Alarm - Russian philosophy.

RRUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY

  POWER OF KEYS
  (Selected chapters)

  Lev Shestov
────────────── ────────────────────────────

  Eros and ideas

Everyone is looking for truth and everyone is sure that by searching
the truth is, they know what they are looking for. There are quite a few
and those who have already found the truth and surprised
are angry or indignant why others don’t
share with them the joy of such
happy find. And in fact, why-
mu? Why do I see so clearly that I’m right?
others think that there is no special right
I don’t have them and my “convictions” don’t have them
no advantages over those expressed
before other people's beliefs?   And,
the main thing is why I so persistently pursued
Do I worry about others admitting I’m right?
Is this recognition really what I need?
It must not be so necessary anymore! After all, with
as long as the world has existed, no one has ever
managed to get everyone to “recognize” themselves.
After all, not only Catholicism, I count
hundreds of millions of followers, elevating
sorry, goud semper, ubigue et ab omnibuscreditum est (...what has always been believed,
everywhere and everything [lat.]). We often see how
a person who managed to gather around himself a non-
a large circle of believing disciples, semi-
feels complete satisfaction and imagines
regrets that his little world is not something
humanity even, and the universe, which is not ten-
current weak people saw in him a prophet, and
that all people, all rational beings are with him
and for him, they only fight against him
inveterate and stubborn enemies of light and truth
us. What is the secret of such blindness?  Not that
whether that a person actually doesn’t care at all
we need "universal recognition", which is so
Philosophers talk a lot, and that according to the most
by its nature, truth is not something that cannot,
but he doesn’t really want to be the truth for everyone.
I know that such an assumption will be a prize.
nano unacceptable, I also know that it is
contains an irreconcilable contradiction.
But I have already expressed it more than once and now again
I repeat that internal contradiction
judgment is not at all sufficient
an objection to it. Of course you can't
this situation cannot be reversed, that is, it is impossible
to say that the inconsistency of a judgment
there is proof of its truth.  Maybe
be, no matter what, there is inconsistency
one of the signs of approaching the latter
truth, for it testifies that man
century has lost its fear of the usual criteria -
mi. In any case, it is certainly not possible
say that anythingjudgment concluding
contains an internal contradiction, for no reason
people don't need it. If people thought so...
whether, half - and the best, most interesting -
naya - our thoughts would never be highest
cauldron, and humanity would be spiritual
much poorer.

A whole series of “truths”, and perhaps truths
the most remarkable - they cannot find
general recognition and, most importantly, most of the time
they don’t achieve this. I’ll explain in
least. In his "metaphysics of love" Chopin
Gower develops the idea with great wit
that love is only fleeting
loving illia:

"Short, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and
the short-legged sex could be called beautiful
only besotted with sexual instinct
male intellect: this is where the instinct
where lies all its beauty."

  Schopenhauer A. Complete. Collection Essays.
  M., 1903. T.3, p. 895.

“Volya” needs to show itself once again in the indie
mind, and she inspires Ivan with the idea that
Maria is an extraordinary beauty, and Marya,
that Ivan is a hero. Once the goal of "will"
achieved, the birth is ensured
new being, "will" provides love
lovers to themselves, and they are convinced with horror,
that they lived in a disgusting and senseless
misconception Ivan sees the "real"
Maria, that is, fat, stupid, boring
babu, Maria -"real" Ivan, then
there is an empty, vulgar and cowardly guy.
And this time, that is, after
the charm of love, Ivan's judgment and
Marya completely agrees with her judgments
everyone, with the fact that semper, ubigue et ab
omnibus creditum est. Because everything, always and
everyone thought that Mary was ugly and stupid
pa, and Ivan is a coward and a dumbass.  Schopenhauer
has no doubt at all that Ivan and Marya
it was then that we saw the real action
activity when they saw what everyone else saw.
And Schopenhauer is not the only one who thinks so - it is
again what semper, ubigue et ab
omnibus creditum est. But just because
that this truth is accepted as so un-
doubtful, it is appropriate to raise the question of
the validity of her claims.  Is it really
Ivan and Maria were mistaken at that time
a short time when “will” lit up before
we have our magic light and they entrusted
facing some mysterious and irresistible
to my attraction, we saw each other like that
much beauty? What if it's the other way around?
just when they were alone and
everyone was mad, they were right and
became familiar with real reality, and
what they are forced to believe by their
cial nature, there is a lie and delusion?
That is, just when their judgments
have general recognition when they
become understandable, accessible, self-explanatory
prominent and therefore indisputable,then
They are the ones who become vulgar, pathetic,
poor and needed only for statistics
or other positive, leading its
origin from mathematics and therefore considered
concealing itself as “royal” science?  You don't
will you accept such an assumption?  But here it is
it's completely indifferent. From that, bu-
whether it is accepted or not, the essence of the matter
won't change at all. White, even light
this doesn’t make everyday life any less
there is nothing brighter and more attractive than that instantly -
th enchanting fire, which from time to time
time is kindled in the human soul by “will”
whether Schopenhauer or another unknown to us
loy. And when such a fire burns in the soul of someone...
love, he is deeply indifferent to the fact that he agrees
whether other people agree or disagree with him and
are his truths justified by the theories of post-
knowledge.


  Darwin and the Bible

The Bible tells about the Fall of sin
our forefather, the first man Adam.  you
think that this is an invention of the uneducated
Jews? And that the invention of a very educated
the Englishman is closer to the truth that man
came from a monkey? So let me
to say that the Jews were closer to the truth. you
ask why I am so confident
am I taking the side of the Jews? Was I, or something, at
the beginning of the universe, I saw how Eve ate
apple and gave it to Adam to eat? Of course he wasn't
and didn't see it.  And even moral proof-
bodies,which Kant defended
I don’t have my own postulates.  Not at all
no evidence. Only I think that
in such cases, evidence is unnecessary
and very burdensome ballast. Try it-
those, if you can, assume that in the known
In certain cases it is possible and should be done without
evidence, and look at the man,
listen to the person. After all, even this
hour, those fig leaves are visible on it, which
with which he covered his nakedness, when suddenly
I felt what a horror it was to fall away from
God. And his eternal melancholy, his insatiable
thirst! After all, this is just one conversation, that
have people ever been able to find something on earth
what they need. They search painfully, but nothing
what they don't find. Even those who think
being teachers of humanity.  How great
They need art to give themselves an appearance
"who found"! And, in the end, the he-
nal creativity is only enough for
in order to blind others. No one to yourself
cannot shine. No wonder someone is talking about
the sun said that it gives light and
visible to others, but for oneself it is dark.  If
If man were from a monkey, he would be like a monkey
Nyi would be able to find what he needs. to me
They will say that there are such people and there are many of them.
Certainly. But it only follows from this that
Darwin is right and the Jews are right.  Some people
really came from the sinner
Adam, feels his sin in his blood
his ancestor, is tormented by him andstrives for morning
true paradise, while others actually happened
came from the monkey who did not sin, their co-
the news is calm, they are not tormented by anything and
do not dream of the impossible. Science agrees
How about such a compromise with the Bible?


  Philosophy of history

They say that the philosophy of history laid the foundation
chalo bl. Augustine (note 1). They say that
philosophy of history already exists in the Old Testament
vet, who served as bl. Augustine about
a source for his thoughts about the fate of man
of eternity. In the Old Testament, not only
affects, but also explains the fate of the
of the Reyan people - and this is, after all, the philo-
Sofia history.  The last statement with
At first glance it seems very similar to
the truth. But, in my opinion, our whole problem is that
there are a very large number of us
judgments similar to the truth. People are too
com undemanding and too lazy su-
society: as soon as we achieve visibility
If we succeed, we immediately fold our hands.  And
even the opposite: to have the right to sit
with folded hands we willingly accept victory
even certain defeat.    No wonder
Italians say: se non e vero e ben
trovato (if this is not true, then good
invented [it.]). We care little about the truth,
it would only be witty and interesting.  Yes
called evidence, which is usually
However, people provide their statements in
mostcases are not proven at all
government, and the first thoughts that came to mind were
beliefs that are as unconvincing as
and those provisions in favor of which they apply
found. That’s why most books are so
Mysteries are so monotonous and boring. In humans
when a thought arose that could be caught
live on a dozen or two pages, and he pi-
he writes a huge treatise, three-quarters of it
filled with commonplaces, long known to everyone -
us and therefore giving nothing to anyone.
Common places are most like
truth, due to the fact that there are often and many of them
repeat with the appearance that would be necessary
would express the truth if it were
la at our disposal, - with a view, not to-
allowing no doubt.  About philosophy
stories have been told no less than commonplaces,
than on other topics. They are worth considering
closer. Let's start with the Old Testament, as with
a model for the philosophy of history, and with bl.
Augustine as the founder of philosophers
history, so to speak.

What is told and explained in the Old Testament?
on the fate of the Jewish people, this, of course,
true. Jews lived in Egypt, Jews fled
from Egypt, wandered forty years across the desert
you have come to the promised land, etc.
Everything that happened to them was deeply
ky and hidden meaning, which Holy Scripture
tion and finds out.  This is what tempted the bl.
Augustine. If the fate of the Jewish people
was revealed, therefore, concludeshe,
the fates of other peoples can be revealed,
of all humanity. Augustine is too long
he spent time in the Hellenic school and, as you see,
could not, despite all his hatred for
paganism, renounce the right to make orders
confinement. And Socrates, and Plato, and Aristotle,
and all the best representatives of Hellenic wisdom
growth agreed that truth is needed
but look in general, not in particular. And goals
God can be unraveled, for, like us
remember.. (predetermination of fate cannot-
The gods [Greek] can also avoid it.  If the source
ry of the Jewish people can be explained
on its special purpose, then,
therefore, every nation and all human beings
quality must have its purpose,
you just need to “reveal” what they supply
God's task. It's so clear, so clear, so
corresponds to the Greek method of searching and
finding! And therefore - undoubtedly!  Maybe
maybe in this case we are observing any
the most tortured example of falsity and unacceptable
ty - beyond known limits, of course -
the main method of Hellenic thinking.  And
an example of how dearly we pay for
desire at all costs everything
"understand". How often in order to
no, we agree not to know, and not to know
what is most important and necessary for us
light. God chose, it is told in the Bible
lia, the Jewish people for the implementation
your great goal. And someone told about this
I will speak with my lipsprophets  But is this
gives us the right to say: God chooses everyone
dy people for some purpose and for their own
plans are dedicated to historians and philosophers,
as successors to the ancient prophets?  Think about it-
understand the meaning of this translation at least a little
move from the particular to the general, and you will understand
that the generalization was made solely because
that we do not at all want to join
to the free work of God, which we believe
We rely only on ourselves and are afraid to entrust ourselves to Creation.
Tsu that only then we calm down,
when we secure for ourselves the possibility of
the need to check what is in store for us from non-
ba. Better fate, one day forever tired
newer than God. This is the meaning and task
rationalism, which has always loved to boast
share your advantages before empiricism
mom, gaining experience.  What is
comprehensiveness limited experience before
an all-encompassing mind?! But the claim
reason does not have as its source a taste for
limitations, locked in artificial
within limits and so afraid of all kinds
unknown. If you haven't noticed this
so far, then maybe given
My example will lead you to think.
Reason by its very nature cannot help but
to be limited is at best
knows how to boastfully chatter about infinity
their tasks: in the Bible, the prophets spoke about
missions of one Jewish people, so I,
they say, I won’t leave them, I willI will surpass
I will solve it not worse, but better and
more than them. They are about one people, and I
about all peoples, about all humanity
I’ll tell you, I’ll reveal what happened, I’ll reveal what happened
children, I will find out what is above the sky and what is underground
lei. Of course, the mind has nothing to tell
will tell, that's what the human mind is for,
meager and pathetic. But he doesn’t really care
need to find out something really new
something that does not fit into the framework of his prepared
new concepts.  He is quite satisfied
if he manages to convince people that he can
can tell, can explain. After all, here
it went and now goes for many - and
very not stupid people - economic ma-
teriaism for the philosophy of history!  Him too
self-confidently boasted that he was far away from
carried the Bible behind him. In the Bible - there is something...
desa, and contradictions, and not verified
science facts, etc. And many were convinced
we know that economic materialism is where
deeper, much more penetrating than the Bible!
Needless to say - wonderful things in economic
There was no trace of materialism. Everything would-
It’s natural - but even if you kill me, I’m not
I can understand why it is considered that way
a big advantage.  And not only me,
in my opinion, no one can understand this, because
in fact, the natural does not have exactly
no advantages over the unnatural.
Even in the sense of getting closer to the truth. On the contrary
mouth, there is every reason to think that natural
TVexplanations remove us from the truth,
and, apparently, at present it is on-
even representatives of
false knowledge.

Listen to the voices of modern physics
kovs and mathematicians: there is a trepidation in them
vog, which is not at all characteristic of people of positive
telial thought. Of course, out of old habit
Many people still think that mathematics
should be a model for every being
current and possible science, even for philo-
Sofia Therefore, probably materialistic
some understanding of history, which in itself
is actually built through almost mathematical
technical techniques - counting, weighing,
measure, - many seem to have conquered great
knowledge of the human mind.  Of course they see
which is bad, and boring, and - sorry about you -
The expression is even stupid, but the method holds up
Zhanny. Don't think, however, that I'm older.
I am opposed here to the type of philosophy that
which is called economic materialism
mom. I started with him because he is
most perfect, that is, sustained
noah, philosophy of history. He's a little bored
her, a little grayer, a little stupider than others
their fellows, but from a scientific point of view
These are not shortcomings at all.  The truth is not
must be bright and cheerful.
No one else, as far as I know, has
tried to establish that she should be smart-
Noah. But it is considered proven that the truth
does not allow contradictions and that she has her own
actuallybe consistent. In this from-
wearing materialistic philosophy of history
riya leaves almost nothing to be desired, and
no other philosophy can keep up with it -
Xia. And then - most importantly - this philosophy
Fiya really does give all the answers to everything
questions. Other philosophies, of course, also
this is what they strive for, but to be fair
you, are far from reaching the same extent
the goal they set for themselves. They are very much
they know how to answer almost everything, but
only "almost"; and this is decisive
philosophy, because, in essence, the whole task of philosophy
fii is to get rid of non-
which residuum of unresolved issues,
passing to her from other positive
Sci. So almost complete explanation in
philosophy, perhaps, is equivalent to a refusal
I'm too tired of explanations.  It seems to me possible
say, without fear of being inaccurate, that
philosophy of history strives for omniscience.
Modern Augustines from the Germans - especially
benefits of Hegel - and tried to implement
this task.  After all, economic material
lism also came entirely from Hegel, that is,
out of the belief that we can, from our mind-
ma extract everything we need to know -
dialectically, of course.  Augustine
Compared to Hegel, he was still modest.
Augustine drew not only from reason, but from
Holy Scripture. For Hegel it has already been written
tion does not exist. Achieving omniscience, he
neglects everyonesources other than
of your head. And methodologically, he, of course,
but absolutely right. For omniscience is only
then it is possible, when one way or another
defined, strictly defined
source of knowledge. Hegel's head and conclusion
the intelligence that awaits in her is no more and no
less.  The head can only give birth
thoughts, that is, general concepts, therefore,
thought is the only thing that exists. Again
Let me remind you that Hegel did not invent this.  Ge-
gel with purely German aging and methodical
developed what he inherited
dies from ancient philosophy. Already for Plateau
on the guiding principle, as stated above-
the letter above the doors of his academy was - who
doesn't know geometry, there's no place for him here
[Greek].

Already Plato was forced to turn his
living ideas into dead numbers and dead ones
concepts.  Hegel only consistently
developed what the Greeks gave to the world. He, and for
him and all of us are deeply and sincerely convinced of
that two and a half millennia have not
wasted on humanity. According to Hegel,
They couldn’t even disappear. Because there is history
"development" - now no one doubts this -
It appears that this is considered proven.  Many-
your scientific books published recently
century, aimed at supporting this idea
whether, although she not only does not need any
what kind of support, but is also afraid of it, because, in
essence, she herself wants to support everything
and, therefore, noteven admits
assumptions about their incompetence. Without
development ideas modern philosopher nothing
cannot understand in history, history has become
appears to him as a motley, meaningless
leidoscope. And therefore, the idea of development
there is a correct idea, because it is completely impossible
but let history not make sense -
la, understandable to man. Completely impossible
it is possible, as completely impossible, that one
Once upon a time the former became not the former, etc.  But
here, when we reached the completely impossible
possible, it’s not a sin to stop, stand and
remember something. At least what was in
middle ages in the world such a person, according to
named Peter Damiani, who claimed that
for God it is even possible to do the former
never been (2), and I believe that
it doesn’t hurt at all to insert such a stick into the
forests of the fast-moving chariot of philosophy.
Because I won’t even begin to understand very much
whether Peter Damiani was right and conclude
do his words contain at least some
meaning. My task is to stop the racing of thoughts -
the thought that the Russian song talks about
It seems that she is faster than a dashing horse. And that's it
it doesn’t matter whether we stop it with reasonable measures
ladies or a violent shout of the medieval
th monk. If you want to know the whole truth,
then, in my opinion, a monk is more appropriate here,
than a reasoner - if only because he
allows himself to shout at the truth and the top
kick out arguments without being at all embarrassed
worryingtheir noble origin - from self-
of reason. The reasoner, of course, never
dares to get out of a certain rut,
run to a reception that is not firmly legitimized
an established tradition. Reasonable arguments -
these are the fixed stars by which he
found out the direction - will he rise
against them? Of course, he will rise soon
against God, if God stretches his power
society to such extents that even non-
moving stars will begin to vibrate.  To the monk
but the spectacle of God’s omnipotence delivers
greatest joy. He was brought up on the psalm
Mah and the prophets - his heart is filled
awestruck at the thought that yes-
the distant fixed stars shook
succumbed to the breath of the Almighty. If God is with
me, who else do I need?  Fates and paths
The Lords are inscrutable - after all, the prophets also know
or only what was revealed to them - became
doesn't he regret that Hege's attempt
to penetrate into the hidden meaning of the plan -
God's quest failed?! Or what is arranged-
the small tower of Babylon that they gave
so similar to a children's toy do-
Mick? The monk blesses the day on which
he was born when he remembers that everything
thick books by Hegel and his numerous
students are scattered by the action of time,
and every crack in the building they built
fills his heart with joy.  Hegel didn't
guessed right, Hegel got it wrong, Hegel deceived everyone
come on - is that really the problem? Troublethere would be, and
terrible, beyond description
trouble if Hegel and all who are from Hegel,
would guess and tell the truth if
history made “sense” and their absolute
would be the limit of human achievement.
But, fortunately, this is not the case.  Fortunately,
big and small Hegels are only illegal
new contenders for prophetic thrones, and
their “absolute”, which shouted so loudly and
continues to shout about itself to the whole world,
subject to decay and death, like everyone else,
neck from human hands. The secret of the Creator is not
is comprehensible, and human destinies begin-
and end in areas that are not
knows how to penetrate rational, human
research. Study the past, that is,
to try to penetrate into people's lives, long since
us gone - the most necessary, the most important
matter. But you need to look into the past not for
in order to justify the present and acquire
you have confidence in our advantages
ancestors. That is, not to find out
to put into history the idea of development.  Humanity
What kind of life is so complex that it cannot be
goes well with none of the ones we imagined
ideas. The present is not at all the highest level
stump compared to the past, like that
like Liguori or Harnack are no longer
perfect "religious thinkers"
than the prophet Isaiah or the ap. Paul.  Philosophy
in the sense that Hegel understood it,
only prevents us from perceiving history, and
historyhow science only closes us
people's past. We need to give up self-
knowledge, one must abandon omniscience - and
this will open the paths ordered to us now to
to comprehend at least the small mysteries of life.
────────────── ────────────────────────────

1. In the essay “On the City of God” Augustine
develops Christian philosophy of history,
which is based on a new, indigenous
a feeling at once different from the ancient one and
thinking about historical reality.  Realize-
the historical vision in the horizon is always already
of the completed cosmos is replaced by awareness
history in the open perspective of the unknown,
expected, desired, requiring complicity
a person - both factual and imaginary
gum, like the event of the incarnation itself,
- completion of the story.  In the spirit of the Bible
goals of historiosophy Augustine sees history
as a divine-human process, striving
ny to metahistorical. So the story moves forward
higher becomes the subject of philosophic
sophistic understanding. In this sense, we can
but to speak of Augustine as a fundamental
nick of philosophy of history. The essence of the story is how
Augustine sees the divine-human process
in the confrontation between the “earthly city”, embodied
born in the Roman Empire, and "the city of heaven-
"nogo", divine-human state, vo-
polished in the Christian Church. Only in
18th century philosophy of history is fundamentally higher
la beyondAugustinian doctrine, on
which has been based for centuries
medieval historiosophy.

2. Peter Damiani (c.1007 - 1072) - cardiac
Nal, Bishop of Ostia, Prior of the Monastery
Fonte Avellana in Umbria, one of the initiators
reforms of monastic and church life
neither. The first formulated the principle of service
of philosophy in relation to theology. B
short treatise "On the Divine Almighty"
society" Damiani argued the inapplicability
rules of human science to God, denied
the universal nature of the principle of contradiction.
He devotes an entire chapter of the treatise to refuting
the thesis about what God can do
the former is not the former.

────────────────
Almanac "Thought": Barnaul. 1997, No2 (4),
c. 75-80.

───────────────────────────────────DI:HALT