The book is a personal and problematic overview of the classical European and Middle Eastern history of philosophy from the pre-philosophical worldview to the social and philosophical doctrine of Marx and Engels. Here, both all the main thinkers and the most important facts and cultural factors are interpreted, without and without which it is impossible to comprehend the integrity and depth of the historical and philosophical process and its most important representatives. Unlike most historical and philosophical courses, which are characterized by empirical retelling and amorphous methodology, this course, based on the subject-object paradigm, seeks to reveal the unity of philosophical doctrines and concepts in their roll call across centuries and millennia.
The maximum clarity of style, striving for lapidary presentation, makes the book accessible to all students of philosophy, but especially to those interested in its in-depth understanding.
2nd edition, corrected and expanded.

Approved by the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the USSR as a teaching aid for students and graduate students of philosophical faculties and university departments
Moscow Higher School 1984

SECTION ONE

RENAISSANCE PHILOSOPHY

1. MAIN FEATURES OF THE RENAISSANCE CULTURE AND HUMANISM

In the countries of Western Europe, enormous cultural progress in the era long called the Renaissance (in French, Renaissance) occurred in the last centuries of medieval feudalism, its heyday occurred in the 15th–16th centuries. However, the development of culture, both material and especially spiritual, cannot, of course, be contained within any precise chronological framework. What we call the culture of the Renaissance began in Italy already in the 14th century, and in the 15th century. reached its peak. In the 16th century The culture of the Renaissance became, one might say, a pan-European – primarily Western European – phenomenon. The colossal achievements of spiritual culture in this era of the history of Italy and Europe are widely known; they have long been the subject of the closest attention, admiration, study, and comprehension, which is quite natural, bearing in mind the comprehensive progress of man reflected in this culture. Hence the enormous prestige of this era and the word “Renaissance” itself, which was first used to characterize certain phenomena of its spiritual culture (in fact, its fine arts) around the middle of the 16th century. (Italian rinascita). The word meant renewal(Latin renovatio was used for these purposes earlier) those magnificent achievements of the culture of Greco-Roman antiquity that were lost in the Middle Ages.

The prestige of the Renaissance, which further reveals its philosophical and ideological aspect, is also associated with thermal humanism. From about the 19th century. it has become one of the most common terms used for various moral and social characteristics of humanity, and today it is the word without which moral and ideological life is impossible. But this word itself and the main phenomena it generalizes go back again to this

era (Italian humanista, umanista were first recorded in documents of the late 15th century). Moreover, Italian humanists borrowed the word humanitas (humanity) from Cicero (1st century BC), who at one time sought to emphasize that the concept humanity as the most important result of the culture developed in the ancient Greek city-states, it took root on Roman soil. Consequently, already in Cicero’s understanding, humanism meant a kind of rebirth of man.

It should also be said that the word “humanity” was repeatedly used by Tertullian, Lactantius (III-IV centuries) and other Christian “church fathers” who wrote in Latin. With this word, they sought to emphasize the highest value of man, contrasting their emerging religious morality with the more rude, cruel and inhumane (as they believed) morality of slave owners. As we will see, in rejecting scholastic scholarship and church morality of their era, which actually broke with the ideas and values ​​of primitive Christianity, humanists repeatedly appealed to the ancient “fathers of the church.”

All of the above largely explains the fairly widespread use of the terms “renaissance” and “humanism” to characterize significant eras in the development of culture, falling mainly on the medieval-feudal periods of history. In the last decades of our century, many works have appeared that examine certain aspects of the Middle Eastern or Far Eastern (especially Chinese) Renaissance and associated humanism. Much has been written about the Arab, Iranian, Armenian, Georgian Renaissance, about the “Carolingian Renaissance” of the 8th–9th centuries, which reflected a certain rise in culture in the feudalizing countries of Western Europe, about an even more significant revival of culture here in the conditions of the rise of urban life in the 12th century. In itself, this phenomenon of historiographical and philosophical thought is completely understandable and natural, for it reflects an in-depth understanding of the development of the culture of various peoples in the Middle Ages.

The uneven development of culture - chronologically and territorially - is one of its most universal laws. The most important foundations of the culture of the peoples of the Mediterranean, recorded in many of its achievements and monuments, were laid in ancient times, in Greco-Roman antiquity. In the Middle Ages, wear

Other peoples who lived in the spaces of the former Roman Empire or in the territories adjacent to them became cultural leaders. In the complex development of the culture of these peoples, there were periods of oblivion - sometimes very thorough - of various achievements of ancient culture (of course, we are referring here primarily to phenomena and monuments of spiritual life, especially literature, but there were also many periods when the material, social and spiritual the rise of various peoples of the Mediterranean in various times of the Middle Ages was sometimes very closely connected with the renewal of certain phenomena, ideas, and especially monuments of ancient culture. Such renewal had a specifically national character, for it was embodied in the original monuments of artistic and philosophical literature created in the languages , whose literary life began only in the Middle Ages.

But no matter how interesting and meaningful the various “revivals” were in the Middle Ages: in the countries of the West or the East, none of them can compare in its depth, versatility and historical significance with that era of development of society and its inherent Renaissance culture, which, having begun in Italy in the 14th century, it became a pan-European phenomenon in subsequent centuries. Of course, this meaning is not associated with any characteristics of Europeans, but with those socio-economic and historical processes that became very characteristic of the era in question. It was they who determined the social and cultural-historical face of the Renaissance, which, as Engels emphasized, became the greatest progressive revolution of all that humanity had experienced up to that time [see. 1, vol. 20, p. 346] ".

Northern and Central Italy achieved a very intensive urban life compared to other Western European countries already in the 12th–13th centuries. Milan, Venice, Florence, Genoa, Pisa, Siena, Lucca, Bologna and other Italian city-republics, developing a craft and trade economy and improving communal statehood, successfully overcame the resistance of the feudal lords (nobiles) of their area, often forced them to move to the cities and bought their lands. In the city communes themselves, the so-called popolans took over

________________________

See bibliography.– Ed

although they represented only its trade and industrial-craft elite, they spoke on behalf of the entire people in the fight against the nobles. Among the popolans themselves already in the 14th century. There was an intense struggle between this elite (“fat people”) and the lower classes of the urban population (“skinny people”). The life of the Italian city-republics was distinguished by great social activity and sharply contrasted with the feudal-rural hibernation of the vast majority of other European countries (and even southern Italy). Trade and banking flourished in these cities, woolen and other manufactories appeared, and an early capitalist economy emerged. According to K. Marx, “...the first beginnings of capitalist production are found sporadically in individual cities along the Mediterranean already in the 14th and 15th centuries...”, and F. Engels called Italy “the first capitalist nation.” The richness of social life that flourished in Italian cities was reflected in the diversity of their political forms. Republican rule of various shades was replaced by so-called seigneuries with one or another monarchical shade.

Of the many changes in social psychology that took place under these conditions and sharply distinguished Italian townspeople from the inhabitants of purely feudal countries and places with their class-corporate foundations and sluggish dynamics, we note a strong increase in the life and ideas of the first factors time, so monotonous for the latter. It is no coincidence that the first mechanical clocks, built already in the 13th century, were installed on the towers of Italian cities in the following centuries. They struck every hour of the day (at the end of the 15th century, rope-type clocks were invented). The monotony of feudal-medieval time gave rise to a strong tendency to absorb it into the category of eternity, which was reflected in many philosophical and theological constructions (especially mystical ones). In the new conditions, time began to be perceived as increasingly differentiated, acquiring more and more value. Attitude to time has become one of the most important indicators of growth personal beginnings in the life of Italian cities. The most prominent humanist of this era, Jonozzo Manetti, expressed this change in attitude towards time in the statement that omnipotent God, like a certain banker, distributes time to people like money, keeps a strict count of years, months, days and hours, spends

invested by people for various needs, and strictly punishes those of them who waste this treasure uselessly.

The most important feature that distinguished the Renaissance from all previous ones was the greatly increased demand for brainwork, which was expressed in a large increase in the number of people in liberal professions." In the European Middle Ages, they were part of corporations that united them by profession (“guilds”), be they teachers of universities and other schools, doctors or artists. The activities of such corporations were strictly regulated, so that was largely explained by its sacred assessment. Hence the huge role of the church in this kind of regulation. Representatives of intellectual labor not associated with the church were a very rare phenomenon in the European Middle Ages. Complication and differentiation of industrial and cultural activities in Renaissance Italy (then in other European countries ), the collapse of corporate-guild ties in cities and the strengthening of the role of the individual principle in them, together with a large increase in the number of people whose profession became mental work, largely predetermined the fact that this most active social stratum was not always dependent on the church and was directly on its service. The emergence of that category of people who later came to be called humanists, in essence, marked the beginning of the process of emergence in this era secular intelligentsia. As is known, in a class society the intelligentsia serves one class or another, but the genesis of this stratum can be interclass. This is exactly how humanists appeared in the conditions of Renaissance Italy, for the collapse of the corporate system and the increase in the role of individual activity in these conditions was naturally accompanied by the fact that the most capable sons of merchants, traders, teachers, notaries, representatives of the nobility, less often - the sons of artisans and peasants in accordance with their their inclinations were artists, architects, sculptors, doctors, and writers. The most important criterion for the social progress of human society is associated with the opportunities that a given society opens to a person for the development of his personal inclinations. The most outstanding humanists became scientists and philosophers.

The weakening of the humanists' ties with the church, since many of them lived on the income received from their professional activities (as well as from the noble and wealthy

people independent of the church) increased their hostility towards official scholarship, imbued with the church-scholastic spirit. For many of them, such hostility developed into a sharply critical attitude towards the entire system of this scholarship, towards its theoretical and philosophical foundations, towards authoritarianism, outside and without which this scholarship could not exist. It is also important to recall that the humanistic movement began in Italy during the era of the decline in the moral and political authority of the papacy associated with the events of its “captivity at Avignon” (1309-1375), frequent splits in the Catholic Church, when antipopes appeared in contrast to the “legitimate” popes and when Church councils challenged the supremacy of the popes in the life of the church.

An indicator of the secular, anti-sacred nature of the humanistic movement is a fact of such enormous historical importance as the emergence of various humanist circles that had nothing to do with universities and were not at all connected with the interests of the church. Some of these circles, which developed active activities, developed certain statutes that regulated these activities. Emphasizing the importance of education and talent as the most important manifestations and indicators of humanity, humanism became popular in Italy around the middle of the 15th century. a very influential ideology, so influential that humanistic circles arose in those cities where the social conditions described above were absent, most typically, vividly and demonstrably developed in Florence. Humanist circles arose in both Naples and Rome, and some humanists were elected popes.

When considering the activities of humanists, especially the early ones (the period of the 14th–15th centuries), it should be remembered that not only socio-economic maturity created the ground for the emergence of Renaissance culture in this era of the late Middle Ages in Italy. History prepared an equally important ground here, for the traditions of ancient Roman life, which also flourished in cities, although they were severely destroyed here during periods of barbarian invasions, gradually revived in conditions of peaceful life. The Latin language as the language of the church and culture in the Western European Middle Ages in Italy with its “eternal Rome” and the papal curia, naturally, was more rooted than in any other European country. The ideas that have prevailed for a long time regarding

more or less complete oblivion of the monuments of ancient culture in the conditions of the European Middle Ages. In recent decades, medievalists have proven that a number of works by Latin-language authors - Virgil, Ovid, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius and others - were sometimes well known here, studied and even imitated. The ancient Greek authors were much less well known. However, neither the degree of knowledge of ancient literary, philosophical and scientific works, nor their scholastic interpretation could completely satisfy the humanists, because they were deeply disgusted by the “barbaric” Latin, which was spoken in the church and in universities. In the XIV–XV centuries. They launched an active search for and popularization) of the works of ancient writers, poets, and philosophers after the advent of printed publications. Most of the texts of ancient authors that modern science has were identified by humanists.

We can talk about their nostalgia for ancient culture. The new Renaissance social reality, so different from the medieval one, the new man as the central link of this reality, required a much broader and more multifaceted appeal to the experience and ideas of antiquity than the very selective and little intensive use of its monuments and ideas that the theologized Middle Ages could afford. The irresistible craving of humanists for ancient culture was also largely explained by the anti-church, anti-clerical (but not anti-religious!) orientation of the interests and activities of many humanists, and their anti-clericalism was a primary element of their hostility to the feudal-corporate system, which dominated in most countries of the world and represented a huge force in Italy itself. A passionate interest in antiquity made humanists brilliant experts in the Latin language, the classical language of Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Seneca and other masters of Latin literature. The revival of this language was a form of criticism of the dominant church-scholastic scholarship and religious practice, which operated in “spoiled”, inexpressive Latin, far from ancient Roman classical images. As some Renaissance historians emphasize, the new culture created by the humanists also required a new language. However, the daily development of life revealed the significance of the language spoken by the overwhelming majority of the people, that is, the Italian language (or rather,

Volgare). And the humanists did a lot for its literary development, for many of them wrote not only in Latin, but also in popular languages.

In the XIV century. The humanists still knew almost no Greek, which many understood in Georgia and southern Italy, where there was a significant influence of Byzantium. The impact of Byzantine culture in Europe most affected Italy at that time, which was explained by both historical and geographical reasons. From the end of the 14th century, when the Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysolor was invited to Florence to teach Greek, humanists began to actively study it. Some of them would later write not only in Latin, but also in Greek. Constantinople, living out its last decades as the capital of a once powerful empire, in the first half of the 15th century. became the most important center of education for many humanists and an equally important center for the dissemination of the works of ancient Greek writers, philosophers and scientists. However, this was also done by Byzantine scientists, who moved to Italy not only in the face of the threat of the Turkish danger, but also due to the fact that the spiritual climate of Renaissance Italy was more favorable for them than the climate of Orthodox Byzantium. In general, the influence of ancient Greek literature and philosophy, refracted through the work of some Byzantine thinkers, constituted, along with the earlier influence of Arab-Muslim culture, the “influence of the East”, which served as a primary stimulus for the development of Renaissance culture, first in Italy, and then and throughout Europe.

2. ITALIAN HUMANISTS OF THE XIV-XV CENTURIES, THE ANTI-SCHOLASTIC CHARACTER OF THEIR WORLDVIEW AND ACTIVITY

The emergence of a humanistic worldview in the 14th century. occurred as if in parallel with the development of late scholastic philosophy, which ended in this century. In 1323, Thomas Aquinas was canonized (canonized), and his teaching, after a rather long struggle, became the official philosophical and theological doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, when we continue to talk about scholasticism, to which humanists were in one opposition or another, we will have in mind the main thing

way this system. On the other hand, in the same century, oppositional-scholastic teachings of late nominalism arose, the theoretical edge of which was directed against Thomism and the ideas of which were so fruitful that without taking into account their influence it is impossible to understand much in Western European philosophy of the 17th century.

The main center of the humanistic movement - in all its aspects - was Florence, which can be called the capital of the Italian Renaissance. The great poet and thinker Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) was born here and spent many years of his politically very active life. Many humanists of the period under review saw in his works the source of their moods and ideas. In our time, Renaissance historians also see in the works of Dante - both in his immortal “Divine Comedy”, the most important monument of the Italian literary language, and in the philosophical work “The Symposium” (1303–1308, also in Volgar), and in his political treatise “ About the monarchy” (1310–1311, in Latin) is the source of the most important ideas of the humanistic worldview. Indeed, according to Engels’ definition, Dante is “... the last poet of the Middle Ages and at the same time the first poet of modern times.” Of course, we are talking here about the features poetic worldview author of The Divine Comedy.

On the one hand, it represents, as it were, an encyclopedia of the Christian worldview of the Middle Ages with its most important geocentric ideas in the form in which they were expressed in the doctrines of such orthodox philosophers as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (without mentioning less important ones). On the other hand, in many places in the “Comedy” (as well as in the aforementioned philosophical works), the beginning of a crisis in this worldview is clearly noticeable. It is expressed both in the significant tribute given by Dante to a philosophical doctrine so unacceptable for Catholic orthodoxy as Latin Averroism (Siger of Brabant, along with Thomas Aquinas and Albert of Bolystedt, are placed in “Paradise”), and in the role played here by the idea of ​​​​the double share of man; destined not only for the bliss of “eternal”, posthumous life. Another, no less valuable is his real, earthly life.

In Dante's Latin treatise “On Monarchy,” the emperor, who exercises and personifies earthly power, receives it not from the pope, but directly from God. Full

the independence of the monarch from the supreme spiritual ruler is a necessary condition that ensures peace and prosperity for people, without which the realization of a person’s earthly purpose is impossible.

For the direction of the formation of Renaissance culture, it is indicative that when depicting the posthumous existence of the characters in the “Comedy” (especially in “Hell”), their earthly features sharply prevail over the heavenly ones. In general, its author is alien to the glorification of the ascetic ideals of official Christianity. With great artistic power, he depicts a new man with his intense psychology. Dante's attitude towards the popes is very critical, and he was not afraid to place some of them in “Hell”. A very large place in the “Comedy” is occupied by ancient poets and philosophers - starting with the “teacher” Dante Virgil, who personified the earthly mind and guided the poet in his wanderings through “Hell” and “Purgatory”, and ending with all the major ancient philosophers (including “the famous philosopher Democritus,” as well as Avicenna and Averroes, who, as non-Christians, are placed in the easiest, first circle of “Hell”). The poem is full of ancient images, crowding Christian images and sometimes intricately intertwined with them.

But the main thing that makes it the source document of humanistic thought is Dante’s interest in man, for “of all the manifestations of divine wisdom, man is the greatest miracle.” Moreover, this interest is deeply social, for the fate of a “noble man” is by no means predetermined by the convention of birth in one class or another and should be formed not on the basis of his “animal share”, but on the basis of the tireless striving “for valor and knowledge” [“Hell” , XXVI 119-120].

If Dante is the inspirer of many humanists, then the generally recognized founder of the humanistic movement in Italy is the poet and philosopher Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374).

He was a striking example of a creatively multifaceted personality of the Renaissance. Petrarch is one of the greatest lyrical poets of Italy, the author of a book of poems dedicated to his beloved Laura, poems in which the contradiction between the medieval ascetic perception of life and a very interested, sensually colored attitude towards the earthly beauty of women and nature is resolved in favor of the second trend. Poetry Pet-

Rarki and many other poets of that era (not to mention Dante’s “Divine Comedy”) played a huge, in a number of respects, leading role in the development of the humanistic, anti-ascetic movement. In contrast to scholastic works that reflected medieval man, she revealed the complexity of the feelings and thoughts of the new, Renaissance man, trying to comprehend them in their diverse integrity.

As the founder of the humanistic movement, Petrarch showed great activity in searching for works of ancient literature and philosophy unknown to his contemporaries. He devoted himself entirely to literary and scientific work. Having traveled extensively throughout Italy and France, the philosopher sought to comprehend life in all its complexity and contradictions.

Petrarch is a believing Christian, but he decisively and uncompromisingly rejects scholastic scholarship as “the chatter of dialecticians,” which, in his opinion, is completely useless for an active person of that time. In this regard, his pamphlet “On the Ignorance of His Own and Many Others” (1367–1370) is indicative. In it, as in the treatises that preceded him, Petrarch demonstrates how the enormous moral and social experience he has accumulated breaks all formalized frameworks of scholastic scholarship, in relation to which he readily admits his “ignorance,” because he considers this scholarship vain and illusory. He is far from denying logic, in which the scholastics are so skilled, for philosophy, which cognizes a real person, cannot be comprehended in some simplified and far-fetched (as it seemed to other humanists) formulas. The Italian humanist is perhaps the first who transferred his hostility to scholasticism to Aristotle as its main inspirer, although he appreciated the scholarship and depth of this ancient Greek thinker.

The genesis of Petrarch’s humanistic worldview is most clearly revealed by his earlier philosophical dialogue “My Secret” (or “On Contempt for the World”, 1342–1343). In it, Saint Augustine, expressing a consistently Christian understanding of life, persistently reproaches his interlocutor Francis (whose image more or less coincides with the author himself) for constantly deviating from her ascetic rules, and also condemns him for his desire for glory and carnal love. Such an appeal to the largest of the “church fathers” as a highly respected authority on the part of the founder of Italian humanism

low was not an accident. It became one of the first aspirations of humanists to rely in their struggle against scholasticism and the formalized bureaucratic church on the works and ideals of primitive Christianity. The most important of these ideals, as already noted, was humanity. True, Francis “repents” to Augustine of his sins and weaknesses, but... he is unable to overcome them. The very name of this dialogue is very indicative, emphasizing not the generic essence, but the pure individuality of the author and showing that self-knowledge is the most important goal of a humanistic philosopher. Both in this dialogue and in his other treatises, especially in the treatise “On remedies against all fortune” (1358–1366), Petrarch, justifying the earthly aspirations of man, seeks support not only from Augustine (who, although he exposes him, but does this very condescendingly), but even more so in Cicero, Seneca, Virgil and other ancient thinkers, in particular in the “prince of philosophers” Plato (thus beginning the opposition of this philosopher to Aristotle, which was then continued by subsequent humanists). In this regard, it is worth emphasizing Petrarch’s desire to reconcile Christianity with ancient philosophical culture, in particular with the philosophy of Stoicism. Petrarch in every possible way brings to the fore moral philosophy, which is closer to man than any other variety (Plato interests him in this capacity as a successor to the moralist Socrates). This fundamental feature of early Renaissance philosophy was later taken up by other humanists.

One of the most prominent was Coluccio Salutati, (1331–1406), a friend of Petrarch and Boccaccio, and for a long time the Chancellor of the Florentine Republic, who did a lot to spread humanistic education in it. He wrote a number of works on moral, philosophical and other topics.

Salutati's student Leonardo Bruni (1374–1444) Same for many years he was chancellor of Florence. He was already fluent in Greek and translated some of Plato’s dialogues into Latin, as well as the works of Plutarch and Demosthenes. Bruni was one of the first to understand the unsatisfactory nature of those translations of Aristotle that were carried out in the 13th century. William Moerbecke. He himself translated “Ethics of Nicomachus” (1417) and “Politics” (1438). Bruya had to defend his translations from attacks from those conservative Catholic clerics who

who, as he put it, believed that what should be translated is not what Aristotle said, but what he had to say [see. 55, p. 143]. Continuing the work of Salutati, Bruni expanded the program of studia humanitatis (these Latin phrases were first used by him), i.e., humanitarian education focused on the study of ancient culture from the perspective of their modernity. One of its elements was Bruni’s translation activity. The translation of the above-mentioned works of Aristotle (and not general philosophical and logical ones) was completely logical, for it fully corresponded to the program of “humanistic studies”, in the center of which stood precisely moral philosophy. One of the main works of Bruni himself was called “Introduction to Moral Science” (1421–1424). Bruni was also a historian, the author of the work “History of the Florentine People” (in 12 volumes). This work of his was especially highly valued by his contemporaries. Its significance, in particular, is due to the fact that here for the first time the line between antiquity and the Middle Ages (the fall of the Roman Empire) is marked. In subsequent humanistic historiography, the term “Middle Ages” (medium aevum) also appeared. Beginning with Bruni, a passionate admirer of Dante and Petrarch, humanists are increasingly aware of the fundamental difference between their time and their culture from the time and culture of the Middle Ages.

In the development of the philosophical thought of early Italian humanism, a prominent place belongs to Poggio Bracciolini (1380–1459), also a student of Salutati. The prolific author has done a lot to identify forgotten works of ancient literature, history, and philosophy. His most important discovery was the famous poem by Lucretius Cara “On the Nature of Things” (1417).

Another humanistic philosopher of the same circle is the above-mentioned Gianozzo Manetti (1396-1459), in his youth a merchant and banker (God himself in his view is a banker who strictly monitors the time allotted to people), then a prominent statesman of Florence. His most important philosophical treatise is “On the Dignity and Superiority of Man” (De dignitate et excellentia hominis, 1451–1452).

A Florentine by birth, but closely associated with the Roman Curia, was also the outstanding humanist of this century, Leon Batista Alberti (1404–1472). His work is the clearest example of the universal aspirations of humanists, who, in principle, address everything

to man, striving for his multifaceted expression. Alberti was a prominent architect of the early Renaissance; he was also a painter, poet, and musician. At the same time, he is not only a practitioner, but also an art theorist, the author of the treatises “Ten Books on Architecture” (1452), “Three Books on Painting” (1435–1436). Summarizing the experience of ancient and contemporary architecture, delving into the problems of art, he believed that the highest aesthetic pleasure comes from the beauty that is created by nature itself. Learning from her is the artist’s first task. Unlike all the humanists mentioned above, Alberti was also interested in the natural sciences, especially mathematics, because he clearly saw its necessity for an architect, sculptor, and painter.

A common feature of the worldview of the early humanists, resulting from the desire inherent in all of them to revive as much as possible the ideas and spirit of ancient culture, while preserving at the same time all the main content of the Christian doctrine, was his paganization, saturation with ancient, “pagan” moral and philosophical ideas. For example, Eneo Silvio Piccolomini, one of the humanists of this Century, wrote that “Christianity is nothing more than a new, more complete presentation of the doctrine of the highest good of the ancients” (quoted in Zba, p. 59). The author of this saying later became Pope Pius II (1458–1464).

An equally important feature of the humanistic worldview should be recognized as anti-clericalism, expressed in a sharply critical attitude towards the professional ministers of the Catholic Church, especially the monks, its most numerous corps. Bruni, and then Poggio Bracciolini, write dialogues “Against the Hypocrites,” in which the hypocrisy and depravity of not individual monks, but monasticism as a whole, are castigated. Other humanists also wrote similar works, and the theme of exposing the vices of professional bearers of the Christian faith became one of the hot topics of their artistic works, for example, Boccaccio’s “Decameron.”

Humanistic anthropocentrism and its philosophical essence. In a certain sense, we can talk about addressing a person in relation to the Christian (and even any monotheistic) worldview. However, its inherent anthropocentrism should basically be regarded as flawed-fantastic anthropocentrism, since in the religious worldview the principle of anthropocentrism is subordinated to the principle geocentrism. Although god

and creates the world, in principle, for the sake of man, but a flawed man, aggravated by the Fall, doomed to hopeless labor, to an ascetic life.

One of the foundations of the religious-monotheistic worldview of the Middle Ages was the idea likening to god(it went back to Plato). God was conceived at the same time as an extra-worldly, purely transcendental, mysterious being, substantially opposed to nature and man. Assimilation to God (deification - theiosis, deificatio) under such premises became a mystical act - a vain attempt by a weak and finite person to reach the infinite and supernatural divine being (with the exception of mystical-pantheistic constructions that tried to introduce the idea of ​​similarity, if not identity, of divine and human substances ).

The humanists we are talking about now, although not immediately, abandoned such pseudo-anthropocentrism. The first - and, one might say, even the only - subject of interest for them was human existence in many of its aspects. This does not mean that humanists, most of whom were still very religious, abandoned God and rejected the provisions of the Christian faith. No, they did not do this, and they could not do this, but they often ignored many of these provisions and gradually took the path of rethinking the concept of God, his known approach to man, etc. If the religious-monotheistic worldview as a whole asserted that at first God should always stand and only then man, then the humanists began to be guided by the fact that they put man in the foreground, and only then talked about God (of course, this did not happen immediately and in different ways for different humanists).

Among a number of problems in the new understanding of man by humanists, one of the main ones is the problem of man as a unity of soul and body. The theistic-ascetic understanding of this problem, completely derogatory in relation to his body and supposedly praiseworthy in relation to his spirit, was still at the very end of the 12th century. formulated by one cardinal, who soon became the powerful Pope Innocent III, in the essay “On Contempt for the World, or On the Insignificance of Human Life.” In the XIV and XV centuries. this work was widely circulated. Humanists polemicized with him and, refuting his provisions, formulated their own understanding of the most important anthropological problems. One of the most interesting works was written by Manetti, and its very title is “On Do-

the dignity and superiority of man” is, as it were, a response to the work of Innocent III.

In contrast, Manetti strives for the complete rehabilitation of the physical principle in man. The whole world created by God for man is beautiful, but the pinnacle of his creation is only man, whose body is many times greater than all other bodies. How amazing, for example, are his hands, these “living tools”, capable of any kind of work! Man is a “reasonable, prudent and very insightful animal (...animal rationale, providum et sagax...”), he differs from the latter in that if each animal is capable of one activity, then a person can engage in any of Spiritual-physical man is so beautiful that he, being the creation of God, at the same time serves as the main model according to which the ancient pagans, and after them Christians, depict their gods, which contributes to the worship of God, especially among more rude and uneducated people. Manetti anthropocentrically sharpens the Christian-monotheistic thesis about the creation of the world by God for man against the disdainful ascetic interpretation of man.

It can also be noted that Manetti's creationism is rather formal. He does not so much admire the wisdom of the creator, as is typical for any geocentrism, especially medieval, but glorifies the majesty and beauty of nature created by God, which sometimes even appears to him as “the most skillful and intelligent, the only teacher of affairs (sollertissima et callidissima atque profecto unica rerum magistra. ..)” .

Manetti's work sometimes gives the impression that nature has supplanted God. This view is also inherent in other humanists of this era (for example, Alberti and the essay “On the Family” even have the words: “...nature, that is, God” [see 55, p. 46; 42, II, p. 320] ). But it would be premature to talk about pantheism, moreover, about the naturalistic pantheism of Manetti, Alberti and other humanists of this era. Nature as the basis of man and his activity still interests them very little; their anthropology, which has been largely enriched in comparison with scholasticism due to the knowledge of ancient material (as sometimes as a result of their own experience), is still almost completely not supported by any ontological principles.

No matter how interested Manetti and other humanists are in the bodily nature of man, no matter how they emphasize its sublimity and organic necessity for

life of his spirit, it was the new demands of man and his manifold increased activity that led them then not so much to bring man closer to nature, but to bring him closer to the concept of God. For Manetti, man is “like some kind of mortal god,” he is, as it were, a rival of God in creative activity. God is the creator of all things (although, as we have seen, the creator is rather formal), while man is the creator of the great and beautiful kingdom of culture, material and spiritual. Manetti points out some of man's most amazing creations - the Egyptian pyramids, the Roman towers, the amazing dome of the Florence Cathedral, built by Brunalleschi shortly before Manetti painted his work. He also names Noah’s Ark as an amazing example of human ingenuity, but also talks about the bold voyages of his contemporaries in the British and other seas (several decades before Columbus’s voyage). Works of ancient and Renaissance painting are also named here, as well as poetic creations, testifying to the enormous creative talent of man.

Everything that Manetti said in this regard was formulated in various versions by other Italian humanists of that era. It can therefore be argued that anthropocentrism as the focus of their worldview meant replacing the concept deification as one of the main concepts of the religious-ascetic worldview of the Middle Ages, the concept deification man, his maximum rapprochement with God on the paths of creative activity, then captured in so many works of art that still delight people. In this regard, poetic creativity received the highest rating. Only through it, some humanists believed, can one comprehend God, who is inaccessible in other ways. Therefore, Dante’s great work, called “Comedy” by the author himself, was renamed “Comedy” by his enthusiastic admirer Boccaccio, and then by other humanists. “Divine comedy."

The historical significance of the anthropocentric deification of man by the humanists of the era in question is extremely great due to the fact that instead of the “kingdom of God” (regnum Dei), which is not feasible on earth, it put forward the idea of ​​the “kingdom of man” (regnuin hoininis). Of course, in those conditions this idea was completely utopian, because the human spirit-creator was thought of here as a self-existent principle. But even

and under these preconditions, it meant an epochal revolution in worldview. For Manetti, the divinity of man means his world power, his right to everything not only earthly, but also heavenly, including planets, stars and even angels, supposedly created primarily to serve people.

The concept plays a huge role in humanistic anthropocentrism human activity, without which there is no new understanding of man. This very concept, since the times of Plato and the Stoics, and especially since the times of the “church fathers,” has constituted the most important aspect of the category of freedom of human will and its relationship to divine providence, which in principle guided every person. These ideas were, of course, obligatory for humanists, who, however, developed their own position on this most difficult question of philosophy. Very interesting here is Salutati’s work “On fate, fortune and chance” (De fato, fortuna et casu, 1396–1399; can also be translated as “On fate, fate and chance”).

In this work (which remains in manuscript, but was repeatedly studied by Renaissanceists) and in his letters, Salutati speaks of three understandings of fate: 1) the power that came from the stars, from the sky; 2) the order of causes going back to the first cause; 3) divine providence, governing both heavenly and earthly [see. 39, p. 57]. The first understanding of fate is completely unacceptable for Christianity and must be rejected. Only the third understanding is quite acceptable. In it, divine fate does not exclude the freedom of human will, which is consistent with it on the basis of the concept of grace.

More typical for him, as for other humanists, is the idea of the relationship between free will and the concept of fortune. This concept was widely used by almost all humanists, starting with Petrarch, who wrote a special treatise “On remedies against every (that is, both favorable and unfavorable - V.S.) fortune." Unlike fate, which expresses the power over a person of certain absolute, extraterrestrial forces, fortune expresses the concept social necessity, bizarrely taking shape in a society of developing trade and competition, increasingly complex relations between people in conditions of increasing alienation from them of the results of their activities. And it is in relation to fortune, no matter how imperative it may be in many cases, that human freedom manifests itself with the greatest force.

will. If in the face of fate the freedom of human will remains a supernatural secret of God, then in relation to fortune it is, in principle, in the hands of the person himself. Hence the unanimous proclamation of the freedom of human will by all humanists of the era in question, starting with Dante.

Very significant in this context is their rejection of the so-called astrological determinism, due to which the location of the stars and celestial bodies completely predetermines all the features of human life, completely excluding human free will. However, the attitude of humanists to astrology or to what was then called by this name is ambiguous. Manetti, for example, calls Phaleus and Archimedes astrologers for their observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies and for their ability to predict on this basis solar and lunar eclipses and even harvests of bread, olives and grapes (Thales). This manifestation of “natural astrology” is one of the signs of the divinity of the human mind. Astrology, as we understand it now (at that time it was called “judicial”) is another matter. Her crude and extremely simplified determinism rather brought Salutati closer to the concept of fate, but, as we have seen, was rejected even in this sense.

Relying on the concept of free will, in fact identifying it with the concept of freedom, humanists emphasized in every possible way the vital necessity of human activity and, in this regard, decisively embarked on the path of overcoming the contemplative understanding of knowledge, which prevailed among ancient philosophers and completely determined its medieval interpretations. Manetti is convinced that the “gift of knowing and acting,” which Almighty God endowed man with, underlies the power of man himself [see 55, p. 70]. The glorification of human activity is one of the main leitmotifs of Alberti's philosophical worldview. According to his conviction, formulated, in particular, in the essay "ABOUT family,” all of nature, starting with plants, testifies to tireless activity. Moreover, it should be characteristic of a person who “was born not to rest and wither (in inaction), but to be in action.” At the same time, the glorification of human activity concerned many of its specific aspects - artistic, state, military, commercial, as well as any labor activity, for example, crafts, etc. Here the concrete life was manifested.

the essence of the philosophical aspirations of humanists as ideologists of the emerging bourgeois society, overcoming a feudal-stagnant society. The full emphasis on the role of activity as an integral and primary component of the human personality could be illustrated by a number of Alberti’s arguments, in particular his thoughts on the time factor, the art of using it, etc.

All the considered aspects of humanistic anthropocentrism found their most general expression in moral and ethical constructions, reasoning, ideas, teachings, one way or another oriented towards the corresponding doctrines of ancient philosophers. It was the moral and ethical aspect that constituted the most general and characteristic expression of studia humanitatis. At the same time, it is quite natural for the humanists of the period under review that, starting with Petrarch, they did not see almost any practical value in the natural sciences (a certain exception should be made here for Alberti), because their abstract natural philosophical level, inherent in many medieval scholastic doctrines, really had no practical meaning at that time. Of course, the focus on the moral aspect of human life (usually intertwined among humanists with its anthropological, psychological and other aspects), moreover, focused on an abstract person, on “human nature,” we should regard as a manifestation of idealism. But despite this, it is impossible not to see epochal philosophical and social achievements in humanistic moralizing, which embraced man both as a natural and as a social being.

In particular, they are associated with the proclamation of the fundamental goodness of human nature and, more importantly, fundamental equality of all people, regardless of their birth, regardless of their belonging to one class or another. Petrarch already emphasized that fortune is stronger than a person’s origin, social affiliation, but the person himself, his valor (virtus) must be stronger than fortune (fortune and valor fight for a person). The definition of the human personality through personal merit due to its own activities, and not through tribal affiliation to one or another class, was perhaps the most striking expression of the role of humanists as ideologists of the emerging bourgeois society, which rejected the feudal class society.

Another important aspect of the moral and ethical searches of humanists, especially clearly expressed by Bruni, who relied on Aristotle, was to emphasize the organic necessity of society, sociality for the harmonious development and existence of the human personality. The ethical searches of humanists - understanding the need for friendship, love, humanity, emphasizing the good of society as the highest goal of human aspirations - largely reflected the republican ideals of the Popolanian strata of the Italian urban communes of that era. This then very influential direction of philosophical thought and ethical searches of humanists is called by some historians of this period “civic (civic) humanism.”

Lorenzo Valla and humanistic epicureanism. The outstanding humanistic philosopher of the early Renaissance was Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), born in Rome. While still a young man, he taught at the University of Pavia (1430). The teachings of Epicurus, especially hated by Christian philosophers, had by that time become widely known among Italian humanists thanks to Poggio Bracciolini’s discovery of Lucretius’ poem “On the Nature of Things.” Valla entered the philosophy of humanism primarily as the author of the treatise “On Pleasure” (1431; the author called his new, more extensive edition two years later “On the True and False Good”). Over the next few years, Valla was at the court of the Sicilian king Alfonso of Aragon, who was in a long conflict with Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) over the possession of Naples and southern Italy. At this time, he wrote a number of works that played a very important role in the development of anti-clerical and anti-scholastic ideology and philosophy. Among them are “Dialectical refutations, or Renewal of all dialectics and the foundations of universal philosophy” (1433–1439), “On the monastic vow”, “On free will” (1442), “On the beauties of the Latin language” (1435–1444), etc.

Valla caused the greatest trouble to the Catholic Church with his essay “Discourse on the forgery of the so-called Deed of Constantine” (1440), in which, fully armed with historical and philological knowledge, he proved the falsification of this document (“shameless fable”), allegedly granted by Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century. to Pope Sylvester I in gratitude for his miraculous healing from

leprosy and subsequent baptism. According to this document, to which the Roman Curia attributed legal force, Constantine, having recognized the pope as the head of the universal church, renounced his rights as the supreme ruler not only in Italy, but also in all the western provinces of the then Roman Empire. The “Donation of Constantine” was considered for many centuries the most important act, on the basis of which the popes not only exercised temporal power in the papal region of Italy, but also laid claim to it in all European lands that were confessionally subordinate to them. The proof of the forgery of this document (drawn up not in the 4th century, but much later) dealt a severe blow to such claims.

As an anti-clerical, Valla generally opposed the temporal power of the popes, proposing to completely deprive them her , proved the meaninglessness of asceticism and the anachronism of monasticism as its main official bearer. He had to deal with the Inquisition, but he skillfully used the struggle of Alfonso of Aragon with Eugene IV. The Roman humanist was caustic, convinced, courageous and a clever fighter. As a deeply independent thinker, he did not recognize any authorities, declaring in his essay that the “letter of Constantine” was forged:

“I dare to speak out against the high priest.” The death of Eugene IV and the placing of the papal tiara on Nicholas V (1447–1455) changed the situation, for this bibliophile pope sympathized with the humanists and gathered many of them into the curia (including Alberti, Manetti, Bracciolini). Valla also arrived here, becoming a professor at the University of Rome and an apostolic secretary. He had powerful patrons among the cardinals. At the same time, Valla did not renounce any of his writings or opinions.

In the spirit of the doctrine of two truths, like many humanists, Valla actually ignored theology, considering religion as a sphere of practical-emotional human life, not amenable to any rationalization, any logical, “dialectical” comprehension. Hence Balla’s hostile attitude towards scholastic metaphysics as an idle exercise, vainly striving to make understandable what cannot and should not be understood. Hence his ironic and mocking attitude towards Thomas Aquinas, to whom he contrasted the Apostle Paul, for he, without further ado, strengthened Christians in the faith. This general philosophical position determined

la and his logical and epistemological views in “Dialectical Disputations”.

These views are permeated primarily by criticism of scholastic realism. Balla expressed nominalism as the factual basis of this criticism in philological form. He sought to reveal the incorrectness of those numerous word formations that appeared during the centuries-long reign of scholasticism, from the point of view of the classical norms of Latin grammar. Meanwhile, many of these verbal formations [especially nouns ending in itas, for example entitas (beingness), quidditas (whatness), identitas (identity), perseitas (existence in itself), ecceitas (thisness) and a number of others] acted as the most important universals that played a large logical and philosophical role. Valla, expressing a humanistic aversion to scholastic formalization, and also not being a logician at all, wanted to discredit this role by revealing the linguistic incorrectness of such words. Balla’s “linguistic philosophy” found its natural continuation in his “Beauties of the Latin Language,” which were contrasted with the many medieval dogmatic manuals on Latin, designed for rote learning. Balla's work was a critical guide to grammar, rhetoric and style. Having gone through dozens of editions in the 15th and 16th centuries, it played a very important role in the restoration of classical Latin in the Renaissance era.

The resumption of Epicureanism, carried out then not only by Valla, testifies not to the slavish dependence of Renaissance thinkers on antiquity, but to a creative attitude towards it. True, these thinkers did not know true, historical Epicureanism, but they, of course, were well aware of the sharply negative attitude towards it on the part of orthodox Catholic ideology and philosophy. In full accordance with the moralizing aspirations of the overwhelming majority of his like-minded people, Walla turned to ethics of epicureanism, as he understood it, to justify the fullness of human life, the spiritual content of which, according to his anti-ascetic conviction, is impossible without bodily well-being, the comprehensive activity of human feelings. In one place of his work, the author even expressed regret that a person has only five, and not fifty or even five hundred senses! Hence the negative attitude

Balla’s attitude towards the Stoics, who, in his opinion, do not take into account the fact that a person consists of more than just the soul. Of course, he had a very rough idea of ​​stoicism, seeing in it only an ally of Christian asceticism. Valla also completely ignored the atomistic ontology of Epicureanism, in which he apparently did not see the need to justify his system of morality. True, his general philosophical ideas are very naturalistic. Following the example of ancient atomists, he calls nature “teacher” and “leader of life.” Entering the path of paganization of Christianity and turning to the images of ancient mythology, the author of the treatise “On Pleasure” is ready to identify its gods with nature.

From the standpoint of sensationalism, Valla also attacked Aristotle, who saw in contemplation the highest happiness, accessible only to God. For the author of the treatise “On Pleasure,” “contemplation is a process of cognition,” impossible without the activity of the senses. Thanks to this activity, it is only possible to fulfill the highest law prescribed by nature to all living beings - “to preserve your life and body and avoid what seems harmful.” Hence the need for pleasure for the realization of this highest law of nature. Pleasure as “pleasure of soul and body” is the highest good. In one of the chapters of the first book of the same work it is said that “it is impossible to live without pleasure, but without virtue it is possible”; in another place the author proclaims: “Long live sure and constant pleasures at every age and for every sex!” . The defiant nature of these and other formulations of Balla (for example, his hymn to wine, which aggravates human feelings) emphasizes their enormous historical role for their time, for with the help of such psychology and morality its maximum anti-ascetic orientation was achieved.

One should not, however, think that Valla followed the path of superficial hedonism, which was followed many times by supporters of vulgarized Epicureanism. His position, determined by the need to expose the sanctimonious asceticism of the churchmen and those who followed them, is deeply social. However, this individualistic sociality differs from the sociality of Bruni and other advocates of civic (or civil) humanism. At first glance, it even looks asocial, for Valla systematically substantiates the non-

eradicated egoism of human nature already by virtue of the law of natural self-preservation. He claims, for example, in Chapter I of the second book that his own life is the highest good for him, more preferable than the life of all other people. You should even think about your parents only secondarily, and even more so about your homeland. “I cannot sufficiently understand why someone would want to die for their country. You are dying because you do not want your homeland to perish, as if with your death it will not perish either.”

It is impossible not to recognize in all these rather cynical statements a vivid expression of the deep individualism born of the new era, which we usually call bourgeois. Humanism as the ideology of the dominant classes at that time could not but have this most important facet. Its sociality is revealed due to the fact that pleasure is nothing more than a search for benefit, which everyone strives for, consciously or unconsciously. Virtue, according to Balla's belief, and There is nothing more than utility. All relationships in society, starting with family relationships, are subject to this principle. Society cannot disintegrate due to its universality.

The departure from historical Epicureanism is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the third book of Valla's work. Three characters - humanists, contemporaries of the author - consistently formulate in it three points of view, three moral positions: Stoic (it takes up little space), Epicurean (more than half of the entire work is devoted to it) and Christian, set out in the last book as a kind of synthesis of the two previous ones. The last book is interesting in its interpretation of pleasure, which extends to the afterlife of man, since Balla could not abandon the Christian dogma of individual immortality. But its interpretation is very original and historically interesting. Balla says almost nothing about the posthumous condemnation of a person and about hell, which, according to Christian beliefs, the majority of humanity must go to. Balla, based on the fact that “God promised to make us gods next to him” [see. 39, p. 103], is interested in heaven itself.

He also uses the Christian (as well as the Muslim) position, according to which posthumous existence is prepared not only for the spiritual, but also for the physical person. Therefore, heavenly bliss is experienced by a holistic person, whose feelings are ennobled

wife and body are refined. And for him there will be no better food than the body and blood of Christ. In addition, a person will have the opportunity to fly through the air, not inferior to birds, and to swim under water, not inferior to fish. He will work without getting tired either in the heat or in the cold. In knowledge and art he will also be tireless and unerring. Is this the heavenly life that will become an endless continuation of the earthly one? The epicureanization of Christianity here turned into the humanization of the transcendental world, and the kingdom of God is actually aolioskhio lovaalo with kingdom of man.

Pantheistic syncretism of the Florentine Platonists. The most important channel of the anti-scholastic opposition of the Italian humanists, starting with Petrarch, was platonism. Having played a huge role in the philosophical formation of Christianity in the era of patristics, Platonism in the history of medieval philosophy in Western Europe sometimes became the ideological basis on which philosophical teachings that were far from official scholastic creationism were formed (for example, the philosophers of the Chartres School). There was no direct appeal of orthodox scholasticism to the ideas of Platonism. For her, the highly modified and transformed Platonism and Neoplatonism contained in Augustine's Christian synthesis were completely sufficient. Moreover, with the exception of two or three, Plato’s dialogues were absent in Latin translations, and the works of the Neoplatonists were known even less. Meanwhile, in mature scholasticism, presented in the works of Aquinas and many of his followers, the works of Aristotle were widely used, dissected in a Christian-creationist spirit to an even greater extent than the Platonic-Neoplatonic ideas of Augustine in their time. This explains the strong hostility towards Aristotle on the part of many humanist philosophers. On the other hand, the ideas of such idealists as Plato, Plotinus and other Neoplatonists, ideas imbued with religiosity to a much greater extent than Aristotle’s, represented very favorable material for the paganization of Christianity, which we have repeatedly noted above.

The Platonization of Christianity, carried out by the Platonists of the second half of the 15th century, became a particularly interesting page in the development of the philosophy of Italian (and European) humanism. It also became a very fruitful page, because in the context of such platonization and paganization, philosophical thought broke out of the framework of monotheistic

creationism and formulated new, very productive ideas.

As mentioned above, deep and historically very significant spiritual movements in the era of feudalism, summarized by the terms “renaissance” and “humanism,” refer not only to the medieval history of Italy and Europe, but also to the history of other countries of the same era. A very interesting page of such a movement appeared in Byzantium. The strong ideological despotism of Christian Orthodoxy, which dominated here, did not prevent the appearance in Byzantium of the 14th–15th centuries. the humanist movement and related philosophical endeavors;

There is no opportunity here to enter into consideration of such an interesting and, at first glance, even mysterious cultural and historical phenomenon. Let us only point out that the direct continuity of language, territory and traditions created in Byzantium no less - if not more - favorable conditions for the development here of certain Renaissance-humanistic ideas (which did not go beyond the boundaries of a rather narrow intellectual elite). The best preservation, apparently in comparison with all other countries, of the works of ancient Greek literature and philosophy largely contributed to the emergence of unorthodox trends in philosophical and religious thought.

The greatest role in stimulating the Platonic movement in Renaissance Italy was played by George Gemistus Plitho (c. 1355–1452). Although by origin he belonged to the highest Orthodox clergy, he had a very free attitude towards Christianity (he was interested, for example, in the Muslim and Jewish religions). In addition, Plithon was an active political figure who dreamed of bringing the Byzantine-Greek state out of the crisis by focusing on ancient Greek models, centralization and infringement of monasteries. Being an enthusiast for the revival of ancient culture, he wrote his main work “Laws”, in the very title of which he expressed his orientation towards the great ancient Greek idealist. The paganization of Christianity was expressed by the Byzantine author in the form of a direct return to the pagan gods of the Olympic pantheon - to the supreme god Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, etc. However, pagan gods are personifications of philosophical concepts and categories gleaned from the Platonic-Neoplatonic philosophical universe. The main purpose of the Olympic celestials is to serve as a mediator

a link between the supreme divine unity and the real earthly world of sensory multiplicity. The creationist essence of Christian monotheism is greatly muted in the system of the Byzantine philosopher.

At home, he did not enjoy much influence (in 1460, the “Laws” were even burned by decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople). But Plithon took a kind of revenge in Italy, which he visited as a participant in the Ferrara and Florence Councils, where in 1438–1439. An attempt was made to unite the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Plithon established connections here with Italian humanists, and with his readings about the philosophy of Plato and the Neoplatonists, he greatly contributed to the further deepening of interest in it among humanists.

Apparently, under the influence of Plytho (but after his death), Cosimo de' Medici, the then head of the Florentine Republic, authorized the establishment here in 1459 of the Platonic Academy, focused on the ancient Athenian prototype. It became a very influential circle of Italian humanists, who were united by a keen interest in the Platonic circle of ideas. The breadth of this circle largely predetermined the support of the newest Platonic Academy from not only philosophers, but also writers, artists, some politicians and simply spiritual seekers.

The head of the Florentine Academy soon became the hardworking Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499). Falling in love with Platonism did not prevent him from becoming a minister of the Catholic Church, and the rather free religious atmosphere of Florence allowed him to devote some of his sermons in churches to the “divine Plato” (at home he even placed a candle in front of his bust). Ficino's merits in the spread of Platonism are associated primarily with the translation into Latin of all Plato's dialogues, as well as the works of the main ancient Neoplatonists - Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Porphyry, and in addition, parts of the Areopagitica. In the minds of Ficino and all other thinkers of this era, Platonism and Neoplatonism constituted a single philosophical doctrine. Their difference was clarified much later. All of these philosophers were preceded by the translation of the so-called Hermetic Works, then attributed to the mythical Hermes Trismegistus, who allegedly lived before all Greek philosophers and was considered the founder of religious

philosophical tradition, which Plato also joined (later studies showed that in reality these works appeared no earlier than the 2nd–3rd centuries and represent an eclectic mixture of Platonic, Pythagorean and Stoic ideas). In the spirit of Platonism, Ficino wrote his own works - “On the Christian Religion” (1476) and “Plato’s Theology of the Immortality of the Soul” (1469–1474).

Ficino resolved the most important theoretical and ideological question of his era - the relationship between religion and philosophy - in an anti-scholastic manner. Dogmatic and authoritarian scholasticism, which remained in the Thomistic form the official theological and philosophical doctrine of Catholicism, still considered philosophy as a servant of its religious doctrine. Ficino also brought religion and philosophy closer together, but considered them, so to speak, equal sisters: on the one hand, “scientific religion” (docta religio), and on the other, “pious philosophy” (pia philosophia). On such a theoretical basis, as if continuing the ideas of Plitho and going towards the universalist aspirations of humanistic culture, the author of the treatise “On the Christian Religion” put forward here the concept of “universal religion” (which he also called “natural”).

Due to this concept, religion is a necessary form of spiritual life of all peoples, and specific creeds and the cults corresponding to them are various manifestations of some single religious truth. Although Christianity is the most perfect and accurate expression of the universal religious doctrine, all its other varieties are by no means the result of some devilish deception of peoples, their dividing, as the dogmatic-fanatical zealots of the Catholic faith (and others, accordingly) usually asserted, but completely fit into the plans of divine providence. The concept of “universal religion” as a whole should be considered as one of the first expressions religious tolerance, which constituted an essential element of humanistic ideology. For Ficino himself, this concept also sometimes led to a disdainful attitude toward the cult side of Christianity.

We saw above how pantheistic ideas grew among humanists of the first half of the 15th century, but they now achieved their greatest strength on the basis of Neoplatonic ontology and cosmology. One of the chapters of Ficino’s work “Plato’s Theology of the Immortality of the Soul” is called “God is Everywhere”,

but his pantheism cannot at all be interpreted as naturalistic pantheism, in which nature pushes aside God, its producer. Ficino opposes medieval and modern philosophers who overly identified God with nature (he directly calls Amalrican here). God, as a completely incorporeal, absolute primary unity, is outside the world, which is a hierarchy of decreasing spirituality and increasing physicality. But the cosmic hierarchy is, as it were, immersed in God, whose radiations permeate the entire world. The main stages of the decreasing tension of divine power are the host of angels, also identified with the cosmic mind, then the world soul. In them, divine prototypes, or ideas, are captured with the greatest purity, which is distorted already at the level of qualities and, even more so, forms of the corporeal and plural world. Although this hierarchical ontological-cosmological scheme is in principle Neoplatonic and mystical-pantheistic, the element of pantheism in it is much more important than the element of mysticism. Compared to theistic interpretations, for which the self-existent God, possessing ultimate existence, resides outside of nature, and man never reaches him, in pantheistic ideas the depersonalized God, also overflowing with being, cannot exist and be thought of without nature, and especially without man.

The Renaissance character of pantheism, which we encounter in Ficino, is also expressed in the fact that the world soul - the last completely incorporeal hypostasis, closest to the corporeal-earthly world it radiates - is emphasized even more than the god who gives birth to it. Although pantheism does not eliminate dualism, which is necessarily inherent in any religious doctrine, it is greatly softened in mystical-pantheistic doctrines. The creationism of official monotheistic religions is completely pushed aside in pantheistic concepts in favor of the concepts of timeless and mediated generation of nature and man by God. By shifting the emphasis of his ontology from God to the world soul, Ficino thereby draws the main attention to the world, united, animated and enlightened by it. Beauty, love and pleasure in Ficino's system are thought of as cosmic principles. Man is also the central link of the cosmos, if only due to the fact that the world soul is, in essence, his own, absolutized soul. Glorifying the power of man, supposedly commanding the social world

(family, state, people), Ficino considered him capable of domination over the natural world. In this context, he deified man no less (if not more) than earlier humanists.

The culmination of humanistic anthropocentrism in Pico della Mirandola. Another major representative of Florentine Platonism was Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494). The extremely gifted, wealthy Count Pico, who mastered Greek, Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, showed great interest in various Middle Eastern religious (especially Kabbalah) and philosophical teachings. A brave young man in December 1486 sent to Rome his “Philosophical, Cabalistic and Theological Conclusions (conclusiones),” containing 900 theses “on everything that is knowable.” Pico intended to defend these theses in a debate against philosophers throughout Europe. The conflict with the papal curia led to the fact that all these theses were declared heretical by Pope Innocent VIII and the dispute did not take place. Pico spent his last years in the company of Marsilio Ficino, becoming, as it were, the second head of the Florentine Academy. During this period, he wrote the Latin treatises “Heptapla” (an allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament seven days of creation), “On Being and One”, “Discourse against Astrology”.

The universalist-syncretistic aspirations of the humanistic culture of the era under consideration, which received their generalization in the concepts of the “universal religion” of Plitho and Ficino, found a new expression in the above-mentioned theses of Pico. Their author emphasized his determination, “without swearing allegiance to anyone, having followed the paths of all teachers of philosophy, to explore everything, to study all schools...to touch all doctrines...” (42, II, p. 259). Pico's theses contained provisions drawn from many ancient and medieval philosophical and religious teachings (which were more identical than different). Hence the bizarre interweaving of images of Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Zoroaster (considered the founder of the ancient Iranian religion of Mazdaism), Hermes Trismegistus, the ancient Greek Orpheus, as well as the philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, Empedocles, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, Albert Velikiy and others.

In these treatises, Pico expressed pantheistic ideas, generally similar to the ideas of Ficino. However, the share of naturalistic views in Pico is large. He is opposed to the astrological views of his era.

put forward such an understanding of “divine law”, which involved delving into the nature of real things and identifying their real causes, which was a very promising position.

In this regard, Pico was one of the first in his dynamic era to embark on the path of rethinking what, since antiquity, had been called by the Greek word “magic.” He contrasted the “witchcraft” meaning of this word (deeply rooted in prehistoric times) with a rational meaning associated with the comprehension of real, and not imaginary, secrets of nature. The first type of magic (V Middle Ages, often called “black magic”) leaves a person as a slave to certain evil, “demonic” forces. Another variety of it, testifying to the comprehension of certain favorable “divine” forces (and in the Middle Ages, therefore, often called “white magic”), now began to be called “natural magic” (magia naturalis), testifying to the comprehension of purely natural secrets. Later, as we will see, it became one of the main tools for achieving the “kingdom of man”,

The thrust of these ideas of Pico was also directed against the superstitious “astrological determinism”, which fettered human activity, depriving it of the substance of freedom. The substantiation of the latter is Pico’s main goal in his brilliant “Speech on the Dignity of Man,” which was supposed to open a dispute that did not take place in Rome.

The theoretical content of this “Speech” summarizes the anthropocentric ideas of humanists. This is already the interpretation of the Old Testament ideas about God’s creation of man as the crown of his creative activity, in which Pico echoes some of the “fathers of the church.”

God places man at the very center of the cosmos, making him, as it were, a judge of the wisdom, greatness and beauty of the universe he has erected. At the same time, ideas about man are also permeated with the ideas of the identity of the human microcosm and the divine-natural macrocosm. However, the fundamental naturalism of these ideas was complicated and destroyed in Pico by monotheistic creationist ideas, due to which the human spirit, as a direct outline of a supernatural god, went beyond the boundaries of the earthly and even heavenly worlds. In “Gentaple,” for example, Pico emphasized that man constitutes a special, fourth world, along with the sublunary, subcelestial and celestial worlds. In Rech, a person, on the one hand,

acts as a “mediator between all the creatures” of heaven... On earth there is nothing greater than man, and in man there is nothing greater than his mind (mens) and soul (anima). If you rise above them, then you rise above the heavens...” However, their abuse is subject to the power of the person himself. He can either descend to the lowest, animal state, or rise to angelic perfection. In the latter case, man is, in essence, worthy of greater admiration than angels, for they receive their highest spiritual perfections immediately (or soon after their creation) from God, and man has to achieve them through a difficult struggle in life.

Freedom of choice, this greatest gift of God, is imbued with deep moral content in Pico. Socratic self-knowledge directs us on the path of moral improvement, which involves fighting passions, mastering certain rules of life (“nothing too much”), and this is impossible without mastering the depths of true philosophy.

A free person can recognize as truth only what he is sincerely convinced of. Pico emphasizes that he himself studies philosophy only for its own sake and sharply condemns those who see the main benefit of life in the acquisition of money and fame. F. Engels, characterizing the great personalities of the Renaissance and calling them “titans,” emphasized that this titanism was largely determined by the fact that they were not limited in the bourgeois way [see. 1, vol. 20, p. 346]. Pico is very indicative in this regard. His passionate search for truth, no matter where it comes from, the associated complete absence of religious dogmatism, especially the emphasis on maximum human freedom, made his ideas one of the key points of humanistic philosophy and ideology.

3. PANTHEOISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY INTO RENAISSANCE IN THE WORK OF NICHOLAS OF CUSANUS

A contemporary of many of the Italian humanists discussed above, Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) is one of the most profound philosophers of the Renaissance. Coming from southern Germany (the town of Kuza), of very humble origins, Nikolai already in his school years experienced the influence of mystics (“brothers of the common life”). At the University of Padua, in addition to the usual humanities education, which consisted of improvement in Latin and the study of Greek, Nikolai was interested in mathematics and astronomy. Later he had to choose a spiritual career. The young priest, who established contacts with Italian humanists, was captivated by their movement.

Perhaps, like no other philosopher of this era, Nicholas combined in his works and in his activities the culture of the Middle Ages and the energetically advancing culture of humanism. On the one hand, he is a very active hierarch of the Catholic Church, whom humanist Pope Nicholas V elevated to the rank of cardinal in 1448. On the other hand, he is an active participant in the circle of humanists formed around this pope. The atmosphere that reigned here was indicative of the good relations between the philosopher-cardinal and such a disturber of church peace as Lorenzo Valla. Cusanus gained the greatest influence when Piccolomini, a friend of his youth, became Pope Pius II, and he himself actually became the second person in the Roman church hierarchy.

Nikolai combined religious and administrative worries with productive literary activity. He wrote a number of philosophical works in Latin - in the genre of treatise, reflection, dialogue. He also has actual scientific works. Very indicative, for example, is his dialogue “On the experiment with scales” (1450), which provided for the introduction of quantitative methods for more accurate knowledge of natural phenomena. Unlike the overwhelming majority of Italian humanist philosophers of his time, Cusanets was deeply interested in questions of mathematics and natural science, and his philosophical doctrine is incomprehensible outside of these interests. A prominent church minister, naturally, has purely theological works (in particular, sermons).

In one of them - “Concord of Faith” (1453) - there is an idea about a syncretic religion, in which, in principle, it is possible to unite all existing religious faiths under the auspices of the “divine Logos”. A single basis for all cults will become possible in an era when religious wars will lose all meaning. The philosopher-cardinal reflected here the universalist aspirations, so widespread in his era that even the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church came under their influence (we saw above that the same aspirations were more thoroughly formulated by the philosophers of the Platonic Academy in Florence, but after Cusanza).

The philosophical content of Nicholas's works is often very difficult to separate from the theological. In this respect, he still represents the medieval tradition with its mixture of theology and philosophy.

The most significant and famous of them is the treatise “On learned ignorance” (De docta ignorantia - can be translated as “On wise ignorance”, “On knowing ignorance”, 1440). Adjacent to it is another treatise - “On Assumptions” (no later than 1444). A few years after writing “Learned Ignorance,” the Heidelberg theologian Johann Wenck, a supporter of traditional scholasticism, attacked the author with fierce criticism in his essay “Ignorant Literature,” for he saw in “Learned Ignorance” the idea of ​​identifying God with his creations (which much later became known as Greek-language term “pantheism”), more than once condemned by the Catholic Church. Although time was not favorable to the success of this kind of accusation (in addition, Nicholas himself had become a cardinal by this time), Wenck’s aggressive work was unsafe and Kuzanets wrote the work “Apology for Learned Ignorance” (1449), trying here to prove that his ideas are fully consistent with orthodox Christian faith. In 1450, Nicholas wrote four dialogues under the general title “The Simpleton.” The first two of them are called “On Wisdom”, the third – “On the Mind”, the fourth – “On the Experience with Scales” (mentioned above). The title of these dialogues, as well as their content, attracts attention with its humanistic-democratic idea of ​​​​turning for true wisdom not to a representative of the guild of official scholarship, but to a person from the people who are not confused by this pseudo-learning.

As a thinker of the transitional era of the Middle Ages, transforming into the Renaissance, Nikolai Kuzansky

demonstrates in his works various, often very contradictory sides and facets of this era. As a mystic and contemplative, as he may have become in his youth, he is an enemy of scholasticism, especially Thomistic, which led human thought into the dead ends of the knowledge of God. Nicholas, on the path of mysticism, strove for effective knowledge of God. This is evidenced by the very titles of a number of his works - “On the Hidden God”, “On the Search for God”, “On Sonship of God”, “On the Gift of the Father of Lights” (all of them written in 1445–1447), “On the Vision of God” ( 1453), having a purely speculative orientation. It is believed that after the writing of “Learned Ignorance” and “On Assumptions”, especially after 1450, when the dialogues of “The Simpleton” were written, the mystical moods of the philosopher-cardinal intensified, which was reflected in his works, which interpreted the concept of God in the abstract -philosophically, – “On the possibility of being” (1460), “On the non-other” (1462), as well as in works where the sought-after truths are clothed in an allegorical-symbolic form - “On beryl” (spiritual glasses. 1458), “ About the hunt for wisdom” (1463), “About the game of ball (146З), “About the pinnacle of contemplation” (1464) *.

Kuzanets was also an enemy of scholasticism as a representative of humanistic education, who paid great attention to natural scientific issues. Hence the powerful invasion of naturalistic considerations and ideas into the speculative and mystical constructions of Kusan. On the one hand, it grows out of the tradition of medieval philosophizing, but mainly from its unorthodox channel, associated with a pantheistic understanding of the relationship between God and man. This tradition, begun in Western Europe by Scotus Eriugena, had many successors, especially in Germany, the homeland of Cusan. The greatest influence on him was Meister Eckhart, the most significant theorist of mystical pantheism of the late XIII - early XIV centuries. Cusan's views were also formed under the deep influence of the mystical works that were then attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite and which had a huge impact on European pantheism since the time of Scotus Eriugena. Nikolai carefully read these works. However, with all the importance of the pantheistic tradition and the Areopagitik for the formation of the world-

________________________________

Kuzan's views, only this would hardly take him beyond the limits of what had already been formulated (especially by Eckhart). However, the humanistic movement, to which Nicholas was deeply involved, gave rise to his keenest interest in ancient philosophical teachings and ideas that were poorly known or not at all known to the scholastics. Among these teachings, Cusanz was perhaps least interested in Aristotle, who in his eyes (as in the eyes of other humanists) was compromised by scholasticism. In one of his last works – "Hunting behind wisdom” - the author talks about the work of Diogenes Laertius “Lives of the Philosophers” (as he calls it), which, as we know, represents the history of all ancient philosophy and was rediscovered by humanists in this era. Considering philosophers as “hunters of wisdom,” Kuzanets emphasized that reading the book of Diogenes Laertius made him “with all his soul surrender to meditation, sweeter than which nothing can be in human life” (The Hunt for Wisdom. Prologue).

In various books on the history of philosophy, Nicholas of Cusa is usually characterized as a Platonist. Indeed, he has many references to Plato. But Cusan's Platonism should be understood more broadly, including Neoplatonism, which had a great influence on him even before the Florentine Platonists. Proclus is one of his main philosophical authorities. As is known, the Areopagitians also experienced the enormous influence of Neoplatonism (especially the same Proclus). However, Kuzan should not be considered only as a Platonist. For example, he highly valued the ideas of Pythagoreanism, before which the ideas of Platonism sometimes even receded into the background. In different contexts, Nikolai uses the ideas of other ancient philosophers and theologians - Augustine, Boethius, Socrates, Anaxagoras, the Stoics, and atomists. Of course, he does not forget Moses, who allegedly “described the creation of the world even before the philosophers” [ibid., 9, 23].

Like any original thinker, Cusanus, growing out of various traditions, treated them independently and selectively, attracting, when he needed, the ideas of other philosophers who did not belong to these traditions. Nicholas’s “selectivity” was determined by his belonging to the humanistic movement. Kuzan's mathematical and natural science interests played a major role in the formation of such selectivity, which distinguished him from most other humanists of that era.

The significance of his philosophical activity, in contrast to most of them (with the exception of the Florentine Platonists, who spoke later than Nicholas), was due to the fact that he “switched” centuries-old philosophical traditions to understanding the problems that the era of humanism brought with it.

On the epistemological functions of the concept of God in the history of philosophy. The concept of God remained the broadest concept of both religious and philosophical thought, which in the era under review were still in the closest connection. This most complex concept is very amorphous and... ambiguous, especially in its actual religious content. However, in the iridescent multicolor of this content, which fantastically reflects the enormous complexity of the anthropology and psychology of man in his individual and especially social existence, there are actually philosophical, epistemological features, aspects or functions that explain a lot in the thousand-year stability of this concept with all its transformations, because very often it summed up the problem unknowability And cognition world and man.

We will call the most important of these aspects mystifying function of the concept of God, due to which God appears to be a completely mysterious, mysterious being, nullifying human cognitive efforts, asserting the total unknowability of the world. This main, very amorphous concept of God has always pushed a person towards agnosticism, helping to consolidate him in a position of disbelief in his own powers. The mystifying function of the concept of God is primarily a religious function. Due to this function, man is only a supplicant in the face of the supernatural, divine principle. This function, to one degree or another inherent in the concept of any god, reaches its culmination in the concept of a monotheistic god, reflecting the enormous variety of problems that arose in the face of nature, and even more so in the conditions that arose in the process of development of society itself - the ever-deepening alienation of the results of human activities from the person himself, through ever-increasing exploitation, and through the increasingly complex laws of the culture he creates.

But the mystifying function of the concept of God. in a “pure” form does not appear very often, for a real person is not only a petitioner for supernatural powers personified by God, but also a being who knows and acts.

existing, without which the area of ​​culture he created would be completely impossible. Therefore, the concept of God necessarily reflects this side of the human being, and religion is forced to sanction such a reflection, otherwise its connection with life would be severed. Hence the opposite of mystifying intellectualizing a function of the concept of God, designed to somehow consolidate the results of human cognitive activity and support him in the pursuit of further success along this path. To understand this function, one must keep in mind that in the process of developing his cognitive activity, it is common for a person to absolutize some of its particularly significant results (as they are presented in a particular era). These kinds of results, attributed to God as a supreme being, constitute what we call the intellectualizing function of the concept of him. The presence of such a function inspires a person (of course, in the conditions of pre-socialist formations) in his cognitive efforts.

None of the two named opposite epistemological functions of the concept of God can exist separately from the other, but in proportion, in the nature of their combination, the entire complexity of the relationship between religion, which always appeals primarily to the mystifying function of the divine concept, and philosophy, which, in principle, seeks to expand as much as possible, is expressed. the intellectualizing side of the concept of God (at the same time, materialistic philosophy is more than idealistic). In religious-mystical thought, which in every possible way emphasizes the mystery and unknowability of the divine being, its mystifying side is maximum, but in scholastic thought it is already less. At the same time, in the oppositional-rationalist directions of medieval philosophy, the intellectualizing component of the concept of God played a large role, while the mystifying component was relegated to the background.

In Christian philosophy of the patristic era, the mystifying essence of the concept of God is most convincingly, energetically and eloquently formulated in the works included in the Areopagite corpus. This essence is primarily and mainly associated with the teaching of negative (apophatic) theology, dating back to Plato, Philo of Alexandria, and Plotinus. A lesser role in the Areopagitics is played by positive (cataphatic) theology, which in its ideas about the one god comes from

analogies between the diverse qualities of the visible world, and especially of man, and the divine being, the concept of which is formed due to the absolutization of these attributes. In contrast to positive theology, apophatic theology completely denies any attributes of God. Emphasizing in every possible way his unknowability and alienation from the visible and intelligible world, negative theology insists on the supernaturality of God. But she gets this at a rather high price, for the complete denial of all the attributes of God leads to his depersonalization, and thereby to pantheism, the most important features of which are the impersonality of a single divine principle and its maximum proximity to nature and man.

Pantheistic ontology of Cusan. Kuzantz's concept of God should be interpreted as pantheistic, despite the fact that both in foreign and Soviet historical and philosophical literature there are frequent statements regarding the theistic nature of this concept. Generally speaking, given the multi-valued amorphousness of the concept of God, between theism, which underlies any monotheistic religion and insists not only on its personal-transcendent understanding and free-willed creativity, but also on the omnipresence of this omnipotent principle, and pantheism, which, although it undermines the personal-transcendent interpretation of God, but insists on his impersonality and omnipresence, there is no rigid, impassable boundary. It should also be borne in mind that theism and pantheism (as well as deism) have in common the idea of ​​a special, completely spiritual existence of God, primary in relation to the world of nature and man, who cannot exist without such existence. However, between the named directions of philosophical and religious thought there is a significant difference not only in the understanding of the spirituality of this supernatural existence, but also in the understanding of the nature of the dependence of the physically visible world on the completely incorporeal and incomprehensible beginning. When comparing pantheism with theism, it is impossible not to note the weakening of the creative functions of the concept of God in the first compared to the second, with a simultaneous increase in its abstract philosophical characteristics. We encounter all these features of the concept of God in “Learned Ignorance” and in other works of Nicholas from Cuza.

Consistently pursuing the doctrine of negative theology, he is one of the later and most prominent “apophatics”

in the history of philosophy. Kuzan generally had a negative attitude towards the positive theology inherent in scholasticism, which sought to fix certain signs of the divine being. Instead of elevating God above creation, according to Nicholas’ conviction, she makes him dependent on creation. Negative theology goes so far that it even rejects the interpretation of God as father, son and holy spirit [see: Scientific ignorance, I, 26, 87], fundamental to Christian theology, but “final” of the divine being. The advantage of negative theology is that it necessarily leads to an understanding of God as a completely infinite being, or absolute, “absolute maximum” - the most common name for God in the works of Cusan. The pathos of its infinity and at the same time unity permeates these works.

Nikolai understood that the most infinite and extremely united god is not so much an object of one or another positive religion - Christian, Muslim or Jewish - but rather a concept interreligious, inherent in the faith of any people [see: Learned ignorance, I, 2, 5; I, 7, 18], and the various names of God, especially pagan ones, were determined not so much by the signs of the creator as by the signs of his creations [see. ibid., I, 25, 83]. The abstract-philosophical essence of such an interreligious god is strengthened not only in connection with his systematic naming of “absolute maximum” and “absolute”, but also with the naming of this impersonal god as “non-other”, “possibility-being”, “absolute possibility”, “form” all forms”, etc.

The decisive feature of the divine absolute is its fundamental unknowability - a direct consequence of the doctrine of negative theology, as well as the very concept of actual infinity, which does not allow any proportionality with the world of finite things. The complete unknowability of the actually infinite god expresses his mystifying function.

But the main question of the ontological problematics developed by Cusan is, on the one hand, the question of the relationship between countless specific individual things and phenomena of the natural and human world and the divine absolute, and on the other hand, the question of God as the ultimate spiritual being, opposed to the world of finite bodily things, for if God is removed from creation, it will turn into non-existence,

into nothing [see: Scientific inquiry, II, 3, 110^. But this traditional dualistic creationist idea All Nikolai’s time is interrupted by the thought of the unity of the infinite God and the world of finite things. Repeatedly he repeats in this context (as in others) the Platonic (Orphic) triadic formula about God as the beginning, middle and end of all things and processes. According to this formula,. passed through the entire history of European pantheism, due to the emphasis on the unity of God and the world, Kuzanets could not maintain the position of their opposition and increasingly moved to the position of identifying the creator and creation (especially in “Learned Ignorance”, which was noticed by Wenck, who attacked its author) .

“The existence of God in the world is nothing other than the existence of the world in God” [On assumptions. II, 7, 107]. The second part of this statement indicates mystical pantheism(sometimes called panentheism), and the first one is about naturalistic. Due to the first of them, things and phenomena are only symbols of God, and due to the second, they are quite stable and are of interest in themselves. Moreover, often the same formulations can be regarded in both the first and second aspects, for example, the interpretation of the world as a “sensual God” [see: On the gift of the Father of Lights, 102]. However, in the light of the subsequent development of philosophical and scientific knowledge, naturalistic pantheism represented the line most consistent with the spirit of humanistic culture.

God, nature and art. The intellectualizing function of the concept of God in the history of philosophy has often been associated with various attempts to prove the existence of its object. Their authors, striving to make God to a certain extent knowable, thereby emphasized the knowability of the natural and human world depending on him; Nicholas, as an adherent of negative theology, did not develop any evidence of divine existence. This function of the concept of God is expressed by him through a peculiar interpretation of his creative activity fundamental to any monotheistic religiosity. If we talk about Christian philosophy, then such activity was associated in it primarily with the omnipotence of God, expressed by his volitional properties, and only secondarily with his intellectual, rational properties. This is, in general, Augustine's position. The position of Kuzan differs from it in that the willful omnipotence of God in his doctrine is little noticeable.

The intellectualizing function of the concept of God, on the contrary, is expressed very clearly. And it is expressed mainly through repeated quoting and commenting on those words of the Old Testament, according to which God, during the creation of the world, “arranged everything by measure, number and weight” (Wisdom of Solomon, 11, 21). Thus, the total creativity of the supernatural god “out of nothing” became the result overabsolutization of human creative potential.

The quoted biblical words repeatedly appeared among Christian philosophers long before Cusanus (starting from the era of the “fathers.” Perhaps the compilers of the book “The Wisdom of Solomon,” later recognized as non-canonical, were influenced by Pythagoreanism in the Hellenistic era). For Kuzantz, as a Renaissance philosopher who anticipated the birth of mathematical science, it became especially important to emphasize the presence in the world of relationships between measure, number and weight. Considering that the divine art at the creation of the world consisted mainly in geometry, arithmetic and music, declaring that “the first image of things in the mind of the creator is number” [On Assumptions, II, 2, 9], without which nothing can be understood or create, Nicholas from a Platonist seemed to become a Pythagorean, striving to replace ideas with numbers, attributing such a view to Augustine and Boethius.

Mathematics is applicable even in matters of theology, in positive theology, for example, in likening the “blessed Trinity” to a triangle, which has three right angles and is therefore infinite. Likewise, God himself can be compared to an endless circle. But Nicholas’s Pythagoreanism was expressed not only and not even so much in the mathematization of theological speculation. Claiming the enormous help of mathematics in understanding “various divine truths” [Scientific ignorance, I, II, 30], he not only anticipated mathematical natural science, but also took a certain step in this direction in the essay “On the experiment with scales.” The mathematical interpretation of existence was also reflected in the cosmology of Kuzan.

In the light of the above, it is clear why the intellectualization of the creative activity of God is associated with a very fruitful problem for Kuzan. relationship between nature and art. On the one hand, “art appears as a kind of imitation of nature” [On Assumptions II, 12, 121]. But on the other hand, nature itself is a re-

the result of the art of a divine master who creates everything with the help of arithmetic, geometry and music.

A purely theological formulation, as well as the solution to the problem of God’s creation of nature and man as the most adequate image of God himself, was inherent in a number of “Church Fathers” of the 3rd–5th centuries. (especially Lactantius and Augustine). As noted above, Pico was to a certain extent guided by them in his exaltation of man as the crown of the universe. At the same time, among the “fathers” themselves, and even more so among the medieval scholastics, who formally continued this line of theirs, their exaltation of man, as already said, in general constituted an element of flawed anthropocentrism. Humanist philosophers, even focusing on the aforementioned ideas of the “church fathers,” strengthened them in every possible way in the conditions of their more developed culture compared to late antiquity. Nicholas of Cusa did this even before Pico of Mirandola.

The ideology of humanism with its inherent glorification production activities man in the philosophical doctrine of Cusan was reflected in the likening of divine creativity to the art of a sculptor, painter, potter, turner, blacksmith, weaver, glass blower. No matter how Nikolai stipulates the fundamental difference between the creativity of an extra-natural creator and the creativity of his “creature” [see: About the game of ball, 44–45; Dialogue on Becoming, 164], he equated what was created by the divine word with what was made by the mind and hands of man. Cusan's main idea here, however, is the affirmation of the unity of nature and art, which also follows from the impossibility of achieving some exact and final truth (more on this below). Because of this, “nothing can be only nature or only art, but everything in its own way participates in both of them” [On Assumptions, II, 12, 131].

Cosmology of Kuzan. God, as actual infinity, is opposed by both the world and the entire universe, which embraces everything that is not God. But if God as an absolute represents a completely unlimited, truly infinite being, then the universe, or even more so the world, is a being that is always limited by something, more or less concrete. The universe is limitless, and God is infinite. Thereby actual infinity God, the universe and the world, which is one of its parts, oppose both potential infinity, as an opportunity to cross any border, any limit. The universe cannot be actually infinite, for this is only a property of God,

but it cannot be considered finite either, because behind any distance a new distance always opens up in it (see: Scientific ignorance, II, 11, 156–157], And if the actual infinity of the divine absolute is, so to speak, a synonym for unknowability, then the potential infinity, on the contrary, can be considered as successive steps in the expanding and deepening knowledge of nature.

The most important result of its knowledge with the help of mathematics is the idea of ​​the world (to a lesser extent, the entire universe) as a huge space machine.

It is interesting to note in this regard that pantheistic motives in the understanding of God, represented by a huge ball, were found in medieval literature long before Nicholas. Thus, in one of the manuscripts of the 12th century.” going back to the above-mentioned corpus of Hermes Trismegistus, it was said that “God is a sphere, the center of which is everywhere, and the circumference is nowhere” [cit. from: 28, p. 79]. However, already in the 14th century. French mathematician, astronomer, theologian and philosopher Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382), comprehending the first clock mechanisms (which appeared in the 13th century) in his “Treatise on the Configuration of Qualities,” compared the world created by the divine master in accordance with number, measure and weight, with a huge celestial mechanism. The author of “Learned Ignorance” went even further along this path, believing, however, that “The Machine of the World (Machina Mundi) seems to have its center everywhere, and its circumference nowhere, for God is the circle and the center, since he is everywhere and nowhere.” [Learned ignorance, II, 12, 162. Cf. also 156]. In addition to the pantheistic statement about God as the impersonal personification of the cosmic mechanism, one should note his confidence that the machine of the world cannot perish [see. ibid., II, 13, 175]. If, due to the principle of creationism, the cosmic mechanism had

Head of the Department, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.

B.G. Sokolov was born in 1962. In 1982 he graduated from the music school at the Leningrad Conservatory. Rimsky-Korsakov, in 1990 - Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University. From 1990-1993 Studied as a graduate student at St. Petersburg State University.

Since 1994 he has been working at St. Petersburg State University. He worked at the departments of “Modern Foreign Philosophy”, “Philosophical Anthropology”, “History of Philosophy”. From 2012 - 2013 he headed the department of Aesthetics and Philosophy of Culture. In 2015, he was elected head of the department of “Culturologists, Philosophy of Culture and Aesthetics.”

In 1996 he was the coordinator of the 1st Russian Philosophical Congress, in 1998 - the coordinator of the 1st Civil Forum, in 2000 - the 2nd Civil Forum.
Since 1995 - head of the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University. Editor-in-Chief of the almanac “Metaphysical Research” (19 issues were published on various topics).
Coordinates the publication of the magazine “Studia culturae” http://iculture.spb.ru/index.php/stucult.

PhD thesis (1994):
"Marginal discourse of J. Derrida"
(09.00.03 - history of philosophy)

Doctoral dissertation (2004):
"The Genesis of Historical Consciousness in New European Culture"
(09.0013 - philosophical anthropology, religious studies and philosophy of culture)

Trained at Uppsala University (Sweden) in 1995. Received grant support from the Russian Humanitarian Fund and the Soros Foundation. Currently the head of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation grant “Conceptualization of Homo Aestheticus in modern aesthetics”, project No. 13-03-00429.

Under the leadership of Sokolov B.G. The following dissertations have been defended:

master's theses:

• 2002: Kiryushchenko Vitaly Vladimirovich, dissertation “Language and sign in pragmatism” (09.00.13)
• 2003: Fokin Ivan Leonidovich, dissertation “The Concept of Education in Schelling’s Philosophy of Culture” (09.00.13)
• 2006: Belyaev Nikolay Yuryevich, dissertation “Mechanism” in modern European culture” (09.00.13)
• 2006: Shestakov Vyacheslav Viktorovich, dissertation “Positioning of means of communication” (09.00.13)
• 2008: Babushkina Dina Aleksandrovna, dissertation “Ethical philosophy of F. Bradley” (09.00.03)
• 2008: Fedotov Anton Aleksandrovich, dissertation “Sociocultural analysis of the phenomenon of the elite” (09.00.13)
• 2009: Buryak Igor Vasilievich, dissertation “Hegel’s doctrine of “substance-subject” in “Hegel’s Phenomenology” (09.00.03)
• 2009: Zaugolnikova Arina Vladimirovna, dissertation “Myth in the cultural philosophy of German romanticism” (09.00.13)
• 2009: Buzina Olga Konstantinovna, dissertation “Genesis and transformation of mechanisms of human representation in Western European culture” (24.00.01)
• 2009: Guryeva Maria Mikhailovna, dissertation “Everyday photography in a modern cultural context” (24.00.01)
• 2010: Trushina Irina Aleksandrovna, dissertation “Symbolization of allegory in the culture of the Silver Age” (24.00.01)
• 2012: Shukhobodsky Alexander Borisovich, dissertation “Status of a historical and cultural monument in modern Russia” (24.00.01)

doctoral dissertations:

• 2008: Lurie Vadim Mironovich, dissertation “Transformations of Aristotelian “ontology” in Byzantine theological discussions of the 6th-7th centuries.” (09.00.03)
• 2011: Fokin Ivan Leonidovich, dissertation “The Teachings of Jacob Boehme and German Philosophy and Culture of the 19th Century” (24.00.01, 09.00.03)
• 2012: Lilia Ivanovna Kabanova, dissertation “The phenomenon of the Russian avant-garde of the 10-30s in the context of domestic culture of the late 19th-first third of the 20th century” (24.00.01)
• 2014: Shestakov Vyacheslav Anatolyevich “status of cultural values: legitimation, objectification, praxis” (24.00.01)

1. Marginal discourse of J. Derrida; St. Petersburg 1996
2. Hermeneutics of metaphysics; St. Petersburg, 1998
3. Hypertext history; St. Petersburg, 2001
4. Genesis of history; St. Petersburg, 2004
5. Point of view (co-authored with A.V. Dyakov). St. Petersburg, Kursk 2009
6. Ontology of cultural heritage; St. Petersburg, 2010
7. Glasses for Nietzsche (co-authored with A.V. Dyakov); St. Petersburg, Kursk 2010
8. Thinking about modernity (co-authored with E.G. Sokolov); St. Petersburg, 2011
9. A break in everyday life. Dialogue length of 300 cups of coffee and 3 blocks of cigarettes (co-authored with A.M. Sergeev). St. Petersburg, 2015
10. Ontologies of sensuality (Conceptualization of Homo Aestheticus. Part II), St. Petersburg, 2015

• History of modern foreign philosophy: a comparative approach (first edition St. Petersburg, 1996)
• Fundamentals of ontology SPb.1998
• Russian and European philosophy: paths of convergence. St. Petersburg, 1999
• West or humanity? Historiosophy of the Balkan conflict. St. Petersburg, 2000
• Philosophical Mass Culture of Russia at the end of the 20th century. (fragments to..). Part II. St. Petersburg, 2001
• Anthropology. Essay on history. From St. Petersburg university. St. Petersburg, 2003
• Culturology: Textbook. Under under. Yu.N. Solonina, M.S. Kagan, M.: “Yurait-Izdat”, (first edition 2005)
• Philosophy of the 19th century. Personalities. Part I Publishing house of the Federal District of St. Petersburg, 2007
• History of philosophy. Textbook St. Petersburg: “Peter”, 2010
• The concept of integrity in the logical and methodological aspect. Proceedings of the Scientific Seminar on Integrity 2012. M. International Publishing Center "Ethnosocium", 2012
• Aesthesis i Ratio: Czlowiek w przestrzeni kultury i estetyki. Oficyna Wydawnicza Arboretum, Wroclaw, 2014
• Philosophy in the Border Zone. Orkana Akademisk. Oslo, 2015
• Conceptualization of Homo Aestheticus. History and Reflection. Part I. Publishing house RKhGA, 2015

Training courses:

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation East Siberian State Technological University

Institute for Sustainable Development

S.M.Sokolov

Ulan-Ude 2003

BBK 87.3(2) C 594

Scientific editor: Yangutov L.E. Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Reviewers: Dambuev Ya.A. Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor

Daribazaron E.Ch. Candidate of Philosophy

Sokolov S.M. Philosophy of Russian diaspora: Eurasianism: Monograph. From 594 - Ulan-Ude, Publishing House of the All-Russian State Technical University. - WITH.

ISBN 5-89230-153-2

The monograph by S.M. Sokolov is devoted to the original and distinctive phenomenon of Russian philosophy abroad - Eurasianism. The problem of Eurasianism at the turn of the century, due to the objectively emerging multipolarity, again became discussed by scientists and politicians. The most relevant conceptual provisions of N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky and other leaders of Eurasianism are highlighted. The socio-philosophical issues of Eurasianism are considered in the context of Russian thought abroad, the ideological closeness of Eurasianists and other representatives of Russian philosophy is revealed. The creative potential of the Eurasian doctrine of culture and state has been determined. The monograph is intended for teachers of philosophy, political science, sociology, cultural studies, graduate students and undergraduates.

Introduction……………………………………………………………… 3

Section one “Socio-philosophical problems of Eurasian works”………………… 14 Section two “East in Eurasian thought”……. 33 Section three “Eurasian concept of culture”..55 Section four“Fundamentals of the Eurasian doctrine of the state”……………………………………………………… 79

Section five “Modern Eurasianism”…….. 97

Conclusion ………………………………………. 127

Scientific publication

Sokolov Sergey Makarovich

PHILOSOPHY OF RUSSIAN ABROAD: EURASIANism

Editor T.A. Storozhenko

Signed for publication on August 12, 2003. Format 60x84 1/16. Volume in conventional l.p.l. 7.9, educational sheet. 7.0. Circulation 400 copies. Operating printing, paper writing Garn. Times.

Publishing house VSTU. Ulan-Ude, Klyuchevskaya st., 40th century. Printed in the printing house of VSTU. Ulan-Ude, Klyuchevskaya st., 42.

INTRODUCTION

The qualitative changes taking place in modern life in Russia, the search for a new socio-economic orientation that can lead the country out of a deadlock, have brought to the fore the question of the paths of development of Russia and its future. Attempts to answer this question inevitably draw attention to past experience. According to V.V. Tolmachev, “today the Russian thinker is at a crossroads: he is forced either to eclectically combine in a kind of compendium newfangled trends developed by foreign colleagues, or to look for the moment of an abandoned start in his own history and culture. Hence the inevitability of rethinking the entire rich heritage of Russian philosophy.”

An original part of this heritage is the ideology of Eurasianism, which until relatively recently was little known. Emerging in the early twenties among the Russian emigration and uniting philosophy, history, geography, economics, psychology and other fields of knowledge, Eurasianism was a new and at the same time quite traditional trend of thought for Russia. The most famous Eurasians were: linguist, philologist and culturologist Prince. N.S. Trubetskoy; geographer, economist and geopolitician P.N. Savitsky; philosopher L.P. Karsavin; religious philosophers and publicists G.V. Florovsky, V.N. Ilyin; historian G.V. Vernadsky; musicologist and art critic P.P. Suvchinsky; lawyer N.N. Alekseev; economist Ya.D. Sadovsky; critics and literary scholars A.V. Kozhevnikov (Kozhev), D.P. Svyatopolk Mirsky; orientalist V.P.Nikitin; writer V.N. Ivanov.

“It’s interesting,” S. Klyuchnikov emphasizes, “that Eurasianism has realized the program setting proclaimed in its name even by the very nature of its own geography, spreading across a number of countries on both the European and Asian continents. It had several of the largest centers in Sofia, Prague, Berlin, Belgrade, Brussels, Harbin and Paris, which were actively and successfully engaged in publishing and lecture activities. In addition to spreading in the Slavic-speaking and Romano-Germanic environment, Eurasian ideas also penetrated into the English-speaking world - to England (thanks to the activities of D.P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who lived there) and to the USA (after G.V. Vernadsky and N.N. Alekseev moved there )".

According to the general opinion of researchers, Eurasianism was an original movement that had its own philosophical roots and its own ideology. The fundamental ideas of Eurasianism as a historical and cultural concept are defined: the idea of ​​Russia as Eurasia - a special ethnographic world with its own unique culture, the idea of ​​the special place of Russia-Eurasia in world history and the special ways of its development; the idea of ​​culture as a symphonic personality; the idea of ​​spreading the Church, Orthodoxy. From the very beginning of the activities of Eurasian organizations, the main goal was ideological propaganda on the pages of the publications of the print media they founded.

Eurasians left a large literary heritage, which in recent years has found an increasing number of readers. Previously inaccessible sources are now beginning to reach the general public. Currently, this teaching is assessed as a certain stage in the development of Russian thought. The Eurasian doctrine is especially valuable because, in addition to philosophy and history, it united various areas of knowledge. Understanding this heritage led to the emergence of neo-Eurasianism,

post-Eurasianism, represented in the last decade by quite numerous publications in the form of monographs and articles (scientific and journalistic). Among them, a special place is occupied by the works of L.N. Gumilyov, who called himself “the last Eurasianist.”

The rebirth of Eurasianism, the increased interest in it is associated with a number of reasons, the main of which are: the collapse of the Soviet Union, a socio-economic situation similar to the post-revolutionary situation in Russia, issues of modern geopolitics, neo-Westernism and neo-Slavophilism, etc. This determines the relevance of the modern resonance of Eurasianism , discussing his ideology, and in general the so-called Eurasian boom. In the context of the ongoing cultural and philosophical debates about the “fate of Russia”, the complications of the socio-political and ethno-political situation, known inter-ethnic tensions in certain regions, the processes of “national revival”, it becomes especially relevant to continue to comprehend the heritage of the Eurasians, their prophetic “premonitions”, as well as neo-Eurasian interpretation of the past, present and future of Russia.

A broad discussion of the problems of Eurasianism began in the early nineties: scientific and theoretical conferences, international colloquiums, and round tables were held. On the pages of the journals “Questions of Philosophy”, “Philosophical Sciences”, “Social Sciences and Modernity”, “Free Thought” and others, discussions took place, during which often opposing assessments were given of the philosophical and ideological foundations of the Eurasian concept of the past, present and future of Russia - Eurasia. This was reflected in the publications of the materials “Round Table: “The Eurasian Idea: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow” by the journal “Foreign Literature” (No. 12, 1994). In 1995, the Socio-Political Journal (No. 1) published the materials “Round Table:

“The Eurasian Union: idea, problems, prospects (On the project for the development of post-Soviet society).” The “Round Table: Eurasianism: pros and cons, yesterday and today” was distinguished by the widest and most authoritative composition of participants. His materials, also published in 1995 in the journal “Problems of Philosophy” (Nos. 1-5), showed that the range of opinions on the issues discussed is quite wide.

In recent years, a number of articles related to increased attention to Eurasian topics and the “Eurasian boom” have been published in scientific and other periodicals. There is a series of special articles by V.N. Toporov, A.V. Sobolev, I.A. Savkin, S.S. Khoruzhy, dedicated to the founders of Eurasianism. Among them, an article by V.N. Toporov stands out, which gives a high assessment of the activities and works of N.S. Trubetskoy and emphasizes that the Eurasian cultural-historical and ethno-linguistic horizons he outlined “more than half a century ago and now remain, in fact, the last in a word, that covenant and that great idea that calls for hard work” (p. 69). Of great interest are the publications of S. Klyuchnikov and V. Kozhinov in the magazine “Our Contemporary”, which draw attention to the anti-Western views of Eurasians. It should be noted that in 1991, one of the issues of the religious and philosophical magazine “Principles” was entirely devoted to Eurasianism, its history and ideology.

In the works of L.I. Novikova and I.N. Sizemskaya, the conceptual provisions of the Eurasian doctrine are analyzed and the relevance of the main provisions of the political doctrine, projects for the transformation of Russia, and the unconventionality of the Eurasian analysis of problems traditional for Russian thought are especially carefully considered. The two anthologies they then compiled, “Russia between Europe and Asia: The Eurasian Temptation” and “The World of Russia - Eurasia,” included the most important

works of intellectual leaders of the Eurasian movement: N.S. Trubetskoy

(1890-1938), P.N. Savitsky (1895-1965), L.P. Karsavin (1882-1952),

G.V. Florovsky (1893-1979), N.N. Alekseev (1879-1964) and some of its other participants. Introducing the reader to the history and essence of Eurasianism, the compilers of these anthologies draw attention to the fact that “Eurasianism had a relatively short history. It existed for a little over ten years. But many talented people fell into the Eurasian temptation, although the attitude towards Eurasianism as a whole was far from unambiguous.”

Since 1989, the research literature began to be enriched with publications that presented an analysis of certain aspects of the Eurasian concept. So, for example, among a number of articles by I.A. Isaev, one should highlight the work in which the geopolitical doctrine is considered, the philosophy of power of the Eurasians and Eurasianism is considered to be the “Smenovekhov” movement. An article by T.N. Ochirova was devoted to some provisions of the geopolitical concept of Eurasianism. Among the publications on Eurasianism that appeared in 1999, S.N. Pushkin’s article “Eurasian views on civilization” stands out, considering the comprehensiveness of the justification for the concept of “Eurasian civilization”. According to the author, studying the ideas of thinkers of the beginning of the century will make it possible to more deeply and comprehensively evaluate the largely similar concepts of the end of the century. A special place in the literature of recent years is occupied by special monographs dedicated to Russians abroad. These include, in particular, the study by V.T. Pashuto “Russian emigrant historians in Europe,” which rethinks the role of emigration in Russian history, and Eurasianism is characterized as the most significant of the post-revolutionary emigrant movements.

One of the latest contributions to literature is a collection of the best works of the largest representatives of Eurasianism, compiled by S. Klyuchnikov with his introductory article “The Eastern Orientation of Russian Thought” and valuable notes by V. Kozhinov, as well as an extensive bibliography of Eurasian literature. In 1997, the book “Exodus to the East” was published with a detailed introductory article by one of the major domestic Indo-Europeanists, Moscow State University professor O.S. Shirokov, dedicated to the problem of ethnolinguistic justifications of Eurasianism. Emphasizing the comprehensiveness of the analysis of historical-geographical and cultural-ethnographic data by the authors of “Exodus to the East,” O.S. Shirokov notes that in this analysis “there were many brilliant guesses and ingenious foresights that may seem like prophecies to the modern Russian reader.” At the same time, according to the scientist, the ethnolinguistic justifications of Eurasianism require rethinking and addition in the light of modern scientific concepts and new discoveries.

Relatively early, Eurasianism became the subject of special research by foreign scientists. There are indications of this in the work of P.N. Savitsky “In the Struggle for Eurasianism.” Saying that since 1922, “several hundred articles, reviews and notes on Eurasianism have appeared in the Russian and foreign press,” P. N. Savitsky notes that “not all of them were available to us.” In the modern press, only in 1992, in the religious and philosophical journal “Principles”, a fragment of the doctoral dissertation of the German historian O. Boss was published. In 1993, the publication of a large article by L. Lux “Eurasianism” appeared in “Questions of Philosophy”. According to both researchers, firstly, Eurasianism was not an accidental trend in the Russian diaspora, but was a reaction caused by the emigration's concern for the fate of Russia; secondly, it was

the most interesting and original movement of Russian thought in the post-revolutionary years. L. Lux, in particular, draws attention to the fact that, unlike the majority of emigrants who perceived the Russian catastrophe only as a catastrophe, “the ideologists of Eurasianism saw a deep historical meaning in the tragedy of the revolution and civil war. It seemed to them that the unheard-of trials that befell Russia put it decisively above Western Europe.” He emphasizes that the attractiveness of their doctrine lay “in the combination of fascinating emotionality with scientificity.”

These and other articles and monographs give an idea of ​​the emergence in the early twenties, among the “first wave of emigration,” of the socio-political and ideological movement of the Russian intelligentsia, which went down in history as Eurasianism, trace the main stages of its development, evaluate its problems and ideology. Currently, more and more new materials and sources on Eurasianism are entering the scientific circulation, and republications of foreign publications are appearing. In this regard, in recent years the possibilities for a comprehensive study of Eurasian doctrine have expanded. Thus, the geopolitical views of Eurasians and, above all, P.N. Savitsky are attracting more and more attention. He is recognized not only as the leader of this trend, but also as the founder of Russian geopolitics.

For the study of Eurasianism and neo-Eurasianism, the works of A.S. Kapto, N.N. Alevras, V.Ya. Pashchenko, B.S. Erasov, A.G. Dugin, A.S. Panarin, G.A. Yugay are of great value , dedicated to the most important issues of current cultural and philosophical debates about the fate of Russia. In particular, A.S. Panarin analyzed two possible scenarios: “Atlantic” - Russia’s entry into the pan-European home, and “Eurasian” - the country’s development of a unique civilizational model,

Academic degree: Academic title: Alma mater: Scientific adviser: Notable students: Awards and prizes:

Lomonosov Prize, 1st degree (1986)

	Fragment of an interview with Vasily Vasilyevich Sokolov, taken by the Oral History Foundation.
	Recorded 01/19/2012
Playback help

Biography

Professor of the Department of History of Foreign Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University.

Bibliography

• Voltaire. M., 1955.
• Ancient philosophy. M., 1958.
• Philosophy of Hegel. M., 1959.
• Bertrand Russell as a historian of philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. 1960, no. 9.
• Essays on the history of philosophy of the Renaissance. M., 1962.
• Spinoza's philosophy and modernity. M., 1964.
• Predecessors of scientific communism. M., 1965.
• Partisanship and historicism in historical and philosophical methodology. // Questions of philosophy. 1968, no. 4.
• Philosophy of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Will join. Art. to volume 1 of the Anthology of World Philosophy. M., 1969.
• Spinoza. M., 1973, 1977.
• Historical and philosophical concept of Hegel // Philosophy of Hegel and modernity. M., 1973.
• Philosophical synthesis of Gottfried Leibniz (introductory article to volume 1 of the Works of G. W. Leibniz in 4 volumes). M., 1982.
• Philosophy of spirit and matter by Rene Descartes (introductory article to volume 1 of the Works of Rene Descartes in 2 volumes). M., 1989.
• The philosophical meaning of Leibniz’s “Theodicy” (introductory article to volume 4 of G. W. Leibniz’s Works in 4 volumes). M., 1989.
• Medieval philosophy. M., 1979; ed. 2nd, rev. and additional M., 2001.
• ; ed. 2nd, rev. and additional M., 1996 - ISBN 5-06-002853-4; ed. 3rd, revised, 2002.
• The problem of the religious and philosophical God in Descartes’ system of views // Immortality of Descartes’ philosophical ideas. M., 1997.
• Introduction to classical philosophy. M., 1999.
• From the philosophy of Antiquity to the philosophy of Modern times. Subject-object paradigm. M., 2000.
• Philosophy as the history of philosophy: Textbook for universities. M.: Academic project, 2010. - 843 p. - ISBN 978-5-8291-1186-1.
• Philosophical suffering and enlightenment in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Memories and thoughts of a belated contemporary - M.: Center for Strategic Conjuncture, 2014. - 96 p. ISBN 978–5–906233–91–2

Write a review of the article "Sokolov, Vasily Vasilievich (philosopher)"

Notes

Literature

• Andreeva I. S. Philosophers of Russia in the second half of the 20th century. Portraits. Monograph. M., 2009. P.73-80.

Links

• on the website of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University
• (interview with V.V. Sokolov, June 2003)

An excerpt characterizing Sokolov, Vasily Vasilievich (philosopher)

Sonya burst into tears hysterically, answered through her sobs that she would do everything, that she was ready for anything, but she did not make a direct promise and in her soul could not decide on what was demanded of her. She had to sacrifice herself for the happiness of the family that fed and raised her. Sacrificing herself for the happiness of others was Sonya's habit. Her position in the house was such that only on the path of sacrifice could she show her virtues, and she was accustomed and loved to sacrifice herself. But first, in all acts of self-sacrifice, she joyfully realized that by sacrificing herself, she thereby raised her worth in the eyes of herself and others and became more worthy of Nicolas, whom she loved most in life; but now her sacrifice had to consist in giving up what for her constituted the entire reward of the sacrifice, the entire meaning of life. And for the first time in her life, she felt bitterness towards those people who had benefited her in order to torture her more painfully; I felt envy of Natasha, who had never experienced anything like this, never needed sacrifices and forced others to sacrifice herself and yet was loved by everyone. And for the first time, Sonya felt how, out of her quiet, pure love for Nicolas, a passionate feeling suddenly began to grow, which stood above rules, virtue, and religion; and under the influence of this feeling, Sonya involuntarily, learned by her dependent life of secrecy, answered the countess in general, vague words, avoided conversations with her and decided to wait for a meeting with Nikolai so that in this meeting she would not free her, but, on the contrary, forever bind herself to him .
The troubles and horror of the last days of the Rostovs’ stay in Moscow drowned out the dark thoughts that were weighing on her. She was glad to find salvation from them in practical activities. But when she learned about the presence of Prince Andrei in their house, despite all the sincere pity that she felt for him and Natasha, a joyful and superstitious feeling that God did not want her to be separated from Nicolas overtook her. She knew that Natasha loved one Prince Andrei and did not stop loving him. She knew that now, brought together in such terrible conditions, they would love each other again and that then Nicholas, due to the kinship that would be between them, would not be able to marry Princess Marya. Despite all the horror of everything that happened in the last days and during the first days of the journey, this feeling, this awareness of the intervention of providence in her personal affairs pleased Sonya.
The Rostovs spent their first day on their trip at the Trinity Lavra.
In the Lavra hotel, the Rostovs were allocated three large rooms, one of which was occupied by Prince Andrei. The wounded man was much better that day. Natasha sat with him. In the next room the Count and Countess sat, respectfully talking with the rector, who had visited their old acquaintances and investors. Sonya was sitting right there, and she was tormented by curiosity about what Prince Andrei and Natasha were talking about. She listened to the sounds of their voices from behind the door. The door of Prince Andrei's room opened. Natasha came out from there with an excited face and, not noticing the monk who stood up to meet her and grabbed the wide sleeve of his right hand, walked up to Sonya and took her hand.
- Natasha, what are you doing? Come here,” said the Countess.
Natasha came under the blessing, and the abbot advised to turn to God and his saint for help.
Immediately after the abbot left, Nashata took her friend’s hand and walked with her into the empty room.
- Sonya, right? will he be alive? - she said. – Sonya, how happy I am and how unhappy I am! Sonya, my dear, everything is as before. If only he were alive. He can’t... because, because... that... - And Natasha burst into tears.
- So! I knew it! Thank God,” said Sonya. - He will be alive!
Sonya was no less excited than her friend - both by her fear and grief, and by her personal thoughts that were not expressed to anyone. She, sobbing, kissed and consoled Natasha. “If only he were alive!” - she thought. After crying, talking and wiping away their tears, both friends approached Prince Andrei’s door. Natasha carefully opened the doors and looked into the room. Sonya stood next to her at the half-open door.
Prince Andrei lay high on three pillows. His pale face was calm, his eyes were closed, and you could see how he was breathing evenly.
- Oh, Natasha! – Sonya suddenly almost screamed, grabbing her cousin’s hand and retreating from the door.
- What? What? – Natasha asked.
“This is this, that, that...” said Sonya with a pale face and trembling lips.
Natasha quietly closed the door and went with Sonya to the window, not yet understanding what they were saying to her.
“Do you remember,” Sonya said with a frightened and solemn face, “do you remember when I looked for you in the mirror... In Otradnoye, at Christmas time... Do you remember what I saw?..
- Yes Yes! - Natasha said, opening her eyes wide, vaguely remembering that Sonya then said something about Prince Andrei, whom she saw lying down.
- Do you remember? – Sonya continued. “I saw it then and told everyone, both you and Dunyasha.” “I saw that he was lying on the bed,” she said, making a gesture with her hand with a raised finger at every detail, “and that he had closed his eyes, and that he was covered with a pink blanket, and that he had folded his hands,” Sonya said, making sure that as she described the details she saw now, that these same details she saw then. She didn’t see anything then, but said that she saw what came into her head; but what she came up with then seemed to her as valid as any other memory. What she said then, that he looked back at her and smiled and was covered with something red, she not only remembered, but was firmly convinced that even then she said and saw that he was covered with a pink, exactly pink, blanket, and that his eyes were closed.