Russian Philosophy of The 19th - Early 20th Century

Russian Religious Philosophy of the 20th Century

1. S. Solovyov emerged as a pivotal figure whose influence profoundly shaped the trajectory of Russian philosophy. His ideas significantly impacted a notable array of Russian philosophers, collectively termed the "Russian Religious Philosophy," which flourished in the 20th century, particularly after his death. Let us examine a few representatives of this movement.

Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky (1882-1937) studied mathematics and philosophy at Moscow University and theology at the Moscow Spiritual Academy. He was ordained as a priest in 1911 and perished in a labor camp during the era of mass repressions. His principal philosophical work is titled "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth," drawing its name from a phrase in the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy: "I write these things to you, hoping to come to you shortly; but if I delay, that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14-15). The central question of his philosophy is the quest for truth and its revelation, which is attained through a religious experience affirming that God is the "concrete unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Truth is accessible to consciousness only through rational intuition, a path with several stages:

1. The stage of logistics, characterized by the dominance of rational philosophy, which fails to establish criteria for truth;
2. The stage of probabilism, where probable reasoning prevails and operates conditionally, as in "if truth exists, then it is...";
3. Asceticism, or religious experience, which is fundamentally rooted in love, as knowledge of the "Pillar of Truth" can only be attained through love.

Florensky understands love in an ontological sense. Humanity is drawn into a community of individuals bound by love, and this community is none other than "the Church or the Body of Christ."

Florensky’s teaching is also referred to as sophiology, derived from the concept of Sophia, interpreted as the "Wisdom of God." Sophiology synthesizes Platonism with the ancient traditions of the cult of wisdom. According to Florensky, the connection between the world and God is twofold: it manifests as the meaning of "created" existence, which corresponds to God's design, and as the love of the creature towards God. Both aspects intertwine to yield something new, namely, that each created being corresponds to its "ideal person," a quantification of meaning and love. Florensky also embraces Solovyov's concept of the All-Unity, which expresses the union of all things based on love.

Sergey Nikolayevich Bulgakov (1871-1944) completed his law studies at Moscow University and worked at the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute (1901-1906). He later served as a professor at the Moscow Commercial Institute (1906) and the University of Simferopol (1918), but was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1923. Bulgakov authored works such as "The Philosophy of Economy," "The Uncreated Light: Contemplations and Speculations," a two-volume collection titled "Two Cities," "From Marxism to Idealism," and many others, primarily theological works imbued with philosophical inquiry.

Bulgakov is recognized as a religious philosopher. "I began as a publicist," he wrote, "but upon examining the foundation of societal ideals, I came to understand that this foundation lies in religion." Perhaps Bulgakov's most philosophical work is "The Uncreated Light." The title is borrowed from O. S. Khomyakov's poem "Evening Song": "Lord, our path is among stones and thorns, our path in darkness... You, Uncreated Light, shine upon us!"

"The Uncreated Light" consists of an introduction about the nature of religious consciousness and three sections: The Divine Nothing, The World, The Man. Bulgakov identifies the essence of religious consciousness as faith, which has two dimensions: the subjective aspiration or human inquiry, and God's response, or objective revelation, that is, knowledge received through revelation.

In the section "The Divine Nothing," Bulgakov discusses the antinomy of religious consciousness, arising from God's transcendence and simultaneous immanence in the world. This duality has led to the development of two paths in religious consciousness: apophatic (negative) and positive theology. Bulgakov devotes considerable space to analyzing the works of medieval religious philosophers and mystics. Any apophatic theology must address the topic of God's creation of the world. Bulgakov introduces a dialectic of Nothing and Something, asserting that Nothing is not absolute. "The Divine Nothing as Something," writes Bulgakov, "signifies the primordial, originating pulsation in its unchanging depth, in its noumenal unity, the divine arche. In relation to this Nothing, all being—whether divine, worldly, or human—becomes Something: in Nothing, Something arises... Nothing constitutes the initial moment of the dialectic of being, to which it is attached and to which it returns; it corresponds to the greatest generality, non-differentiation, and non-manifestation of being, yet it remains fully within its plane—in other words, Nothing is."

In the second section, as in the philosopher’s worldview as a whole, "Sophia" occupies a central place. Sophia stands between God and the world, yet she is neither dissolved in the former nor the latter. Sophia represents the fourth hypostasis (recalling the Trinity) of God, embodying the organic unity of the ideas of all creatures; she is both the soul of the world and natura naturans (the creative nature): "In her visage, turned toward God, she is His Image, idea, Name. When turned toward Nothing, she becomes the eternal foundation of the world... She represents the higher world in the ungraspable, eternal ideas... The created world exists, having as its foundation the world of ideas that illuminates it; in other words, it is sophian, this is the greatest, most substantive, and most essential truth about the world, the essence of the cosmology of Platonism." In the matter of Sophia, Bulgakov observes a resemblance between Platonism and Christian theology.

In the third section, Bulgakov presents his anthropology and philosophy of history, which are, of course, permeated with a religious, even biblical, perspective. However, the crux of the matter lies not merely in the philosophical stance Bulgakov adopts towards humanity. He attributes antinomy to humanity as well: "Man is simultaneously creature and non-creature, absolute in the relative and relative in the absolute. He is a living antinomy, an irreconcilable duality, an embodied contradiction." The creative essence of humanity is emphasized, possessing the mystery of transcendence stemming from divine essence.

Yet, the true subject of history is the entirety of humanity. Humanity and its history emerge from the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise. Thus, history is the birth of humanity manifested through the change and interrelation of generations. Given that the life of an individual is intertwined with creativity, history, too, is a form of creativity. Humanity is primarily the subject of economic (productive) activity, wherein an "active-labor" influence on nature is realized. Bulgakov also considers the role of other types of activity in history.

The historical life of humanity demands organization, which is ensured by authority. The philosopher notes the dual nature of authority, encompassing both active and passive elements, that is, the ability to rule and the readiness to submit. The course of history will culminate in its end: "The goal of history leads beyond history, toward 'the life of the age to come,' while the goal of the world leads beyond the world, toward 'a new earth and a new heaven.' Only in the kingdom of glory, when time is complete, will the goal of creation be realized, and all present is but the pangs of birth. Humanity and all creation will be resurrected in Christ and in Him will realize its nature."

Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948) studied at the law faculty of Kyiv University. He was a publicist and editor of various journals. In 1918, he founded the Free Academy of Spiritual Culture. In 1920, he became a professor at Moscow University, but two years later, he was exiled from the USSR. His principal works include "The Philosophy of Freedom," "The Meaning of Creativity," and "The Philosophy of the Free Spirit."

Berdyaev's creativity is challenging to grasp through logic, as he did not pay much attention to consistency or systematic exposition. However, one can note the stability of certain themes: freedom, creativity, the individual, moral issues, and the philosophy of history. Let us briefly consider some of these themes.

Berdyaev initially seeks to establish the central question, the resolution of which determines the trajectory of one’s worldview: “It is not the distinction between spirit and matter, the psychic and the physical, that constitutes the fundamental and ultimate opposition... The primary opposition must be recognized as that between spirit and nature.” Spirit is the subject, characterized by freedom and creativity, while nature is the object, the thing, the immobile. Mental phenomena also pertain to nature. The spirit, however, is neither an objective nor a subjective reality: “Spiritual life is not an objectively substantial reality, but it is even less a subjective reality. Both objective and subjective understandings of spirit are equally erroneous.” The apprehension of spirit occurs through experience. All philosophical systems that are not founded on spiritual experience are naturalistic. “Spiritual experience,” Berdyaev notes, “is the essence of spiritual life, the truest reality of spirit, the most genuine reality of the divine.” Spirit is God, and vice versa. God, as spirit, is truly present in the lives of the saints, in individuals engaged in intense spiritual existence, and in human creative endeavors: “The spiritual experience of saints, mystics, and individuals of a higher spiritual life represents the very reality, the manifestation and revelation of spirit and God.” Those with significant spiritual experience do not require rational proof of God's existence. Berdyaev is convinced that expressing God through concepts is impossible, as reason falls into antinomy.

In his doctrine of freedom, Berdyaev identifies three forms: primary irrational freedom; rational freedom; and freedom rooted in love for God. The first freedom is grounded in the “Nothing” from which God created the world. From this perspective, the first freedom is not created by God, as it resides in the “Nothing” and is eternal. This explains the possibility of evil in the world, for which God bears no responsibility. The second, rational freedom consists in adherence to moral law and leads to obligatory virtue, thus it cannot be true freedom. Regarding these two forms of freedom, Berdyaev writes: “Freedom is understood as that initial irrational freedom, the freedom preceding good and evil and determining their choice, and as rational freedom, freedom in good, freedom in truth.” The third form of freedom, true freedom, is the free love for God: “God awaits from humanity a love that is freely given. Humanity awaits from God freedom, that is, that the Divine truth will liberate them. But God also awaits freedom from humanity, a free response to the divine call. True freedom is what God requires from me, not what I demand from God.”

Concerning his teachings on humanity, Berdyaev believed that the central focus of his philosophical work is precisely the problem of man. “I am a representative of personality, risen against the authority of the objectified ’general.’ This is the passion of my life. My ultimate philosophy is a personal philosophy, connected with my personal experience. I can say that I have had experience with humanity, which is the sole subject of philosophy.” Berdyaev’s fundamental propositions regarding humanity can be summarized as follows.

Man is a microcosm and a micro-God, created in the image and likeness of God. Simultaneously, humanity is a natural being, constrained by limitations. Within humanity lies a duality: man is the intersection of two worlds, reflecting both a higher and a lower reality. As the image and likeness of God, man is a person. The person must be distinguished from the individual. The individual is a natural-biological category, while the person is a spiritual-religious category. The individual is a part of nature and society, whereas the person cannot be a part of anything; it is a singular whole, relating to society, nature, and God. As a corporeal being, humanity is connected to the entirety of worldly life, and as a spiritual being, it is linked to the spiritual realm and to God.

Berdyaev’s philosophical-historical thoughts are also intertwined with his Christian positions. He wrote that we live in a time fragmented into past, present, and future. The triumph over the deadly march of time is the primary task of the spirit. The meaning of history is grasped through tradition, which represents a creative connection between the past and the present. Acknowledging infinite progress in history would imply recognizing the meaninglessness of history. The meaning of history must be significant for each human individual; it must be commensurate with their personal destiny. The idea of progress, however, sees each person and each generation merely as a means for the future generations. History must have an end, and the meaning of history is linked with eschatology.

For existential philosophy, Berdyaev emphasized, society is part of the person, its social aspect. Within the person exists a spiritual principle that is not defined by society; thus, there are limits to the authority of the state and society over humanity. The highest type of society is one that harmonizes the principles of individuality and the principles of community (the equivalent of this term is the well-known German word Gemeinschaft). Berdyaev is willing to call this type of society personalist socialism, wherein the absolute value of each individual is acknowledged, and the principle of justice and brotherly cooperation among people prevails.

Lev Platоновich Karsavin (1882-1952) completed his studies at St. Petersburg University, specializing in medieval history. In 1922, he was also expelled from the USSR. From 1928 to 1949, until his arrest by the Soviet authorities, he worked in Kaunas (Lithuania) and died in the Abes' concentration camp (Republic of Komi, Russia).

Karsavin approached philosophy from the perspective of history. His first philosophical work was published in 1922. He moved within the framework of the metaphysics of “all-unity,” connecting a series of thinkers from V.S. Solovyov through P.O. Florensky, S.M. Bulgakov, and S.L. Frank. He understood all-unity as a category of ontology denoting the principle of an internal form of perfect unity of multiplicity, where the elements are identical to one another and identical to the whole but do not completely merge within the whole, creating what he called a “polyphony.” One of the central concepts of his metaphysics is also that of the “stretched,” interpreted as the whole's integral presence within the part. His metaphysics of all-unity extends into a philosophy of personhood, particularly expressed in the doctrine of the “symphonic person.” This concept applies not only to isolated individuals but also to all groups of people, which themselves represent specific “symphonic persons.” Karsavin’s entire philosophy also bears a religious character.