Three conversations are carried out at a foreign resort "Five Russians”: Prince, General, Politician, Lady and Mr. Z. And, it seems, the plot is clear. The prince is an adherent of the teachings of Leo Tolstoy; other characters oppose him: the General - from the point of view of everyday Christianity, the Politician - from the point of view of liberal Europeanism, Mr. Z - from a religious point of view, the Lady participates in the conversation as a carrier of a sincere, emotional position. Solovyov himself writes about this in the Preface, and in detail. So for the reader the meaning of the book appears as a critique of Tolstoyism.
The conversation unfolds vividly and drags on for three days. Although it is unlikely that anyone will dare to make a feature film based on "Three Conversations" - there is too little "drive", a purely conversational plot. In the first conversation we are talking about Tolstoy's theory of non-resistance. The Prince's thesis boils down to the fact that murder is always evil, and therefore it is absolutely unacceptable for a Christian. The argument revolves around the situation “before the eyes of a moralist, a bandit rapes a child; how to be? Mr Z concludes:
Mr. [-n] Z. Why, in your opinion, reason and conscience tell me only about myself and about the villain, and the whole point, in your opinion, is that I somehow do not touch him with my finger. Well, in truth, there is also a third person here, and, it seems, the most important thing, a victim of evil violence, requiring my help. You always forget her, but conscience speaks about her, and about her first of all, and the will of God here is that I save this victim, sparing the villain as much as possible;
And the general tells an amazing case from his practice, when, in his opinion, the murder "from six clean, immaculate steel tools, with the most virtuous, beneficial buckshot" was the best thing in his life.
In the third dialogue, Solovyov focuses on the most important thing - the denial of the Divinity of Christ and His resurrection. And the disputants begin to suspect that the rejection of these things leads to the Antichrist. The prince, trying to hide his irritation, leaves, and:
(When the prince moved away from the conversation) general (laughing, noticed). The cat knows whose meat it ate!
D a m a. How do you think that our prince is the Antichrist?
General Well, not personally, not him personally: a sandpiper is far from Peter's Day! And yet on that line. As John the Theologian also says in Scripture: you heard, kids, that the Antichrist will come, and now there are many Antichrists. So out of these many, out of many...
Upon his return, the prince tries to justify himself, but Z proves with inexorable logic that this is real anti-Christianity. Here everyone decides that it would be good to see the actual Antichrist. And then Mr. Z brings the manuscript of a certain monk Pansofius and reads it out - this is the famous "Short Tale of the Antichrist", during the reading of which the prince escapes again.
Such is the plot, and, speaking of Three Conversations, one usually concludes that Solovyov's powerful dialectic is victorious - Tolstoyism has been smashed to smithereens. No doubt it is. However, we have not yet reached the main content of the book.
The book turns out to be a box with a double bottom. Behind the criticism of Tolstoyism hides the true content - Solovyov's parting with his former idols and the most cherished ideas.
First of all, this is parting with "pink Christianity". The collapse of all projects forced Solovyov to think about the power of evil. This dialogue is typical:
“Mr. Z. So you think that it is only necessary for good people to become even kinder themselves, so that the evil ones lose their malice until they finally become good too?
D a m a. I think so.
Mr. Z. Well, do you know of any cases where the kindness of a good person made an evil person good, or at least less evil?
D a m a. No, to tell the truth, I have not seen or heard such cases ... "
This is what Solovyov himself believed until recently, and this naive belief lay at the foundation of his vast edifice of Christian progress. And suddenly it turns out that the foundation of this building is built on sand.
This is parting with the "theocracy". Previously, Soloviev preached this idea literally in all his significant writings. Even in Justification of the Good, he writes about it, though not with the same fervor. But in the "Three Conversations" about this silence. Moreover, the kingdom that the Antichrist is building is suspiciously reminiscent of Solovyov's theocracy, only without Christ. As for church unity, in his Apocalypse, "The Tale of the Antichrist", not even unification, but simply reconciliation of the Churches takes place only after the death of the Antichrist.
Philocathism has also been abandoned - all the main Churches are participating in the struggle against the Antichrist. And, perhaps, the main role here belongs to Orthodoxy - Elder John was the first to understand who was in front of him, and warned everyone with the exclamation “ Kids, Antichrist!". And a close merger with the state is carried out precisely by the Antichrist church, under the authority of the magician Apollonius.
Solovyov also says goodbye to progress, both worldly and Christian. And here we need to dwell on the meaning of the Second Conversation. The point is that the Second Conversation is completely superfluous for debunking Tolstoyism. The prince practically does not participate there, and the conversation itself does not touch on moral problems typical of Tolstoyism. But from the point of view of self-debunking, this conversation is absolutely necessary. Here Solovyov draws a line under his Europeanism. It is not for nothing that the Western-oriented Vestnik Evropy, in which Solovyov published all his last major works, refused to publish Three Conversations (!). The Politician soloist in this conversation is a parody of the Westerners, who by the beginning of the 20th century had become liberals and preachers of civilized progress. It seems that Solovyov's passage in the preface "but I recognize the relative truth behind the first two (the politician and the general - N.S.)" cannot be taken at face value. Solovyov turned out to be a politician so unimpressive that this image must be recognized as the case when artistic truth defeated the original plan. All the verbose chatter of Politics is aptly summed up by the Lady:
“You wanted to say that times have changed, that before there was God and war, and now instead of God, culture and peace.”
And Mr. Z easily debunks it:
“Mr [-n] Z. In any case, it is indisputable that the plus grows, the minus also grows, and as a result something close to zero is obtained. It's about diseases. Well, as for death, it seems that, apart from zero, there was nothing in cultural progress.
Politics. Does cultural progress set itself such tasks as the destruction of death?
Mr. [- n ] Z. I know that he doesn’t put it, but that’s why you can’t put him very highly himself ”.
Note that the Politician voices another very important parting for Solovyov - with illusions about the feasibility of Christianity in politics and in society in general. The politician is a realist. It does not require the fulfillment of commandments in international relations, and the present Solovyov takes this side in Politics, although he understands that this is not Christianity, as if inclining with the gospel: “ the sons of this age are more perceptive than the sons of light in their kind"(Luke 16:8).
But it should be especially noted that neither pan-unity nor God-manhood was subjected to total denial. Although they have undergone some revision. More precisely, all-unity ceased to be perceived by Solovyov as being realized in history. Or in other words: Solovyov changed his ideas about metahistory: the end point, the goal of history was not the triumph of unity, but the eschatological transition of the world to a new state, about which Solovyov did not have time to say anything. And the iridescent God-manhood was suddenly enriched with the possibility of "devil-manhood", the embodiment of which the philosopher saw in the Antichrist.
And Sofia? At the end of the "Tale of the Antichrist" appears in the sky " a woman clothed with the sun, and on her head a crown of twelve stars"- exactly according to the Revelation of St. John (Rev. 12:1). But Solovyov could not help but know that in the Orthodox tradition this image is firmly associated with the Mother of God. Is there a parting with the painfully obsessive Sophia and an appeal to the bright and meek image of the Mother of God? Who knows…
We will continue talking about the "Three Conversations".
Nikolai Somin
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
- Introduction
- 2. The relationship of the three dialogues
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
Introduction
“I consider this work of mine to be brilliant,” Vl. Solovyov. Indeed, "Three Conversations" by Vl. Solovyov is a literary and philosophical work unique in its genre features in the history of Russian literature. The depth of topics touched upon by Solovyov, the combination of philosophy, history, literature - all this led to a diverse choice of artistic means, determined the genre originality of the book. Apologetic and polemical dialogues - this is how the philosopher himself defined the genre of three conversations in the introduction.
By placing an introductory word before the beginning of the philosophical dialogue, Solovyov follows the ancient tradition (dialogues of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero). The futurological story about the Antichrist does not go beyond the framework of the ancient tradition. The myth of the death of Atlantis in the book "State" by Plato completes the dramatic dialogues of Socrates, as if depicting the end of an ideal state. Cicero's dialogues "On the State" are set out in six books, each of which is devoted to a specific problem. A kind of synthesis of all six dialogues becomes the apotheosis-dream of Scipio the African Elder.
Interestingly, in the first edition of "Three Conversations" there was no story about the Antichrist, and "this subject (the coming of the Antichrist) was ... presented in the same colloquial form as all the previous ones, and with the same admixture of a joke." And only friends convinced the philosopher that this topic requires a more serious and appropriate form. “Finding this fair,” Solovyov says, “I changed the wording of the third conversation, inserting into it a continuous reading of the Brief Tale of the Antichrist from the manuscript of the deceased monk.” The theme of the book and the chosen form of the polemical dialogues led to the need to complete the three dialogues with an eschatological story-myth.
In the article "On Recent Events" written a month before his death, Solovyov once again indirectly indicates the genre of the story: "The historical drama has been played ...". The meaning of the historical process, according to Solovyov, lies in the positive connection of the truths of East and West. The union must take place at the end of world history, after the decisive struggle against false truths.
The story of the Antichrist is sometimes unfairly called an "appendix" to the "Three Conversations", they are considered almost an independent work of the philosopher, they do not see an organic connection between the three dialogues and the story. In some editions, "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist" is even printed separately. At the same time, "Three Conversations" does not end with this "historical drama-tale."
1. Edition of "Three Conversations" by V. Solovyov
The book was first published during Solovyov's lifetime in 1900 in St. Petersburg (Trud ed.). The same publishing house in 1901 issued the second and third editions of the book. In Russia, they became the last editions of the book in the form in which the author himself defined it: three conversations with a short story about the Antichrist and with appendices. In all other editions, "Three Conversations" were published without appendices.
The compositional integrity was violated in relation to "Three Conversations" and in the publication of the first "Collected Works of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov" in nine volumes (1901-1907). The eighth volume included philosophical and other works of recent years, which included "Three Conversations". As a basis, the compilers put the chronological principle, justified in the approach to the entire heritage of the philosopher. However, the articles attached to the Three Conversations, written in 1897 and 1898, were placed before the work, and not after (according to Solovyov's plan).
Four years later, the Prosveshchenie publishing house published the second edition of the Collected Works of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1911-1914) in ten volumes, edited by S.M. Solovyov and E.L. Radlov. In this edition, "Three Conversations" was included in the last tenth volume. The compilers put the same chronological principle as the basis. Blok A. "Vladimir Solovyov and our days", 1920. - P. 57. .
In the Soviet Union, Solovyov's name was relegated to the periphery for many years. He was spoken of only as a poet who stood at the origins of Russian symbolism. Unfortunately, false attitudes towards the heritage of a philosopher, publicist, critic, writer, honorary academician of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature, a master of the epistolary genre and a poet are also found in modern literary criticism. This is partly due to the fact that the works of Vl. Solovyov were not published in the USSR for a long time.
The situation in Europe and the USA looked different. In 1954, the publishing house. Chekhov in New York published "Three Conversations" in Russian as a separate book. In 1966, a phototype edition of the 2nd edition of the Collected Works was published in Brussels. "Three conversations" are also published in foreign languages: in Germany and in the Czech Republic.
In the USSR, the first collection of poems by Vl. Solovyov was published only in 1974. Editions of philosophical works appeared only in 1988. The second volume of this edition included "Three Conversations", but also without the attached articles. From the end of the 80s. "Three Conversations" are included in editions of selected works. Over the past 11 years, the book has been published as a separate edition in Russian several times: in 1991 and twice in 2000. In the same year, the Nauka publishing house began issuing a new edition of the Complete Works and Letters in 20 volumes. Works in 15 volumes" (compiled by N.V. Kotrelev, A.P. Kozyrev).
In all modern editions, the appendices to the "Three Conversations" were ignored by the compilers. In other words, what Solovyov designated as appendices in the title of the book (four articles and seven Easter letters) was not printed at all. As a result, the modern reader does not have the opportunity, firstly, to fully appreciate the genre uniqueness of "Three Conversations" and, secondly, to adequately understand the last testament of the Russian philosopher.
No wonder Vl. Solovyov in the preface draws special attention to the importance of the attached articles and letters, which "complement and explain the main ideas of the three conversations." After such a reservation, it is not possible to ignore the attached articles. The literary significance of the Soloviev articles was well said by the researcher N.V. Kotrelev: "There is no way to deny that many pages of his philosophical, journalistic, critical writings, many letters are classic examples of Russian prose in these genres."
Initially, the articles included by Solovyov in the so-called. cycles of Sunday and Easter letters were published throughout 1897 and 1898. in the newspaper "Rus". There were 22 letters in total. In the collected works of the early 20th century, they were included in the same volume as Three Conversations, but in the same order as the newspaper publication.
The cycle of "Sunday Letters" consists of 10 articles: "Family of Nations", "Awakening of Conscience", "About the Russian Language", "What is Russia?", "About So-called Questions", "About Temptations", "Forgotten Lessons", "Second Congress of Religions", "Literature or Truth?", "Heaven or Earth?". The cycle "Easter letters" - from 12 letters: "Christ is Risen!", "On conscientious unbelief", "Women's question", "Eastern question", "Two streams", "Blindness and blindness", "The meaning of dogma", article " Nemesis", consisting of three separate letters, "Russia in a hundred years" and the last letter "The spiritual state of the Russian people" Fedotov G.P. "On Antichrist Good", 1926. - S. 25. .
In "Three Conversations" the journalistic and epistolary genres are represented by four articles and seven letters. It is noteworthy that Solovyov made a careful selection of letters, changing their original composition. The appendices open with two former "Easter letters", now Solovyov publishes them as simple articles, "Nemesis" and "Russia in a Hundred Years". This is followed by two articles from the "Sunday letters" - "On temptations", "Literature or truth?" (Soloviev in "Three Conversations" no longer calls them Sunday). After that, the appendices end with seven "Sunday Letters": "Christ is Risen!" "On conscientious unbelief", "Women's question", "Eastern question", "Two streams", "Blindness and blindness" and "The meaning of dogma".
2. The relationship of the three dialogues
The relationship of the three dialogues and the short story about the Antichrist with the accompanying articles can be illustrated by several examples.
In the article "Russia in a Hundred Years" the philosopher discusses true and false patriotism. The thinker opposes the false "hooray of patriotism" of the venerable public, for which patriotism "is exhausted by the famous poetic formula: "The thunder of victory resounds." Is the Fatherland in good condition? Are there any signs of spiritual and physical illnesses? Are old historical sins blotted out? How is the duty of the Christian people being fulfilled? Is there still a day of repentance? Estimates of the results of the last population census, the thinker notes, are not optimistic: population growth has stopped. will be with Russia in a hundred years ... do we really know nothing about the future of Russia?" Solovyov addresses his contemporaries. The answer to this question, according to Solovyov, can only be the appeal of the Russian people to "reflective and anxious patriotism", the true task which is the knowledge of the supreme will of God.
Reflective patriotism, constant vigilance, the fulfillment of the duty of the Christian people and repentance - these are the means that will help the people to recognize the Antichrist in themselves. This is what happens in the story of the Antichrist, when the emperor convenes an ecumenical council of all Christian churches. At the council, he makes a proposal to recognize his authority. In return for each denomination, he promises the dear attributes of the faith. Most Christians agree to its terms. The rest, led by spiritual leaders, demand that the Antichrist confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Thus Vl. Solovyov shows the need to renounce one's narrowly confessional features for the sake of accepting the full Truth (Christ crucified and risen). The article, like the story about the Antichrist, addressed to the 21st century, makes the modern reader think too Kotrelev N.V., Kozyrev A.P. Complete works and letters in 20 volumes. Works in 15 volumes", "Science", 2000. - P. 84. .
The Resurrection of Christ is the main issue that was the subject of controversy by Vl. Solovyov with Tolstoyanism and Nietzscheism. In conversations, this topic is raised by a follower of Tolstoy, the Young Prince, who denies the Resurrection as a fairy tale and a myth. In the story, the Antichrist speaks of the death of God. The first of the seven Paschal letters "Christ is Risen!" (Bright Sunday, 1897). For the Russian philosopher, humanity without Christ's victory is meaningless and represents the realm of evil and death, and nature is the totality of things eternally dying and being born. The meaning of the victory of life over death can only be in the Resurrection of Christ.
In the last, seventh, Easter letter, "The Meaning of Dogma" (Week of the Nicene Fathers, 1897), Solovyov, on the one hand, points out the danger of a lifeless, abstract understanding of dogma, but on the other, he speaks of the inadmissibility of forgetting one's Christian origins. "One in essence with the Father - proclaimed by the Church through the mouth of 318 fathers", defining after long dogmatic disputes the Nicene Creed.
The primacy of this Creed lies in its assertion of the possibility of union with God through the Resurrection of Christ and his Second Coming. This motif, as well as the motif of the thousand-year reign of Christ, is also present in the story of the Antichrist.
The content of all seven letters is conditioned by the gospel events, the memory of which takes place in the post-Easter time. These seven gospel events are included in the so-called. the period of singing "Color Triodi", the first of the three periods of the church year (the period of singing "Color Triodi", the period of singing "Oktoikh" and the third period - "Lenten Triodi").
The year in church reckoning of time begins on the day of the Holy Resurrection of Christ. With the first Easter letter of "Three Conversations" ("Christ is Risen!"), Solovyov, as it were, begins the calculation of time. But the "Colored Triod" includes eight weeks: the Resurrection of Christ, the Assurance of Thomas, the Myrrh-bearing Wife at the Holy Sepulcher, the Healing of the Paralytic, the Conversation with the Samaritan Woman, the Healing of the Blind, the Prayer of Christ for the Disciples (the future Church), the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the feast of Pentecost (the birth Churches). In this sense, the absence of the eighth article in the Easter letters attached to the "Three Conversations" is interesting. It would have to correspond to the eighth week, Pentecost (Trinity) and end the first period of the church time calculation. Why Vl. Solovyov ends this period, ending "Three Conversations" with a letter dedicated to the dogma of the Sonship of Christ (Seventh Week of the Holy Fathers) Solovyov S.M. "Vladimir Solovyov. Life and creative evolution", 1923. - P. 45. ?
At the end of the week of the Holy Fathers, fragments of the epistle of St. Paul (1 Thess. 4:13-17) and the Gospel of John (5:24-30). Readings are called funeral readings and are usually read at the burial of monks and laity. They speak of the resurrection of all dead Christians "to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4-17). The motive for the resurrection of all the righteous from the dead is also in the "Short Tale of the Antichrist", where the end of the earthly period of the existence of the Church takes place and after this the millennium Kingdom of Christ begins, i.e. in essence, the eighth day of creation is coming, the final victory of the Heavenly Church. In turn, Pentecost, otherwise the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, in Orthodox theology is understood as the birth of the Church, as the foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven. But here begins the line beyond which a person's fantasy cannot cross: "the drama has long been written to the end, and neither the audience nor the actors are allowed to change anything in it." In these words of Mr. Z, the source of which are the lines from the Revelation of John the Theologian (ch.22, 18-19), the philosopher's idea of world history as God's judgment is reflected, which determined the compositional unity of the three dialogues, the story of the Antichrist and applications .
E.N. Trubetskoy about "Three Conversations" by Vl. Solovyov wrote in Art. "Old and New National Messianism": "In Prophetic Foresight
philosopher, the miracle of Pentecost is revived. Fiery languages do not divide peoples, but unite them. The Christianity of Petrovo, Ioannovo and Pavlovo are united in a common confession.
In conclusion, it must be said that "Three Conversations" is an unsurpassed synthesis of fiction, Christian journalism and philosophy. The book has a PROLOGUE, consisting of the author's preface and 3 apologetic dialogues, the "historical drama" itself or THE TALE OF THE ANTICHRIST, and an EPILOGUE, which includes four articles and seven Easter letters. The first four articles complete the thoughts of the prologue, the Easter letters continue the story of the Antichrist. The author himself defined this concept even in the very title of the book: "Three talks about war, progress and world history, with the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist and with applications." It remains to be hoped that the compilers of future editions will take into account the compositional integrity of this unique book.
3. The content of "Three Conversations" by V. Solovyov
This work is built in the form of a dialogue-argument, the essence of which is
interpretation of history, the "moral order" of things, what is their meaning.
Analyzing this work, I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to consider all three conversations separately. Since the theme of one conversation can be traced in the content of others.
The action takes place in the garden of one of the villas located at the foot of the Alps, where five Russians accidentally met: an old military general; politician - "husband of the council", taking a break from theoretical and practical studies of state affairs; the young prince is a moralist and populist, publishing various pamphlets on moral and social issues; a middle-aged lady, curious about all mankind, and another gentleman of indeterminate age and social status - the author calls him Mr. Z.
The first conversation begins with a newspaper article and a literary campaign against war and military service. The General is the first to enter into the conversation: “Does the Christ-loving and glorious Russian army now exist or not? For centuries, every military man knew and felt that he was serving an important and good cause. that we need to forget all this, and the deed that we served and were proud of was declared bad and pernicious, it is contrary to God's commandments ... "The military man himself does not know how to look at himself: as a real person or as a" monster of nature ". The prince enters into a controversy with him, who condemns the war and military service. He expresses his position as follows: "Thou shalt not kill" and believes that murder is evil, contrary to the will of God, and that it cannot be allowed to anyone under any circumstances. "Another point of view is held by a politician who believes that all attacks in Articles are addressed not to the military, but to diplomats and other "civilians" who are very little interested in "love of Christ", and the military, in his opinion, must unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors, although literary agitation against the war is a gratifying phenomenon for him.
The general begins to argue that the army certainly needs complete confidence that war is a sacred cause, thanks to which the fighting spirit will be brought up in the troops. The conversation moves on to the stage at which the consideration of war itself begins as the inevitable evil of disaster, tolerable in extreme cases. I even remember that all the saints of the Russian Church belong to only two classes: either monarchs or wars. This means that the Christian peoples, "according to whose ideas the saints were made," respected and valued the military profession. Contrary to this theory is the thought of the prince, who read from magazines that Christianity unconditionally condemns war. And he himself believes that war and militarism are "an unconditional and extreme evil, from which mankind must certainly and immediately get rid of." What will lead, in his opinion, to the triumph of reason and goodness.
And here we have another point of view. It is expressed by Mr. Z. He says that war is not unconditional evil, and that peace is not unconditional good, that is, there is a good war, which means that a bad peace is possible. Here we see the difference between the views of Mr. Z and the General, who, as a military man, thinks that war can be a very bad thing "... exactly when they beat us, like, for example, near Narva" and the world can be beautiful, like for example, Nystadt. The general begins to tell his interlocutors about one battle on the Aladzhin heights (which was in the war with the Turks), in which "both his own and others were killed," and at the same time everyone fought for "his own truth." To which the prince remarks to him how war can be an honest and holy deed, when it is a struggle of "some robbers with others." But the general does not agree with him. He believes that "if he had died then, he would have directly appeared before the Almighty and would have taken a place in paradise." He is not interested in knowing that there are all people on this and that side, and that in every person there is good and evil. It is important for the general, "which of the two overpowered whom" Soloviev V. Three conversations. Publisher: Studio "aKniga", 2008.- P. 37. .
And here Mr. Z raises the question of religion, Christ, who “did not act by the power of the evangelical spirit to awaken the good hidden in the souls of Judas, Herod, the Jewish high priests. Why didn’t He deliver their souls from that terrible darkness in which they were?"
Interesting is the story of Mr. Z about two Athenian wanderers who came to the following conclusion at the end of their lives: sin and do not repent, for repentance leads to despondency, and it is a great sin.
Further, the dispute again returns to the topic of war. The politician is firmly convinced that one cannot dispute the historical significance of the war as the main means by which the state was created and strengthened. He believes that there is no such state that would be created and strengthened without military action.
The politician cites North America as an example, which had to obtain its political independence through a long war. But the prince replies that this speaks of "the unimportance of the state", and that the war does not carry great historical significance for the conditions for the creation of the state. The politician is trying to prove that the military period of history is over. Although immediate disarmament is out of the question, "neither we nor our children will see big wars." He cites as an example the time of Vladimir Monomakh, when he had to protect the future of the Russian state from the Polovtsy, and then from the Tatars.
Now, there are no such threats to Russia and, consequently, the war and the military are simply not needed. Now, the Politician believes, the war makes sense to be somewhere in Africa or Central Asia. And again he has to return to the idea of "holy wars". He says this: “The wars that were elevated to the rank of saints may have been in the Kievan or Mongolian era. In support of his words, he cites the example of Alexander Nevsky and Alexander Suvorov.
Alexander Nevsky fought for the national and political future of his fatherland, therefore he is a saint. Alexander Suvorov, on the contrary, did not have to save Russia. The salvation of Russia from Napoleon (with him "it would be possible to negotiate") is patriotic rhetoric. Further, the Politician talks about the Crimean War as "crazy", and its reason, in his opinion, is "a bad militant policy, as a result of which half a million people died."
The next interesting idea is that modern nations are no longer able to fight, and the rapprochement between Russia and France is beneficial, this is an "alliance of peace and precaution." The General retorts him, saying that if two military nations collide again, then again "ballots will go", and military qualities are still needed. To this, the politician directly states: "Just as unnecessary organs atrophy in the body, so militant qualities have become unnecessary in humanity."
What does the Politician offer, what does he see as a solution to these problems? And in taking up the mind and pursuing a good policy, for example, with Turkey: "introduce it into the environment of civilized nations, help to form and become able to fairly and humanely govern peoples who are not able to peacefully manage their affairs." There is a comparison with Russia, where serfdom was abolished. What, then, is the special task of Russian policy in the Eastern question? Here the Politician proposes the idea that all European nations should be in solidarity in the interest of cultural expansion.
Specifically, Russia should redouble its efforts in order to quickly catch up with other nations. The Russian people should take advantage of the experience of cooperation. "By volunteering for the cultural progress of the barbarian states, we are tightening the bonds of solidarity between ourselves and other European nations."
But the General, as a man who has been in the war, does not believe in solidarity. To this, the Politician declares that since we ourselves are Europeans, we must be in solidarity with other European nations. However, not all those present believe that the Russian people are Europeans. For example, Mr. Z claims that "we are a special Greek-Slavic type. And the Politician again operates with the fact that" Russia is the great outskirts of Europe towards Asia, that is, the Asian element has entered our nature, has become a second soul. in order to understand everything, “it is necessary to have the predominance of one soul, of course, the best, that is, mentally stronger, more capable of further progress. First, the nations had to be formed, strengthened and "resist against the lower elements."
During this period, a war was needed, which at that stage was a holy deed. And now comes the era of peace and the peaceful spread of European culture everywhere. And in this the Politician sees the meaning of history: "peaceful politics is a measure and a symptom of cultural progress."
Then what's next? Perhaps accelerated progress is a symptom of the end, and, therefore, the historical process is approaching its denouement? Mr. Z leads the conversation to the fact that one cannot care about progress if one knows that "the end of it is always death for every man." The general clarifies this idea, namely, the question of antichrist and antichristianity arises: "not having the spirit of Christ, they pretend to be real Christians." That is, anti-Christianity leads to a historical tragedy, since it will be "not a simple disbelief or denial of Christianity, but it will be a religious imposture."
But how to deal with it? The lady is trying to suggest that you need to take care that there is more goodness in people. The battle between good and evil is inevitable.
The prince draws a line with a quote from the Gospel: "Seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and the rest will be added to you."
So, after analyzing this work, we can briefly summarize and say that: The prince and the politician act as champions of progress, their position is reduced to the installation: everything is for the best in this best of worlds. The politician expresses a positivist interpretation of history and "moral order" as a result of the natural and necessary progress of society (in the second conversation): the world is ruled by necessity, and good in the end is nothing more than a product of culture ("politeness", which is brought up by culture). But such a utilitarian point of view is unacceptable to his opponents, since such an explanation puts the problem of meaning out of the brackets (“one cannot talk about the meaning of war regardless of time”). Such progress does not provide an explanation for history - it is just a "shadow of a shadow." History is a meaningless process.
The prince (in the third conversation) introduces this meaning: it is the building of the city of God on earth. What is the point of view of the author of "Three Conversations" himself? This question cannot be answered unequivocally, since even in the preface Solovyov admits that, although he accepts to a greater extent the unconditionally religious view expressed in the arguments of Mr. Z (the most, in my opinion, the most mysterious of the interlocutors) and in the story of Father Pansofius, nevertheless recognizes the relative truth of the other two: the religious and everyday position of the General and the culturally progressive Politician.
Conclusion
Thus, summing up what has been said, we will draw the following conclusions: "Three Conversations" is one of the last literary and philosophical works of V.S. Solovyov devoted to "eternal questions": good and evil, truth and falsehood, religion and nihilism. The work is built in the form of a dialogue-dispute, the essence of which is in the interpretation of history, the "moral order" of things...
The final work of the great Russian thinker Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is devoted to the eternal questions of being: good and evil, truth and falsehood, religion and nihilism. According to the definition of the philosopher himself, "these are talks about evil, about military and peaceful struggle against it."
The author himself said: “My task here is rather polemical, that is, I wanted to clearly expose the life aspects of Christian truth connected with the question of evil.” it is the real power that by means of temptations owns our world.
The heroes of the work are quite tough polemics, in the sense that they fully substantiate all their statements, and the issues they consider have so many real contradictions that it is difficult for me to decide which position to agree with and which not. I believe that these issues are relevant in our time, because there are still many views, opinions and arguments on this topic. Therefore, it is difficult to say when humanity will be able to come and whether it will come at all to solving such eternal problems as war, progress, history and the prospect of the development of human society.
Bibliography
1. ???? ?. "???????? ???????? ? ???? ???", 1920.
2. ???????? ?.?., ??????? ?. ? ?????? ???????? ????????? ? ????? ? 20-?? ?????. ????????? ? 15-?? ?????", "?????", 2000.
3. ???????? ?.?. "???????? ????????. ????? ? ?????????? ????????", 1923.
four. ???????? ?. ??? ?????????. ????????????: ?????? "aKniga", 2008. - 164 ?.
5. ??????? ?.?. "?? ????????????? ?????", 1926.
Similar Documents
Philosophical and poetic creativity of the Russian philosopher Solovyov Vladimir Sergeevich. Russian religious metaphysics, artistic experience of Russian symbolism. The evolution of Solovyov's philosophical views. Instinctive desire for universal unity.
abstract, added 06/22/2012
Analysis of the problem of Russian self-consciousness in Vladimir Solovyov's article "The Russian Idea". The meaning of the existence of Russia in world history. The eternal truths of religion as a source of understanding the problem. National idea as a social ideal, its religious aspect.
article, added 07/29/2013
A brief biographical note from the life of the philosopher. The essence of unity according to Solovyov. The concept of ontological epistemology. The essence of the concept of "meaning". Philosophical architectonics of the ideas of God-manhood, unity in the concept of Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov.
presentation, added 04/29/2012
The historical theme in the work of the Russian religious philosopher of the XIX century. V. Solovyov. Religious ethics, problems of the theory of knowledge in the social and ideological and theoretical origins of the scientist. The philosophy of "all-unity" as an attempt to create a comprehensive worldview.
test, added 12/23/2010
Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is a classic of Russian idealistic philosophy. The formation of his religious beliefs, the philosophy of eternal femininity. Solovyov's personal qualities and friendly relations. Reflections on the meaning of human love in the articles of the philosopher.
control work, added 02/26/2011
A brief sketch of the life, personal and creative development of the Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century V.S. Solovyov. The essence of Solovyov's philosophy of unity, its distinctive features. The ethical doctrine of the philosopher and its place in modern science.
abstract, added 02/25/2010
Life and scientific activity of V.S. Solovyov - an outstanding, brilliant philosopher of Russia. Social and ideological-theoretical origins of the thinker's philosophical system. Fundamentals of the doctrine of unity as the beginning and goal of the world process, the concept of history and man.
abstract, added 10/25/2011
The nature of human morality in the teachings of Vladimir Solovyov. Religious Doubt and Return to Faith of a Russian Philosopher. Moral principles of human activity. The main philosophical work "Justification of the Good", devoted to the problems of ethics.
thesis, added 04/24/2009
Vladimir Solovyov and the influence of Spinoza's works on his worldview. Philosophical work "Justification of the good" and problems of ethics. General essay on Solovyov's philosophy. The unity of the world soul in its striving for realization. The connection of the divine principle with the soul of the world.
abstract, added 03/22/2009
The idea of a practical, life-building philosophy. Philosophical views, life and creative path of Vladimir Solovyov. The idea of the priority of the spiritual over the material and biological. The philosophy of unity at the beginning of the 20th century: the followers of V.S. Solovyov.
100 r first order bonus
Choose the type of work Graduation work Term paper Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Candidate's thesis Laboratory work Help on-line
Ask for a price
Solovyov Vladimir Sergeevich(1853-1900, Moscow) - the largest Russian. religious philosopher, poet, publicist. Philosophy is a synthesis of the ideas of Western European and Eastern thought. The greatest influence was Plato; less influenced by him. classical idealism (Ch. O. Schelling).
Sermons delivering the material world from the destructive effects of time and space, transforming it into a "cosmos of beauty" and with the theory of the "God-human process" as the salvation of mankind.
Looking for harmony between space and social themes.
Philosophical and historical-religious interests of Solovyov in those developed by him in his works: on the split in Russian. people and society; Polish national church; primitive paganism; heb. prophets; Talmud; Muhammad and his religious doctrine; mediumship and H.P. Blavatsky
"Three Forces"
From the beginning of history, three fundamental forces have controlled human development. The first strives to subordinate humanity in all spheres and at all stages of its life to one supreme principle, in its exclusive unity it strives to mix and merge all the diversity of particular forms, to suppress the independence of the individual, the freedom of personal life. One master and a dead mass of slaves - this is the last realization of this power. If it were to receive exclusive predominance, then humanity would be petrified in dead monotony and immobility. But along with this force, another, directly opposite, acts; it strives to break the stronghold of a dead unity, to give freedom everywhere to particular forms of life, freedom to the person and his activity; under its influence, individual elements of humanity become the starting points of life, act exclusively from themselves and for themselves, the general loses the meaning of real essential being, turns into something abstract, empty, into a formal law, and finally completely loses all meaning. Universal egoism and anarchy, the multiplicity of individual units without any internal connection - this is the extreme expression of this force. If it were to gain exclusive predominance, then humanity would disintegrate into its constituent elements, the connection of life would be severed, and history would end in a war of all against all, in the self-destruction of humanity. Both of these forces have a negative, exclusive character: the first excludes the free multiplicity of particular forms and personal elements, free movement, progress, the second has an equally negative attitude towards unity, towards the general supreme principle of life, breaks the solidarity of the whole. If only these two forces controlled the history of mankind, then there would be nothing in it but enmity and struggle, there would be no positive content; as a result, history would be only a mechanical movement, determined by two opposite forces and going along their diagonal. Both of these forces do not have inner integrity and life, and therefore they cannot give it to humanity either. But humanity is not a dead body, and history is not a mechanical movement, and therefore the presence of a third force is necessary, which gives a positive content to the first two, frees them from their exclusivity, reconciles the unity of the highest principle with the free multiplicity of particular forms and elements, thus creating , the integrity of the universal human organism and gives it an inner quiet life. Indeed, we always find in history the joint action of these three forces, and the difference between these and other historical epochs and cultures lies only in the predominance of one or another force striving for its realization, although the full realization for the first two forces, namely due to their exclusivity, it is physically impossible.
There are three historical worlds, three cultures that differ sharply from each other. This is the Muslim East, Western civilization and the Slavic world. What is the relation of these three cultures to the three fundamental forces of historical development?
Muslim East. He is under the predominant influence of the first force, the force of exclusive unity. Everything there is subordinated to the single principle of religion, and religion itself denies any plurality of forms, individual freedom. The deity in Islam is an absolute despot who created the world and people at will, who are only blind tools in his hands; the only law of being for God is his arbitrariness, and for man it is blind irresistible fate. Absolute power in God corresponds to absolute impotence in man. The Muslim religion suppresses the person, binds personal activity, forms of this activity. Therefore, in the Muslim world, all spheres of public life are united, mixed, deprived of independence, subject to one power of religion. In the social sphere, Islam has no distinction between church and state. The only code of laws, ecclesiastical, political, social, is Alkoran; representatives of the clergy are judges (however, there is no clergy, and there is no special civil authority, but a mixture of both prevails). In the Muslim world, there is no science, no philosophy, no theology at all, but there is only some mixture of the meager dogmas of the Koran. In general, all mental activity is inseparable from practical life. In art, the picture is the same. Painting is forbidden, poetry has not gone beyond lyricism, the character of monism is reflected in music and consists in the monotonous repetition of the same notes. If personal consciousness is subordinated to one religious principle, then neither a great politician, a great scientist / philosopher, nor a brilliant artist can come out of such a person, but only a crazy fanatic will come out. In any religion, holiness is the achievement of the most complete union with the deity through likening oneself to him. This combination amounts to a complete stifling of personal consciousness and feeling, since its exclusive deity does not tolerate another I next to you. The goal is reached when a person is brought into a state of unconsciousness and anesthesia, for which purely mechanical means are used. Those. union with a deity is tantamount to the destruction of personal existence, Islam is only a caricature of Buddhism.
The Muslim East is dominated by the first of the three forces, which suppresses all vital elements and is hostile to all development, this is proved by the fact that for twelve centuries the Muslim world has not taken a single step in internal development.
The exact opposite character Western civilization, it is under the dominant influence of the second historical beginning. This is a rapid and continuous development, freedom, independence of private forms and individual elements. The religious principle from the earliest times of Western history is not exclusive, overwhelming all others. Next to religious unity—the Roman Church—is the world of the German barbarians, who adopted Catholicism, but was not imbued with it and retained the hostile principle of individual freedom, the supreme significance of the individual. This original dualism of the Germano-Roman world was the basis for new divisions. Therefore, each element in the West has not one beginning, but two opposite and hostile to each other, which excluded the power of the first or second.
Each sphere of activity, each form of life is isolated, tends to exclude all the others, to become the only one, and in the end, comes in isolation to impotence and insignificance. Thus, the church, separated from the state, but having appropriated state significance, ends up losing power both over the state and over society. Just like the state. It is separated from the church and the people, has assumed absolute significance for itself, and as a result is deprived of any independence, turns into an indifferent form of society, while the people themselves, having rebelled against the church and the state in the revolution, cannot maintain unity and breaks up into hostile classes. The Western organism, having first divided itself into hostile private organisms, must finally break up into the atoms of society, i.e. individuals, and corporate, caste selfishness must turn into a personal one. It was on this principle that the revolutionary movement took place, which transferred power to the people (the unity of which is connected only with the community of desires and interests, which may not exist). This revolutionary movement has destroyed the distinction of persons from others. In old Europe, this difference and inequality was in the form of belonging to a social group. The principle of freedom in itself has only a negative meaning. In old Europe, the ideal content of life was in Catholicism and knightly feudalism. This gave relative unity and high heroic power. The revolution rejected the old ideals, but could not produce new ones. Individualism has developed excessively, which has led to a general depersonalization and vulgarization, to a transition to empty and petty egoism, which equalizes everyone. The only greatness is the greatness of capital; the only difference and inequality between people is the inequality of the rich man and the proletarian. Against the socio-economic disease of the West, as against cancer, all operations will only be palliatives.
Some believe that in place of an ideal content based on faith, a new content based on knowledge, on science, is given. At present, science does not exist at all, because it simply states general facts. Therefore, the true construction of science is possible only together with theology and philosophy, which contradicts the general spirit of Western development (separation and solitude of various spheres of life and knowledge).
The same can be said about modern art, which does not want to know anything but the most everyday life, strives to be only its exact reproduction.
In the social sphere and in the sphere of knowledge and creativity, the second historical force leads to a general decomposition into lower constituent elements. And if the Muslim East destroys man and affirms only an inhuman god, then the West strives for the exclusive affirmation of a godless man. Everything that such a person does is fractional, private, without unity. BUTThomism in life, atomism in science, atomism in art—this is the last word of Western civilization. It isolated individual elements, brought them to an extreme degree of development, but without internal unity they are dead capital. And if the history of mankind should not end in this negativeresult, this insignificance, if a new historical force is to emerge, then the task of this force will no longer be to develop individual elements of life and knowledge, to create new cultural forms, but to revive, spiritualize hostile, dead in their enmity elements the highest reconciliatory principle, to give them a common unconditional content and thereby free them from the need for exclusive self-affirmation and mutual negation.
The third force can only be a revelation of a higher divine world and the people through which this power is manifested must only be an intermediary between humanity and that world, a free, conscious instrument of the latter. Such a people should not have a special task, to work on the forms and elements of human existence, but only to give life and integrity to dead humanity through its union with the eternal divine principle. Such a people does not need special advantages, special forces, because it does not act on its own, does not carry out its own. He should have only freedom from narrow-mindedness and one-sidedness, indifference to all this life with its petty interests, faith in a higher world and obedience to it. And these properties belong to the tribal character of the Slavs, especially the Russian people. And there is no other bearer of the third force, for the rest of the peoples are under the rule of the first two forces. Only the Slavs are free from these two lower forces and can become the conductor of the third. Solovyov: either this is the end of history, or the inevitable discovery of a third force, the only carrier of which can only be the Slavs and the Russian people.
And just the miserable position of Russia in economic and other respects confirms this vocation. The Russian people must bring into humanity a higher power, which is not of this world, and external wealth and order have no meaning.
When the hour will come for Russia to discover its historical vocation, no one can say, but everything shows that this hour is near, even though Russian society has no awareness of its highest task. But great outward events usually precede great awakenings of the social consciousness. Solovyov hoped that the Russian-Turkish war would push the Russian people to awareness. In the meantime, we must stop creating an idol for ourselves, become more indifferent to the limited interests of this life, and reasonably believe in a higher reality.
This faith is the necessary result of an inner spiritual process - a process of resolute liberation from that worldly rubbish that fills our heart, and from that supposedly scientific school rubbish that fills our head. For the denial of the lower content is thereby the affirmation of the higher, and by banishing false gods and idols from our soul, we thereby introduce the true Divinity into it.
Introduction
In 1900, Vladimir Solovyov published the philosophical work Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of the World.
General, Politician, Mister Z and Lady discuss topical issues that have accumulated in Russian society. The “conversations” are accompanied by a short story in which the monk Pansofius tells about the coming arrival of the Antichrist. All these characters are the fruit of the imagination of Vladimir Solovyov.
The philosopher in an accessible form sets out his vision of the world. This work is rich material for reflection on the future structure of human society.
1. The concept of Vladimir Solovyov
In the preliminary speech, Solovyov writes about "good and evil historical forces." This idea, in my opinion, is nothing but the mythologization of society. In fact, there are neither good nor evil forces in life, just as there are none in the animal and plant kingdoms. Life is divided into spheres of influence of the state, classes, estates, great personalities. Each of these social units has its own ideas about good and evil, and each claims to be the universal truth. If you look at the life of people from a bird's eye view, it will seem like an anthill, a biological mass that exists for no one knows why! Therefore, it makes no sense to consider society from a moral point of view. Everything in life is simple: the strong defeat the weak.
Solovyov rejects "new religions" with their "imaginary Kingdom of Heaven" and "imaginary Gospel". It is impossible not to see that this kind of opposition between true and false religion is conditional, it has no logical basis, but is dictated by the requirements of Orthodoxy that is dominant in Russia.
In the first conversation, the General says: "War is a sacred thing." It's right. However, it seems to me that war is in fact a holy cause, and not only for one Russian people, but for all peoples defending the interests of their country. No nation has privileges!
Mr. Z reasonably objected to the general. His idea is that sometimes war is not "primarily evil" and peace is not "primarily good." Again, it should be noted that at the end of the 20th century, outright "murder" gives way to a new type of war - ideological and informational, the consequences of which are no less, if not more terrible for the people who were defeated in the war.
Solovyov's idea of "pan-Mongolism" turns out to be largely prophetic: in the 20th century, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America come to the political foreground, and Japan and China loudly declare themselves. The latter is turning into a superpower in the 21st century.
In the second conversation, the question of war is again raised. The politician interprets the war as a necessary "historical means". This idea is applicable to the past and partially to the present, because it is directly related to states that are still on the path of self-affirmation. In our time, war is being transformed into a “peaceful” means of enslaving weak peoples by a powerful state. For example, if the United States takes a course towards the dismemberment of a huge Russia, then they will do it in the same “without blood” as they destroyed the USSR.
Politician's thoughts about Russia's foreign policy are not without foundation. If Russia cooperates with Europe, then the Mongols (read: Japanese, Chinese) will not risk attacking it. This is what happens in the 20th century. So it will be in the 21st century. If the West and China unite against Russia, a sad fate awaits her.
Further, the Politician speaks of "one humanity" under the auspices of Europe. The first part of this thought is rational, the second is doubtful. Indeed, unifying processes are taking place in the 20th century: in the world of socialism and capitalism, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in the League of Arab States, within the United States with its globalization, in a united Europe. However, the opposite process is also evident: Western civilization is actively populated by Asian, African, and Latin American peoples. To this it must be added that in the 21st century, US hegemony will inevitably weaken.
In the third conversation, Mr. Z assures that "progress is a symptom of the end." The foreboding of future tragic events gives rise to thoughts about the End of the World, has a real basis: the 20th century turns out to be the century of the collapse of the empire, world wars and revolutions, in our 21st century humanity is threatened with an ecological catastrophe. Nevertheless, we believe in a favorable outcome of events. We hope that people will begin to live intelligently. In addition, it is necessary to then explore other planets.
Mister Z is convinced that the "Antichrist" will appear under the guise of a respectable Christian. But he will be exposed and overthrown. Mister Z has no doubts about the ultimate victory of life over death, good over evil. And this will happen through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reject this Christian doctrine is, to say the least, reckless. After all, it is possible that scientists will discover the law of immortality, and the Christian dream will turn out to be a reality. Already now a person can be endowed with extraordinary abilities, but whether the “superman” will be the “Antichrist” or the Christ is another question!
It's interesting that Mr. Z thought about a new earth "lovingly betrothed to a new Heaven" - isn't this a foreshadowing of people settling on other planets?
In the story about the “Antichrist” attached to the Three Conversations, we find a number of Solovyov’s prophecies that come true in the 20th-21st centuries. They are:
1. The 20th century will be the last century of destructive wars;
2. In the 20th century, "pan-Mongolism" will declare itself;
3. In the 20th century, the militarization of Japan and China will take place;
4. In the 20th century, a world war will break out (which, however, is unleashed not by China, but by Germany).
5. The 20th century will be marked by active interaction between the West and the East.
6. The United States of Europe will emerge in the 20th century;
7. The 20th century will be marked by an unprecedented rise in culture, science and technology;
8. At the same time, naive materialism and naive faith in God will sink into the past.
Monk Pansophius predicts events that are waiting to be realized in the following centuries. He foresees the emergence of an outstanding personality capable of leading the world government: it will be an intelligent, flexible politician, spiritualist and philanthropist, who considers himself a second Christ, in whose person people will see the “great, incomparable, only” leader. He will proclaim himself the guarantor of "eternal universal peace." However, the hour will come when the true believers will recognize the false goodness of the "Antichrist" and overthrow him from the throne of power. With the help of heavenly forces, the unification of all Christian denominations and Jews will be accomplished. Thus, through the mouth of Pansophia, Vladimir Solovyov expresses the idea of a universal church (the word "pansophia" means universal wisdom, which once again points to the secular tendencies in Vladimir Solovyov's religious outlook). Who knows in what form the synthesis of divine wisdom and human wisdom would have taken place in the views of the philosopher, had he lived for another two decades?
2. Ruler of the world.
How does the future ruler of the world appear from today's height?
The ruler of the world will emerge from among the people. This will allow him to become a universal personality with an all-encompassing outlook on life.
By his deeds and accomplishments, the ruler of the world will predetermine the course of history and make a significant contribution to the social life of people.
The ruler of the world will come to power through a multi-part and carefully calibrated electoral system. Random people are completely excluded, neither money, nor family ties, nor powerful politicians can help him take a high post.
The ruler of the world must have a comprehensive and penetrating mind in order to solve the most difficult problems facing humanity. He must be able to take into account the interests of various states, civilizations and cultures, be able to manage a universal society, monitor climate change, send people on space expeditions, establish contacts with representatives of other civilizations, and finally solve the problem of prolonging human life.
It is doubtful that the worldview of the ruler of the world will play a significant role in his social activities: he can be a believer or an atheist, a Christian or a Jew, belong to the white, yellow or black race. Another thing is more important: he needs to be a planetary-minded person!
The best features of the ruler of the world include will and determination at the moment of external (extraterrestrial) and internal danger. He realizes that the fate of mankind is in his hands, and therefore he shows firmness and perseverance in achieving his goals.
The ruler of the world is not given to be a reformer. It consolidates the experience of many generations of people. He is cautious and reserved about innovations. However, he is moving forward, improving society. Thus, the ruler of the world is a conservative-minded renovationist.
As the head of a conservative-liberal society, the ruler of the world will ensure the harmonious balance and natural interdependence of old and new laws.
How to lead the peoples of the world? Both difficult and simple! It is necessary to make sure that every nation is happy and proud of its contribution to the universal culture!
The ruler of the world will enjoy the exclusive confidence of peoples and politicians.
The long stay in power of the ruler of the world will ensure the effectiveness of his laws and regulations for decades and centuries.
The ruler of the world will not seek popularity among people either by good deeds or by success in public work. He does not need admirers, associates, followers, he needs respect and a worthy assessment of his work. It will be a matter of honor for him to be sent into space on one of the human colonies. He is sympathetic to civic duty, remembering how at one time Ancient Rome sent consuls to manage numerous provinces.
Endowed with an outstanding intellect, the ruler of the world will undoubtedly have the highest moral and spiritual culture. Therefore, there is no reason to expect the coming of the "Antichrist" or Christ, the Tempter or Savior of mankind!
Vladimir Solovyov
Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of World History
With the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist and with applications
Dedicated to departed friends of early years
Nikolai Mikhailovich Lopatin and Alexander Alexandrovich Sokolov
FOREWORD
Whether there is a evil only natural flaw, imperfection disappearing by itself with the growth of goodness, or is it a real strength, through temptations owning our world, so that in order to successfully fight it, you need to have a foothold in a different order of being? This vital question can be clearly investigated and solved only in a whole metaphysical system. Having begun to work on this for those who are able and inclined to speculation, I, however, felt how important the question of evil is for everyone. About two years ago, a special change in the mood of the soul, about which there is no need to expand here, aroused in me a strong and persistent desire to shed light in a visible and generally accessible way on those main aspects in the question of evil, which should affect everyone. For a long time I did not find a convenient form for the fulfillment of my plan. But in the spring of 1899, abroad, the first conversation on this subject took shape and was written in a few days, and then, upon returning to Russia, two other dialogues were also written. Thus this verbal form appeared of itself as the simplest expression for what I wanted to say. This form of casual secular conversation already indicates quite clearly that there is no need to seek here either scientific-philosophical research or religious preaching. My task here is rather apologetic and polemical: I wanted, as far as I could, to clearly expose the vital aspects of Christian truth connected with the question of evil, which are covered with fog from different sides, especially in recent times.
Many years ago I read the news of a new religion that had arisen somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers were called vertidyrniki or hole grinders, consisted in the fact that, having drilled a hole of medium size in some dark corner in the wall of the hut, these people put their lips to it and insistently repeated many times: "My hut, my hole, save me!" Never before, it seems, has the subject of worship reached such an extreme degree of simplification. But if the deification of an ordinary peasant hut and a simple hole made by human hands in its wall is an obvious delusion, then I must say that this was a true delusion: these people went wildly crazy, but did not mislead anyone; about the hut they said this: hut, and the place drilled into her wall was rightly called hole.
But the religion of the hole-mowers soon experienced "evolution" and underwent a "transformation." And in its new form, it retained the former weakness of religious thought and the narrowness of philosophical interests, the former squat realism, but lost its former truthfulness: its hut was now called the "kingdom of God on the ground", and the hole began to be called the "new gospel", and, what is worse, the difference between this imaginary gospel and the real one, the difference is exactly the same as between a hole drilled in a log and a living and whole tree - this essential difference the new evangelists did their best to keep silent and speak.
Of course, I am not asserting a direct historical or "genetic" connection between the original sect of hole-molders and the preaching of an imaginary kingdom of God and an imaginary gospel. This is not important for my simple intention: to clearly show the essential identity of the two "teachings" - with the moral difference that I noted. And the identity here is in the pure negativity and emptiness of both "worldviews". Although the “intelligent” perforators do not call themselves perforators, but Christians and call their preaching the gospel, but Christianity without Christ is the gospel, that is good news without that good, which would be worth proclaiming, precisely without a real resurrection into the fullness of blessed life, there is the same empty place, like an ordinary hole drilled in a peasant's hut. All this might not have been talked about if a false Christian flag had not been hoisted over the rationalist hole, seducing and confusing many of these little ones. When people who think and quietly affirm that Christ obsolete, outdated or that it did not exist at all, that this is a myth invented by the Apostle Paul, at the same time they stubbornly continue to call themselves “true Christians” and cover up the preaching of their empty place with altered gospel words, here already indifference and condescending neglect are no longer in place: in view of the infection moral atmosphere, through systematic lies, public conscience loudly demands that a bad deed be called by its true name. The real purpose of the debate here is not a refutation of an imaginary religion, but the discovery of a real deception.
This deception has no excuse. Between me, as the author of three works forbidden by spiritual censorship, and these publishers of many foreign books, pamphlets and leaflets, there can be no serious question about external obstacles to complete frankness on these subjects. The restrictions on religious freedom that we still have are one of the greatest heartaches for me, because I see and feel how harmful and burdensome all these external restrictions are, not only for those who are subjected to them, but mainly for the Christian cause in Russia, and consequently, for the Russian people, and consequently, for the Russian states.
But no external situation can prevent a convinced and conscientious person from expressing his conviction to the end. You can’t do this at home - you can do it abroad, and who more than preachers of an imaginary gospel use this opportunity when it comes to applied politics and religion? And on the main, fundamental issue, in order to refrain from insincerity and falsehood, you don’t even need to go abroad, because no Russian censorship requires you to declare such convictions that you don’t have, to pretend to believe in what you don’t believe in, to love and honor what you despise and hate. In order to behave conscientiously towards a well-known historical Person and His cause, only one thing was required of the preachers of the void in Russia: to remain silent about this Person, to “ignore” Him. But what an oddity! These people do not want to enjoy the freedom of silence at home on this subject, nor the freedom of speech abroad. Both here and there they prefer to adjoin Christ's gospel outwardly; both here and there they do not want either directly - by a decisive word, or indirectly - by eloquent silence - to truthfully show their real attitude towards the Founder of Christianity, namely that He is completely alien to them, is not needed for anything and is only a hindrance to them.
From their point of view, what they preach by itself understandable, desirable and salutary for everyone. Their "truth" rests on itself, and if a well-known historical person agrees with it, so much the better for him, but this still cannot give him the meaning of the highest authority for them, especially when the same person said and did a lot of things, that for them there is both "temptation" and "madness."
If, even due to human weakness, these people feel an irresistible need to base their convictions, in addition to their own "reason", on some historical authority, then why should they not look in history another more suitable for them? Yes, and there is such a long time ready - the founder of the widespread Buddhist religion. After all, he really preached what they needed: non-resistance, dispassion, non-doing, sobriety, etc., and he even succeeded without martyrdom"make a brilliant career" for their religion - the sacred books of Buddhists really proclaim emptiness and for their complete agreement with a new sermon on the same subject, only a detailed simplification would be required; on the contrary, the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and Christians are filled and thoroughly imbued with positive spiritual content, denying both the ancient and the new emptiness, and in order to tie its sermon to some gospel or prophetic saying, it is necessary to break the connection of this saying with the whole book by all falsehoods, and with the immediate context, while the Buddhist suttas they give in solid masses suitable teachings and legends, and there is nothing in these books in essence or in spirit contrary to the new sermon. By replacing the “rabbi of Galilee” for her with a hermit from the Shakya family, imaginary Christians would not lose anything real, but would gain something very important - at least in my opinion - the opportunity to be conscientious and to some extent consistent in error. But they don't want to...