Which end of the shule is Solovyov talking about? V.S. Soloviev “Three forces. During this period, war was needed, which at that stage was a sacred matter. And now comes an era of peace and the peaceful spread of European culture everywhere. And in this the Politician sees the meaning of history

What is important is not that in every person there are the beginnings of both good and evil, but what of the two prevails in whom. Evil really exists, and it is expressed not in the absence of good alone, but in positive resistance and the predominance of lower qualities over higher ones in all areas of existence. D To fulfill the will of God and achieve the Kingdom of God, in addition to conscience and mind, something else is needed -inspiration of goodness, or the direct and positive effect of the good principle itself on us and in us.True culture requires that all fighting between people and between nations be completely abolished.About Christmas in churches they sing: “On earth there is peace, good will towards men.” This means that there will be peace on earth only when there is goodwill among people. We must not pray to God, but act in God’s way. There is only one mortal sin - despondency, because despair is born from it, and despair is, in fact, not sin, but spiritual death itself.

Quotes from the book Vladimir Solovyov -
Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history,
with the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist

PREFACE

Many years ago I read news about a new religion that had arisen somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers were called vertidyrniks or hole-piercers, consisted in the fact that, having drilled a medium-sized hole in some dark corner in the wall of a hut, these people put their lips to it and persistently repeated many times: “My hut, my hole, save me.” me!". Never before, it seems, has the subject of worship reached such an extreme degree of simplification.

The real purpose of polemics here is not to refute an imaginary religion, but to expose a real deception.

No Russian censorship requires you to declare beliefs that you do not have, to pretend to believe in what you do not believe in, to love and honor what you despise and hate.

I have a positive connection with the polemical task of these dialogues: to present the question of the struggle against evil and the meaning of history from three different points of view, of which one, religious and everyday, belonging to the past, appears especially in the first conversation, in the speeches of the general; the other, culturally progressive, dominant at the present time, is expressed and defended by the politician, especially in the second conversation, and the third, unconditionally religious, which has yet to show its decisive importance in the future, is indicated in the third conversation in the reasoning of Mr. Z and in the story of Father Pansofia.

If I consider the cessation of war in general impossible before the final catastrophe, then in the closest rapprochement and peaceful cooperation of all Christian peoples and states I see not only a possible, but a necessary and morally obligatory way of salvation for the Christian world from being absorbed by the lower elements.

_______
About the book:

The first publication entitled "Under the palm trees. Three conversations about peaceful and military affairs"" in the magazine "Books of the Week". 1899. No. 10. P. 5--37; No. 11. P. 126--159; 1900. No. 1 . pp. 150--187.

In 1900, during the author’s lifetime, the first separate edition was published, under a new name, with a preface first published in the Rossiya newspaper under the heading “On counterfeit goodness,” and with minor corrections compared to the original text: “Three Conversations about war, progress and the end of world history, with the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist and with appendices."

"Three Conversations" is Vl.'s last book. Solovyov, but it would be reckless to consider it as a kind of testament, as a hopeless result of all his work. This is contradicted by the pathos of the wonderful book “The Justification of Good,” the second, significantly expanded edition of which was published in 1899, and by all of Solovyov’s social and journalistic activities, which he did not stop until the last days of his life and which was imbued with the ideas of freedom, morality, faith and duty, those ideas that must triumph over the forces of evil in earthly life. There is no doubt that the last years of the philosopher were full of tragic forebodings, about which he, for example, wrote to V.L. Velichko on July 3, 1897: “The approaching end of the world is blowing into my face with some clear, albeit elusive breath, - like a traveler approaching the sea feels the sea air before he sees the sea." But, I think, “Three Conversations” should not be subjected to a broad interpretation; one must always remember their polemical focus (primarily against Tolstoyism) and not lose sight of the testimony of Solovyov himself: “I wrote this to finally express my view on the church issue.” . In “Three Conversations” there is a lot from Solovyov’s historiosophy and eschatology, but even more from his traditional socio-political problems. In places, “Three Conversations” resembles a journalistic commentary on newspaper reports. To what has been said, we can add that Solovyov’s public reading of “The Tale of the Antichrist” in the spring of 1900 aroused ridicule from the St. Petersburg public.

The writer began work on “Antichrist” in the spring of 1896, perhaps under the influence of the fierce controversy that his article “The Meaning of War” (1895), which then formed the eighteenth chapter of “The Justification of Good,” caused in the Russian press. Most critics took it (quite wrongly) as an apology for war. Solovyov predicted an armed struggle between Europe and “Mongolian Asia,” which “will, of course, be the last, but even more terrible, a truly worldwide war, and it is not indifferent to the fate of mankind which side will remain victorious in it.” True, he added, in this struggle there is no unconditional, externally pressing necessity: “The matter is still in our hands... Against Europe, internally united and truly Christian, Asia would have neither a justification for the struggle nor conditions for victory.” It is clear that in these statements it is easy to see the germ of some pages from Three Conversations.

Work on Plato's works suggested to Solovyov a form of work that is rare in Russian literature - a classic Platonic dialogue, when the interlocutors, despite the difference in their views, equally participate in identifying the author's main ideas. It is obvious that Mr. Z expresses judgments that are closest to Solovyov. The prototype of the Politician may have been S. Yu. Witte, the then Minister of Finance, with whom Soloviev was on good terms. The prince is the exponent of Tolstoy's views. Monk Pansofy, who composed “A Brief Tale of the Antichrist,” is the poet Vl. Soloviev , whose poetic epigraph precedes the story. The final finishing of "Three Conversations" was completed in the spring - autumn of 1899, and in the winter of 1900 "The Tale of the Antichrist" was written.

---
From Wikipedia:

Three Conversations about War, Progress and the End of World History is a philosophical essay by Vladimir Solovyov, written in the spring of 1900 a few months before his death. This essay is considered as a “testament” and even a prediction. At the same time, G.V. Florovsky notices in this book Solovyov’s departure from his previous ideas (including the concept of theocracy).

The first conversation concerns the topic of war. Although Solovyov recognizes the evil in war, since war involves murder, he nevertheless believes that war can be fair. As an example, he tells the story of the General about retribution against the bashi-bazouks for the destruction of an Armenian village. Another story concerns Vladimir Monomakh, who crushed the Polovtsians, preventing their ruinous raids on peaceful Slavic villages.

The second conversation is devoted to the topic of progress, which is seen in the desire for international peace, getting rid of bloodthirsty savagery in favor of civilization (“peaceful politics is a symptom of progress”). Soloviev mentions progress in the Turkish Empire, and also talks about moving the center of world history to the Far East. Soloviev was a supporter of the peaceful development of Asia by Russia together with England, as well as solidarity with other European nations. The rejection of Europe throws Russia into the arms of Asia.

The third conversation concerns the Antichrist. Analyzing the manifestations of progress, Solovyov notices that death and evil still persist in the world. Evil manifests itself not only at the individual or social level, but also at the physical level. And salvation from this evil is possible only with the help of higher powers, namely resurrection. Without true resurrection, goodness appears to be such only in appearance, but not in essence.

Next, Soloviev moves on to the story of the Antichrist, in the epigraph to which he mentions the term pan-Mongolism. Pan-Mongolism means the idea of ​​consolidating the “peoples of East Asia” against Europe within the framework of a renewed Japanese-Chinese Middle Empire. Solovyov predicts that such an empire would displace the British from Burma and the French from Indochina and invade Russian Central Asia and further into European Russia, Germany and France. However, the new Mongol yoke ends in a pan-European uprising. However, in liberated Europe the Antichrist will be revealed - “the great ascetic, spiritualist and philanthropist”, as well as a vegetarian. With the support of the Freemasons, this man in the 21st century will become the president of the “European United States,” which will transform into a “world monarchy.” The Antichrist will be helped by the Catholic Bishop Apollonius, although the papacy itself will already be expelled from Rome. The capital of the Empire of the Antichrist will be Jerusalem, where a “temple for the unity of all cults” will appear. During the general Christian council, two righteous people will die: the Catholic Pope Peter (who served as Archbishop of Mogilev) and the Orthodox Elder John. The power of the Antichrist ended with the uprising of the Jews, and the final destruction of his armies was caused by a volcanic eruption in the Dead Sea area.

At a public meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. Here, under the undoubted impression of impending events, the philosopher expresses his assessment of the West, the East and the mediating mission of Russia between both.

Vladimir Solovyov finds the answer to the question posed by Western philosophy not in any teaching, but in living in general, which, in his opinion, is Russia’s calling. It is not enough to find and proclaim the meaning of life: we must contribute meaning to life. With this meaning it is necessary to revive and bring together the dead body of humanity that has fallen into pieces. This may not be the work of a single thinker, but of an organized body, of a great people who have given themselves to the service of the cause of God.

“From the beginning of history,” we read in Solovyov’s speech, “three fundamental forces have controlled human development. The first seeks to subordinate humanity in all spheres and at all degrees of its life to one supreme principle, in its exclusive unity, seeks to mix and merge all the diversity of particular forms, to suppress the independence of the individual, the freedom of personal life. One master and a dead mass of slaves - this is the last exercise of this power. If it were to gain exclusive predominance, humanity would petrify into dead monotony and immobility. But along with this force, another, directly opposite, acts; it strives to break the stronghold of dead unity, to give freedom everywhere to particular forms of life, freedom to the individual and his activity; under its influence, individual elements of humanity become the starting points of life, act exclusively from themselves and for themselves, the general loses the meaning of real essential being, turns into something abstract, empty, into a formal law, and, finally, completely loses all meaning. General egoism and anarchy, a multiplicity of individual units without any internal connection - this is the extreme expression of this force. If it were to gain exclusive predominance, then humanity would disintegrate into its constituent elements, the vital connection would be severed, and history would end in a war of all against all.”

Vladimir Solovyov considers the East to be the embodiment of the first force, and Western Europe to be the embodiment of the second. The characteristic feature of Eastern culture is an impersonal unity that has absorbed all diversity; on the contrary, the peculiarity of Western culture is individualism, which threatens to abolish all social ties. The East completely destroys man in God and asserts inhuman God; on the contrary, Western civilization strives for the exclusive affirmation of godless man.

Philosopher Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov. Portrait by N. Yaroshenko, 1890s

If history were controlled only by these two forces, then there would be nothing in it except endless discord and the struggle of opposites, there would be no positive content and meaning. An inhuman God cannot fill human life with meaning; on the other hand, a godless person finds no meaning either in himself or in external nature.

The content of the story gives third force: it stands above the first two, “frees them from their exclusivity, reconciles the unity of the highest principle with the free multiplicity of particular forms and elements, thus creating the integrity of the universal human organism and giving it an inner quiet life.” The implementation of this third force is Russia's task: it must be a mediator between two worlds, personified by the synthesis of West and East. That this is precisely our national calling, according to Solovyov, can be seen from the following:

“The third force, which must give human development its unconditional content, can only be a revelation of the highest divine world, and those people, the people through whom this force has to manifest itself must only be intermediary between humanity and that world, the free, conscious instrument of the latter. Such a people should not have any special limited task; they are not called upon to work on the forms and elements of human existence, but only to impart a living soul, to give life and wholeness to torn and dead humanity through its union with the eternal divine principle. What is required of the people who are the bearer of the third divine power is only freedom from any limitation and one-sidedness, an elevation above narrow special interests, it is required that it does not assert itself with exceptional energy in some particular lower sphere of activity and knowledge, indifference to all this life with her petty interests, complete faith in the positive reality of the higher world and a submissive attitude towards it. And these properties undoubtedly belong to the tribal character of the Slavs, and especially to the national character of the Russian people. But historical conditions do not allow us to look for another bearer of the third force outside the Slavs and its main representative - the Russian people, for all other historical peoples are under the predominant power of one or another of the first two exceptional forces: the eastern peoples are under the power of the first, the western peoples are under the power of the second force. Only the Slavs and especially Russia remained free from these two lower potencies and, therefore, can be the historical vehicle of the third. Meanwhile, the first two forces completed the circle of their manifestation and led the peoples subject to them to spiritual death and decay. So, I repeat, either this is the end of history, or the inevitable discovery of a third complete force, the only bearer of which can only be the Slavs and the Russian people.

The external image of a slave in which our people find themselves, the pitiful position of Russia in economic and other respects, not only cannot serve as an objection to its calling, but rather confirms it. For that highest power that the Russian people must bring into humanity is a power not of this world, and external wealth and order have no meaning in relation to it.”

It is not difficult to see that in this description by Solovyov of the “three forces” we have a reworking of old literary legends. First of all, its kinship with old Slavophilism is striking. On the one hand, it resumes Kireevsky’s favorite idea about fragmentation and atomism as properties of Western culture, and about Russia’s calling to restore the integrity of human life and humanity. On the other hand, it contains echoes of those Khomyakov articles on Western religions, where the essence of European culture is depicted as the self-exaltation of the human principle, the anti-religious affirmation of human reason and freedom, the consequence of which is the loss of universal unity, the transformation of organic, internal unity into an external mechanical connection . Solovyov’s saying that the development of Western Europe leads to the kingdom of godless man only brings Khomyakov’s old thought to the end. Finally, in the characterization of the “third force”, which affirms the reconciliation of the unity of the highest principle with free plurality, there is also a development of the old Slavophil thought. It was in this reconciliation of organic unity with free plurality that Khomyakov saw the difference between Orthodoxy and Western religions. The very task of the “great synthesis” was undoubtedly anticipated by the Slavophiles, although they posed it with less clarity than in Solovyov’s “Three Forces”. In the organic synthesis of the Divine and the human, in the completeness of its various elements, lies, without a doubt, the essence of Khomyakov’s church ideal.

Based on materials from the book of an outstanding Russian philosopher E. Trubetskoy“Worldview of Vl. S. Solovyov"

Vladimir Soloviev

Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history

Including a short story about the Antichrist and with appendices

Dedicated to departed friends from early years

Nikolai Mikhailovich Lopatin and Alexander Alexandrovich Sokolov

PREFACE

Whether there is a evil only natural flaw, imperfection that disappears by itself with the growth of goodness, or is it a real force, through temptations owning our world, so that to successfully fight it you need to have a foothold in a different order of being? This vital question can be clearly examined and resolved only in an entire metaphysical system. Having begun to work on this for those who are capable and inclined to speculate, I, however, felt how important the question of evil is for everyone. About two years ago, a special change in my spiritual mood, which there is no need to expand on here, aroused in me a strong and persistent desire to illuminate in a visual and publicly accessible manner those main aspects of the question of evil that should affect everyone. For a long time I did not find a convenient form for fulfilling my plan. But in the spring of 1899, while abroad, the first conversation on this subject took shape and was written in a few days, and then, upon returning to Russia, two other dialogues were written. So this verbal form appeared by itself as the simplest expression for what I wanted to say. This form of casual secular conversation already indicates quite clearly that here there is no need to look for either scientific-philosophical research or religious preaching. My task here is rather apologetic and polemical: I wanted, as far as I could, to clearly highlight the vital aspects of Christian truth related to the question of evil, which have become foggy from different sides, especially recently.

Many years ago I read news about a new religion that had arisen somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers were called spinners or hole punches, consisted in the fact that, having drilled a medium-sized hole in some dark corner in the wall of the hut, these people put their lips to it and persistently repeated many times: “My hut, my hole, save me!” Never before, it seems, has the subject of worship reached such an extreme degree of simplification. But if the deification of an ordinary peasant hut and a simple hole made by human hands in its wall is an obvious delusion, then it must be said that it was a true delusion: these people were wildly mad, but did not mislead anyone; This is what they said about the hut: hut, and the place drilled in its wall was rightly called hole.

But the religion of the Hole Moles soon experienced “evolution” and underwent “transformation.” And in its new form, it retained the former weakness of religious thought and the narrowness of philosophical interests, the former squat realism, but lost its former truthfulness: its hut now received the name “kingdom of God” on the ground", and the hole began to be called the “new gospel,” and, worst of all, the difference between this imaginary gospel and the real one, the difference is exactly the same as between a hole drilled in a log and a living and whole tree - this essential difference the new evangelists tried in every possible way to silence and speak.

I, of course, do not assert a direct historical or “genetic” connection between the original sect of the Hole-Makers and the preaching of the imaginary kingdom of God and the imaginary gospel. This is not important for my simple intention: to clearly demonstrate the essential identity of the two “teachings” - with the moral difference that I noted. And the identity here lies in the pure negativity and emptiness of both “worldviews.” Although “intelligent” hole punchers call themselves not hole punchers, but Christians and call their preaching the gospel, Christianity without Christ is also a gospel, that is good news, without that blessings, which would be worth proclaiming, precisely without the actual resurrection into the fullness of blessed life, is the same empty place, like an ordinary hole drilled in a peasant hut. All this could not have been talked about if a counterfeit Christian flag had not been placed over the rationalistic hole, seducing and confusing many of these little ones. When people who think and quietly affirm that Christ outdated, outdated or that it did not exist at all, that this is a myth invented by the Apostle Paul, at the same time they stubbornly continue to call themselves “true Christians” and cover up the preaching of their empty place with altered gospel words, here indifference and condescending neglect are no longer in place: due to infection In the moral atmosphere of systematic lies, public conscience loudly demands that the bad deed be called by its true name. The real purpose of the controversy here is not the refutation of an imaginary religion, but the discovery of a real deception.

There is no excuse for this deception. Between me, as the author of three works prohibited by spiritual censorship, and these publishers of many foreign books, brochures and leaflets, there cannot be a serious question about external obstacles to complete frankness on these subjects. The restrictions on religious freedom that remain in our country are one of the greatest heartaches for me, because I see and feel how harmful and painful all these external restrictions are not only for those who are subjected to them, but mainly for the Christian cause in Russia, and therefore, for the Russian people, and therefore for the Russian states.

But no external situation can prevent a convinced and conscientious person from expressing his conviction to the end. This cannot be done at home - it can be done abroad, and who more than the preachers of a false gospel takes advantage of this opportunity when it comes to applied issues of politics and religion? And on the main, fundamental issue, in order to abstain from insincerity and falsehood, there is no need to go abroad, because no Russian censorship requires you to declare beliefs that you do not have, to pretend to believe in what you do not believe in, to love and honor what you despise and you hate it. In order to behave conscientiously in relation to a well-known historical Person and His work, only one thing was required of the preachers of emptiness in Russia: to remain silent about this Person, to “ignore” Him. But what a strange thing! These people do not want to enjoy either freedom of silence at home or freedom of speech abroad on this subject. Both here and there they prefer to externally adhere to the Gospel of Christ; both here and there they do not want either directly - with a decisive word, or indirectly - with eloquent silence - to truthfully show their real attitude towards the Founder of Christianity, namely that He is completely alien to them, is not needed for anything and is only a hindrance for them.

From their point of view, what they preach is by itself understandable, desirable and saving for everyone. Their “truth” stands on itself, and if a famous historical figure agrees with it, so much the better for him, but this still cannot give him the meaning of the highest authority for them, especially when the same person said and did a lot of things, that for them there is both “temptation” and “madness”.

If, even due to human weakness, these people feel an irresistible need to base their convictions other than their own “reason” on some historical authority, then why don’t they look in history another, more suitable for them? Yes, and there is such a long-prepared one - the founder of the widespread Buddhist religion. He really preached what they needed: non-resistance, dispassion, non-doing, sobriety, etc., and he even succeeded without martyrdom"to make a brilliant career" for your religion - the holy books of Buddhists truly proclaim emptiness and to completely harmonize them with the new preaching of the same subject would require only detailed simplification; on the contrary, the Holy Scripture of Jews and Christians is filled and thoroughly imbued with positive spiritual content, denying both the ancient and the new emptiness, and in order to tie its sermon to some evangelical or prophetic saying, it is necessary by all means to break the connection of this saying with the whole book, and with the immediate context - while Buddhist suttas they give out suitable teachings and legends in masses, and there is nothing in these books that is essentially or in spirit contrary to the new sermon. By replacing the “Galilean rabbi” with a hermit from the Shakya clan, the professed Christians would not have lost anything real, but would have gained something very important - at least in my opinion - the opportunity to be conscientiously thinking and to some extent consistent even in the face of error. But they won't want it...

From the beginning of history, three root forces have governed human development. The First seeks to subjugate humanity in all spheres and at all degrees of its life. one supreme principle, in its exclusive unity, strives to mix and merge all the variety of private forms, suppress the independence of a person, freedom of personal life neither. One master and a dead mass of slaves - this is the last exercise of this power. If it were to gain exclusive predominance, humanity would petrify into dead monotony and immobility. But along with this force, another, directly opposite, acts; she strives to break the stronghold of dead unity, to give everywhere there is freedom for private forms of life, freedom for the individual and his activities; under her influence individual elements of humanity become the starting points of life, action exist exclusively from themselves and for themselves, the general loses the meaning of a real beingof eternal existence, turns into something abstract, empty, into a formal law, and the end, and completely loses all meaning. Universal egoism and anarchy, multiple the existence of individual units without any internal connection is the extreme expression of this force. If it gained exclusive predominance, then humanity would disintegrateif it were to fall into its constituent elements, the life connection would be broken and history would end a war of all against all, the self-destruction of humanity. Both of these forces have a negative, exclusive character: the first excludes the free multiplicity of particular forms and personal elements, free movement, progress; the second has an equally negative attitude towards unity, towards the common supreme principle of life, and breaks the solidarity of the whole. If only these two forces controlled the history of mankind, then there would be nothing in it except enmity and struggle, there would be no positive content; as a result, history would be only mechanical movement, determined by two opposing forces and running along their diagonal. InternalBoth of these forces do not have integrity and life, and therefore, they cannot give itand to humanity. But humanity is not a dead body, and history is not a mechanical movement, and therefore the presence of a third force is necessary, which gives positive content to the first two, frees them from their exclusivity, reconciles the unity of the highest principle with the free multiplicity of particular forms and elements, thus creating the integrity of the universal human organism and giving it inner quiet life. And indeed, we always find in history the joint action of these three forces, and the difference between one and another historical eras and cultures lies only in the predominance of one or another force striving for its realization, although complete realization for the first two forces , precisely because of their exclusivity, is physically impossible.

Leaving aside ancient times and limiting ourselves to modern humanity, we see the coexistence of three historical worlds, three cultures, sharply different from each other - I mean the Muslim East, Western civilization and the Slavic world: everything that is outside them has no common of global significance, does not have a direct impact on the history of mankind. What is the relationship of these three cultures to the three fundamental forces of historical development?

As for the Muslim East, there is no doubt that it is under the predominant influence of the first force - the force of exclusive unity. Everything there is subordinated to the single principle of religion, and moreover, this religion itself has an extremely exclusive character, denying any plurality of forms, any individual freedom. The deity in Islam is an absolute despot who, according to his will, created the world and people, who are only blind instruments in his hands; the only law of existence for God is His arbitrariness, and for man it is blind, irresistible fate. Absolute power in God corresponds to absolute powerlessness in man. The Muslim religion, first of all, suppresses the individual, binds personal activity, and as a result of this, of course, all manifestations and various forms of this activity are delayed, not isolated, and killed in the bud. Therefore, in the Muslim world, all spheres and degrees of human life are in a state of unity, mixing, deprived of independence in relation to each other and are all subordinated to one overwhelming power of religion. In the social sphere, Islam does not know the difference between the church/state and society itself or zemstvo. The entire social body of Islam represents a continuous indifferent mass, above which rises one despot, combining in himself both spiritual and secular supreme power. The only code of laws defining all ecclesiastical, political and social relations is the Alcoran; representatives of the clergy are at the same time judges; however, there is no clergy in the proper sense, just as there is no special civil power, but a mixture of both prevails. A similar confusion prevails in the theoretical or mental sphere: in the Muslim world, in fact, neither positive science, nor philosophy, nor real theology exists at all, but there is only some kind of mixture from the meager dogmas of the Koran, from passages some philosophical concepts taken from the Greeks, and some empirical information. In general, the entire mental sphere in Islam is not differentiated, is not isolated from practical life, knowledge here has only a utilitarian character, and independent theoretical interest does not exist. As for art, artistic creativity, it is also devoid of any independence and extremely poorly developed, despite the rich imagination of the eastern peoples: the oppression of a one-sided religious principle prevented this fantasy from being expressed in objective ideal images. Sculpting and painting, as you know, are directly prohibited by the Koran and do not exist at all in the Muslim world. Poetry here has not gone beyond that direct form that exists wherever there is a person, that is, lyrics. As for music, the character of exclusive monism was especially clearly reflected in it; the wealth of sounds of European music is completely incomprehensible to an Eastern person: the very idea of ​​musical harmony does not exist for him, he sees in it only discord and arbitrariness, his own music (if one can call it music) consists solely in the monotonous repetition of the same and the same notes. Thus, both in the sphere of social relations and in the mental sphere, as well as in the sphere of creativity, the overwhelming power of exclusive religion The hyotic principle does not allow any independent life and development. If personal new consciousness is unconditionally subordinated to one religious principle, an extremely meager and exceptional if a person considers himself only an indifferent instrument in the hands ofblind, according to the senseless arbitrariness of the acting deity, it is clear that fromsuch a person cannot become either a great politician, or a great scientist, orphilosopher, nor a brilliant artist, but only a crazy fanatic, what areand they are the best representatives of Islam.

That the Muslim East is under the domination of the first of the three forces, according tooppressing all vital elements and hostile to all development, this is proofIn addition to the given characteristic features, it is also determined by the simple fact thatfor twelve centuries the Muslim world did not take a single step towards internal development; it is impossible to point out here any sign of a consistent organic progress. Islam has remained unchanged in the same state as what was it like at first caliphs, but could not maintain the same strength, because according to the law Well, life, without going forward, it thereby went backward, and therefore it is not surprising that The modern Muslim world presents a picture of such pathetic decline.

Western civilization, as we know, shows exactly the opposite character; here we see rapid and continuous development, the free play of forces, independent validity and exclusive self-affirmation of all particular forms and individual elements - signs that undoubtedly show that this civilization is under the dominant influence of the second of the three historical principles. Already the most religious ous principle that formed the basis of Western civilization, although it represented only one-sided and, therefore, a distorted form of Christianity, was still incomparably richer and more capable of development than Islam. But this principle is also the first times of Western history is not an exclusive force, suppressing everyone else: willy-nilly he must reckon with principles alien to him. For next to the representative of religious unity - the Roman Church - stands the world of German barbarians, which accepted Catholicism, but was far from being imbued with it,preserving the beginning not only different from the Catholic one, but also directly hostile to it - new is the beginning of unconditional individual freedom, the supreme importance of the individual. This initial dualism of the German-Roman world served as the basis for the new new separations. For every particular element in the West, having before itself more than one a beginning that would completely subjugate him, and two opposite and hostile among themselves, thereby gaining freedom for himself: the existence of another principle freed him from the exclusive power of the first and vice versa.

Every sphere of activity, every form of life in the West, isolated inhaving separated from all others, strives in this separateness to obtain absolute meaning, to exclude all others, to become one of all, and instead, inevitablyfalse law of finite existence, comes in its isolation to powerlessness and a nonentity, capturing an alien area, loses strength in its own. So,the Western Church, separated from the state, but appropriating for itself in this separateThe establishment of state significance, which itself became a church state, ends upthat loses all power over both the state and society. In the same way, the state state, separated from both the church and the people, and in its exclusive centralization having appropriated absolute meaning to itself, is ultimately deprived of all independence, turns into an indifferent form of society, into an executive instrument of popular vote, and the people themselves or the zemstvo, rebelling against both the church and the state government, as soon as it defeats them, cannot keep them in its revolutionary movementof its unity, splits into hostile classes and then must necessarily disintegrateto graze on hostile individuals. The social body of the West, dividedfirst on private organisms that are hostile to each other, and must finally separatesplit into the last elements, into atoms of society, that is, individuals, andCorporate and caste egoism must turn into personal egoism. The principle of this the last disintegration was first clearly expressed in the great revolutionary movement the last century, which, thus, can be considered the beginning of the full revelation of the force that drove all Western development, the Revolution handed over the supreme power to the people in the sense of a simple sum of individuals, the whole unity of which is reduced only to a random agreement of desires and interests - an agreement that can not to be. Having destroyed those traditional connections, those ideal principles that in the old Europe made each individual person only an element of the highest social group. py and, dividing humanity, united people - by breaking these ties, the revolutionary the movement left each person to himself and at the same time destroyed his organic difference from others. In old Europe this distinction and, therefore, the majority of persons was determined by belonging to one or another social group ne and the place occupied in it. With the destruction of these groups in their formermeaning, organic inequality also disappeared, only the lower naturalinequality of personal power. From the free manifestation of these forces were to be created new forms of life to replace the destroyed world. But no positive foundations the inspiration for such new creativity was not given by the revolutionary movement. It is easy to see, in fact, that the principle of freedom in itself has only negativemeaning. I can live and act freely, that is, without encountering any production free obstacles or restrictions, but this, obviously, does not in any way determine the the positive goal of my activity, the content of my life. Life in old Europehuman life received its ideal content from Catholicism, on the one hand,and from knightly feudalism - on the other. This ideal content gave old Ev-hope its relative unity and high heroic strength, although it already concealed in itself the beginning of that dualism, which should necessarily lead to the subsequent total disintegration. The revolution finally rejected the old ideals, which was, of course,exists, it is necessary, but due to its negative nature it could not give new ones.She liberated individual elements, gave them absolute meaning, but deprivedtheir activities provide the necessary soil and food; therefore we see that excessive expansionThe rise of individualism in the modern West leads directly to its opposite. mu - to general depersonalization and vulgarization. Extreme tension of personal co- knowledge, not finding a corresponding subject for itself, turns into empty and shallowegoism/which equalizes everyone. Old Europe in the rich development of its forces pro-produced a great variety of forms, many original, bizarre phenomena; She had holy monks who, out of Christian love for one’s neighbor, burned people. by the thousands; there were noble knights who fought all their lives for ladies who neverthey didn’t see, there were philosophers who made gold and died of hunger, there were scholastic scientists who talked about theology like mathematicians, and about mathematics like theology. words. Only these originalities, these wild greatnesses make the Western world interesting. useful for a thinker and attractive for an artist. All its positive contentgreatness in the past, but now, as we know, the only greatness that still preserves its strength in the West is the greatness of capital; the only significant difference and non- The equality between people that still exists there is the inequality of the rich man and the proletarian, but it is also in great danger from revolutionary socialism. Socialism has the task of transforming the economic relations of society by introducingWe want greater uniformity in the distribution of material wealth. It's hardly possibleto doubt that socialism is guaranteed quick success in the West in the sense of victory and dominance of the working class. But the real goal will not be achieved. Because howfollowing the victory of the third estate (the bourgeoisie), the fourth estate, hostile to it, came outThat is, the upcoming victory of this latter will probably cause the fifth, that is, butnew proletariat, etc. Against the socio-economic disease of the West, as againstcancer, any operations will only be palliatives. Anyway, it was funny would see in socialism some kind of great revelation that should renew humanity. If, in fact, we assume even the complete implementation of the socialist task, when all of humanity will equally use material benefits and conveniences of civilized life, the more powerful it will be in front ofIt raises the same question about the positive content of this life, about the real purpose of human activity, and to this question socialism, like all Western development, does not give an answer.

True, there is a lot of talk about how, in place of the ideal content of the old life,neither based on faith, new things are given, based on knowledge, on science; and byethese speeches do not go beyond the boundaries of generalities, one might think that it is about something ingreat, but you just have to take a closer look, what kind of knowledge, what kind of science, andthe great very soon turns into the ridiculous. In the field of knowledge, the Western world has comprehended[the same fate as in the area of ​​public life: the absolutism of theology was replacedabsolutism of philosophy, which in turn must give way to absolutismempirical positive science, that is, one that has as its subject n e beginnings and causes, but only phenomena and their general laws. But the general laws areonly general facts, and, as one of the representatives of empiricism admitted, the highestperfection for positive science can only consist in havingthe ability to reduce all phenomena to one general law or general fact, for example, to the fact of universal gravity, which is no longer reducible to anything else, but can only be stated by science. But for the human mind, theoretical in- The interest lies not in knowing the fact as such, not in stating its existence.development, but in its explanation, that is, in the knowledge of its causes, and from this knowledgeand modern science refuses. I ask: why does such and such a phenomenon occur?and I receive an answer from science that this is only a special case of another, more generala general phenomenon about which science can only say that it exists. Obviously,that the answer has nothing to do with the question and that modern science offers our minds stones instead of bread. It is no less obvious that such a science cannot havedirect relation to any living issues, to any higher goals of manical activity, and the claim to provide ideal content for life would befrom the side of such science it is only funny. If the true task of science is I to know is not a simple statement of general facts or laws, but their actual If any explanation is given, then it must be said that at the present time, science does not exist at all, yet everything that now bears this name actually represents only the formless and indifferent material of the future true science; and it is clear that it is basedessential principles necessary for this material to turn into a harmonious scientific building cannot be deduced from this material itself, like a plan for a construction ki cannot be derived from the bricks that are used for it. These are the absolute principles must be obtained from the highest kind of knowledge, from that knowledge which has as its subject absolute principles and causes, therefore, true the construction of science is possible only in its close internal union with theology and philosophylosophy as the highest members of one mental organism, which only in this integrity can receive power over life. But such a synthesis is completely pro-contradicts the general spirit of Western development: that exclusive negative forcewhich has divided and secluded various spheres of life and knowledge, cannot by itselfyourself to connect them again. The best proof of this can be those unsuccessful attempts at synthesis that we see in the West. Thus, for example, the metaphysical systems of Schopenhauer and Hartmann (for all their significance in other respects) they themselves are so powerless in the area of ​​the supreme principles of knowledge and life that they must to pursue these principles - to Buddhism.

If, therefore, the ideal content for life is not able to providebelt science, then the same should be said about modern art. ForIn order to create eternal, truly artistic images, it is necessary first of all to believe in the higher reality of the ideal world. And how can one give eternal ideals for life are an art that does not want to know anything other than this very life in its everyday superficial reality, strives to be only its exact reproduction? Of course, such reproduction is even impossible, and artificialArt, refusing idealization, turns into caricature.

Both in the sphere of public life and in the sphere of knowledge and creativity, the second historyical force governing the development of Western civilization, having been granteditself, irresistibly leads in the end to universal decomposition into lower constituent elements, to the loss of all universal content, all unconditional instructions.the beginning of existence. And if the Muslim East, as we have seen, completely destroys man and affirms only an inhuman god, then Western civilizationstrives first of all for the exclusive affirmation of the godless personcentury, that is, man taken in his apparent superficial isolation and action reality and in this false position recognized together and as the only deity and as an insignificant atom - as a deity for itself, subjectively, and as an insignificant atom - objectively, in relation to the external world, of which it is a separate a particle in infinite space and a transitory phenomenon in infinite time. It is clear that everything that such a person can produce will be fractional, partial,complete internal unity and unconditional content, limited to onesuperficiality, never reaching the real center. Separate personal informationteres, random fact, small detail - atomism in life, atomism in science, atomism in art is the last word of Western civilization. She worked out private forms and external material of life, but the internal content of life itselfdid not give to humanity; having isolated individual elements, she brought them to the extremepenalty of development, which is only possible in their individuality; but without internal organi- they are deprived of a living spirit of cultural unity, and all this wealth is dead capital. And if the history of mankind should not end with this negativeresult, this insignificance, if a new historical force is to emerge, then the task of this force will no longer be to develop individual elements life and knowledge, to create new cultural forms, but to revive, spiritualize to restore hostile elements, dead in their enmity, to the highest conciliatory principlesscrap, give them a general unconditional content and thereby free them from the needexclusive self-affirmation and mutual denial.

But where can this unconditional content of life and knowledge come from?If a person had it within himself, he could neither lose it nor seek it.It must be outside of him as a private, relative being. But it can'tbe in the external world, for this world represents only the lower stages of that development, at the top of which is the person himself, and if he cannot findunconditional principles in oneself, then in the lower nature even less; and the one who besidesno other recognizes this visible reality of itself and the external world, must renounce all ideal content of life, all trueknowledge and creativity. In this case, man is left with only the lower animallife; but happiness in this lower life depends on blind chance and even if achieved, it always turns out to be an illusion, and since, on the other hand, the desire to the highest and with the awareness of its dissatisfaction still remains, but serves only to the source of the greatest suffering, the natural conclusion is thatlife is a game that is not worth the candle, and a complete nonentity appears as a desirable end both for the individual and for all humanity. This conclusion can be avoided only by recognizing that another, unconditional nature is superior to man and external nature. a beautiful, divine world, infinitely more real, rich and living, non- rather than this world of illusory surface phenomena, and such recognition of those natural it is true that man himself, by his eternal origin, belongs to that higher worldand a vague memory of him is somehow retained by everyone who has not yet realized everyone has lost their human dignity.

So, the third force, which must give human development its unconditional content, can only be a revelation of the highest divine world, and those people, that people through which this force has to manifest itself must only be a mediator between humanity and that world, a free, conscious instrument the last one. Such a people should not have any special limited task; they are not called upon to work on the forms and elements of human existence, but only to communicate a living soul, to give life and integrity to a torn and dead thinghumanity through its union with the eternal divine principle. Such people are notneeds no special advantages, no special powers and external gifts, because he does not act on his own, does not realize his own. From the people - the bearer of the third divine power requires only freedom from any limitation and one-sidedness, elevation above narrow special interests, requiresso that he does not assert himself with exceptional energy in some private low-our sphere of activity and knowledge, indifference to all this life with itspetty interests, complete faith in the positive reality of the higher world ra and a submissive attitude towards him. And these properties undoubtedly belong to the tribes - to the character of the Slavs, especially the national character of the Russian nation-kind. But historical conditions do not allow us to look for another carrier of the third forces outside the Slavs and its main representative - the Russian people, for all other historical peoples are under the predominant power of one or another of the first two exceptional forces: the eastern peoples are under the rule of the first, the western peoples are under the rule of the second force. Only the Slavs, and especially Russia, remained free from these two lower potentialities and, therefore, can become the historical vehicle of the third. Meanwhile, the first two forces completed the circle of their manifestation and led the peoples subject to them to spiritual death and decay. So, I repeat, either this is the end of history, or the inevitable discovery of a third complete force, the only bearer of which can only be the Slavs and the Russian people.

The external image of a slave in which our people find themselves, the pitiful position of Russia in economic and other respects, not only cannot serve as an objection to its calling, but rather confirms it. For that highest power that the Russian people must bring into humanity is a power not of this world, and external wealth and order have no meaning in relation to it. The great historical calling of Russia, from which only its immediate tasks derive significance, is a religious calling in the highest sense of the word. When the will and mind of people enter into real communication with the eternally and truly existing, then only all the particular forms and elements of life and knowledge will receive their positive meaning and value - they will all be necessary organs or through the media of one living whole. Their contradiction and enmity, based on the exclusive self-affirmation of each, will necessarily disappear as soon as they all freely submit to one common principle and focus.

When the hour will come for Russia to discover its historical calling, no one can say, but everything shows that this hour is close, even despite the fact that in Russian society there is almost no real consciousness of its highest task. But great external events usually precede great awakenings of social consciousness. Thus, even the Crimean War, completely fruitless politically, however, greatly influenced the consciousness of our society. The negative result of this war also corresponded to the negative nature of the consciousness awakened by it. It must be hoped that the great struggle that is preparing will serve as a powerful impetus for the awakening of the positive consciousness of the Russian people. Until then, we, who have the misfortune of belonging to the Russian intelligentsia, which, instead of the image and likeness of God, still continues to bear the image and likeness of a monkey - we must finally see our pitiful situation, we must try to restore the Russian folk character, stop creating an idol for yourself. any narrow, insignificant idea, must become more indifferent to the limited interests of this life, freely and intelligently believe in another, higher reality. Of course, this faith does not depend on one’s desire, but one also cannot think that it is pure chance or falls straight from the sky. This faith is a necessary result of an internal mental process - a process of decisive liberation from the everyday rubbish that fills our hearts, and from that supposedly scientific school rubbish that fills our head. For the denial of the lower content is thereby the affirmation of the higher, and by expelling false gods and idols from our souls, we thereby introduce the true Divinity into it.

1877.

[Vl.S.Soloviev]|[Library “Vekhi”]
© 2004, Library "Vekhi"

First publication on the Internet

Introduction

In 1900, Vladimir Solovyov published the philosophical work “Three Conversations about War, Progress and the End of the World.”

The General, the Politician, Mr. Z and the Lady discuss topical issues that have accumulated in Russian society. The “conversations” are accompanied by a short story in which the monk Pansophius talks about the coming coming of the Antichrist. All these characters are the fruit of Vladimir Solovyov’s imagination.

The philosopher presents his vision of the world in an accessible form. This work provides rich material for thinking about the future structure of human society.

1. Concept by Vladimir Solovyov

In his preliminary speech, Solovyov writes about “good and evil historical forces.” This idea, in my opinion, is nothing more than the mythologization of society. In fact, in life there are neither good nor evil forces, just as there are none in the animal and plant kingdoms. Life is divided into spheres of influence of the state, classes, estates, and great personalities. Each of these social units has its own ideas about good and evil and each claims to be the universal truth. If you look at people's life from a bird's eye view, it will seem like an anthill, a biological mass, existing for no one knows why! Therefore, there is no point in viewing society from a moral point of view. Everything in life is simple: the strong defeat the weak.

Solovyov rejects “new religions” with their “imaginary Kingdom of Heaven” and “imaginary Gospel.” It is impossible not to see that this kind of opposition between true and false religion is conditional; it has no logical basis, but is dictated by the requirements of the dominant Orthodoxy in Russia.

In the first conversation, the General states: “War is a sacred matter.” It's right. However, it seems to me that war is actually a sacred matter, and not only for one Russian people, but for all peoples defending the interests of their country. No people have privileges!

Mr. Z reasonably objects to the General. His idea is that sometimes war is not “primarily evil” and peace is not “primarily good.” Again, it should be noted that at the end of the 20th century, outright “murder” gives way to a new type of war - ideological and informational, the consequences of which are no less, if not more terrible for the people who were defeated in the war.

Solovyov’s idea of ​​“pan-Mongolism” turns out to be prophetic in many ways: in the 20th century, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America came to the political forefront, Japan and China loudly declared themselves. The latter is turning into a superpower in the 21st century.

In the second conversation the issue of war is again raised. The politician interprets war as a necessary “historical means.” This idea is applicable to the past and partly to the present, because it is directly related to states that are still on the path of self-affirmation. In our time, war is being transformed into a “peaceful” means of enslaving weak peoples by a powerful state. For example, if the United States sets a course for dismembering the vast Russia, it will do it in the same way “without blood” as it destroyed the USSR.

The Politician’s thoughts about Russia’s foreign policy are not without foundation. If Russia cooperates with Europe, then the Mongols (read: Japanese, Chinese) will not risk attacking it. This is what happens in the 20th century. This will be the case in the 21st century. If the West and China unite against Russia, a sad fate awaits it.

Further, the Politician speaks of “one humanity” under the auspices of Europe. The first part of this thought is rational, the second is doubtful. Indeed, in the 20th century, unification processes are taking place: in the world of socialism and capitalism, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in the League of Arab States, within the United States with its globalization, in a united Europe. However, the opposite process is also evident: Western civilization is actively populated by Asian, African, and Latin American peoples. To this we must add that in the 21st century, US hegemony will inevitably weaken.

In the third conversation, Mr. Z asserts that “progress is a symptom of the end.” The premonition of upcoming tragic events gives rise to thoughts about the End of the World, and has a real basis: the 20th century turns out to be the century of the collapse of the empire, world wars and revolutions, in our 21st century, humanity is threatened with an environmental catastrophe. Nevertheless, we believe in a successful outcome of events. We hope that people will start living wisely. In addition, this is necessary in order to then explore other planets.

Mr. Z is convinced that the “Antichrist” will appear under the guise of a respectable Christian. But he will be exposed and overthrown. Mr. Z has no doubt about the ultimate victory of life over death, good over evil. And this will happen through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reject this Christian doctrine is to be rash, to say the least. After all, it is possible that scientists will discover the law of immortality, and the Christian dream will turn out to be a reality. Already now a person can be endowed with extraordinary abilities, but whether the “superman” will be the “Antichrist” or Christ is still a question!

Mister Z's thought about a new earth, "lovingly betrothed to a new Heaven" is interesting - isn't this a prediction of people settling on other planets?

In the story about the Antichrist attached to “Three Conversations” we find a number of Solovyov’s prophecies that come true in the 20th-21st centuries. They are:

1. The 20th century will be the last century of destructive wars;
2. In the 20th century, “pan-Mongolism” will make itself known;
3. In the 20th century, the militarization of Japan and China will occur;
4. In the 20th century, a world war will break out (which, however, is unleashed not by China, but by Germany).
5. The 20th century will be marked by active interaction between the West and the East.
6. In the 20th century, the United States of Europe will emerge;
7. The 20th century will be marked by an unprecedented rise in culture, science and technology;
8. At the same time, naive materialism and naive faith in God will become a thing of the past.

Monk Pansofius also predicts such events that await their implementation in subsequent centuries. He foresees the emergence of an outstanding personality capable of leading the world government: he will be an intelligent, flexible politician, spiritualist and philanthropist, who considers himself the second Christ, in whose person people will see the “great, incomparable, unique” leader. He will proclaim himself the guarantor of “eternal universal peace.” However, the hour will come when true believers will recognize the false virtue of the “Antichrist” and overthrow him from the throne of power. With the help of heavenly forces, the unification of all Christian denominations and Jews will be accomplished. Thus, through the mouth of Pansophia, Vladimir Solovyov expresses the idea of ​​a universal church (the word “pansophia” means universal wisdom, which once again indicates secular tendencies in the religious worldview of Vladimir Solovyov). Who knows in what form the synthesis of divine wisdom and human wisdom would have taken place in the views of the philosopher had he lived another two decades?

2. Ruler of the world.

How does the future ruler of the world appear from today's heights?

The ruler of the world will come from among the people. This will allow him to become a universal person with an all-encompassing outlook on life.

With his deeds and accomplishments, the ruler of the world will predetermine the course of history and make a significant contribution to the social life of people.

The ruler of the world will come to power through a multi-component and carefully calibrated electoral system. Random people are completely excluded; neither money, nor family connections, nor powerful politicians can help him take a high position.

The ruler of the world must have a comprehensive and insightful mind to solve the most difficult problems facing humanity. He needs to be able to take into account the interests of various states, civilizations and cultures, be able to manage a pan-human society, monitor climate change, send people on space expeditions, establish contacts with representatives of other civilizations, and finally, solve problems to prolong human life.

It is doubtful that the worldview of the ruler of the world will play a significant role in his social activities: he can be a believer or an atheist, a Christian or a Jew, belong to the white, yellow or black race. Another thing is more important: he needs to be a planetary-minded person!

The best features of the ruler of the world include will and determination at the moment of external (extraterrestrial) and internal danger. He realizes that the fate of humanity is in his hands, and therefore shows firmness and persistence in achieving his goals.

The ruler of the world is not allowed to be a reformer. It consolidates the experience of many generations of people. He is cautious and reserved about innovations. However, he is moving forward, improving society. Thus, the ruler of the world is a conservative-minded renovationist.

As the head of a conservative-liberal society, the ruler of the world will ensure a harmonious balance and natural interdependence of old and new laws.

How to lead the nations of the world? Both difficult and simple! We must make sure that every nation is happy and proud of its contribution to human culture!

The ruler of the world will enjoy the exclusive trust of peoples and politicians.

The long-term stay in power of the ruler of the world will ensure the effectiveness of his laws and regulations for decades and centuries.

The ruler of the world will not seek popularity with people either through good deeds or success in public work. He does not need admirers, associates, followers, he needs respect and a worthy assessment of his work. It will be a matter of honor for him to be sent into space to one of the human colonies. He is sympathetic to civic duty, remembering how in his time Ancient Rome sent consuls to govern numerous provinces.

Endowed with outstanding intellect, the ruler of the world will undoubtedly have the highest moral and spiritual culture. Therefore, there is no reason to expect the coming of the “Antichrist” or Christ, the Tempter or Savior of mankind!