Relativistic effects appear. What are relativistic effects? Black holes and relativistic stars in the Universe
Essay on philosophy
based on the work of V.S. Solovyov “Three conversations about war, progress and the end” world history»
Moscow 2002
The final work of the great Russian thinker Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is dedicated to eternal questions existence: good and evil, truth and lies, religion and nihilism. According to the philosopher himself, “this is talk about evil, about the military and peaceful struggle against it.”
The author himself said: “My task here is rather polemical, that is, I wanted to clearly highlight the vital aspects of Christian truth related to the question of evil. “In the work itself, the question is clearly posed: is evil only a natural flaw, disappearing on its own with the growth of good, or is it a real force that rules our world through temptations.
This work is constructed in the form of a dialogue-dispute, the essence of which is the interpretation of history, the “moral order” of things, what their meaning is.
Analyzing this work, I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to consider all three conversations separately. Since the topic of one conversation can be traced in the content of others. Therefore, in my abstract there is no clear division into parts, but the main points of the work as a whole are highlighted.
The action takes place in the garden of one of the villas, located at the foot of the Alps, where five Russians accidentally met: an old military general; P o l i t i k - “husband of the council”, taking a break from theoretical and practical classes state affairs; a young prince, a moralist and populist, publishing various brochures on moral and social issues; a middle-aged lady, curious about all of humanity, and another gentleman of uncertain age and social status - the author calls him Mr. Z.
The first conversation begins about a newspaper article and about a literary campaign against war and military service. The General is the first to enter the conversation: “Does the Christ-loving and glorious Russian army exist now or not? From time immemorial, every military man knew and felt that he was serving an important and good cause. This work of ours has always been sanctified in churches, glorified by rumor... And now we suddenly find out that we need to forget all this, and the cause that we served and were proud of was declared bad and harmful, it is contrary to God’s commandments...” The military man himself does not know, how to look at yourself: as a real person or as a “monster of nature.” The prince enters into polemics with him, condemning the war and military service. He expresses his position as follows: “thou shalt not kill” and believes that murder is an evil, contrary to the will of God, and that under no circumstances can it be allowed to anyone.” Another point of view is shared by a politician who believes that all attacks in The article is addressed not to the military, but to diplomats and other “civilians” who have very little interest in “love of Christ.” And the military, in his opinion, should unquestioningly carry out the orders of their superiors, although literary agitation against war is a gratifying phenomenon for him.
The general begins to argue that the army certainly needs complete confidence that war is a holy cause, thanks to which the fighting spirit will be cultivated in the troops. The conversation moves to the stage at which war itself begins to be viewed as a necessary evil of disaster, tolerable in extreme cases. I even remember that all the saints of the Russian Church belong to only two classes: either monarchs or wars. This means that the Christian peoples, “according to whose thoughts the saints were made,” respected and valued the military profession. Contrary to this theory is the thought of the prince, who read from magazines that Christianity unconditionally condemns war. And he himself believes that war and militarism are “an unconditional and extreme evil, from which humanity must certainly get rid of it right now.” What will lead, in his opinion, to the triumph of reason and goodness.
And here we face another point of view. It is expressed by Mr. Z. He says that war is not an unconditional evil, and that peace is not an unconditional good, that is, it happens good war, which means a bad world is possible. Here we see the difference between the views of Mr. Z and the General, who, as a military man, thinks that war can be a very bad thing “...precisely when we are beaten, as, for example, near Narva” and the world can be wonderful, like for example, Nishtadtsiy. The general begins to tell his interlocutors about one battle on the Aladzhin Heights (which took place during the war with the Turks), in which “many of our own and others were killed,” and at the same time, everyone fought for “their own truth.” To which the prince remarks to him how can war be an honest and holy cause when it is a struggle between “some robbers and others.” But the general does not agree with him. He believes that “if he had died then, he would have directly appeared before the Almighty and taken a place in heaven.” He is not interested in knowing that there are all people on this side and on this side and that in every person there is good and evil. The general cares about “which of the two prevailed in whom.”
And here Mr. Z raises the question of religion, of Christ, who “did not act by the power of the evangelical spirit to awaken the good hidden in the souls of Judas, Herod, and the Jewish high priests. Why didn’t He deliver their souls from the terrible darkness in which they were?”
Interesting is the story of Mr. Z about two Athenian wanderers who came to the following conclusion at the end of their lives: sin and do not repent, for repentance leads to despondency, and it is a great sin.
Next, the dispute returns to the topic of war. The politician is firmly convinced that it is impossible to challenge historical significance war as the main means by which the state was created and strengthened. He believes that there is no state that would be created and strengthened without military action. The politician cites the example of North America, which had to gain its political independence through a long war. But the prince replies that this speaks of the “unimportance of the state,” and that the war does not carry great historical significance for the conditions for the creation of the state. The politician is trying to prove that the war period of history is over. Although there can be no talk of immediate disarmament, “neither we nor our children big wars we won’t see.” He cites as an example the time of Vladimir Monomakh, when it was necessary to protect the future of the Russian state from the Polovtsians, and then from the Tatars. Now there are no such threats to Russia and, therefore, war and the military are simply not needed. Now, the Politician believes, it makes sense for the war to be somewhere in Africa or Central Asia. And again he has to return to the idea of “holy wars.” He says this: “The wars that were elevated to the rank of saints may have taken place in the Kyiv or Mongol era. To support his words, he cites the example of Alexander Nevsky and Alexander Suvorov. Alexander Nevsky fought for the national-political future of his fatherland, therefore he is a saint. Alexander Suvorov, on the contrary, did not have to save Russia. Saving Russia from Napoleon (it would be possible to come to an agreement with him) is patriotic rhetoric. Next, the Politician talks about Crimean War, as “crazy”, and its cause, in his opinion, is “a bad militant policy, as a result of which half a million people died.”
The next interesting idea is that modern nations are no longer able to fight, and the rapprochement between Russia and France is beneficial, it is a “union of peace and precaution.” The General counters him, saying that if two military nations collide again, then again “the ballots will go,” and military qualities are still needed. To this, the politician directly states: “Just as unnecessary organs in the body atrophy, so militant qualities have become unnecessary in humanity.”
What does the Politician propose, what does he see as a solution to these problems? And the point is to come to your senses and conduct a good policy, for example, with Turkey: “to introduce it into the midst of cultural nations, to help educate and become capable of fairly and humanely governing peoples who are not able to peacefully manage their affairs.” There is a comparison here with Russia, where it was canceled serfdom. What then is the special task of Russian policy in eastern question? Here Politician proposes the idea that all European nations should be united in the interest of cultural expansion. Specifically, Russia must redouble its efforts to quickly catch up with other nations. The Russian people should benefit from the experience of cooperation. “By working voluntarily for the cultural progress of barbarian states, we are tightening the bonds of solidarity between ourselves and other European nations.”
But the General, as a person who has been in war, does not believe in solidarity. To this, the Politician declares that since we ourselves are Europeans, we should be in solidarity with other European nations. However, not all those present believe that the Russian people are Europeans. For example, Mr. Z states that “we are a special Greco-Slavic type. And the Politician again operates with the fact that “Russia is the great outskirts of Europe towards Asia, that is, the Asian element has entered our nature and become a second soul.” And in order to understand everything, “the dominance of one soul is necessary, of course the best, that is, mentally stronger, more capable of further progress. Nations first had to be formed, strengthened, and “stand against the lower elements.” During this period, war was needed, which at that stage was a sacred matter. And now comes the era of peace and peaceful spread everywhere European culture. And in this the Politician sees the meaning of history: “peaceful politics is the measure and symptom of cultural progress.”
Then what's next? Perhaps accelerated progress is a symptom of the end, which means that the historical process is approaching its denouement? Mr. Z brings the conversation to the point that one cannot care about progress if one knows that “its end is always death for every person.” The general clarifies this idea, namely, the question of the Antichrist and anti-Christianity arises: “not having the spirit of Christ, they pass themselves off as real Christians.” That is, anti-Christianity leads to historical tragedy, since this will be “not simple unbelief or denial of Christianity, but it will be religious imposture.”
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
- Introduction
- 2. The relationship of the three dialogues
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
Introduction
“I consider this work of mine to be a genius,” Vl. said about his latest book. Solovyov. Indeed, “Three Conversations” by Vl. Solovyov is a literary and philosophical work unique in its genre features in the history of Russian literature. The depth of the topics touched upon by Solovyov, the combination of philosophy, history, literature - all this determined a varied choice artistic means, determined the genre originality of the book. Apologetic and polemical dialogues - this is how the philosopher himself defined the genre of three conversations in the introduction.
By placing an introductory word before the beginning of the philosophical dialogue, Solovyov follows the ancient tradition (dialogues of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero). The futurological story about the Antichrist does not go beyond the framework of the ancient tradition. The myth of the destruction of Atlantis in Plato's book "The Republic" completes Socrates' dramatic dialogues, as if depicting the end of an ideal state. Cicero's dialogues "On the State" are presented in six books, each of which is devoted to a specific problem. The apotheosis-dream of Scipio Africanus the Elder becomes a kind of synthesis of all six dialogues.
It is interesting that in the first edition of “Three Conversations” there was no story about the Antichrist, and “this subject (the coming of the Antichrist) was ... presented in the same colloquial form as all the previous ones, and with the same admixture of jokes.” And only friends convinced the philosopher that this topic required a more serious and suitable form. “Finding this fair,” says Solovyov, “I changed the edition of the third conversation, inserting into it a continuous reading of the “Brief Tale of the Antichrist” from the manuscript of a deceased monk.” The theme of the book and the chosen form of polemical dialogues led to the need to complete the three dialogues with an eschatological story-myth.
In the article “On Recent Events,” written a month before his death, Solovyov once again indirectly points to the genre of the story: “A historical drama has been played...”. The meaning of the historical process, according to Solovyov, lies in the positive combination of the truths of the East and West. The union must take place at the end of world history after the decisive struggle against false truths.
The Tale of the Antichrist is sometimes unfairly called an “appendix” to “Three Conversations”, considered almost an independent work of the philosopher, and they do not see an organic connection between the three dialogues and the story. In some publications, “A Brief Tale of the Antichrist” is even printed separately. At the same time, “Three Conversations” does not end with this “historical drama-story.”
1. Edition of “Three Conversations” by V. Solovyov
The book was first published during Solovyov’s lifetime in 1900 in St. Petersburg (Trud publishing house). The same publishing house published the second and third editions of the book in 1901. In Russia, they became the last editions of the book in the form in which the author himself defined it: three conversations with a short story about the Antichrist and with appendices. In all other publications, Three Conversations were published without supplements.
The compositional integrity of “Three Conversations” was also violated in the publication of the first “Collected Works of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov” in nine volumes (1901-1907). The eighth volume included philosophical and other works recent years, which included “Three Conversations”. The compilers based it on the chronological principle, which is justified when approaching the entire legacy of the philosopher. However, the articles accompanying “Three Conversations,” written in 1897 and 1898, were placed before the work, and not after (as Solovyov intended).
Four years later, the Prosveshchenie publishing house released the second edition of the Collected Works of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1911-1914) in ten volumes, edited by S.M. Solovyov and E.L. Radlova. In this edition, “Three Conversations” was included in the last tenth volume. The compilers based it on the same chronological principle. Block A. “Vladimir Solovyov and our days,” 1920. - P. 57. .
In the Soviet Union, the name of Solovyov was relegated to the periphery for many years. He was spoken of only as a poet who stood at the origins of Russian symbolism. Unfortunately, false attitudes towards the heritage of the philosopher, publicist, critic, writer, honorary academician of the Department of Russian Language and Literature, master of the epistolary genre and poet are also found in modern literary criticism. This is partly due to the fact that the works of Vl. Solovyov’s works were not published in the USSR for a long time.
The situation looked different in Europe and the USA. In 1954, the publishing house named after. Chekhov in New York published “Three Conversations” in Russian as a separate book. In 1966, a phototype edition of the 2nd edition of the Collected Works was published in Brussels. “Three Conversations” is also published in foreign languages: in Germany and the Czech Republic.
In the USSR, the first collection of poems by Vl. Solovyov was published only in 1974. Editions of philosophical works appeared only in 1988. The second volume of this edition included “Three Conversations”, but also without the accompanying articles. Since the late 80s. "Three Conversations" is included in the editions of selected works. Over the past 11 years, the book has been published as a separate edition in Russian several times: in 1991 and twice in 2000. In the same year, the Nauka publishing house began publishing a new edition of the Complete Works and Letters in 20 volumes. Works in 15 volumes" (compiled by N.V. Kotrelev, A.P. Kozyrev).
In all modern editions, the compilers ignored the appendices to the Three Conversations. In other words, what Solovyov designated in the title of the book as appendices (four articles and seven Easter letters) was not published at all. As a result, the modern reader does not have the opportunity, firstly, to fully appreciate the genre uniqueness of “Three Conversations” and, secondly, to adequately understand the last testament of the Russian philosopher.
No wonder Vl. Solovyov in the preface draws special attention to the importance of the attached articles and letters, which “supplement and explain the main ideas of the three conversations.” After such a reservation, it is not possible to ignore the attached articles. The researcher N.V. spoke well about the literary significance of Solovyov’s articles. Kotrelev: “There is no way to deny that many pages of his philosophical, journalistic, critical writings, many letters are classic examples of Russian prose in these types.”
Initially, the articles included by Solovyov in the so-called. cycles of Sunday and Easter letters, published throughout 1897 and 1898. in the newspaper "Rus". There were 22 letters in total. In collected works of the early 20th century, they were included in the same volume as Three Conversations, but following the sequence of newspaper publication.
The series of “Sunday Letters” consists of 10 articles: “The Family of Nations”, “The Awakening of Conscience”, “About the Russian Language”, “What is Russia?”, “On the So-Called Questions”, “On Temptations”, “Forgotten Lessons”, "Second Congress of Religions", "Literature or Truth?", "Heaven or Earth?". The cycle "Easter letters" - of 12 letters: "Christ is risen!", "On conscientious unbelief", " Women's question", "The Eastern Question", "Two Streams", "Blindness and Blinding", "The Meaning of Dogma", the article "Nemesis", consisting of three separate letters, "Russia after a hundred years" and the last letter "The Spiritual State of the Russian People" by Fedotov G.P. “On Antichrist’s goodness”, 1926. - P. 25.
In "Three Conversations" the journalistic and epistolary genres are represented by four articles and seven letters. It is noteworthy that Solovyov made a careful selection of letters, changing their original composition. The appendices open with two former "Easter letters", now Solovyov publishes them as simple articles, "Nemesis" and "Russia in a Hundred Years". This is followed by two articles from “Sunday Letters” - “On Temptations”, “Literature or Truth?” (Solovyov in “Three Conversations” no longer calls them Sunday). After which the appendices end with seven “Sunday Letters”: “Christ is Risen!” "On Conscientious Unbelief", "The Woman's Question", "The Eastern Question", "The Two Streams", "Blindness and Blinding" and "The Meaning of Dogma".
2. The relationship of the three dialogues
The relationship between the three dialogues and the short story about the Antichrist with the attached articles can be shown with several examples.
In the article “Russia in a Hundred Years,” the philosopher discusses the true and false patriotism. The thinker opposes the false “hurray for patriotism” of the respectable public, for whom patriotism “is exhausted by the famous poetic formula: “Roll the thunder of victory.” In a second-class carriage passenger train Nikolaevskaya railway, where neighbors “become an unbearable reality,” the author asks the questions: what state is the Fatherland in? Are there signs of spiritual and physical illness? have old historical sins been blotted out? How is the duty of a Christian people fulfilled? Is there still a day of repentance ahead? The assessments of the results of the latest population census, the thinker notes, are not optimistic: population growth has stopped. “What will happen to Russia in a hundred years... do we really know nothing about the future of Russia?” Solovyov addresses his contemporaries. The answer to this question, according to Solovyov, can only be the appeal of the Russian people to “reflective and anxious patriotism,” the true task of which is to know the highest will of God.
Reflective patriotism, constant vigilance, fulfillment of the duty of the Christian people and repentance are the means that will help the people recognize the Antichrist in themselves. This is what happens in the story of the Antichrist, when the emperor convenes Ecumenical Council everyone Christian churches. At the council, he makes a proposal to recognize his power. In return for each denomination, he promises the attributes of faith that are dear to it. Most Christians agree to its terms. The rest, led by spiritual leaders, demand that the Antichrist confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Thus Vl. Solovyov shows the need to renounce one’s narrow confessional characteristics for the sake of accepting the complete Truth (crucified and risen Christ). The article, like the story about the Antichrist, addressed to the 21st century, makes the modern reader think too Kotrelev N.V., Kozyrev A.P. Complete collection essays and letters in 20 volumes. Works in 15 volumes", "Science", 2000. - P. 84. .
The Resurrection of Christ is the main issue that was the subject of polemics by Vl. Solovyov with Tolstoyism and Nietzscheanism. In conversations, this topic is raised by Tolstoy’s follower, the Young Prince, who denies the Resurrection as a fairy tale and myth. In the story, the Antichrist talks about the death of God. Solovyov devoted the first of seven Easter letters “Christ is Risen!” to the solution of this issue. ( Bright Resurrection, 1897). For the Russian philosopher, humanity without Christ’s victory is meaningless and represents the kingdom of evil and death, and nature is the totality of things that are eternally dying and being born. The meaning of the victory of life over death can only be in the Resurrection of Christ.
In the last, seventh, Easter letter, “The Meaning of Dogma” (Week of the Nicene Fathers, 1897), Solovyov, on the one hand, points out the danger of a lifeless, abstract understanding of dogma, but on the other hand, he speaks of the inadmissibility of forgetting one’s Christian origins. “One in essence with the Father,” the Church proclaimed through the mouth of 318 fathers, defining the Nicene Creed after long dogmatic disputes.
The primacy of this Creed lies in the possibility it affirms of union with God through the Resurrection of Christ and His Second Coming. This motif, as well as the motif of the thousand-year reign of Christ, is also found in the story of the Antichrist.
The content of all seven letters is determined by the Gospel events, the memory of which takes place in the post-Easter time. These seven gospel events are included in the so-called. the period of singing the "Colored Triodion", the first of three periods of the church year (the period of singing the "Colored Triodion", the period of singing the "Octoechos" and the third period - the "Lenten Triodion").
The year in church time begins on Easter Day Christ's Resurrection. With the first Easter letter of “Three Conversations” (“Christ is Risen!”) Solovyov, as it were, begins the calculation of time. But the “Colored Triodion” includes eight weeks: the Resurrection of Christ, the Assurance of Thomas, the Myrrh-Bearing Wives at the Holy Sepulcher, the Healing of the Paralytic, Conversation with the Samaritan Woman, the Healing of the Blind, Christ’s Prayer for the Disciples (the future Church), the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Feast of Pentecost (birth Churches). In this sense, the absence of the eighth article in the Easter letters appended to the Three Conversations is interesting. It would have to correspond to the eighth week, Pentecost (Trinity) and end the first period of church time calculation. Why Vl. Solovyov ends this period, ending “Three Conversations” with a letter dedicated to the dogma of the Sonship of Christ (Seventh Week of the Holy Fathers) Solovyov S.M. "Vladimir Solovyov. Life and creative evolution", 1923. - P. 45. ?
At the end of the Week of the Holy Fathers at the liturgy, fragments of the message of the apostle are read. Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) and the Gospel of John (5:24-30). The readings are called funeral readings and are usually read at the funeral of monks and laity. They speak of the resurrection of all dead Christians “to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4-17). The motif of the resurrection of all the righteous from the dead is also found in the “Brief Tale of the Antichrist,” where the earthly period of the Church’s existence ends and after this the thousand-year Kingdom of Christ begins, i.e. in essence, the eighth day of creation begins, the final victory of the Heavenly Church. In turn, Pentecost, otherwise the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, is understood in Orthodox theology as the birth of the Church, as the foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven. But here begins a line beyond which a person’s imagination cannot cross: “the drama has long been written to completion, and neither the audience nor the actors are allowed to change anything in it.” These words of Mr. Z, the source of which are lines from the Revelation of John the Theologian (chap. 22, 18-19), reflect the philosopher’s idea of world history as God’s ongoing judgment, which determined the compositional unity of the three dialogues, the story of the Antichrist and appendices .
E.N. Trubetskoy about “Three Conversations” by Vl. Solovyov wrote in Art. "Old and new national messianism": "In prophetic foresight
The philosopher revives the miracle of Pentecost. Tongues of fire do not divide peoples, but unite them. The Christianity of Petrova, John and Paul are united in a common confession."
In conclusion, it must be said that “Three Conversations” is an unsurpassed synthesis fiction, Christian journalism and philosophy. The book has a PROLOGUE, consisting of a preface by the author and 3 apologetic dialogues, the “historical drama” itself or THE TALE OF THE ANTICHRIST, and an EPILOGUE, which includes four articles and seven Easter letters. The first four articles complement the thoughts of the prologue; the Easter letters continue the story of the Antichrist. The author himself defined this concept in the very title of the book: “Three conversations about war, progress and world history, including a short story about the Antichrist and with applications.” We can only hope that the compilers of future editions will take into account the compositional integrity of this unique book.
3. Contents of “Three Conversations” by V. Solovyov
This work is constructed in the form of a dialogue-dispute, the essence of which is
interpretation of history, the “moral order” of things, what their meaning is.
Analyzing this work, I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to consider all three conversations separately. Since the topic of one conversation can be traced in the content of others.
The action takes place in the garden of one of the villas, located at the foot of the Alps, where five Russians accidentally met: an old military general; the politician is the “husband of the council”, taking a break from theoretical and practical studies of state affairs; the young prince is a moralist and populist, publishing various brochures on moral and social issues; a middle-aged lady curious about all of humanity, and another gentleman of uncertain age and social status - the author calls him Mr. Z.
The first conversation begins about a newspaper article and about a literary campaign against war and military service. The General is the first to enter the conversation: “Does the Christ-loving and honorable Russian army exist now or not? From time immemorial, every military man knew and felt that he was serving an important and good cause. This cause of ours has always been sanctified in churches, glorified by rumor. ... And now we suddenly find out , that we need to forget all this, and the cause that we served and were proud of was declared bad and harmful, it is contrary to God’s commandments... “The military man himself does not know how to look at himself: as a real person or as a “monster of nature.” The prince enters into polemics with him, condemning war and military service. He expresses his position as follows: “thou shalt not kill” and believes that murder is an evil, contrary to the will of God, and that under no circumstances can it be allowed to anyone." Another point of view is held by a politician who believes that all attacks in The article is addressed not to the military, but to diplomats and other “civilians” who have very little interest in “love of Christ.” And the military, in his opinion, must unquestioningly carry out the orders of their superiors, although literary agitation against war is a gratifying phenomenon for him.
The general begins to argue that the army certainly needs complete confidence that war is a holy cause, thanks to which the fighting spirit will be cultivated in the troops. The conversation moves to the stage at which war itself begins to be viewed as a necessary evil of disaster, tolerable in extreme cases. I even remember that all the saints of the Russian Church belong to only two classes: either monarchs or wars. This means that the Christian peoples, “according to whose thoughts the saints were made,” respected and valued the military profession. Contrary to this theory is the thought of the prince, who read from magazines that Christianity unconditionally condemns war. And he himself believes that war and militarism are “an unconditional and extreme evil, from which humanity must certainly get rid of it right now.” What will lead, in his opinion, to the triumph of reason and goodness.
And here we face another point of view. It is expressed by Mr. Z. He says that war is not an unconditional evil, and that peace is not an unconditional good, that is, there is a good war, which means a bad peace is possible. Here we see the difference between the views of Mr. Z and the General, who, as a military man, thinks that war can be a very bad thing “...precisely when we are beaten, as, for example, near Narva” and the world can be wonderful, like for example, Nystadt. The general begins to tell his interlocutors about one battle on the Aladzhin Heights (which took place during the war with the Turks), in which “many of our own and others were killed,” and at the same time, everyone fought for “their own truth.” To which the prince remarks to him how can war be an honest and holy cause when it is a struggle between “some robbers and others.” But the general does not agree with him. He believes that “if he had died then, he would have directly appeared before the Almighty and taken his place in heaven.” He is not interested in knowing that there are all people on this side and on that side and that in every person there is good and evil. It is important for the general “which of the two prevailed in whom” Soloviev V. Three conversations. Publisher: Studio “aKniga”, 2008.- P. 37. .
And here Mr. Z raises the question of religion, Christ, who “did not act by the power of the gospel spirit to awaken the good hidden in the souls of Judas, Herod, and the Jewish high priests. Why did He not deliver their souls from the terrible darkness in which they were there?"
Interesting is the story of Mr. Z about two Athenian wanderers who came to the following conclusion at the end of their lives: sin and do not repent, for repentance leads to despondency, and it is a great sin.
Next, the dispute returns to the topic of war. The politician is firmly convinced that one cannot dispute the historical significance of war as the main means by which the state was created and strengthened. He believes that there is no state that would be created and strengthened without military action.
The politician cites the example of North America, which had to gain its political independence through a long war. But the prince replies that this speaks of the “unimportance of the state,” and that the war does not carry great historical significance for the conditions for the creation of the state. The politician is trying to prove that the war period of history is over. Although there can be no talk of immediate disarmament, “neither we nor our children will see big wars.” He cites as an example the time of Vladimir Monomakh, when it was necessary to protect the future of the Russian state from the Polovtsians, and then from the Tatars.
Now there are no such threats to Russia and, therefore, war and the military are simply not needed. Now, the Politician believes, it makes sense for the war to be somewhere in Africa or Central Asia. And again he has to return to the idea of “holy wars.” He says this: “The wars that were elevated to the rank of saints may have taken place in the Kyiv or Mongol era. To support his words, he cites Alexander Nevsky and Alexander Suvorov as examples.
Alexander Nevsky fought for the national-political future of his fatherland, therefore he is a saint. Alexander Suvorov, on the contrary, did not have to save Russia. Saving Russia from Napoleon (it would be possible to come to an agreement with him) is patriotic rhetoric. Further, the Politician talks about the Crimean War as “crazy”, and its cause, in his opinion, is “a bad militant policy, as a result of which half a million people died.”
The next interesting thought is that modern nations are no longer able to fight, and the rapprochement between Russia and France is beneficial, it is a “union of peace and precaution.” The General counters him, saying that if two military nations collide again, then again “the ballots will go,” and military qualities are still needed. To this, the politician directly states: “Just as unnecessary organs in the body atrophy, so militant qualities have become unnecessary in humanity.”
What does the Politician propose, what does he see as a solution to these problems? And the point is to come to your senses and conduct a good policy, for example, with Turkey: “to introduce it into the midst of cultural nations, to help educate and become capable of fairly and humanely governing peoples who are not able to peacefully manage their affairs.” There is a comparison here with Russia, where serfdom was abolished. What, then, is the special task of Russian policy in the Eastern question? Here Politician proposes the idea that all European nations should be united in the interest of cultural expansion.
Specifically, Russia must redouble its efforts to quickly catch up with other nations. The Russian people should benefit from the experience of cooperation. "By working voluntarily for the cultural progress of barbarian states, we are tightening the bonds of solidarity between ourselves and other European nations."
But the General, as a person who has been in war, does not believe in solidarity. To this, the Politician declares that since we ourselves are Europeans, we should be in solidarity with other European nations. However, not all those present believe that the Russian people are Europeans. For example, Mr. Z claims that “we represent a special Greco-Slavic type.” And the Politician again operates with the fact that “Russia is the great outskirts of Europe towards Asia, that is, the Asian element has entered our nature, become a second soul.” And in order to understand everything, “the dominance of one soul is necessary, of course, the best, that is, mentally stronger, more capable of further progress. Nations first had to be formed, strengthened, and "stand against the lower elements."
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: “peaceful politics is the measure and symptom of cultural progress.”
Then what's next? Perhaps accelerated progress is a symptom of the end, which means that the historical process is approaching its denouement? Mr. Z brings the conversation to the point that one cannot care about progress if one knows that “its end is always death for every person.” The general clarifies this idea, namely, the question of the Antichrist and anti-Christianity arises: “not having the spirit of Christ, they pass themselves off as real Christians.” That is, anti-Christianity leads to a historical tragedy, since it will be “not simple unbelief or denial of Christianity, but it will be religious imposture.”
But how to deal with this? The lady is trying to suggest that we need to make sure that there is more goodness in people. The battle between good and evil is inevitable.
The prince draws the line with a quotation from the Gospel: “Seek the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, and the rest will be added to you.”
So, after analyzing this work, we can briefly summarize and say that: The prince and the politician act as champions of progress, their position boils down to the attitude: everything is for the best in this best of worlds. The politician expresses a positivist interpretation of history and the “moral order” as the result of the natural and necessary progress of society (in the second conversation): the world is ruled by necessity, and goodness is ultimately nothing more than a product of culture (“politeness”, which is cultivated by culture). But such a utilitarian point of view is unacceptable to his opponents, since such an explanation takes the problem of meaning out of the equation (“one cannot talk about the meaning of war without reference to time”). Such progress does not explain history - it is just a “shadow of a shadow.” History is a meaningless process.
The prince (in the third conversation) introduces this meaning: this is the building of the city of God on earth. What point of view does the author himself adhere to? Three conversations"? This question cannot be answered unambiguously, since even in the preface Solovyov admits that, although to a greater extent he accepts the unconditionally religious view expressed in the reasoning of Mr. Z (the most, in my opinion, mysterious of the interlocutors) and in the story of his father, Pansofia, still recognizes the relative truth behind two others: the religious and everyday position of the General and the culturally progressive Politician.
Conclusion
Thus, summing up what has been said, we will draw the following conclusions: “Three Conversations” is one of the last literary and philosophical works of V.S. Solovyov, dedicated to “eternal questions”: good and evil, truth and lies, religion and nihilism. The work is constructed in the form of a dialogue-dispute, the essence of which is the interpretation of history, the “moral order” of things...
The final work of the great Russian thinker Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is devoted to the eternal questions of existence: good and evil, truth and lies, religion and nihilism. According to the philosopher himself, “this is talk about evil, about the military and peaceful struggle against it.”
The author himself said: “My task here is rather polemical, that is, I wanted to clearly highlight the vital aspects of Christian truth related to the question of evil.” In the work itself, the question is clearly posed: is evil only a natural defect, which disappears by itself with the growth of good, or it is a real force that rules our world through temptations.
The heroes of the work engage in quite tough polemics, in the sense that they fully justify all their statements, and the issues they consider have so many real contradictions that it is difficult for me to decide which position to agree with and which to not. I believe that these questions are relevant in our time, because there are still many views, opinions and discussions on this topic. Therefore, it is difficult to say when humanity will be able to come and whether it will even come to the resolution of such eternal problems as war, progress, history and the prospects for the development of human society.
Bibliography
1. ???? ?. "???????? ???????? ? ???? ???", 1920.
2. ???????? ?.?., ??????? ?. ? ?????? ???????? ????????? ? ????? ? 20-?? ?????. ????????? ? 15-?? ?????", "?????", 2000.
3. ???????? ?.?. "???????? ????????. ????? ? ?????????? ????????", 1923.
4. ???????? ?. ??? ?????????. ????????????: ?????? "aKniga", 2008. - 164 ?.
5. ??????? ?.?. "?? ????????????? ?????", 1926.
Similar documents
Philosophical and poetic creativity of the Russian philosopher Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov. Russian religious metaphysics, artistic experience of Russian symbolism. Evolution philosophical views Solovyova. An instinctive desire for universal unity.
abstract, added 06/22/2012
Analysis of the problem of Russian self-awareness in the article by Vladimir Solovyov “Russian Idea”. The meaning of Russia's existence in world history. Eternal truths of religion as a source of understanding the problem. The national idea as a social ideal, its religious aspect.
article, added 07/29/2013
Brief curriculum vitae from the life of a philosopher. The essence of unity according to Solovyov. The concept of ontological epistemology. The essence of the concept of "meaning". Philosophical architectonics of the ideas of God-manhood, unity in the concept of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov.
presentation, added 04/29/2012
Historical theme in the works of the Russian religious philosopher of the 19th century. V. Solovyova. Religious ethics, problems of the theory of knowledge in the social and ideological-theoretical origins of the scientist. The philosophy of “all-unity” as an attempt to create a comprehensive worldview.
test, added 12/23/2010
Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is a classic of Russian idealistic philosophy. The formation of his religious beliefs, the philosophy of eternal femininity. Personal qualities and friendly relations Solovyova. Reflections on meaning human love in the philosopher's articles.
test, added 02/26/2011
A brief sketch of the life, personal and creative development of the second Russian philosopher half of the 19th century century V.S. Solovyova. The essence of Solovyov’s philosophy of unity, its features. The ethical teaching of the philosopher and its place in modern science.
abstract, added 02/25/2010
Life and scientific activity V.S. Solovyov - an outstanding, brilliant philosopher of Russia. Social and ideological-theoretical origins philosophical system thinker. Fundamentals of the doctrine of unity as the beginning and goal of the world process, the concept of history and man.
abstract, added 10/25/2011
Nature human morality in the teachings of Vladimir Solovyov. Religious doubt and return to faith of the Russian philosopher. Moral principles human activity. The main philosophical work "Justification of the Good", dedicated to problems of ethics.
thesis, added 04/24/2009
Vladimir Solovyov and the influence of Spinoza’s works on his worldview. Philosophical work "Justification of the Good" and problems of ethics. General outline of Solovyov's philosophy. The unity of the world soul in its desire for realization. The union of the divine principle with the soul of the world.
abstract, added 03/22/2009
The idea of a practical, life-building philosophy. Philosophical views, life and creative path of Vladimir Solovyov. The idea of the priority of the spiritual over the material and biological. The philosophy of unity at the beginning of the 20th century: followers of V.S. Solovyova.
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 quickly 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 different sides Fog is coming in, especially lately.
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 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 it is a myth invented by the Apostle Paul, at the same time they stubbornly continue to call themselves “true Christians” and preach their empty space cover with alterations gospel words, here indifference and condescending neglect are no longer in place: in view of the contamination of the moral atmosphere with systematic lies, public conscience loudly demands that the bad deed be called by its real 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 for complete candor 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 beliefs 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, Holy Bible Jews and Christians are 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 both with the whole book and with the immediate context, – whereas 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...
Relativistic effects
In the theory of relativity, relativistic effects mean changes in the space-time characteristics of bodies at speeds comparable to the speed of light.
As an example, a spacecraft such as a photon rocket is usually considered, which flies in space at a speed commensurate with the speed of light. In this case, a stationary observer can notice three relativistic effects:
1. Increase in mass compared to rest mass. As speed increases, so does mass. If a body could move at the speed of light, then its mass would increase to infinity, which is impossible. Einstein proved that the mass of a body is a measure of the energy contained in it (E= mc 2). Tell the body endless energy impossible.
2.Reduction linear dimensions body in the direction of its movement. The higher the speed spaceship, flying past a stationary observer, and the closer it is to the speed of light, the smaller the size of this ship will be for the stationary observer. When the ship reaches the speed of light, its observed length will be zero, which cannot be. On the ship itself, the astronauts will not observe these changes.
3. Time dilation. In a spacecraft moving at close to the speed of light, time passes more slowly than for a stationary observer.
The effect of time dilation would affect not only the clock inside the ship, but also all the processes occurring on it, as well as the biological rhythms of the astronauts. However, a photon rocket cannot be considered as inertial system, because during acceleration and braking it moves with acceleration (and not uniformly and linearly).
Just as in the case of quantum mechanics, many of the predictions of the theory of relativity are counterintuitive, seem incredible and impossible. This, however, does not mean that the theory of relativity is incorrect. In reality, the way we see (or want to see) the world around us and the way it actually is can be very different. Already more than a century Scientists all over the world are trying to refute SRT. None of these attempts could find the slightest flaw in the theory. The fact that the theory is mathematically correct is evidenced by the strict mathematical form and clarity of all formulations.
The fact that SRT really describes our world is evidenced by vast experimental experience. Many consequences of this theory are used in practice. Obviously, all attempts to “refute STR” are doomed to failure because the theory itself is based on Galileo’s three postulates (which are somewhat expanded), on the basis of which Newtonian mechanics is built, as well as on additional postulates.
The results of SRT do not raise any doubt within the limits of the maximum accuracy of modern measurements. Moreover, the accuracy of their verification is so high that the constancy of the speed of light is the basis for the definition of the meter - a unit of length, as a result of which the speed of light becomes a constant automatically if measurements are carried out in accordance with metrological requirements.
In 1971 In the USA, an experiment was carried out to determine time dilation. They made two absolutely identical exact watches. Some watches remained on the ground, while others were placed in a plane that flew around the Earth. An airplane flying in a circular path around the Earth moves with some acceleration, which means that the clock on board the airplane is in a different situation compared to a clock resting on the ground. In accordance with the laws of relativity, the traveling clock should have lagged behind the resting clock by 184 ns, but in fact the lag was 203 ns. There were other experiments that tested the effect of time dilation, and they all confirmed the fact of slowing down. Thus, the different flow of time in coordinate systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to each other is an immutable experimentally established fact.
General theory of relativity
In 1915, Einstein completed the creation new theory, unifying the theories of relativity and gravity. He called it the general theory of relativity (GR). After this, the theory that Einstein created in 1905, which did not consider gravity, began to be called the special theory of relativity.
Within the framework of this theory, which is a further development special theory relativity, it is postulated that gravitational effects are caused not by the force interaction of bodies and fields located in space-time, but by the deformation of space-time itself, which is associated, in particular, with the presence of mass-energy. Thus, in general relativity, as in other metric theories, gravity is not a force interaction. General relativity differs from other metric theories of gravity by using Einstein's equations to relate the curvature of spacetime to the matter present in space.
The general theory of relativity is based on two postulates of the special theory of relativity and formulates the third postulate - the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses. The most important conclusion of General Relativity is the position about changes in geometric (spatial) and temporal characteristics in gravitational fields (and not only when moving at high speeds). This conclusion connects GTR with geometry, that is, in GTR the geometrization of gravity is observed. Classical Euclidian geometry was not suitable for this. New geometry appeared back in the 19th century. In the works of the Russian mathematician N. I. Lobachevsky, the German mathematician B. Riemann, the Hungarian mathematician J. Bolyai.
The geometry of our space turned out to be non-Euclidean.
General relativity is a physical theory based on a number of experimental facts. Let's look at some of them. The gravitational field affects the movement of not only massive bodies, but also light. A ray of light is deflected into the field of the Sun. Measurements taken in 1922 English astronomer A. Eddington during a solar eclipse confirmed this prediction of Einstein.
In general relativity, the orbits of planets are not closed. A small effect of this kind can be described as a rotation of the perihelion of an elliptical orbit. Perihelion is the point of the orbit of a celestial body closest to the Sun, which moves around the Sun in an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola. Astronomers know that the perihelion of Mercury's orbit rotates by about 6000" per century. This is explained by gravitational disturbances from other planets. At the same time, there was an irremovable remainder of about 40" per century. In 1915 Einstein explained this discrepancy within the framework of General Relativity.
There are objects in which the effects of general relativity play a decisive role. These include "black holes". A “black hole” occurs when a star is compressed so much that the existing gravitational field does not even release light into outer space. Therefore, no information comes from such a star. Numerous astronomical observations indicate the real existence of such objects. General Relativity provides a clear explanation for this fact.
In 1918 Einstein predicted, on the basis of general relativity, the existence of gravitational waves: massive bodies, moving with acceleration, emit gravitational waves. Gravitational waves must travel at the same speed as electromagnetic waves, that is, at the speed of light. By analogy with electromagnetic field quanta, it is customary to speak of gravitons as gravitational field quanta. Currently, a new field of science is being formed - gravitational wave astronomy. There is hope that gravitational experiments will yield new results.
The properties of space-time in general relativity depend on the distribution of gravitating masses, and the movement of bodies is determined by the curvature of space-time.
But the influence of masses affects only the metric properties of the clock, since only the frequency changes when moving between points with different gravitational potentials. An illustration of the relative passage of time, according to Einstein, could be the discovery of processes near the black holes he predicted.
Based on the equations of the theory of relativity, the domestic mathematician-physicist A. Friedman in 1922. found a new cosmological solution to the general relativity equations. This solution indicates that our Universe is not stationary, it is continuously expanding. Friedman found two options for solving Einstein’s equations, that is, two options for the possible development of the Universe. Depending on the density of matter, the Universe will either continue to expand, or after some time it will begin to contract.
In 1929 American astronomer E. Hubble experimentally established a law that determines the speed of expansion of galaxies depending on the distance to our galaxy. The further away the galaxy is, the greater its speed of expansion. Hubble used the Doppler effect, according to which a light source moving away from the observer increases its wavelength, that is, shifts to the red end of the spectrum (reddens).
OTO is currently the most successful gravitational theory, well confirmed by observations. The first success of general relativity was to explain the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. According to general relativity, the perihelia of the orbits with each revolution of the planet around the Sun should move by a fraction of a revolution equal to 3 (v/c) 2. For the perihelion of Mercury it turns out to be 43", the angle of rotation of the perihelion over a hundred years is 42.91". This value corresponds to the processing of observations of Mercury from 1765 to 1937. This is how the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was explained.
Experimental confirmation of the theory of relativity, which led to changes in the properties of time and space:
a – diagram of the setup for proving the time delay of moving mesons, predicted by STR, in the Earth’s gravitational field; b – curvature of the light propagation line near the Sun, predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observations; c – diagram of the precession of Mercury’s orbit, explained by general relativity (otherwise the orbit would be a stationary ellipse)
Then, in 1919, Arthur Eddington reported the observation of light bending near the Sun during a total eclipse, confirming the predictions of general relativity. Since then, many other observations and experiments have confirmed a significant number of the theory's predictions, including gravitational time dilation, gravitational redshift, signal delay in the gravitational field, and, so far only indirectly, gravitational radiation. In addition, numerous observations are interpreted as confirmation of one of the most mysterious and exotic predictions of the general theory of relativity - the existence of black holes.
There are a number of other effects that can be experimentally verified. Among them we can mention the deflection and retardation (Shapiro effect) of electromagnetic waves in the gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter, the Lense-Thirring effect (precession of a gyroscope near a rotating body), astrophysical evidence of the existence of black holes, evidence of the emission of gravitational waves by close systems of double stars and the expansion of the Universe.
So far, no reliable experimental evidence refuting general relativity has been found. Deviations of the measured effect sizes from those predicted by general relativity do not exceed 0.1% (for the above three classical phenomena). However, there are phenomena that cannot be explained using general relativity: the “Pioneer” effect; flyby effect; increase in astronomical unit; quadrupole-octupole anomaly of background microwave radiation; dark energy; dark matter.
In connection with these and other problems of general relativity (the absence of an energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field, the impossibility of quantizing general relativity), theorists have developed at least 30 alternative theories of gravity, and some of them make it possible to obtain results arbitrarily close to general relativity with appropriate values of the parameters included in the theory .
Thus, all known scientific facts confirm the validity of the general theory of relativity, which is modern theory gravity.