “even if you hear it”; This understanding of the matter is prompted by the fact that in the Gospel these words are not taught to the Lord himself, but only to John (; and paral.), although, of course, the Lord Himself could have said them, not all of whose sayings were included in the Gospel. The expression “to be baptized with the Holy Spirit” in correspondence with baptism with water means complete filling with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as if immersion in His cleansing and life-giving grace. St. Cyril of Jerusalem talks about this this way: “This is not a private grace, but an all-perfect power, for just as one who is immersed and baptized in waters is surrounded by waters everywhere, so they were completely baptized by the Spirit; but the water washes the outward appearance, and the Spirit, without excluding anything, baptizes everything to the inside of the soul itself. And why be surprised?... If fire, entering the interior of rough iron, turns its entire composition into fire and the cold heats up, the black begins to glow; and if fire, being a substance and penetrating the substance of iron, acts so unhindered, then why be surprised if the Holy Spirit enters the interior of the soul itself?

"A few days after this"- again an inaccurate translation of the Greek. ου μετά πολλάς ταύτας ημέρας , glory more precisely - “not for many days now”– after a few days or a few days later. This happened exactly ten days later. The Lord ordered His apostles to wait so long for the Promised Comforter. No more and no less. No more because further continuation of the days of waiting would tire those waiting, would allow distraction and inattention into their souls, and this would make the quiet breath and reverence of the Spirit of God upon them less fruitful. No less - because a premature end to the days of waiting would leave the souls of many in an insufficiently intense thirst for the Comforter, in an insufficiently matured consciousness of the importance of what is to come, in an insufficiently appreciated preciousness and comfort of the Coming, which would also weaken the power and significance of the coming of the Spirit of God.

. Therefore, they came together and asked Him, saying: Are you at this time, O Lord, restoring the kingdom to Israel?

“Isn’t it at this time?”, Greek ει εν τῶ χρόνω τούτω , – i.e. "a few days later" when the disciples "will be baptized with the Holy Spirit"(v. 5). – "Restores kingdoms to Israel", Greek αποκαθιστάνεις τήν βασιλείαν τω Ισραήλ . The apostles express, obviously, the usual ideas about the earthly reign of the Messiah, with the enslavement of all other nations and the assimilation of earthly greatness, glory and power to the people of Israel. “Thus the disciples were still stagnant” (behind) - we note in the words of the church song. Taught for forty days about the Kingdom of God by the Savior who appeared, they still “did not quite clearly understand what this Kingdom is, since they were not yet taught by the Spirit ..., were still attached to sensitive objects, although not as much as before; they had not yet become better - however, they thought more highly about Christ” (Chrysostom).

. He said to them, “It is not your business to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in His power;

“None of your business” is a somewhat rough translation of the Greek. - ουκ υμῶν εστι, - more precisely, glory. “It’s yours...” It is better and more correct to express the Savior’s answer in this form: “it is not for you to know... etc.” The Lord's delicately evasive answer to such an inappropriate question, resonating with gross prejudices, from his beloved disciples, at first impression seems to leave them in the same prejudices, only changing the time of their execution; in fact, this answer correctly counted on the change in the views of the apostles by the very course of events that were about to occur in the near future: "but accept the strength" etc. It would be useless now, right away, to completely disappoint the students in what they have become too accustomed to, especially since their views and expectations, which were in the nature of a crude prejudice, one way or another received fulfillment, only in the highest, best, noblest sense . This can be indicated in the expression of the Savior καιρούς - it is not for you to know the times or the means of circumstances, the nature of the fulfillment of your hopes, that the Father has placed everything in His power. The Russian translation of the expression καιρους - “dates” does not accurately express the Lord’s thought and conveys an unnecessary tautology to it.

The Lord assimilates the meaning of the times and methods of fulfilling hopes for the Kingdom of the Messiah only to the Father - “not because He Himself did not know, but because the question itself was unnecessary, and therefore He answered with silence for their benefit” (Theophylact).

. but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.

Diverting the attention of the disciples from the area of ​​the unrealizable and unnecessary, the Lord draws this attention to the revolution awaiting them in themselves, when everything that is most important and precious to them will come by itself: “you will receive power” - power precisely from the “Holy Spirit” who has come upon you, - the power to be for me "witnesses... even to the ends of the earth", witnesses and preachers about Me, about My life, teachings, deeds, commandments, promises and foreshadowings. “This is a saying,” says the blessed one. Theophylact, is both an exhortation and an irrefutable prophecy of the Savior about what the disciples of Christ will and should be after they receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Here lies also a secret hint about how, with what and when their life hopes for the coming of the Kingdom of the Messiah, the Kingdom of the New Israel, will be fulfilled, into which old Israel will enter only as a part, without exhausting the all-encompassing power and wealth of not earthly temporary, but spiritual eternal benefits of the new Kingdom.

If previously the Lord sent His disciples to preach about the approach of the Kingdom of God only to the Jews, forbidding them to go with this sermon to the pagans and Samaritans (), then this restriction on apostolic activity is removed. Jerusalem is only supposed to be the starting point or center from where the rays of the Gospel Light should illuminate the entire universe "even to the ends of the earth".

. Having said this, He rose up in their sight, and a cloud took Him out of their sight.

“Having said this, He arose”. At ev. Brand: – "after talking with them"(). At ev. Luke: "when he blessed them", retreated from them, i.e. separated somewhat, and began to ascend to heaven ().

"And a cloud took him out of their sight". The final moment of ascension, regarding which bl. Theophylact says: “He was resurrected in such a way that they did not see, but they saw His ascension; they saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see its beginning; They saw the beginning of His ascension, but did not see its end.”

The “cloud” - probably bright - (compare) was here a sign of the special presence of God, the special Divine power by which this glorious last earthly work of the Lord was accomplished.

. And when they looked at the sky, during His ascension, suddenly two men in white clothes appeared to them

"Two Husbands in White Clothes"– undoubtedly – ​​angels (cf. ; ; ; ). “He calls angels husbands,” says Bl. about this. Theophylact, “showing the event in the form in which it appeared to the eye, since the angels actually took on the image of men so as not to frighten.”

. and they said: Men of Galilee! Why are you standing and looking at the sky? This Jesus, who has ascended from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him ascending into heaven.

With bewilderment and surprise, the apostles had to fix their gaze on the sky, where the Lord had just hidden from them. This bewilderment, perhaps close to stupor, is resolved by the angels with a meek and gentle reproach; “Why are you standing and watching?” It is time to turn from the aimless contemplation of the heights of the air to ordinary reality, where a life of apostolic calling awaits them, full of vigorous activity.

"He'll come the same way". Here, of course, obviously, the second glorious coming of the Lord, about which He Himself spoke to the disciples (), and which will be in the same glorified His body and also on the clouds of heaven ().

. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath's journey away.

"Then", i.e. after the admonition received from the angels, "they returned to Jerusalem". In the Gospel Luke adds to this "with great joy" ().

The mention of the Mount of Olives as the place from which the apostles returned to Jerusalem after the Ascension of the Lord obviously means that this mountain was also the place of the ascension. The writer also precisely determines the location of the named mountain, obviously because Theophilus, for whom the book was intended, was unfamiliar with the topography of Jerusalem.

"Near Jerusalem, within a Sabbath's journey", glory "Saturday's propertied way"(Greek “possessed” - σαββάτου έχον οδόν ), i.e. from the mountain which has the path of the Sabbath, or such a path as was allowed to be taken on the Sabbath. This path, according to rabbinical strictness regarding the Sabbath rest, was determined to be 2000 steps (about a mile), at which distance the outermost tents stood from the Tabernacle of Moses during the Jews’ wanderings in the desert. If in the Gospel of St. Luke () says that the Lord ascended “take... them out as far as Bethany”, then this expression, not in contradiction with what was considered, means that the place of the ascension was on the way from Jerusalem to Bethany. The latter stood from Jerusalem at a distance twice the distance of Olivet, at a distance of two Sabbath paths, and is indicated simply to determine the direction along which the Lord led the disciples to the place of His ascension.

. And when they came, they went up to the upper room, where they stayed, Peter and James, John and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James.

. They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with some of the women and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

“They went up into the upper room where they remained... with one accord in prayer and supplication”. Perhaps it was the same upper room in which the last Last Supper was celebrated (the “great” upper room) and the owner of which was probably among the followers of the Lord. Removed from the noise of the street, it provided the most convenient place for prayer meetings, in which the Lord’s disciples prepared themselves with prayers and supplications for the Promised baptism in the Holy Spirit.

“We stayed” - not in the sense of hopelessly living in an upper room for all 10 days. The expression only means that the disciples did not each go to their own place, but, having ascended to a certain upper room, they constantly gathered there for unanimous prayers. In the Gospel - "were always in churches , glorifying and blessing God". This means that the Lord’s disciples remained constant visitors to the divine services of the Old Testament temple, which had not yet been replaced by new sacred rites. But even now, these services, noticeably, did not satisfy the disciples of the Lord, and their new impressions and beliefs forced them to develop their own new forms to satisfy them. So, now in the temple, now in the upper room - they are constantly in prayer and praise to God, constantly gathering in anticipation of the promised change in their orphaned lot.

The names of the apostles without (Judas Iscariot) and the order are almost the same as in the Gospels, with minor changes (cf. ; ; ).

Lebway or Thaddeus is given with the name of Judah Jacob (cf.), and Simon the Canaanite is called a Zealot (“zealot”), as belonging to the party of the Zealots, extreme zealots of the Law of Moses.

The enumeration of the names of the apostles is intended to bring awareness to the main persons who formed the focus of the first Christian society and were the main actors in the events described - the establishment and spread of the Church of Christ, by the election of Its Founder Himself.

"With wives". Here we obviously mean those pious admirers of the Lord who accompanied Him during His life, serving from their estates (cf.). Precious mention of "Mother of Jesus", as well as “His brothers”, who not so long ago did not believe in Him as the Messiah (), but now, obviously, were among the believers.

. And in those days Peter stood in the midst of the disciples and said

"In those days", i.e. between the Ascension and Pentecost.

“Peter, stand in the midst of the disciples,” he said.. Peter, “the mouth of the apostles, always ardent and supreme in the face of the apostles” (Chrysostom, commentary on Matthew, XVI, 15), takes precedence here as “the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock” (Theophilus), offering to fill the face diminished by Judas XII- tee.

. (there was a meeting of about one hundred and twenty people): men and brethren! It was necessary to fulfill what the Holy Spirit foretold in the Scriptures through the mouth of David about Judas, the former leader of those who took Jesus;

The remark regarding the number of those gathered is meant to note the general unanimity that prevailed in the meeting of the Lord’s disciples, and also to show the participation of their general meeting in deciding generally important matters such as the one described. In this case, this participation of believers was expressed in the following actions: they “set up” Joseph and Matthew (v. 23), “prayed” for them (v. 24) and "threw lots"(v. 26). Bearing in mind this order of solving matters, Chrysostom says: “look how Peter does everything with common consent, and does not dispose of anything autocratically and like a boss.”

"About 120 people". The actual number of the Lord's followers was much greater, since during one of His appearances after the Resurrection () more than 500 brothers were already mentioned. We must assume from this that not everyone was present at the described meeting, but only those who had not gone far from Jerusalem and were honored to be witnesses of the Ascension of the Lord.

There are two main ideas in the speech of the Apostle Peter: falling away former apostle Judas and the replenishment of the apostolic face with another person. Since the sad fate of Judas and his bold and terrible deed could shake the weak in faith, the Lord at the Last Supper explained this event to the Apostles in the light of the Word of God (). Now, like the Lord, Peter also does the same, pointing out in what happened the fulfillment of what was predicted through the mouth of David by the Holy Spirit (v. 20).

. he was numbered among us and received the lot of this ministry;

“I have received the lot of this ministry”, i.e. apostolic, was called to apostolic service.

. but he acquired the land with an unrighteous bribe, and when he fell down, his belly was split open and all his entrails fell out;

“I acquired the land with an unrighteous bribe”- an ironic expression referring to the consequences of the terrible atrocity of Judas ().

“When he fell, his belly was split open”, Greek πρηνής γενόμενος ελάκησε μέσος , more precisely slav.: “I was on my face and turned gray in the middle”, literally - having become tilted head down, it burst in the middle, with the belly. The Gospel says that Judas “hanged himself,” probably by strangulation, his body broke off, which is why what the Apostle Peter speaks of happened.

. and this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the land in their native dialect was called Akeldama, that is, the land of blood.

“Village of Blood”, i.e. a village purchased with the money for which the murdered Jesus was sold.

“In their native dialect”- obviously an insertion made by Luke for Theophilus, as well as an explanation of the word “Akeldama”.

. In the book of Psalms it is written: let his court be empty, and let there be no one living in it; and: let another take his dignity.

(to Art. 16). Prophetic references to Judas are borrowed from two psalms - 68 () and 108 (). Interpreting these prophecies as applied to Judas, St. Chrysostom and Bl. Theophylact by “court” means the village (bought: “for what could be emptier than a cemetery?”) and the house of Guda, and by bishopric - the apostolic title. In both of these psalms of David, a righteous man innocently suffering from enemies is depicted, uttering in prayer to God for protection (threats to enemies given by Peter). The application of these threats to Judas (with the change of the plural to the singular) is justified insofar as the righteous man depicted here was a prototype of the Messiah, who innocently suffered from the enemies and since Judas was their main representative and the culprit of the success of their villainous plan.

. Therefore, it is necessary that one of those who were with us throughout the entire time that the Lord Jesus stayed and spoke with us,

Peter sets an essential condition for election to the rank of apostle that the one elected should be an eyewitness to all the earthly activities of the Lord, starting from the baptism of John until the day of the ascension. This apparently purely external condition had, however, an important internal force: it gave more hope for the stability, completeness and maturity of faith and love for the Lord of such a person, and indicated, so to speak, the greater solidity of his preparation - in the uninterrupted communication with the Divine Teacher of them all. Only such preparation - continuous and from the Lord Himself, with the entire totality of His deeds and teachings and the events of His life during the period of public service - gave the right to such high service.

. from the baptism of John until the day on which He ascended from us, He was a witness with us of His resurrection.

“To be a witness with us of His resurrection”. This is how the essence of the apostolic ministry is defined - to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ (v. 8; cf. ;) - “not anything else,” says Theophylact, “because whoever appears worthy to testify that he who ate and drank with them and was crucified The Lord has risen, it is much more possible and should be entrusted to testify about other events,” because the resurrection was what was sought, since it happened in secret, and the rest - openly.

. And they appointed two: Joseph, called Barsaba, who was called Justus, and Matthias;

"They put two", i.e. Of those who satisfied the stated condition, two were identified. “Why not many? So that there would not be more disorder, besides, the matter concerned only a few...” (Theophilus.).

The chosen ones - Joseph Barsabas (Justus) and Matthew - are both unknown in the Gospel history. Probably, “they were from among the 70 who were with the 12 apostles, and from other believers, but they believed more ardently and were more pious than the others” (Theophilus.).

. and they prayed and said: You, Lord, knower of the hearts of all, show of these two one whom You have chosen

“They prayed and said” – και προσευξάμενοι εῖπον - more precisely slav.: “and having prayed, decided”- and after praying, they said. It is likely that the prayer that follows was said by Peter on behalf of the congregation.

The prayer obviously addresses the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is called the “knower of the heart.” Since in another place Peter calls God a knower of hearts (etc.), the use here of the same name in application to Jesus Christ expresses nothing more than faith in His Divine properties and confession of His Divinity.

"Show. by lot. “They didn’t say “choose,” but show, they say, the chosen one: they knew that with God everything was determined in advance (Chrysostom).” Just as during His life on earth, the Lord Himself chose apostles for Himself, so now, although He ascended to heaven, having promised to always remain in His Church, He must Himself choose the twelfth Apostle.

. accept the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell away in order to go to his place.

"Go to your place", i.e. to the place of condemnation, Gehenna.

But “why,” says Chrysostom, “do the apostles prefer election by lot?” Because “they did not yet consider themselves worthy to make a choice themselves, and therefore they want to find out (about this choice) through some sign... And the Holy Spirit has not yet descended on them... and the lot was great significance...

Numbered among the apostles of St. Matthew preached the Gospel in Judea and Ethiopia and died in Jerusalem, stoned (his memory is August 9).

Joseph (Josiah - Just) was later the bishop of Eleutheropolis of Judea and also died a martyr (mem. Oct. 30).

Teachings of the Kaysanites.

The Kaysanites are one of the Shia sects that recognized the imamate of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, the son of Ali ibn Abu Talib.

The first in Shiism, after the death of the sons Ali-Hasan and Husayn, were the Kaysanites, who proclaimed Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya (died in Medina in 700), the son of Ali from a slave from the Bani Hanifa tribe, as the imam. Most Shiites rejected this choice on the grounds that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya was not the son of the Prophet’s daughter. The Kaysanites belong to the “extreme” Shiites who took upon themselves the function of avenging the “innocently murdered” Husayn. The Kaysanites declared Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya the successor of the fire of prophecy from Muhammad through Ali and the owner of secret knowledge.

The earliest movement that took place under the slogan of avenging the blood of Husayn and in defense of the rights of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya to supreme power was the uprising in Kufa led by al-Mukhtar ibn Abi Ubaid al-Saqafi, nicknamed Kaysan (namely, according to one version , the Kaysanites owe their name). Al-Mukhtar's uprising was suppressed, and he himself fell in the battle of Mazar (in Kufa) in 686. According to another version, the name “Kaysanites” goes back to the name of the head of the guard al-Mukhtar Abu Amr Kaisan.

The doctrines of the Kaysanites had a strong influence on the dogma of Shia Islam. Among them, in particular, the doctrine of a change in divine opinion or decision caused by the emergence of new circumstances was developed (al-badah, Arab. appearance, appearance). This doctrinal development allowed Shia imams who claimed knowledge of future events to retract their predictions if they did not come true, citing a change of divine opinion. Kaysanite communities existed until the middle of the 9th century.

There are currently no Kaysanites.

(Ulyanov) Vladimir Ilyich (1870-1924) - one of the creators of Marxism-Leninism, the first leader of the totalitarian communist Soviet state.

Having led the Revolution of 1917, L. managed, through skillful political actions and large-scale acts of violence, to strengthen the power of the Bolsheviks in Russia and lay the foundations Soviet statehood and the international communist movement - influential world forces for almost a century. L.'s significance as a social thinker is determined by the context of the historical experience of the establishment and collapse of communist totalitarianism in the USSR and other countries. Revolutionary Marxism, being, according to L., the indissoluble unity of theory and practice, is guided by the steady movement towards the ultimate historical goal - the establishment of the communist system. The supreme regulator of theoretical activity is the principle of partisanship, designed to ensure both fidelity to the practical goals of the communist movement and the accuracy of theoretical positions. Possibilities of philosophy creativity in such a rigidly and hierarchically defined ideological system, subordinated to the achievement of very specific historical goals, turned out to be minimal and inevitably turned into “apostasy,” “revision of the fundamentals,” etc. Naturally, philosophy, left to itself, constituting itself as a free search for truth, in the eyes of L. looks like a pathetic illusion, hypocrisy and simple-minded naivety, hiding behind itself the interests of one or another social group or class. “Academic”, “professorial” philosophy is a subject of ridicule and real mockery. The psychology of an omniscient and omniscient person, to whom alone the truth is revealed, excludes the cultivation of the natural principles of pluralism of opinions and dialogue, and therefore critical “discussions” with opponents are accompanied by rude abuse and swearing, sometimes not without hysteria.

Whether L. is busy analyzing the revolution and crisis in natural science at the turn of the century, the dual nature of the peasantry or the dialectics of the transition period - in all these cases the philosopher. ignorance and inexperience, and perhaps even their deliberate demonstration in the name of achieving practical goals, are the conditions for the “success” of such an analysis, bringing it to proper results that meet the interests of the case. L. is a great master of using dialectics, this “soul of Marxism,” in a redescription of reality that strictly corresponds to the ideological guidelines of the party. A philosophy that is true to this logic puts itself in absolute dependence on the historical fate of the communist myth that gave birth to this logic and shares its fate.

“MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIOCRITICISM. Critical notes about one reactionary philosophy”

“MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIOCRITICISM. Critical notes about a reactionary philosophy” - philosophical and journalistic work of V. I. Lenin (1909). The reason for writing it was Sat. articles by V. Bazarov, A. Bogdanov, A. Lunacharsky, S. Suvorov and others “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” (1908), as well as books by P. Yushkevich, J. Berman and N. Valentinov. Lenin opposes attempts to combine Marxism with the philosophy of E. Mach and R. Avenarius and critically analyzes empirio-criticism. Marxism, according to Lenin, has its own philosophy - dialectical materialism with its own theory of knowledge, which he interprets as a theory of reflection. The first three chapters compare the theory of knowledge of empirio-criticism and dialectical materialism, the fourth reveals the relationship of empirio-criticism with other idealistic concepts (Berkeleanism, Humeanism, immanent philosophy, etc.), the fifth reveals its connection with “physical idealism” (A. Poincaré, V. Ostwald, P. Duhem, etc.), the sixth critiques the empirio-critical concept of society, contrasts it with the theory of historical materialism, examines the problem of partisanship in philosophy and social sciences. Developing the theory of reflection, Lenin shows that if the previous materialism identified matter with substance. then for dialectical materialism, matter is “an objective reality that exists independently of human consciousness and is reflected by it” (Pol. sobr. soch., vol. 18, p. 276). The non-absolute nature of some properties previously considered primary does not mean at all that matter has disappeared: only “the limit to which we knew matter until now has disappeared; our knowledge goes deeper” (ibid., p. 275). “Nature is infinite,” and dialectical materialism insists on the relative nature of any milestones in the knowledge of an object. In this context, Lenin explores the meaning of objective, absolute and relative truths and their connection with social practice. At the same time, the criterion of practice can never confirm with absolute completeness the truth or falsity of any human idea, but it is sufficiently definite to combat all idealism and agnosticism. Lenin does not explore the relationship between the sensory and rational, empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge, does not specifically analyze the active role of the subject, as well as the role of practice in the formation of consciousness, the nature of social determination. His task was not to show how cognition occurs, but to reveal the fundamental opposition between idealistic and materialistic positions in epistemology. During the Soviet period, the book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” was considered the canonical creation of Marxist philosophy, and a dogmatic approach to its study prevailed. Lenin himself, with his characteristic realism, noted that the work would be useful (regardless of polemical purposes) as a tool for familiarizing oneself with the philosophy of Marxism, as well as with philosophical conclusions from the latest discoveries of natural science.

Critical notes on a reactionary philosophy" is Lenin's main philosophical work; written in February - October 1908, published in May 1909. The book was written during the period of reaction caused by the defeat of the Russian revolution of 1905-07. At that time, the defense of dialectical and historical materialism and the defeat of the philosophy of empirio-criticism (Machism) became an urgent political and theoretical task of Marxists. The book provides a critique of the subjective-idealistic foundations of the philosophy of empirio-criticism, revealing its opposition to the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism. Lenin shows that the Russian Machists want to “supplement and develop” Marxism with Machism. , in fact, repeat the provisions and ideas of subjective idealism and agnosticism. Practical experience of all humanity, natural science data refute the constructions of these “newest” idealists. The book shows the ideological origins and place of empirio-criticism in the history of philosophy: starting with Kant, the Machians went from him to Hume and Berkeley, beyond whose views they, in fact, do not go beyond. Characteristic is the closeness of Machism to the most reactionary movements, such as the immanent school in philosophy. Claiming to be the role of modern philosophy. natural sciences, Machism in fact negatively influenced the development of science, taking advantage of the ideological vacillations of a number of scientists generated by the crisis in physics at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The content of the book is not limited to criticism of Machism. In "M. and E." Lenin developed further the plural. provisions of dialectical and historical materialism. He analyzed the fundamental question of philosophy. the most important philosophical categories, such as matter, experience, time and space, causality, freedom and necessity, etc., creatively developed the Marxist theory of knowledge (especially the theory of reflection, the doctrine of practice and its role in knowledge, objective truth, the relationship between absolute and relative truth), questions of historical materialism. The rapid development of the natural sciences in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, major discoveries made in physics marked the beginning of a revolution in natural science, revealed the relativity of specific natural science knowledge, required a breakdown of existing ideas about matter. On this basis a deep crisis arose, closely connected with physical idealism. Having revealed the social-class and epistemological roots of the latter, Lenin proved that newest discoveries in science not only do they not refute materialism, but, on the contrary, confirm dialectical materialism. Summarizing modern him the achievements of science, Lenin showed the methodological significance of materialist dialectics for overcoming the ideological crisis in natural science, for scientific progress generally.

Critical notes about one reactionary philosophy - the brilliant philosophical work of V. I. Lenin, in which V. I. Lenin deeply criticized the reactionary philosophy of empirio-criticism (Machism), defended theoretical basis Marxism - dialectical and historical materialism, and materialistically generalized everything important and significant that was acquired by science and, above all, natural science in the period after the death of F. Engels. This famous book was the theoretical preparation of a new type of Marxist party - Communist Party.
The book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” was published in 1909, included in the 14th volume of the 4th edition of the Works of V. I. Lenin. It consists of six chapters: the first two chapters are the theory of knowledge of empirio-criticism and dialectical materialism; the third chapter is the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism and empirio-criticism; fourth chapter - philosophical idealists, as comrades and successors of empirio-criticism; fifth chapter - newest revolution in natural science and philosophical idealism; chapter six - empirio-criticism and historical materialism.

The book was written by V.I. Lenin in 1908, after the defeat of the revolution of 1905-07, during the years of the Stolypin reaction, when the tsarist government, with the support of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, brought down brutal repression and persecution on the working class and its party, and among fellow travelers who came to the revolution from bourgeois environment, disintegration, decay, and decadence began. Moving away from the revolution, fellow travelers tried to adapt to the reaction and get along with tsarism. The counter-revolution offensive also took place on the ideological front. A large group of fashionable writers appeared who slandered and mocked the revolution, glorified betrayal, preached idealism and mysticism, “criticized” and distorted Marxism. Decadence and disbelief in the forces of the revolution also affected a group of party intellectuals who considered themselves Marxists, but never stood firmly on the positions of Marxism (A. Bogdanov, V. Bazarov, A. V. Lunacharsky, P. S. Yushkevich, V. Valentinov, etc. .). They opposed the theoretical the foundations of Marxism - dialectical and historical materialism. Their “criticism” of Marxism coincided with the general campaign of reaction against the party, against the revolution. The danger of this “criticism” was great because, having opposed Marxism, they hypocritically denied in words their hostility to Marxism and continued to double-dealingly call themselves Marxists. Assuring that it was only a question of liberating Marxism from some outdated concepts, of supplementing Marxism with data from the latest natural sciences, they wanted to replace scientific Marxist materialism. worldview reactionary anti-scientific idealistic. The philosophy of empirio-criticism, the philosophy of E. Mach and R. Avenarius. Some of the intellectuals who moved away from Marxism went so far as to preach the need to create a new religion, “God-seeking” and “God-building.”

The revolutionary Marxists faced an urgent task - to give a proper rebuke to all degenerates in the field of the theory of Marxism, to expose them to the end and to defend the theoretical. foundations of the Marxist party. This task was accomplished by V.I. Lenin in his book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” In this work, V.I. Lenin revealed the class and ideological origins of Machism, proved that the preachers of this reactionary philosophy are the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, spreaders of idealism, mysticism, clericalism, the worst enemies of the advanced, truly revolutionary teaching - Marxism. Machism made a claim to rise “above” materialism and idealism. V.I. Lenin showed that in reality the Machists were mired in idealism, and their talk about overcoming the opposition of materialism and idealism is nothing more than charlatanism. The entire history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism. Exposing the hypocritical attempts of the Machists to pass themselves off as some new and original philosophers, V.I. Lenin showed the inextricable connection of Machian philosophy with subjective-idealistic philosophy long rejected by science. the views of J. Berkeley, D. Hume, I. Fichte and the Kantians. Mach, Avenarius and their Russian students only repeated Berkeleyan arguments, hiding behind the “newest” pseudoscientific terminology. V.I. Lenin subjected the most thorough criticism. I analyzed all the philosophical tricks of the empirio-critics and exposed their sophisms, leaving not a single crack or loophole for smuggling in idealism. Mach believed that bodies are complexes of sensations, that the world consists only of sensations, that sensations are “real elements of the world.” Comparing to Mach's "elements of the world", Avenarius put forward a "theory" of the inextricable connection between subject and object - the "fundamental coordination" of the "central member" (consciousness) and the "countermember" (the external world). There is no object without a subject, Avenarius declared. Ruthlessly exposing these and similar anti-scientific fabrications, V.I. Lenin proved that Mach’s teaching about things as complexes of sensations is subjective idealism, a simple repetition of Berkeleyanism. “Do we go from things to sensations and thoughts? Or from thoughts and sensations to things? Engels adheres to the first, that is, materialist, line. The second, i.e. idealistic, line is followed by Mach” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 14, p. 30). Having deeply analyzed the “theories” of the Machists, V.I. Lenin showed that the philosophy of empirio-criticism is the purest subjective idealism, covered with new words and terms. “The absurdity of this philosophy lies in the fact that it leads to the recognition that only the philosophizing individual exists” (Lenin V. I., ibid., p. 82).

V.I. Lenin exposed the servility of the Russian Machists to reactionary Western European philosophy, their desire to “reconcile” Machism with Marxism. Having abandoned the soil of materialism, Bogdanov, Bazarov and others were unable to critically understand the true content of Machian philosophy. Seduced by the new terms and buzzwords introduced by the Machists, they began to look for Marxist tendencies in the philosophy of empirio-criticism. In fact, the Russian Machians became the conductors of dilapidated subjective-idealistic ideas. views.

Having revealed the complete anti-scientific nature of empirio-criticism and its class role, which is entirely reduced to serving the fideists in their struggle against materialism in general and against historical materialism in particular, showing the complete reactionary nature of empirio-criticism, V. I. Lenin struck death blow Western European Machists and their Russian echoes.

V.I. Lenin showed that behind the epistemological scholasticism of empirio-criticism one cannot help but see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle that ultimately expresses the tendencies and ideology of the hostile classes of capitalist society.

The greatest significance of V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” is not limited, however, to criticism and exposure of the Machists, who tried in their works to present a refined and smooth idealism as opposed to Marxist materialism. V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” marked a new stage in the development of dialectical materialism. Of enormous importance for the development of Marxist philosophy and the struggle against idealism was the further development by V. I. Lenin of Marxism’s position on the material unity of the world and Lenin’s definition of matter. All idealists, from Plato to modern neo-Kantians, Machists, pragmatists, neorealists, existentialists, have fiercely attacked and are attacking the concept of matter that they hate. Fully revealing the anti-scientific and reactionary nature of the idealistic fabrications. philosophy, V.I. Lenin wrote: “Matter is philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to a person in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them. Therefore, to say that such a concept can become “outdated” is baby babble, a meaningless repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary philosophy” (ibid., p. 117). The philosophical concept of matter characterizes the primacy and objective reality of matter and covers all known and unknown forms of existence and movement of matter. Matter has self-motion. There is no matter without movement, just as there is and cannot be movement without matter. The movement of matter occurs in space and time. For the Machians, necessity, causality, regularity, space and time are subjective categories derived from consciousness, reason, and logic. Dialectical materialism considers space and time as objective forms of existence of moving matter and proceeds from the recognition of the objective nature of laws material world and an approximately correct reflection of this pattern in human consciousness. With exhaustive completeness, V. I. Lenin showed the reactionary and anti-scientific nature of idealists’ statements about the ability of consciousness to create universal forms, dictate laws to nature, etc. V. I. Lenin pointed out that the main idea, common to Hume and Kant, is the denial of objective law nature, in deducing certain principles, postulates, premises from the subject, from human consciousness, and not from nature. The difference between the Humean point of view (“sensation, experience tells us nothing about any necessity”) and the Kantian-Machian formula (“man gives laws to nature”) is a secondary difference between agnostics, who agree on the main thing: in the denial of the objective laws of nature .

Having subjected to comprehensive criticism the anti-Marxist views of the Russian Machists and their foreign teachers, V.I. Lenin further developed the main provisions of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism - about knowledge as a reflection of the objective material world, about the laws and forms of this reflection, about objective, absolute and relative truth, about the role of practice as the basis of knowledge and criterion of truth, and many other questions. V.I. Lenin formulated three main epistemological conclusions:

1. Things exist objectively, independently of our consciousness;
2. there is no fundamental difference between a phenomenon and a “thing in itself”; the difference is between what is known and what is not yet known;
3. in the theory of knowledge one should reason dialectically, analyze how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inaccurate knowledge becomes more accurate and complete.

Exposing the pseudo-scientific reactionary views of the Machists on the question of truth, V. I. Lenin comprehensively developed dialectical-materialistic. the doctrine of objective, absolute and relative truth. In contrast to idealism, which denies objective truth, the recognition of objective truth is essential for materialism. Truth is always objective truth; representations that lack objective content are not true. Unlike metaphysics, dialectical materialism proceeds from the fact that there is no impassable line between absolute and relative truth. The process of human cognition is endless, just as eternally developing matter is endless, therefore a person cannot express objective truth immediately, completely, absolutely. In this sense, our knowledge of the external world is historically relative. But every relative truth is a particle, a stage of absolute truth. “From the point of view of modern materialism, that is, Marxism,” writes V.I. Lenin, “the limits of approximation of our knowledge to objective, absolute truth are historically conditional, but the existence of this truth is unconditional, it is unconditional that we are approaching it” ( ibid., p. 123). Proof that human cognition correctly reflects the objective material world, is life itself, historically developing social practice. In his book, V.I. Lenin gave a deep analysis of the role of practice as the basis of the entire process of cognition and exposed the Machian separation of practice from the theory of knowledge and the reduction of practice by the Machists to an idealistically understood experience (the totality subjective feelings). Practice, experiment, industry are the best refutation of all the sophisms of idealists about the unknowability of the objectively existing material world. “The point of view of life, practice,” says V.I. Lenin, “should be the first and main point of view of the theory of knowledge. And it inevitably leads to materialism, throwing away from the threshold the endless fabrications of professorial scholasticism” (ibid., p. 130). The Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge is a great weapon in the hands of the working class and its party in the matter of knowledge and changing the world.

V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” is of great importance for the development of natural science. In it, V.I. Lenin examined in detail the new achievements of science, revealed the causes of the crisis in natural science and indicated ways out of this crisis, and gave a materialistic generalization of the latest data in natural science. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Natural science was going through a period of revolution. The achievements in the field of physics were especially significant. The electron was discovered in 1897. It was found that this smallest particle is an integral part of the atom and all bodies of nature. Research has shown that the mass of an electron does not remain constant, but changes depending on the speed of its movement. This led natural scientists to the idea of ​​the electromagnetic origin of the mass of material particles. Electromagnetic theory became the foundation of new views on the structure of matter. The discovery of radioactivity showed that atoms are divisible and changeable, turning into each other. When analyzing the emission spectra of heated bodies, a new, previously unknown feature of the processes of emission and absorption of light was discovered - their discreteness. The latest natural scientific discoveries, testifying to major advances in the knowledge of nature, overturned the old metaphysics. ideas about the indivisibility of the atom, the immutability of chemicals. elements, the constancy of the mass of bodies, etc., brought natural scientists close to a dialectical-materialist worldview. But the overwhelming majority of natural scientists, due to the social conditions prevailing in bourgeois society, did not know any other form of materialism other than metaphysical materialism. They tried unsuccessfully to squeeze the latest data of natural science into the framework of the ossified ideas of metaphysical materialism. Difficulties arose in natural science, which the idealist took advantage of. philosophy, in particular Machism. Physicists, not mastering dialectical materialism, could not give a correct assessment of their discoveries. Some physicists perceived the collapse of the old principles of science and the discovery of new properties of the material world as a collapse, the disappearance of matter, and abandoned materialism. V. I. Lenin called physicists who switched from the position of spontaneous materialism to the position of idealism “physical” idealists. The turn of some physicists towards idealism, which occurred in an atmosphere of a sharp breakdown of old concepts under the influence of new discoveries, was characterized by V. I. Lenin as a “crisis of physics”. “The essence of the crisis of modern physics,” points out V.I. Lenin, “is the breaking of old laws and basic principles, the rejection of objective reality outside consciousness, i.e. e. in replacing materialism with idealism and agnosticism. “Matter has disappeared” - this is how one can express the basic and typical difficulty in relation to many particular issues that created this crisis” (ibid., p. 245). Since the atom is not indivisible and unchangeable, as natural scientists previously believed, this means, the “physical” idealists argued, materialism is collapsing; once components atoms are electrons, which means “matter disappears”, and electricity takes its place; since our knowledge changes, it means there is nothing objective in it, etc. “Physical” idealists did not limit themselves to attacks on the general principles of scientific knowledge. They tried to reject concrete physical science. theories and concepts based on materialistic. views. For example, Mach rejected kinetic theory. theory that explained many physical phenomena by the movement and interaction of atoms and molecules, declaring atoms a “sabbath of witches”; V. Ostwald tried to replace the materialistic kinetic. theory and atomism to put forward their idealistic “energy”. In mechanics, “physical” idealists emasculated the content of such important scientific concepts as the concept of mass, reducing it to a purely external relation of bodies, to a certain coefficient, etc. All this made the development of science especially painful and difficult. The struggle against idealism in general and “physical” idealism in particular acquired extremely important significance. Materialist naturalists - D. I. Mendeleev, K. A. Timiryazev, L. Boltzmann, P. Langevin, N. A. Umov, A. G. Stoletov, M. Planck and others - spoke out against “physical” idealism. “physical” idealism was given by V.I. Lenin in his work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”.

V.I. Lenin revealed the social and epistemological roots of “physical” idealism and showed that common basis, at which the crisis in physics arose, are social conditions imperialism, its characteristic reaction in economics, politics and ideology is a reaction “along the entire line.” The entire situation in capitalist states prevented scientists from accepting the only scientific worldview - dialectical materialism. Analyzing the reasons that gave rise to “physical” idealism, V.I. Lenin pointed out that physicists have gone crazy into the idealism of Ch. arr. because they did not know dialectics. Some natural scientists, fighting against metaphysical mechanistic materialism, abandoned materialism in general, “slipped into reactionary philosophy, failing to directly and immediately rise from metaphysical materialism to dialectical materialism” (Lenin V.I., ibid., p. 299). One of the reasons that gave rise to “physical” idealism is, as V.I. Lenin pointed out, the formalization of physics, the unlawful mathematization of its concepts, which grows out of an incorrect understanding of the role of mathematics in physics; advances in physics that make it possible to express the laws of science in mathematical form. equations from which consequences can be deduced, justified by experience, create among some natural scientists the illusion of the omnipotence of equations, as if the mind dictates its laws to nature, as if “matter has disappeared - only equations remain.” Another reason lies in the misunderstanding of the relationship between the relative and the absolute in knowledge, in the elevation of the relativity of our knowledge into a certain “principle of relativism,” which, in the absence of knowledge of dialectics, inevitably leads to idealism. “This question of the relationship between relativism and dialectics,” points out V.I. Lenin, “is perhaps the most important in explaining the theoretical misadventures of Machism” (ibid., p. 295).

The central point around which the struggle between materialism and idealism in physics took place was the question of whether scientific theories are a reflection, a copy, a snapshot of objective reality, or are they nothing more than conventional signs, symbols, arbitrary products of the human mind. “Physical” idealists sought to prove the complete arbitrariness of scientific knowledge, its subjectivity, and denied objective value scientific theories. The crisis of physics, V.I. Lenin points out, consisted precisely in the denial of the objective value of its theory. In denying the objectivity of science, the “physical” idealists joined the camp of fideism and cleared the way for it. V.I. Lenin refuted all attempts to deny the objectivity of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that the struggle against recognition of the objectivity of scientific data is a struggle against the fundamental foundations of natural science, against science itself. V.I. Lenin showed the true nature of scientific knowledge as an increasingly refined reflection in our consciousness of an objective reality that exists outside and independently of consciousness. V.I. Lenin sharply criticized the attempts of idealists to use the latest discoveries of physics to deny matter. Analyzing the statement of “physical” idealists who declared that since atoms contain electrons, “matter has disappeared,” V.I. Lenin showed that such argumentation is completely untenable, since natural science has proven the objective existence of electrons, which are particles of matter.

V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” dealt a crushing blow to the so-called. “physiological” idealism, whose representatives argued that the quality of sensations is determined not by the nature of external influences, but by the properties of the sense organs that perceive these influences. Developing the theory of reflection, V.I. Lenin scientifically substantiated the position that sensations are images, snapshots from objective reality, and not conventional signs, symbols or hieroglyphs, that objective reality is given to us in sensations.

Refuting the attempts of “physical” idealists to pass off as idealistic. views for the “philosophy of modern natural science”, V.I. Lenin showed the incompatibility of natural science and idealism, revealed the reactionary role of idealism in the development of science. Idealism confuses the solution of problems put forward by science, leads natural scientists away from the right way. At the same time, V.I. Lenin emphasized the creative significance of materialism for natural science. Genuine science can develop successfully only on the basis of dialectical materialism. One of the most important provisions of V.I. Lenin’s book is proof that natural science is not indifferent to the struggle of materialism with idealism, and is not “neutral” in this struggle. Resolutely rejecting the assertion of bourgeois philosophers about the “non-partisanship” of natural science in the struggle of materialism against idealism, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Science is non-partisan in the struggle of materialism with idealism and religion, this is the favorite idea not of Mach alone, but of all modern bourgeois professors, these, according to the fair expression of the same J. Dietzgen, “certified lackeys, stupefying the people with tortured idealism”” (ibid., p. 126).

V. I. Lenin’s criticism of “physical,” “physiological,” and other varieties of idealism retains all its force in relation to modern idealistic movements. Modern “physical” idealists, referring to the fact of the transformation of pairs of electrons and positrons into photons, are trying to declare again that “matter has disappeared.” In fact, no disappearance of matter occurs in this case; matter transforms from one form to another, because photons, although they differ from electrons and positrons in their physical properties, just like them, exist objectively and are particles of matter. Perverting the law of the relationship between mass and energy discovered by physics (E=M/s 2, where E- energy, M- mass, and c - the speed of light), modern “physical” idealists interpret this law as “the transformation of matter into energy”, “the transformation of matter into motion” and thus try to revive the “energetics” of V. I. Lenin destroyed by V. Ostwald with her anti-scientific idea of ​​the possibility of movement without matter. Referring to the peculiarities of patterns in microprocesses, open quantum mechanics, modern “physical” idealists are trying to declare causality eliminated. Meanwhile, as V.I. Lenin showed, the discovery of new forms of causal connections between phenomena and changes in scientific ideas about causality cannot shake the position about the objectivity of causal connections in the material world.

Of exceptional importance for natural science is the position developed by V. I. Lenin that no “finite”, “unchangeable” essences of things, “absolute substances” exist in nature, that matter is inexhaustible in depth. This position overturns the misconceptions of those natural scientists who claim that the goal of science is the search for a certain “ultimate”, “unchangeable essence” of things, beyond which there is supposedly nowhere to go. The position about the inexhaustibility of matter opens up limitless development prospects for science and equips scientists with an understanding of history. the limitations of each natural science theory does not allow these theories to be dogmatized and absolutized. At the same time, it instills firm confidence that the results achieved by science are not just “relative”, but relatively true, since they reflect a certain stage in the knowledge of the infinitely complex essence of things. The achievements of modern physics confirm this position. The electron, previously considered as a very simple particle, possessing only mass and electricity. charge, discovered when latest research a number of new complex properties - intrinsic magnetic moment, mechanical. moment (spin), wave properties, the ability under certain conditions to transform into other particles of matter, new laws of motion, etc. Based on the position of the inexhaustibility of matter, V.I. Lenin, even at a time when the electromagnetic theory was just gaining general recognition, pointed out that science will not stop on the electromagnetic “picture of the world”, but will go even further. Modern physics, in its forward movement, follows the path indicated by V.I. Lenin.

Programmatic for physiology, for the study of higher nervous activity, is the position developed by V. I. Lenin that sensation is an image, a snapshot from objective reality. It is logical to assume, V.I. Lenin points out, that all matter has a property related to sensation - the property of reflection (see ibid., p. 81). This position has posed a huge task for natural science - to reveal the forms and features of this “property of reflection” , its physicochemical and physiological basis, the transition of this property to sensation, etc. Biologists, biochemists, physiologists and other material scientists are working on solving this problem.

Having revealed the social and epistemological roots of the crisis experienced by physics, V.I. Lenin scientifically substantiated the inevitable victory of materialism in physics, the need for natural scientists to transition to the position of dialectical materialism - the only true philosophy of natural science. In this V.I. Lenin saw the way out of the crisis in natural science. “The materialistic fundamental spirit of physics, as well as all modern natural science, will overcome all and every crisis, but only with the indispensable replacement of metaphysical materialism with dialectical materialism” (V.I. Lenin, ibid., p. 292).

In the Soviet Union, thanks to the enormous educational and propaganda work of the Communist Party, natural scientists, studying the work of V.I. Lenin, successfully mastered dialectical materialism and were guided by it in their scientific research. In capitalist countries where the imperialist government is in power. The bourgeoisie is waging a fierce struggle against the revolutionary Marxist worldview; the open transition of natural scientists to the position of dialectical materialism is extremely difficult. But even there, V.I. Lenin’s book, with whose ideas more and more scientists are gradually becoming acquainted, is winning new conscious supporters of dialectical materialism.

In the book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” V. I. Lenin subjected the subjective idealism of the Machists to scathing criticism in matters of knowledge of society, further developed and enriched historical materialism; V.I. Lenin showed that he was a sociologist. the views of the Machists have nothing in common with Marxism, that the Machist sociologists. excursions are used by the imperialist. reaction in the struggle against Marxism, against the revolutionary labor movement. Fulfilling the order of the imperialist. The bourgeoisie, the Machists Bley, Petzoldt and others tried, through all kinds of fabrications, to “prove” the eternity and inviolability of the exploitative system. V. I. Lenin called the sociological arguments of Bley and Petzoldt “unspeakable vulgarities.” V.I. Lenin exposed the reactionary essence of biology. theories of society and showed that it is pretentious-empty and energetic and biological. With words, the Machists wanted to obscure the irreconcilability of class contradictions in capitalist society. society and prove that this society will come to complete peace and prosperity due to the “psychological tendency towards stability” inherent in people, that this tendency supposedly resolves all contradictions. Investigating the reactionary views of the bourgeois professors, the Russian Machists Bogdanov, Suvorov, Bazarov and others began to distort historical materialism, “combining” Machism with Marxism. By distorting historical materialism, Bogdanov tried to transfer biological materialism. laws for the region social phenomena. He mixed social life to the activity of consciousness, to the mental. activities, coming therefore to idealism. identification of social existence and social consciousness. V.I. Lenin showed the absurdity and reactionary nature of Bogdanov’s “theory” about the identity of social existence and social consciousness. V. I. Lenin subjected the Machist Suvorov to devastating criticism, who called class struggle, and therefore the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, is a negative, anti-social phenomenon.

V.I. Lenin further developed the philosophy of Marxism, showed all its greatness and emphasized that in this philosophy, “cast from one piece of steel, it is impossible to remove a single basic premise, not a single essential part, without departing from the objective truth, without falling into embrace of bourgeois reactionary lies” (ibid., p. 312).

V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” is an example of militant Marxist partisanship, an irreconcilable struggle against any deviations from revolutionary Marxism, against open and disguised enemies of the working class, for a communist worldview. Every word of V.I. Lenin in this book represents a striking sword that destroys the enemy. A red thread running through V. I. Lenin’s entire work, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” is a passionate insistence on materialism, contempt for any confusion, any retreat to idealism. V.I. Lenin tore off the mask of non-partyism and objectivism from bourgeois philosophy and science and proved that with the scholasticism of empirio-criticism, bourgeois ideologists are trying to cover up the struggle of two parties in philosophy, the struggle of materialism and idealism, which reflects the irreconcilable struggle of the two main capitalist classes. society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. “The newest philosophy,” writes V.I. Lenin, “is just as partisan as it was two thousand years ago. Essentially, the fighting parties, hiding behind gelerter-charlatan new nicknames or feeble-minded non-partyism, are materialism and idealism. The latter is only a subtle, refined form of fideism...” (ibid., p. 343).

In this work, V.I. Lenin gave a deep development to the question of the partisanship of philosophy, branded any manifestation of conciliation in the struggle of the materialist camp in philosophy against the idealist camp, any semblance of an objectivist, “non-partisan” approach to philosophical theories.

V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” is the strongest theoretical weapon of the party of the proletariat. It is of great importance for the development of advanced materialism. science and the fight against all manifestations of idealism.

Deep decline and insanity, obscurantism and spiritual savagery characterize the bourgeois philosophy of the era of imperialism. It has a negative impact on the development of bourgeois natural science, corrupts and poisons the consciousness of people with nationalist, cosmopolitan, racist and militaristic ideas. Its goal is to morally disarm and disorient the freedom-loving peoples who have risen to fight against the yoke of imperialism.

Reactionary imperialist. Philosophy is opposed by progressive materialist philosophical thought, which is becoming increasingly stronger in all countries of the world. V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” has a huge revolutionary influence on the consciousness of all progressive people.

V. I. Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-criticism” after the Great October Revolution socialist revolution as of 1953, it was published in the USSR 83 times, with a total circulation of 4,407,000 copies. in 18 languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Georgian, Azerbaijani, Lithuanian, Latvian, Armenian, Estonian, Finnish, Tatar, English, Bulgarian, Spanish, Chinese and German.

"Materialism and empirio-criticism"

Essay by V.I. Lenin “Materialism and empirio-criticism. Critical Notes on a Reactionary Philosophy" is critical analysis works by E. Mach and other authors who tried to formulate a “new look” at the classical ideas of materialism. In this work, Lenin criticizes the idea of ​​​​the secondary nature of matter, the perception of it as a product of our sensations. At the same time, Lenin reveals his own thoughts about the essence of matter, the structure of the surrounding world and the theory of its knowledge.

“The basic premises of the theory of knowledge of Mach and Avenarius were frankly, simply and clearly stated by them in their first philosophical works. We will turn to these works, postponing until further presentation the analysis of the amendments and erasures subsequently given by these writers.

“The task of science,” Mach wrote in 1872, “can only consist in the following: 1. Investigate the laws of connection between ideas (psychology). - 2. Discover the laws of connection between sensations (physics). - 3. Explain the laws. connections between sensations and ideas (psychophysics)". This is quite clear. The subject of physics is the connection between sensations, and not between things or bodies, the image of which is our sensations. And in 1883, in his “Mechanics,” Mach repeats the same idea: “Sensations are not “symbols of things.” Rather, a “thing” is a mental symbol for a complex of sensations that has relative stability. Not things (bodies), but colors, sounds ", pressures, spaces, times (what we usually call sensations) are the real elements of the world." We will talk about this word “elements”, which was the fruit of twelve years of “reflection”, below. Now we need to note that Mach admits here directly that things or bodies are complexes of sensations, and that he quite clearly contrasts his philosophical point of view with the opposite theory, according to which sensations are “symbols” of things (more precisely, images or representations of things ). This last theory is philosophical materialism. For example, the materialist Friedrich Engels - a well-known collaborator of Marx and the founder of Marxism - constantly and without exception speaks in his writings about things and about their mental images or reflections (Gedanken-Abbilder), and it is self-evident that these mental images arise in no other way , as from sensations. It would seem that this basic view of the “philosophy of Marxism” should be known to everyone who speaks about it, and especially to everyone who speaks in the press on behalf of this philosophy. But in view of the extraordinary confusion introduced by our Machians, we have to repeat what is generally known.”

In the essay “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” Lenin once again contrasts the philosophies of materialism and idealism, while relying on the works of Engels, insisting on the correctness of materialist views. “Where does thinking get these principles from?” (we are talking about the basic principles of all knowledge). "From itself? No... Thinking can never draw and derive forms of being from itself, but only from the external world... Principles are not the starting point of research, but its final result; these principles do not apply to nature and to human history, but are abstracted from them; it is not nature, not humanity that conforms to the principles, but, on the contrary, the principles are true only insofar as they correspond to nature and history. This is the only materialist view of the subject, and Dühring’s opposite view is an idealistic view that turns it upside down. with his feet a real relationship, constructing the real world from thoughts..." (Engels, S. 21). And Engels pursues this “sole materialist view,” we repeat, everywhere and without exception, mercilessly persecuting Dühring for the slightest deviation from materialism to idealism. Anyone who reads Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach with a modicum of attention will encounter dozens of examples of Engels talking about things and their images in human head, in our consciousness, thinking, etc. Engels does not say that sensations or ideas are “symbols” of things, for consistent materialism must place here “images,” pictures, or reflections in place of the “symbol,” as we will show in detail in in its place. But now we are talking not at all about this or that formulation of materialism, but about the opposition of materialism to idealism, about the difference between the two main lines in philosophy. Should we go from things to sensations and thoughts? Or from thoughts and sensations to things? Engels adheres to the first, that is, materialist, line. The second, i.e. idealistic, line is followed by Mach. No subterfuge, no sophistry (of which we will encounter many more) will eliminate the clear and indisputable fact that E. Mach’s teaching about things as complexes of sensations is subjective idealism, is a simple repetition of Berkeleyism. If bodies are “complexes of sensations,” as Mach says, or “combinations of sensations,” as Berkeley said, then it inevitably follows that the whole world is only my idea. Based on such a premise, one cannot come to the existence of other people except oneself: this is pure solipsism. No matter how much Mach, Avenarius, Petzoldt and Co. renounce it, in fact they cannot get rid of solipsism without blatant logical absurdities.”

“Materialism, in full agreement with natural science, takes the given matter as the primary one, considering consciousness, thinking, sensation as secondary, because in a clearly expressed form, sensation is associated only with the highest forms of matter (organic matter), and “in the foundation of the very building of matter” one can only assume the existence abilities similar to sensation. This is the assumption, for example, of the famous German naturalist Ernst Haeckel, the English biologist Lloyd Morgan and others, not to mention Diderot’s guess, which we cited above.”

It should be especially noted here that Lenin, in his materialistic views, refers to the assumptions and merits of Western scientists and philosophers, discovers deep knowledge progressive Western philosophical thought. In the future, it was on their basis that Lenin would build revolutionary socio-political theories.

“As for materialism, to which Mach opposes his views here too, without naming the “enemy” directly and clearly, we have already seen the real views of materialists in the example of Diderot. These views do not consist in deriving sensation from the movement of matter or reducing it to the movement of matter, but in the fact that sensation is recognized as one of the properties of moving matter. Engels took Diderot’s point of view on this issue.” The movement of matter has an important place in modern philosophical science; modern scientific ideas largely repeat the views of Lenin and his predecessors.

Chapter V of Volume 18 of Lenin’s Collected Works ends with the words: “Modern physics lies in labor. It gives birth to dialectical materialism. Childbirth is painful. In addition to a living and viable creature, they inevitably produce some dead products, some garbage that must be sent to the sewage room. This garbage includes all physical idealism, all empiriocritical philosophy, together with empiriosymbolism, empiriomonism, etc., etc.” Thus, Lenin affirms dialectical materialism as the only truly scientific philosophical theory based on the laws of another natural science- science about the laws of nature.

The founder of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924), is considered the largest representative of Marxism after Marx and Engels. Forced to leave aside his contribution to Marxist political economy and the doctrine of socialism (analysis of the development of capitalism in Russia, the theory of imperialism, the plan for the construction of socialism, etc.), we will focus on Lenin’s philosophical position as the author of two philosophical works and a number of ideas of a philosophical nature , running through many of his works.

First of all, we note that Lenin did not immediately develop the idea of ​​the unity of the three parts of Marxism, including the philosophical part. In the first period of his activity (1893-1899), when, following Plekhanov, he began to criticize the populists, and then the “legal Marxists” (in particular, Struve), he was inclined to think about the withering away of philosophy, believing that “its material is disintegrating between various branches of positive science." Accordingly, he considered historical materialism as a specific science - sociology, and defined dialectics as a scientific method in sociology.

True, this did not prevent the fact that in his first major works - “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” (1894) and “The economic content of populism and its criticism in the book of Mr. Struve” (1895) - there were ideas that can be defined as philosophical. Thus, criticizing the leader of the populists N.K. Mikhailovsky, Lenin emphasized that in determining the paths of development of Russia one must proceed not from what is desired, not from the ideal put forward by individuals, but from objective processes and trends inherent in society as an integral organism.

A significant change in Lenin’s attitude to philosophy apparently occurred when discussions around the revisionism of E. Bernstein began among Western social democrats and a division began between the revolutionary and future reformist wings of the social democratic movement. Already in these disputes philosophical issues were raised (remember that Bernstein proposed to abandon dialectics in Marxism). But these questions became especially acute when a number of Marxists, who believed that Marxism did not have its own philosophy, began to complement it in the field of the theory of knowledge, some with neo-Kantianism, others with empirio-criticism (which especially spread in Russia).

Lenin, like Plekhanov, did not agree with either one or the other, believing that it was impossible to combine the materialist teaching of Marxism with the idealist theory of knowledge. Marxism should and, in fact, has its own philosophy, including the theory of knowledge. Thus, Lenin had to not only recognize philosophy as such, but also deal with philosophical and epistemological issues, which resulted in his philosophical work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” (1909).

Criticizing empirio-criticism in the person of its founders E. Mach and R. Avenarius, as well as their Russian followers A. A. Bogdanov, V. A. Bazarov, P. S. Yushkevich, N. Valentinov and others, Lenin characterizes his theory of knowledge as subjective -idealistic and contrasts it with the materialist, or more precisely, the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge of Marxism. Dialectical materialism, he believes, like any materialism, considers cognition as a process of man’s reflection of objective reality, while the subjective idealism of supporters of empirio-criticism and Machism, just like Berkeley’s subjective idealism, does not recognize cognition as a reflection of objective reality and considers it as a process entirely flowing inside consciousness. As a result, Lenin emphasizes, empirio-criticism falls into solipsism (only I exist) and comes into conflict with natural science, which speaks of the existence of the world independent of man.

If we proceed from this question, Lenin believed, then it follows that various philosophical “schools” arguing among themselves over certain epistemological details cannot prove anything to each other and only obscure with these disputes the main philosophical division into idealism and materialism.

The situation is more serious when Mach, Avenarius and their followers try to refute materialism, citing the latest revolutionary achievements in physics - the discovery of radioactivity, the electron, the fact of the variability of its mass, and others. The mechanistic picture of the world with its unchanging atoms, unchanging mass and other absolutes is indeed collapsing. But does this mean that matter disappears and the materialism based on it collapses? No way, says Lenin. Here it is also necessary to distinguish between philosophical and non-philosophical questions. The question of the specific properties of matter is resolved by specific sciences, and primarily by physics. And “the only “property” of matter, with the recognition of which philosophical materialism is associated, is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of our consciousness”