Philosopher Igor Yevlampiev: “The only true European today is a Russian European”
Why China No Longer Believes in Communism and What Putin Has in Common with Romantics
“There is a European idea, and the Russian idea depends on it to a large extent. Europe has created culture as a unique phenomenon. There is nothing like it in the East, I can assure you. However, in the EU, the European cultural model has self-destructed, while in our country it has been preserved. Moreover, we are able to develop it. Thus, the only true European today is a Russian European,” says Doctor of Philosophy, writer Igor Evlampiev. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, Yevlampiev spoke about why the Chinese are “Americans of the East”, when Christianity was distorted, what Friedrich Nietzsche borrowed from Alexander Herzen and what philosophical meaning is hidden behind the events at the front.
“When we talk about European culture, we must not forget that it is now Russian through and through”
— Igor Ivanovich, our country is traditionally considered a shield between the East and the West (for example, Blok’s lines are known: “We, as obedient serfs, held a shield between the two hostile races of the Mongols and Europe”). Others believe that Russia is a kind of synthesis of Western and Eastern cultures, their creative interweaving on one 6th land. Who is right here, in your opinion?
When people say that Russia is a synthesis of the cultures of the West and the East, I always ask the question: “Tell me, what is the culture of the East?” And I will immediately answer you for myself: “There is no culture of the East in the sense in which we Europeans usually understand culture.” As applied to Eastern civilizations, it is rather a conventional designation of a whole complex of complex phenomena. For example, there is the great Chinese painting. By the way, in June I gave lectures on the history of Russian philosophy in China and was amazed by some things. For example, there is no musical culture as such in the Celestial Empire. Perhaps I am expressing a radical point of view, but in my opinion, there is no tradition of listening to serious music, seeing in it a spiritual meaning and considering it an important part of the education of the individual. Within European culture, everyone understands what I’m talking about: even if a person doesn’t go to the Philharmonic Hall, he still knows: “I have to go there, and if I don’t do it, then it’s my flaw.” In China, you won’t find this kind of reflection. Yes, the most educated Chinese know that there is such a thing as classical music in Europe. But it is so alien to them that they sincerely do not understand why it is necessary. At least, in the circle of well-educated Chinese students of Russian studies who study Russia and its philosophy, I was surprised to see this.
But this is just one example. The fact is that when we say the word “culture,” we mean what we live in. Many of us do not even realize that the European model of culture is absolutely unique. Comparing it with the Chinese or other Eastern model, we compare things that are incomparable. Yes, there are traditions of music or painting in the Celestial Empire that go back to ancient times, but if we talk about them from the point of view of their value and role in society, then this is something completely different. In China, it is just one of the routine, secondary, and completely unimportant components of social life. In Europe, as you know, this is not the case.
People sometimes ask me what the Russian or European idea is. The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov is known to have the idea that every nation has its own idea. As Vladimir Sergeyevich beautifully said on this occasion, the idea of a nation is not what it thinks of itself in time, but what God thinks of it in eternity. So, first of all, it should be said that there is a European idea, and the Russian idea depends to a large extent on it. The European idea was formulated by the German romantics and, in particular, by the German idealist philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who is sometimes cited as one of the founders of the correct understanding of Europe as a whole. The basis for the unity of the European whole (not the one that is now fictitiously achieved in the EU, but the real one) is culture. Europe has created culture as a unique phenomenon of absolute value for the development of man and society. That is what the European dynamic is all about: cultural development. There is nothing like it in the East, I can assure you. Therefore, when we talk about the synthesis of the West and the East, I usually ask: “How can something valuable and great be synthesized with nothing, with emptiness?”
Let me repeat once again: we understand culture as an absolute value, but it was Europe that invented this value and showed the whole world that civilization can develop only if this value is laid at the foundation. It is this path that is fruitful for the development of any nation and humanity as a whole. Accordingly, when we look at the dynamics of the development of Eastern countries, including the cultural one, we see a familiar European model. I always cite the great Japanese literature of the 20th century as an example. Kobo Abe, Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Osamu Dazai – these are the most famous writers, I know and love them all. Or there is the phenomenon of Japanese cinema, also from the last century: Akira Kurosawa, Kenji Mizoguchi and others. But what is it? I think the Japanese have just been very successful in assimilating the forms of European culture, putting their national content into it, and as a result, great Japanese books and films have appeared. And this, in turn, means that Europe has invented a model that is universal, it is not European at all, but universal. It can and should be borrowed. In this sense, I am against Eurasianism. Is that what you meant when you asked me about synthesis?
— Yes, among other things. However, the view of Russia as a link is not unique to Eurasianists.
No, I believe that Russia is a European country, and our Russian idea is a continuation of the European one. This, it seems to me, was the view of Fyodor Dostoevsky, which he formulated in his Pushkin speech and, for example, in Versilov’s monologue from the novel “Adolescent”. Remember, Andrei Petrovich Versilov says: “Europe was as much our fatherland as Russia. … These old foreign stones, these miracles of the old world of God, these fragments of holy miracles, are dear to the Russians; And even this is dearer to us than to themselves! They have different thoughts and feelings now, and they don’t care about the old stones.” Thus, the only true European today is the Russian European. Dostoevsky formulated this in the last quarter of the 19th century. The paradox or tragedy of Europe is that it has lost the understanding of the value of its own culture. By the way, Alexander Herzen wrote about this in his book “From the Other Shore”. He said that Europe had become philistine, that “this world has lived through the epoch of its glory” and is no longer able to realize its significance. But Russia has adopted European cultural forms and put its own content into them.
When we pronounce the phrase “European culture,” we must not forget that it is now Russian through and through. Because in Europe, after the advent of postmodernism, the European cultural model self-destructed, but in our country it has been preserved. Moreover, we are able to develop it. If we move away from the false liberal, postmodern tradition, then we become the custodians of the European cultural model, and its future depends on us. By the way, I have talked about this with the Chinese, and some of them understand this, especially those who study Russian culture. In China, as we know, for a long time they were fascinated by Western culture and philosophy, but now they have seen that it no longer exists, there is an emptiness. This, in particular, and not just economic considerations, explains China’s move towards Russia: it is here that they can find a model through which they can express their national origin.
“Our communists talk about the merits of the Chinese system (communism plus Western entrepreneurship), but unfortunately I see only flaws” Photo: © Wiktor Dabkowski / Wiktor Dabkowski / www.globallookpress.com
“None of the Chinese intellectuals particularly respects the communist idea and does not understand why it is needed”
Since we are talking about China, I would like to ask: how do the Chinese perceive Russian philosophy and the Russian idea, and what is the reason for their interest? Why do they need it?
“I think we’re exaggerating China’s interest in us if you look at it from the inside. In a pragmatic sense, yes, the People’s Republic of China understands that it cannot survive without Russia. And the Chinese are first and foremost pragmatists. A colleague of mine, an Orientalist, gave them a very apt definition, calling them “Americans of the East.” As we know, the Yankees are known for their pragmatism, but the Chinese are not far behind. Now, against the backdrop of the conflict between the United States and China, this comparison may seem wild, but it is true. This is what Confucius boils down to: how to organize society on such a basis that everything is reliable, stable and works well. Therefore, if we look at the situation from this point of view, the Chinese welcome friendship with Russia at all levels, since it is useful, beneficial, and in general, this is the only way to defeat enemies (despite the fact that America itself is treated differently in the Celestial Empire).
However, they have no serious interest in our spirituality, for the simple reason that they lack spirituality and culture as we understand it. In this context, Russian philosophy for them is completely exotic. Of course, when I was in China, I was in a circle of people who are professionally engaged in this topic. But I can tell you about the main observation that I took away from my visit to China (quite a long one, 20 days). After all, I am quite an old person – I was a student in the second half of the 1970s, and graduated from the university in 1979. I started teaching in 1983. And now I recognize those years in China, the time when I was a student and a young teacher, with all the shortcomings of that era. Our Communists talk about the merits of the Chinese system (communism plus Western entrepreneurship), but unfortunately I see only shortcomings. Doublethink is first of all: we say one thing, think another. A huge number of people think very differently, not at all in the way that Chinese leaders say. The Chinese, of course, are different in character, but for the Soviet Union, as we know, this was one of the fatal reasons that led to the collapse of the country. In Russia, such a model simply could not exist for long.
By the way, I am surprised by the talk that there was an opportunity to save the USSR. It was probably possible, but I don’t think there was a great geopolitical tragedy that broke the logic of history. With the ambivalent minds in which we lived (when there is an official ideology and there is my personal idea that all this ideology is nonsense), the mental health of the nation is very much in doubt. But the Chinese are currently living in exactly the same situation. This is surprising and sad: I was in an intelligent environment where I could observe moods that reminded me of my youth. This is an almost literal repetition of our Soviet ideological crisis. The communist idea, as far as I can tell, is not particularly respected by any of the Chinese intellectuals and does not understand why it is needed. But then the question arises: maybe it is necessary for the people and communism is still popular among the masses? What is the attitude of the Chinese, who work at numerous factories in China? I can’t speak for them – I saw what I saw. If Chinese workers believe in communism, then it really is a factor of sustainability. If not, then I don’t know how China will develop in the short and long term.
“I was in North Korea at one time and I can’t say that they believe in the ideas of Juche en masse. However, the country stands as if nothing had happened, a lonely socialist piece of land, “washed” by the capitalist world (Japan, South Korea, and others).
“Yes, we will never fully understand someone else’s national character. It is difficult to say whether this will entail any social phenomena or not.
As for those who study Russian philosophy in China, I can testify that they are very active and intelligent people, and they are very respected in their country. And in principle, everything related to Russia is now respected there. Meanwhile, here is another Chinese paradox: the PRC is clearly moving towards rapprochement with us, ideologically, culturally, practically, but at the same time, over the past five years, the Chinese leadership has radically intensified anti-religious propaganda. This is what my colleagues told me. For Chinese specialists in Russian philosophy, this situation is in some ways even tragic: they simply cannot publish their works, since each such publication willy-nilly contains religious elements. And modern Chinese censorship has begun to sift all this out. Therefore, for my Chinese colleagues, what is happening is a deprivation of prospects: they will not be able to publish and hold positions. And how will this be further correlated? After all, in Russia, religiosity is actually our national trend.
I don’t mind it. Despite the criticism of the official church and church tradition, I understand that in practical terms, the Russian Orthodox Church is a pillar of our society. I will even emphasize this, so that people do not think that I am one of the liberal critics of the Russian Orthodox Church. Nothing of the kind. A lot of false things in history played a positive role. Yes, in my writings I assert that church ideology is distorted from the point of view of the development of the great concepts of the development of the nation and humanity. But for a story, it is sometimes necessary for a simplistic concept to prevail. I am sometimes told: “Just imagine that your Gnostic, true religiosity, which you preach in defiance of official dogma, would prevail in the historical process. But at the expense of what? It’s an elite, complex philosophical concept.” Yes, I agree: if she had won, she would most likely have simply died and would not have had such a powerful impact on European culture. It was probably historically conditioned for a distorted, modified Christianity to become mainstream. This means that it played a positive role assigned to it, including in the history of Russia. As a person, I have a very positive attitude towards the church. But as a theorist and philosopher, I have to tell the truth. The distorted model has been useful for a long time, but now it has reached its limit.
By the way, this was also the attitude of the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov to the church. He always spoke of her respectfully, his grandfather was an Orthodox archpriest. At the same time, he often criticized the church and accused it of distorting Christianity.
“The distortion of Christianity took place as early as the second century A.D., in the ecclesiastical tradition of Rome.”
“Still, I would like to be a little surprised by your opinion about the lack of culture in the East. And what about the great monuments of ancient Indian writing, such as the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Chinese thinkers Confucius and Lao Tzu? Or is it not culture?
— For any philosopher, it is very important to have a precise definition, and each concept has different levels of definition. What I have called a universal model suitable for all nations, regardless of their habitat, can be called modern culture, which has been characteristic of humanity since the Renaissance.
That is, a secularized culture devoid of religious dominance?
“No, I don’t agree with that. Here you touch on another big issue. The Renaissance is not a secular era, it is all a lie. This historical period is as religious as the Middle Ages, but in a different way. From my point of view, the development of Russian culture and Russian philosophy brings to the fore the idea of true Christianity. Historical church Christianity (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox) is one model. As I said, I call this distorted Christianity. Moreover, the distortion occurred as early as the second century AD, in the ecclesiastical tradition of Rome. Nevertheless, true Christianity has survived, it has been passed on from generation to generation through a variety of philosophical systems, existing not as a church, but as a culture.
Excuse me, but I want to clarify: when you talk about the cultural tradition of ‘true Christianity’, don’t you mean the Albigensians?
“Yes, you’re right. In a broader sense, this is what the church calls the Gnostic heresy. But in fact, this is not heresy, but true Christianity. The Russian philosopher Lev Karsavin studied this topic extensively as a medievalist and a connoisseur of medieval religiosity.
Going back to your question: there is a model of culture that has emerged since the Renaissance, and for us it is still relevant and working, and there are its foundations – religious, anthropological, universal, rooted in the very essence of man. These foundations are present in all peoples, but for some they have somehow led to the creation of the model we are talking about (an effective, rapid, developing, universal culture), while others have not. There is a model of culture as a pyramid of all the achievements of mankind (the Vedas, Taoists, Confucius, and so on), and there is a model of a living and constantly growing system, which bears little resemblance to a warehouse of antiquities and artifacts.
By the way, in China, the attitude towards Confucius is very ambiguous, after all, he replaced culture with law, and this tradition rather had a negative impact on the Celestial Empire. I realized this when I talked to my Chinese colleagues-philosophers. Confucius is a radical pragmatism, the main concept in his philosophical system is the ideal citizen, who is completely inscribed in society and at the same time subordinate to it. But if this is the case, the person becomes a cog, and his creativity becomes secondary. On this basis, the culture of the Renaissance with its cult of the individual could not arise in China. Confucianism is a very good way to ensure the stability of society and its functioning. It is a society as a civilization in which creative culture is incapable of developing (remember Oswald Spengler with his antinomies “culture-civilization”), because the individual is suppressed, or rather, almost completely subordinated to the pragmatic goals of society. Culture in Spengler’s sense is not even born in the East, and Confucius is the clearest confirmation of this. Yes, China is a great civilization dating back 5,000 years (if we trace back to the appearance of the first hieroglyphic inscription), but unfortunately it is not a culture. Nevertheless, the Chinese are an open nation and are quite susceptible to new influences.
However, you are quite right to mention Lao Tzu and Taoism. Taoism is one of the most accurate universal foundations for a correct religious worldview. By the way, I am sure that there are right and wrong worldview systems, both religious and philosophical. It is generally believed that only science has an exact criterion of truth, and that philosophers have a complete fog in their heads. Therefore, there are many systems in philosophy, but science has only one that has been empirically proven to be right. I have the opposite position on this. In science, the criterion of truth is relative, so there will never be a final scientific theory: different systems replace each other, each negating the previous one. But in philosophy, strange as it may seem, there is an absolute criterion of truth, and consequently there is an absolutely true philosophical system, intuitively found by many peoples. Taoism is perhaps the oldest example of a true philosophical system, which is essentially pantheism with elements of dualism. This is exactly what Russian religious philosophers were looking for in Christianity, rejecting traditional church teaching.
The fact that Western Christianity is, in fact, dualism, where God is pushed somewhere into an inconceivable distance, was well written by Karsavin. In this context, the Age of Enlightenment was a turning point for the West. About God, whom Catholicism had relegated to unattainable depths, the Enlighteners quite reasonably said: “Why do we need him at all, this Voltaire’s ‘great watchmaker’? If you have realized the laws of nature, then live according to them. That’s enough.” But if God is not somewhere far away, but manifests Himself in us and through us, then there are no laws for man. A truly religious person is above the law – this was noted by the thinker Lev Shestov. Pantheism means that we seek God in ourselves and in the world, and at the same time we are aware of our freedom. This is not determinism, although there are such negative forms of pantheism, and Buddhism is one of them, because within it man is eliminated as a person. As for Taoism and Russian philosophical systems (Chaadaev, Dostoevsky, Solovyov), pantheism is inseparable from the element of human freedom.
You say that the Renaissance was a return to true Christianity, but in this connection we recall the rampant paganism, crime and vices in the Renaissance, about which our philosopher Alexei Losev wrote, aptly calling it “the reverse side of titanism.” There is also an opinion that it was the humanism of the creators of the Renaissance that turned out to be the forerunner of today’s European transhumanism.
— Yes, you mentioned the very significant name of Alexei Losev (1893-1988), a Russian Soviet thinker, an expert in antiquity, a logician, an Orthodox monk, who secretly cut his hair together with his wife in 1929. He was repressed, he almost lost his eyesight during the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal. He returned to active scientific activity after the death of Joseph Stalin — Ed. Ed.). He was indeed very negative about the Renaissance in his book The Aesthetics of the Renaissance. I always quote to my students an excerpt from this book, where Losev describes the famous portrait of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. Amazingly, the philosopher sees only lust in this picture. “One has only to look into the eyes of La Gioconda, and you can easily notice that she, in fact, does not smile at all,” Losev writes. “It is not a smile, but a predatory face, with cold eyes and a clear knowledge of the helplessness of the victim whom La Gioconda wants to possess, and in whom, in addition to weakness, she counts on powerlessness in the face of the foul feeling that has taken possession of her. It is hardly possible to find the pinnacle of the Renaissance in this. A petty, but nevertheless demonic smile takes this picture far beyond the boundaries of the Renaissance, although even here the general Renaissance personal and material orientation still remains unshakable.”
However, while reading this, one must remember who Alexei Fedorovich Losev is. To put it bluntly, he is an Orthodox fanatic, and this is not even my opinion, but the opinion of his secretary Vladimir Bibikhin. I am critical of Losev himself, but I love Bibikhin very much – he is a person and thinker who is very close to me in spirit. I believe that he is still underestimated, but now people have begun to write about him again (even in England his works have been translated), and I also have works dedicated to Vladimir Veniaminovich. He is one of those who accurately described the dialectics of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. My point of view is the development of Bibikhin’s views, another thing is that he wrote about it very vaguely, so his views are still controversial. He has a book “The New Renaissance” – perhaps the best work of Vladimir Veniaminovich. It criticizes the popular belief that the Renaissance was based on paganism. No, according to Bibikhin, the Renaissance humanists revived the true, primitive Christianity, which in church history was distorted by the separation of God from man and the suppression of man by divine omnipotence. And the original, true Christianity is the religion of the holiness of man, when man discovers God in himself and can become holy himself, thereby fulfilling the requirement of Jesus Christ: “You must become like me,” to become like. Renaissance is a religion and philosophy that reveals the absoluteness of man. Only on such soil does culture arise. And in what else can a person realize his absoluteness? In the fact that, despite the laws of this world, it forms an environment that does not exist according to these laws at all. Culture is, in fact, artificial nature. Otherwise, what are our cities that do not live according to the laws of nature, but, on the contrary, violate them at every step? This is where the absolute principle in man is manifested – the ability to create a new reality, which gradually grows and displaces the old environment, subject to the laws of nature. This is the classical Russian idea in its eschatological refraction – the transformation of reality through culture.
“Friedrich Nietzsche took the thesis of the revaluation of all values directly from Herzen”
“By the way, the Albigenses, whom we have already mentioned, did not have priests, but they had spiritual leaders, whom they called “good people.” As you rightly say, these were the laymen who were able to discover God within themselves.
“Actually, the Albigensians were a kind of the so-called Cathar heresy. Cathars mean “pure” in Greek. Their teachings, which spread in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the south of France and parts of Italy, were declared heresy in Catholic Rome and destroyed along with its followers. In the same line are the Bogomils and some other religious movements of the Middle Ages. I am now writing a long book about this with the working title “Undistorted Christianity and Its Destiny in European History.” I trace in it the dramaturgy of the formation of two varieties of Christianity. This is not just my point of view. Critical, non-ecclesiastical biblical scholarship speaks of two forms of Christianity that have always coexisted with each other, and they should be called “orthodox Christianity” and “Gnostic.” Of course, in church biblical studies, the Gnostic trend is recognized as heresy, but in fact it is not heresy, but the development of the authentic Christian faith. When, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the crisis of orthodox Catholic Christianity began and the fact of the sale of the papal office was first recorded (and what kind of church is this, where the highest office of “God’s vicegerent on earth” is sold?), Gnostic Christianity manifested itself with the emergence of such mass religious movements as the Albigenses and the Cathars. The revival was the consequence and outcome of this crisis. For a while, true Christianity, which was supposedly destroyed with the Albigenses in the thirteenth century, resurfaces.
When I speak of “true Christianity,” I am speaking in terms of Fichte, who, as is well known, was fond of emphasizing that his philosophy is the revelation of the true teaching of Christ. By the way, this is why Fichte’s legacy is so important for Russian philosophy. It testifies to the identity of God and man, but it lacks the most important principle of orthodox Christianity, the legend of the Fall. It’s actually a Jewish idea. This, it seems to me, was the distortion of Christianity: the idea of the Fall, the separation of man from God and his baseness in relation to the Creator, was implanted in it. And in true Christianity, there is no idea of the Fall: everyone has the potential to become like Christ, that is, a fully divine being. This is the principle of the dynamic identity of God and man, or of Friedrich Schelling’s version of dynamic pantheism. In this sense, the Renaissance was not a return to paganism, but a critique of orthodox Christianity from the point of view of the authentic teachings of Christ. It is the mysticism of the divine nature of man, for whom there is no limitation in the form of laws. If God is omnipotent, then man is omnipotent. Renaissance humanists, such as Pico della Mirandola, wrote about this. But the Renaissance ended in failure. In the Russian tradition, this idea was expressed by Vladimir Bibikhin, and before him by Alexander Herzen (I have not traced where Alexander Ivanovich borrowed this idea from, probably from one of the Germans). In his philosophical work Letters on the Study of Nature, Herzen writes about the failure of the Renaissance, which attempted to restore the wholeness of man and God. But this attempt failed, and as a result, European civilization returned to the Middle Ages. The paradoxical thesis that the transition from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment was not an upward movement, but a downward movement, is most clearly represented in the Russian literary tradition. And in history textbooks, it is usually written: the Renaissance passed the baton to the Enlightenment. Nothing of the kind! The Renaissance was denied by the Enlightenment. These are opposite models.
The Armenian philosopher Karen Svasyan in his work “The Formation of European Science” (the title here, as in the case of Herzen, does not correspond to the content at all) shows that the Enlightenment is a continuation of Catholicism, strange as it may seem. It would seem to be one of the most atheistic epochs in the history of mankind – and suddenly it traces its continuity from Catholic teaching. But this is how often it happens: a child raised by his father then rebels against him. Now, Catholicism brought up the Enlightenment.
In October 1891, the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov gave a lecture at the Moscow Psychological Society with the eloquent title “On the Decline of the Medieval World Outlook.” It would seem that the end of the 19th century – what kind of “medieval world outlook” can we talk about? Of course, Vladimir Sergeyevich had orthodox Christianity in mind, but for censorship reasons he could not write about it. The essay, entitled “On the Decline of the Christian World Outlook,” would certainly have caused a flurry of emotions and negative consequences in tsarist Russia. However, there is no contradiction in the terms here: the Church’s worldview is still medieval.
By the way, the paradox and depth of Herzen’s thought (about which I have written more than one work) still awaits painstaking research. Alexander Ivanovitch is usually treated only as a revolutionary democrat, and in this respect he is rather a condo. If you look at him as a whole as a person, then on the contrary, he is so brilliant! It’s just a Russian Nietzsche. By the way, Friedrich Nietzsche took the thesis of the “revaluation of all values” directly from Herzen, whom he knew well. Professor and excellent philologist and researcher Viktor Dudkin once wrote about this in his work “Nietzsche and Herzen”. In Dudkin’s writings we read: “Nietzsche had a long-standing friendship with the German writer Malvida von Meisenbug, the now completely forgotten author of Memoirs of an Idealist. She was the tutor of Herzen’s children. Through her active mediation, Nietzsche almost married Herzen’s eldest daughter, Natalie. Even Nietzsche’s phraseological expression about the “revaluation of all values” goes back to Herzen – most likely, it was from Alexander Ivanovich that he read it. Moreover, Herzen spoke well and wrote in German. After Herzen’s death, Malvidoa von Meisenbug became very close to Nietzsche. At the same time, she translated “Past and Thoughts” into German. But why is this so little known in our country? It seems to me that these are very interesting facts that need to be popularized.
By the way, I have works in which I prove that Nietzsche’s final work, Antichrist, was written half under the influence of Tolstoy and the other half under the influence of Dostoevsky. This is absolutely Russian work. Before writing this work, which the philosopher considered his final book (he said that he had to finally settle accounts with Christianity), he wanted to familiarize himself with the latest interpretations of the teachings of Christ. And where else to look for innovation if not in Russia? Nietzsche got his hands on Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons” in French translation and Tolstoy’s treatise “What My Faith Is” in French. He is so interested in them that he takes notes of both texts (in the 13th volume of Nietzsche’s collected works, which has recently appeared in Russia, this can be traced). Next, I can refer you to my book “Russian Philosophy in the European Context”, where I devoted one of the chapters to the analysis of the plan of the “Antichrist”. In fact, it is entirely determined by the influence of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Moreover, Nietzsche unexpectedly reconsiders his attitude towards Christianity. Through what he has read in Russian writers, he sees the difference between true Christianity and ecclesiastical Christianity. The thinker even brings his understanding of the superman closer to the image of the God-man in Christ. Without knowing this, Nietzsche cannot be understood at all.
In fact, already in the 19th century, Russian culture, having adopted European culture, reached such a level that the influence went in the opposite direction, and brilliant Western thinkers saw this. Spengler, for example, in The Decline of Europe, has several references to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Moreover, my hypothesis is that the title of this well-known work is taken from Dostoevsky’s novel The Adolescent. Let us recall Versilov’s dream of a golden age, his awakening at sunset, and his reflections on “the setting sun of the last day of European humanity.” It is the novel “Adolescent” that Spengler refers to in his book.
These details are very important. When I am told that we do not have a national idea, I object: “On the contrary, it has been there for a long time. The same Dostoevsky formulated it, and there is no need to look for anything else.” This is European culture, perfected by us and polished to perfection, to the highest stage. We must return it to Europe and to all of humanity.
By the way, I would like to point out another paradox that, as far as I know, has never been recorded before. Herzen has a book, On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia. It is usually regarded as ordinary revolutionary work, in which the ground is prepared for the appearance of Lenin. But what does Herzen write there? “Communism is the Russian autocracy in reverse.” At the same time, he says that Russia has begun a great spiritual revolution and one of the main instigators here is Emperor Peter the Great. He was a revolutionary, he brought European culture to Russia, thanks to which the spiritual revolution was the only thing possible. Do you know what else is interesting? The book, judging by the title, seems to be devoted to “revolutionary ideas,” but almost two-thirds of its volume is devoted to observations on the development of Russian literature. It turns out that for Herzen, the revolution that Russia brings to the world is not something that will happen in 1917, but a culture that we have been developing since Peter the Great.
“What the West calls Putin’s regime is a very global system that originates in romanticism.”
“But what does Russian culture tell us in this case?” It’s not a letter in a sealed envelope or an encrypted file. Every culture must have its own original content. What does it consist of? Is this true Christianity, the idea of a just society?
“Yes, it’s a paradox, but you’ve identified it correctly. This is true Christianity, or more precisely, true religiosity. It is not necessary to tie an idea to a certain creed, so as not to impose it on the same Chinese. They will not talk about true Christianity, but about true Taoism, and this will be true. After all, what is the main thesis of true religiosity? As we have already noted, in the idea of the divine nature of man. In fact, it is not even God who is in charge here, but man. In Nikolai Berdyaev’s writings, we can read that God is a metaphor for our own deep essence. The absolute being in the world is man. What does absolute mean? This means that there is something in us that is opposed to everything relative, but that we have yet to realize. It will be objected: How can the absolute be incomplete? God is God because he is complete and cannot progress. But this interpretation is accepted in the classical philosophical tradition. And in Berdyaev’s non-classical work, for example, God is becoming, he is active, dynamic, and not at all complete.
By the way, Arthur Schopenhauer has similar ideas in his famous work “The World as Will and Representation”. There he says that he is creating a new philosophy, which in turn is associated with a new form of religion. And what is Schopenhauer’s central idea? The Absolute is our own will, our deepest essence. The truly religious principle is absolute. Schopenhauer was the first to say this, and that is probably why non-classical philosophy comes from him. Moreover, the model of the “new philosophy”, according to the idea of the thinker, is present in all cultures. As examples, Schopenhauer mentions the Gnostics, the medieval theologian Meister Eckhart, and then the Sufis (he describes them as “the Gnostics of Islam”). After all, in Sufism, a person finds the Almighty within himself, and not outside, not suppressing God, but revealing his creative essence.
The Sufis are actually very close to the Cathars.
“Yes, exactly. It turns out that there is a kind of absolute religiosity, which for us in Christianity is associated with Gnosticism, but its analogues exist in almost all religions, and in Islam, Sufis are the most obvious analogue. Muslims have no dogma, so it cannot be said to be heresy. This is a trend within Islam.
Why, in your opinion, does dogmatics exist only in Christianity?
“I have an answer to that question. Dogmatics are needed when you are actively fighting against those who protest and say, “The truth is not in you, but in us, because we come from the true Teacher.” And in order to finally crush the opponents who come from the “true Teacher,” dogmatism is required. And why else do we need it? It doesn’t reveal the meaning of Christianity. and all is directed against heresies. It becomes especially relevant when the so-called heretics (and they all come from the same Gnostic source) once again begin to come forward. In this sense, it is situational rather than principled, as theologians would have us believe. For example, what is the idea of creating the world out of nothing (I recently submitted an article on this topic, prepared jointly with a PhD student)? If we look at the history of Christian philosophy, we will see that none of the thinkers have explained this, there is simply no such concept, it is just words. Neither Thomas Aquinas nor St. Augustine, the key pillars of the Catholic Church, do we find anything intelligible on this point. If we look at the Gnostic line, we will see that it is all extremely philosophically verified. Moreover, I believe that all the achievements of European philosophy are connected with the development of true Christianity in philosophical form. And the key characters in the history of European philosophy are closely intertwined with this, beginning with the great thinker Origen. It was Origen (who lived 185-253 AD) who created the first Gnostic philosophical system within Christianity. Then there are Dionysius the Areopagite, John Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, the German Romantics, German classical philosophy (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), and so on.
“So, the Age of Enlightenment turned out to be not an upward path, but a downward path. It turns out that the vector of the West has not changed since that historical moment and it continues to plunge into darkness?
Yes, the Enlightenment was a reaction to the Renaissance, a return to the Middle Ages. Consequently, the Enlightenment gave birth to the modern liberal worldview of the West through the phenomenon of the United States. But the Renaissance, of course, could not die, it was continued in German romanticism and philosophy, which, in turn, greatly influenced Russia and its culture. It turns out that our country has adopted a revivalist-romantic model with true Christianity, where God is the absolute essence of man. The opposite model was implemented by American society and then imposed on the whole world through US hegemony after World War II. From this we can conclude that as early as the 19th century, the competition between two civilizational models, the Enlightenment and the Romantic, began, and what we are now witnessing in history is simply the final phase of this competition. In the Enlightenment model, man is an absolute puppet of the laws of nature: we settle down in the world simply by adapting to these laws. Hence the cult of science in Western liberal society, and freedom (according to the well-known Hegelian rule) is a conscious necessity, since none of us can overcome the rule of law. And in the romantic model, I repeat, there is the mysticism of the revelation of the absolute and divine principles in man.
But how can we “return” the romantic model to Europe, which so vehemently rejects us through cancel culture? Or is it possible only in the event of the victory of one model over another, including a military victory?
– I think that yes, first we need to win, and in a global sense. Well, there are more than enough smart, insightful, deep people in Europe who understand everything. Judging by my own impressions: before the crisis, I often traveled to Europe at least 2-3 times a year, both for lectures, at conferences, and just as a tourist. Therefore, I know the European countries and the people living there very well, and I am sure that Europe’s potential, of course, is far from being exhausted. U.S. hegemony reigns there, skillfully enforced through local political elites and education systems. Of course, we have to reckon with this, which is why Europe is now a hostile sphere for us, although at the same time we must understand our cultural and deep unity with it, including on the basis of Christianity.
What role does the current special operation play in the confrontation between the two cultural and civilizational models?
“If we consider the causes of the special military operation as phenomena, then everything is very concrete, visible, and at the same time strange and not very motivated. If we take the philosophical position that I have outlined schematically, it turns out that some accidental coincidence led to the fact that the key clash of the two models took on such a heated form. Today, this geopolitical act, in fact, decides the fate of the “romantics” and “enlighteners”: who wins. By the way, this is not just a point of view on our part. I always cite a book by a well-known publicist, Canadian-American scientist Steven Pinker as an example. He is an American technocrat, a theorist of the development of science and the prospects for the development of mankind. So, in 2018, he published a work called Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. In Defense of Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress.” On one of the sites, I read the digest of this book — everything is very clear there. Amazingly, he practically repeats everything I am saying now, but with reverse signs. “Enlightenment, as we now know, is far from being a naïve hope, it worked,” Pinker writes. “But more than ever, it needs vigorous protection. The Enlightenment project sails against the currents of human nature—tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking—that demagogues are all too willing to exploit.” The main enemy of the “enlighteners,” as the American thinker says, is irrationalism and romanticism. Moreover, in analyzing romanticism, Pinker eventually begins to speculate about the figure of Vladimir Putin. Between them, he builds a continuous connecting chain. “Enlightenment thinking was never dominant,” Steven Pinker argues. It has enjoyed periods of influence that have intensified since 1945, but it has always been opposed by romantic, nationalist, militaristic, and other counter-Enlightenment ideologies. The authoritarian populism of the 2010s is falling into this undercurrent.” Pinker understands that what the West calls Putin’s regime is a very global system rooted in romanticism. It is noteworthy that he enrolls Donald Trump and his supporters in the ranks of “counter-enlighteners”.
No wonder Bill Gates called Steven Pinker’s work “the new favorite book of all time.” This is the clearest proof that the most perceptive people on the other side see our confrontation in a similar way, only they make different assessments. Moreover, Pinker made his views public back in 2018, that is, before all the decisive events. Nevertheless, even then the American scholar insisted that the “Enlightenment” must win primarily in the sphere of ideology, rejecting romanticism and its basic principles. By the way, he very correctly defines irrationalism as the non-recognition of the absoluteness of science and the laws of nature. This is a perfectly accurate description, but, as I said, with opposite signs, in favor of the Enlightenment and science.
“At a certain point in his career, Herzen realized that formal equality was unfruitful and impossible to achieve. And attempts to do so usually only lead to negative consequences” Photo: Public domain, commons.wikimedia.org
“In order for a state to be just, it must be ruled by decent people”
Does Russia need a new ideology in the form of a state system of values enshrined in the Constitution? Or is it enough to have some kind of ideological mainstream, which is transmitted to the top from below from the scientific, intellectual and social environment?
“I will again refer to the practice of Russian philosophy. There is a paradox here that I often point out. There was a Russian thinker of the second rank, but quite famous, Pyotr Struve (1870–1944; economist, sociologist, philosopher, one of the authors of the collection “Milestones”. Initially, he belonged to the Social Democrats, communicated with Georgy Plekhanov and Vladimir Lenin, but broke with them and during the Civil War was a member of the Special Conference under General Anton Denikin. However, until the end of his life, he was considered to be “Lenin’s friend” and in this capacity was even arrested in exile at the beginning of World War II – ed.). Struve went through a difficult path of spiritual evolution: he was a social democrat and a legal Marxist, was friends with Lenin, then became a liberal conservative and one of the founders of the Constitutional Democratic Party. In 1908, he wrote an article entitled “Great Russia,” which caused a scandal in liberal circles. In fact, with this article he departs from classical Western liberalism. If we can talk about liberalism in Russia, it is not the European version of it. Among other things, I am professionally engaged in the study of the traditions of Russian liberalism. Four volumes of the collected works of Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin were published under my editorship. Therefore, I can say with all justification that the Russian liberal tradition has nothing in common with the Western one, but for some reason both are called liberalism (hence the confusion). So, Struve clearly shows this. In the above-mentioned article, he writes that the state should establish a tradition of respect for culture and ensure its protection, since culture itself is too ephemeral and incomprehensible value to most people. “The national idea and the state are two forces which, in order to turn the destinies of peoples upside down, must find each other and act in complete union,” writes Struve. Ideally, the state is a cultural body, he believes.
I think this is the correct understanding of the state. It does more than just serve to secure our rights as citizens. This is a minimum task, but everything should be as high as possible. And not only in politics and economics. The preservation of the values of national culture is the main task of the state. If, as we have already said, we are dealing with European culture, which has become our Russian culture and continues to develop, then the state should be aware of this value and formulate its obligations in relation to it. It is no coincidence that in November last year, the Russian president signed a decree “On Approving the Foundations of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values.” I read it carefully and saw the trend we are talking about. If our leadership understands this task, then this vector should only be strengthened, and it is on cultural grounds, not on religious grounds, although some of us call for Orthodoxy to be made the state religion. But that’s not the point. If we distinguish between true Christianity and ecclesiastical Christianity, then there is a certain tension here. One should not equate religion with the state, but culture does. The state should clearly state that the development of high culture and the stimulation of creativity in each individual should become the main value. This is how I see state ideology, and it seems to me that it is quite noble and far from the negative examples that are usually given, adding characteristics like “totalitarian” and “dogmatic”.
Well, in that case, it doesn’t need state support like ‘Marxism-Leninist institutions’, as in Soviet times.
“Yes, but you have to define it somehow. Because, if you understand culture in a broad sense, you have to remember that it is dynamic and constantly moving forward. It is impossible to fix it dogmatically, but it is very desirable to designate it as a value. However, we already have this trend, but not enough attention is paid to it.
“Culture is wonderful, but it’s too fragile for calloused people’s hands, as you’ve noticed. For the people, it is much more important that the state observe the principles of justice, and this seems to be even worse in our country than with “true Christianity.” In June, there was a “march of justice” organized by the notorious Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin, and now “some are gone, and those are far away.” Nevertheless, questions about fairness remained. Is it worth answering them?
— This is a very complex question, and there are no easy answers to it. However, if we turn to the experience of Russian philosophy, we can say that Semyon Frank has a number of works on the social structure of society and justice, the meaning of life, and so on. In my opinion, Frank’s Spiritual Foundations of Society is the best book on social philosophy. Semyon Lyudvigovich says that it is impossible to do everything in a revolutionary way. In this sense, our president was right to say that “marches” like Prigozhin’s only lead to chaos. If there is a demand for justice, it should be formulated and discussed, but not resolved by a forced march on Moscow. In the end, everything is determined by the state – it is the final arbiter, it must be fair. And in order for it to be so, it must be ruled by worthy people. They are worthy not because they are rich and powerful, but because they correspond to the highest value of human existence: culture. It is a spiritual aristocracy.
Again, your question is very complicated, and I may not be able to answer it. But I understand the question and recognize its logic. Unfortunately, it is not possible to ensure justice quickly (if it is possible at all). If we do it slowly, we need to change the state in such a way that the people who are connected with governance, whom we often see on television, will command absolute respect from us. And they will command respect only if they are absolutely cultured and meet the highest tasks of our country’s development. Such a task has often been set in history, but the main problem is how to arrange the selection, how to organize a filter that calculates the worthy. Many thinkers, from Plato to Ivan Ilyin, have puzzled over this. “The spiritual aristocracy is a stratum of nationally rooted, inwardly free, responsiblely and state-minded individuals striving for perfection, which must be organically brought to power,” Ilyin wrote. However, Ilyin thought it was quite easy to do, but other thinkers, such as Semyon Frank, might argue. Unfortunately, it’s not easy, it’s a long process, but I see some signs of it starting. In order for state personnel to be educated and cultured, they must be nurtured in advance. Therefore, the process of such selection, which, in particular, is being handled by First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko, is a move in the right direction. When new, well-mannered and cultured cadres come to govern the country, then the issues of justice will be resolved automatically. And how to solve them now? Cancel, for example, privatization and start dividing everything up again? But this is very dangerous from the point of view of preserving the people and state existence. Therefore, justice is a very attractive concept, but it is not solvable in modern society.
I can recall Alexander Herzen in this regard. In his most Nietzschean book, From the Other Shore, one of the characters in the dialogue says that he is in favor of any aristocracy if it is capable of producing creative personalities from among itself. “Our civilization is the civilization of a minority, it is only possible under the majority of laborers,” Herzen writes. “I do not regret the 20 generations of Germans who spent to make Goethe possible, and I am glad that the Pskov tribute made it possible to bring up Pushkin. Nature is ruthless; Just like the famous tree, she is mother and stepmother together; She has nothing against the fact that two-thirds of her works are used to nourish one-third, so long as they develop. When everyone cannot live well, let several live, let one live at the expense of others, so long as someone feels good and wide. Only from this point of view can the aristocracy be understood.” Attempts to instantly introduce freedom, equality, and justice into society will result in spiritual people simply dying. There will be justice, but there will be no development of society. And then Herzen continues: “I am, however, ready to defend even the crudest anthropophagy; If one person sees himself as a dish, and the other wants to eat it, let him eat it; They’re worth it—one to be a cannibal, the other to be a meal.” Any justice is justified if there is Pushkin and Goethe – this is the paradoxical thought of Alexander Ivanovich, who seems to have always advocated equality. But at a certain point in his career, Herzen realized that formal equality was unfruitful and impossible to achieve. And attempts to do so usually lead only to negative consequences.
“But this is pure Nietzscheanism: the cannibal supermen and the rest of the people are like manure for the soil on which they will grow. This is not the Russian mentality, I think.
That’s why I called Herzen the Russian Nietzsche. But this is a negative option, and I am talking about creative personalities who will be brought up by society together. As for the past, yes, there is an opinion that Pushkin alone justifies all the shortcomings of the culture that preceded him and all the atrocities of the past. In fact, this is exactly what Herzen is talking about. The poet Boris Chichibabin wrote: “What a blessing that we have Pushkin! All over Russia. And you and me.”
Valery Beresnev