Who is the author of the work justification of good. Vladimir Soloviev on morality and economics (according to the pages of the work "Justification of Good")

In Soloviev's metaphysics, there is a double series of ideas: on the one hand, over all constructions in metaphysics, he is dominated by the doctrine of the Absolute as “total unity”, of the generation of its “other” by the Absolute, and here Soloviev is inspired by the teachings of Spinoza and Schelling that conquered him from his youth.

On the other hand, very early on, the doctrine of God-manhood became the central concept of his system, i.e. purely Christian teaching (in its original version).

The meeting of these different concepts first finds expression in "readings on God-manhood", remaining to the very end the decisive attitude of Solov'ev. This fundamental duality in Solov'ev's metaphysics remains irreconcilable. The motives of pantheism, sounding strongly in his doctrine of "total unity", stand side by side with the philosophical deduction of the Trinity dogma ...

The absolute, according to Solov'ev, "unconditionally existent ... is that which is known in all knowledge." "All knowledge is kept unknowable ... all reality is reduced to unconditional reality." In this purely Platonic definition of the path to the Absolute, Soloviev sees in the Absolute the last basis of all existence - the Absolute is not separated from the cosmos, it is seen by us "through" the world - it is the One and at the same time "everything" is contained in it.

The Absolute is, therefore, the "All-One" - and in this metaphysical frame the Absolute and the cosmos are related to each other, i.e. "Consubstantial." Therefore, everywhere and everywhere, we read in "Philosophical Principles ..." - "deeper than any definite feeling, idea and will lies in us an immediate sensation of absolute reality."

Vladimir Soloviev - Justification of Good

M .: Institute of Russian Civilization, Algorithm, 2012 .-- 656 p.

ISBN 978-5-4261-0002-2

Vladimir Soloviev - Justification of Good - Contents

Foreword

PART ONE GOOD IN HUMAN NATURE

Chapter one. Primary data of morality
Chapter two. Ascetic principle in morality
Chapter three. Pity and altruism
Chapter four. Religious beginning in morality
Chapter five. About virtues
Chapter six. The imaginary beginnings of practical philosophy

PART TWO GOOD FROM GOD

Chapter seven. Unity of moral foundations
Chapter Eight. The unconditional beginning of morality
Chapter nine. The Reality of the Moral Order

PART THREE GOOD THROUGH THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY

Chapter ten. Personality and society
Chapter eleven. Historical development of personal-social consciousness in its main eras
Chapter twelve. Abstract subjectivism in morality
Chapter thirteen. The moral norm of the public
Chapter fourteen. The national question from a moral point of view
Chapter fifteen. Criminal question from a moral point of view
Chapter sixteen. The economic question from a moral point of view
Chapter seventeen. Morality and law
Chapter eighteen. The meaning of the war
Chapter nineteen. The moral organization of humanity as a whole

Conclusion. The moral meaning of life in its final definition and the transition to theoretical philosophy.

Notes (edit)

Vladimir Soloviev - Justification of Good - Good in Human Nature

I. Feeling of shame (initially - sexual bashfulness) as a natural root of human morality. The real shamelessness of all animals and the imaginary shamelessness of some wild peoples: the latter concerns the difference in external relations, and not the feeling itself. - Darwin's erroneous indication of phallism

II. The opposition of the spiritual principle to material nature, expressed directly in shame and developing in asceticism, is caused not by this nature itself, but by the seizure from the side of its lower life, which seeks to make the rational human being a passive instrument, or a useless appendage of a blind physical process. - Comprehending the fact of shame, reason logically deduces from it the necessary, universal and morally obligatory norm: the spontaneous life in a person must be subordinated to the spiritual

III. The moral concept of spirit and flesh. - Flesh as animality or unreasonableness, agitated and out of its essential definition, serves as matter, or the latent (potential) basis of spiritual life. - The real meaning of the struggle between spirit and flesh.

IV. Three main points in the struggle of the spirit with the flesh: 1) internal self-discrimination of the spirit from the flesh; 2) the actual defense of the spirit of their independence; 3) a clear predominance of the spirit over the flesh, or the abolition of the bad carnal principle. The practical significance of the second point, which determines certain and obligatory moral requirements, and above all the requirement of self-control

V. Preliminary ascetic tasks: acquisition of the ability to control breathing and sleep by rational will

Vi. Ascetic requirements regarding the functions of feeding and reproduction. - Misunderstanding about sexual relations. - A Christian view of the matter.

Vii. Various areas of the struggle between spirit and flesh. - Psychological capture of a bad beginning in three points: thought, imagination, captivity. - Appropriate ascetic rules so that a bad state of mind does not turn into passion and vice: "breaking Babylonian babies on a stone"; distracting thinking; restoring moral act.

VIII. Asceticism, or abstinence elevated to a principle, is an undoubted element of good. - When this good element is taken by itself as a whole and unconditional good, evil asceticism appears according to the prototype of the devil, who does not eat at all, does not drink, does not sleep, and remains celibate. - If an evil or ruthless ascetic, as an imitator of the devil, cannot be morally approved, then the very principle of asceticism has a moral meaning, or expresses good, only conditionally, precisely under the condition of its union with the principle of altruism, rooted in pity.

Death and time reign on earth,

Do not call them masters:

Everything, whirling, disappears into the darkness,

Only the Sun of love is stationary.

The entire creative path of Soloviev can be understood and explained precisely from ... the search for social truth.

Prot. Georgy Florovsky. The paths of Russian theology.

Vladimir Soloviev on morality and economics (according to the pages of the work "Justification of Good")

Part I.

Soloviev on the need for the social doctrine of Christianity.

Introduction.

Probably not a single Russian philosopher has written so many books and articles as about Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900).

It seems that everything is already known about him and his work. It is also known that Vladimir Sergeevich is a very controversial and controversial figure. Assessments of his work are very different, sometimes they turn out to be diametrically opposite. Vladimir Solovev was a vivid adherent of a holistic worldview and worldview, all his life he was looking for ways to organically combine science, philosophy and theology. This search was initiated by the master's thesis “Crisis in Western Philosophy. Against positivism "(1881). In it, Solov'ev relied on the critical generalizations of I. V. Kireevsky, a prominent representative of the first generation of Slavophiles (however, Solov'ev did not share his messianic ideas about Russia and the opposition of Russian Orthodoxy to all Western thought). It is noteworthy that Vladimir Sergeevich's own criticism of Western European rationalism was also based on the argumentation of some European thinkers.

The search for ways to synthesize science, philosophy and religion demanded a great deal of erudition from Vladimir Solovyov, which he demonstrated in his writings. The sphere of his cognitive interests is very wide, it included the following areas of knowledge: epistemology, anthropology, ethics, history and historiosophy, law, church history, theology (theology), sociology, etc. Soloviev was not only a philosopher, but also a famous poet of the era of Symbolism and the "Silver Age". He also acted as a literary critic, writing a number of articles about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, A.K. Tolstoy, Leskov.

Like such Russian thinkers as Konstantin Leontyev or Lev Tikhomirov, Vladimir Soloviev was a rather distinctive personality, he did not repeat anyone, borrowed nothing from anyone, and was a bright "loner". But if the same Leontiev and Tikhomirov had few followers, then many tried to imitate Vladimir Solovyov. He influenced a whole galaxy of Russian philosophers, who today are commonly referred to as representatives of the so-called "Russian religious philosophy." Among such followers one can name S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev, L. Karsavin, S. Frank, P. Florensky, E. Trubetskoy and others. The influence of Vladimir Solovyov also extended to the work of Russian writers, poets and artists of the early twentieth century. In part, Solovyov's charm can be explained by the fact that his ideas were consonant with the spirit of that difficult time when Russia was at the turn of the eras (the destruction of traditional foundations and the transition to capitalism). Then, on the wave of denial of everything that was orthodox and archaic, everything new was welcomed, and there was more than enough new in Solovyov. In addition, the talent of Solovyov played an important role, as he masterly owned both the pen and the spoken word. Many drew attention to his ability to convince interlocutors, which bordered on "hypnotism." Many were attracted not by Soloviev's philosophy, but by his mysticism. However, a really strong wave of enthusiasm for Soloviev among the intelligentsia of the capital cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow arose after the death of Vladimir Sergeevich.

Solovyov, meanwhile, had and still has many opponents and critics. Such harsh assessments of Solovyov are not uncommon: "heretic", "papist", "occultist", "rebel worse than Pugachev", "Jewophile", "cosmopolitan", etc. The main accusations against Solovyov: the heresy of sophianism, ecumenism (the theory of "universal theocracy"), sympathy for Catholicism and the willingness to sacrifice Orthodoxy for the sake of "Christian unity" ("unorthodox Christianity"). Sometimes Soloviev went as far as asserting that there was no schism in the Christian Church in the 11th century, there was only one of the misunderstandings that had happened before that in relations between Constantinople and Rome, since the time of Christ, the Church remains One, Ecumenical, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism - only Her modifications. According to Solovyov, one simply has to admit this obvious fact, after which the world will become "universal theocracy", "God-manhood."

Critics of Solovyov also note his adherence to the idea of a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism ("Judeo-Christianity"), hostility towards Byzantine civilization, enthusiasm for mysticism and even the occult, a penchant for pantheism, belief in the "bright future" of mankind on earth (which bordered on the heresy of chiliasm) , understanding of history as "Christian progress", etc. At the same time, according to critics, the degree of Soloviev's guilt increases due to the fact that he infected many thinkers and young people of that time with his heresies.

We can see that Soloviev was not only a target of criticism. During his lifetime, he himself actively attacked some of his contemporaries. For example, the Slavophiles, whose ideas about the uniqueness of Russia were clearly at odds with his theory of "universal theocracy". Or on N. Ya. Danilevsky, who in his book "Russia and Europe" showed that there is no "universal humanity" and cannot be, and the world is a combination of very different civilizations ("cultural and historical types"). Soloviev sharply criticized the system that existed in Byzantium (first of all, the article "Byzantism and Russia" - 1896). Soloviev actually struck a blow at the ideas of his friend K.N. Leontyev, who believed that borrowing the experience of state building of Byzantium ("Byzantine") could save Russia from an impending catastrophe. Solovyov not only criticized Byzantium, he categorically denied the need for any borrowing from the experience of the Second Rome, and proposed to follow the beaten track of Western Europe. And in this sense, for Solovyov, Peter the Great was an exemplary ruler. For this kind of sympathy, Solovyov received the title of 100% "Westerner". The friendly and creative relationship between the two thinkers ceased.

For the sake of fairness, it should be said that Soloviev abandoned a number of his delusions at the end of his life. First of all, he became disillusioned with his project of "universal theocracy", became more sober and critical of Catholicism, etc. From the dream of a "bright future" and belief in "Christian progress" Soloviev moved on to eschatological reflections on the end of earthly life (antichrist, apocalypse). These reflections were reflected in his last major work, Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of World History (1900). By the way, many contemporaries (E. Trubetskoy, N. Berdyaev, K. Mochulsky) immediately noticed how "Three Conversations" differed from the previous work of V. Soloviev. They appreciated the work as a kind of repentance of the philosopher for his previous sins and heresies.

According to a number of modern researchers, Solovyov's assets can be credited with his ideas that Christianity is not only (and not even so much) a religion of individual salvation of man. True Christianity, according to Soloviev, is unthinkable without a social principle. Christians can be saved only through building correct (based on gospel principles) relationships with other people (both Christians and non-Christians). An extremely important condition for the salvation of a person is a properly organized state. As for the church, it should not be limited only to the life that was and is being conducted within the boundaries of the church fence. It should have a much more active influence on all aspects of society. In fact, Solovyov formulated many ideas, which together can be called "social Christianity." Researchers of Solovyov's work especially highlight his contribution to the philosophical understanding and substantiation of law and the state. Without belittling the primary role of moral norms in the life of society, Soloviev proceeded from the fact that law and the state can and should contribute to the moral progress of society. On this point, Soloviev was at odds with the Slavophils, who considered the main and only condition for the moral progress of society to be the Christian Church. And the development of legal institutions in Russia was even considered by the latter as a threat to the originality of Russian civilization. And K. Leontyev was one of the harsh critics of what today we call "the rule of law". Konstantin Nikolaevich believed that a Russian person should not fear the law, a judge or a policeman, but God. And Russia, "blessed" by the constitution, will very quickly slide towards revolution.

Soloviev resolutely distanced himself from Slavophil idealism, based, as he put it, on "an ugly mixture of fantastic perfection with a bad reality." As well as from the excessive moralizing of Leo Tolstoy, which, according to Solovyov, represented "legal nihilism." But let's leave aside the interests of Solovyov in the field of law and state. Researchers of Vladimir Solovyov's creativity rarely include economics in the list of his interests. This, in our opinion, is unfair. He also wrote about economics, although indeed, little and rarely. But, as they say, "rarely, but aptly." Naturally, not as a professional economist, but as a philosopher.

Briefly about the "Justification of Good" by Vladimir Solovyov

I would like to fill this gap. "Sharp" thoughts about economics can be found in one of the most famous works of Vladimir Solovyov, "The Justification of Good". Let's dwell on it in more detail. The work was published in 1897. It should be recognized that this work is one of the most fundamental studies of ethical issues in the history of world philosophical thought. Those specialists who study Solovyov's work put this work in the first place among the works of the philosopher.

One of the cross-cutting thoughts of Solovyov's work "Justification of Good" is as follows: all the variety of manifestations of morality can be reduced to three main primary types. These three types, originally inherent in human nature (conscience), correspond to three types of feelings: shame, pity, and a sense of reverence for higher powers. The level of morality, respectively, is determined by the degree: human domination over material sensibility (the ascetic principle of morality), solidarity with other people (a person's willingness to sacrifice for the sake of others, altruism), internal submission to the superhuman principle (religious principle in morality). All other concrete manifestations of morality (or, conversely, immorality) are derived forms and combinations of the three indicated "primary" types.

The book "Justification of Good" was only the first part of an extensive trilogy conceived by Soloviev, devoted to the issues of the so-called "total unity", "universal humanity" and "universal theocracy." Soloviev nurtured a project for the unification of mankind on the basis of a single faith of all people in God. Vladimir Sergeevich regarded Christianity as such a single spiritual and religious “common denominator” for mankind. Moreover, judging by many of his remarks and hints, he was ready for such a “denominator” to become Christianity in its Catholic version - the so-called “unorthodox” Christianity. Clear signs of the heresy of ecumenism were visible in Soloviev's project. However, it was not even heresy, but only dreamy projecting. It was not properly substantiated in the writings of Soloviev. And it could not receive, because the idea of a universal Christian theocracy contradicted the spirit and dogmas of Christianity. Soloviev considers good as an ontological phenomenon, good develops necessary and regardless of the distinction between good and evil. Historical progress is not associated with Christianity and the fate of an individual, but is the self-development of the world. Soloviev believed that the world was “programmed” to develop in the direction of a universal good - the notorious “total unity”. One gets the impression that the work "Justification of Good" was written by Solovyov with one single purpose - to substantiate the idea of "universal humanity", "total unity", which had captured him in his youth. The idea of "all-unity" was criticized (in our opinion, fairly fair) both during the years of Solovyov's life and after his death. According to some researchers, it would be wrong to call Solovyov's theories "Christian philosophy", because non-Christian ideas are strong in them, they contain a lot of pantheism.

V.S. Soloviev was, indeed, a believer, but his synthetic design included the inclusion of such provisions that are incompatible with Christianity. A.F. Losev (1893-1998) wrote that the thinker's theoretical works are classical in form, but not impeccable in meaning: Solovyov failed to avoid pantheistic, gnostic and neoplatonic tendencies. There are also harsher assessments of V. Solovyov's doctrine of morality. Here is what, for example, the author of the material entitled "Justification of Good (1897)" posted on the website Antimodernizm.ru writes (presumably the author is Roman Vershillo): "As in his other works, in OD (" Justification of Good "- V.K.) Soloviev acts as a consistent monist, placing a sign of essential identity between the spiritual and the bodily, the general and the individual, the personal and the public. The world is a material and "supermaterial" totality, an existential monolith. There is only one substance (here Soloviev follows Spinoza), which is opposed to the fragmentation of persons, objects and phenomena of existing existence. V.S. Soloviev makes no distinction between reality and fantasy, truth and falsehood. And so he recognizes evolution and denies it, speaks of personality and soul, and denies both, uses the words "good" and "evil" and merges them with each other. On the whole, Solovyov's conclusion in OD boils down to the fact that inevitable progress occurs within a motionless existential monolith, or, for Solovyov, one and the same thing, such progress does not occur, because development is impossible within “all-unity”. From the point of view of this senseless teaching, neither a person, nor free will, nor a distinction between good and evil, nor philosophy, nor the Christian religion are needed. Ontological "morality" generally surpasses everything that is separate and meaningful simply because it is and completely coincides with material existence. "

I am not a philosopher, therefore, I will not delve into the analysis of philosophical errors (bordering, in the opinion of authoritative theologians, with heresies) of Solovyov. At the same time, Vladimir Soloviev in his work "Justification of Good" expressed many interesting ideas related to the sphere of related (seemingly even peripheral) interests of the philosopher. Including to the sphere of economics. And here we find a lot of useful and instructive things. I want to note that many Russian thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries turned to the topic of economics, which was not previously observed. Starting with Fyodor Dostoevsky, they began to talk about "economic materialism" as the hallmark of Russian society at that time. An understanding of "economic materialism" was required.

Economics is devoted, first of all, to chapter 16 "The economic question from a moral point of view." Some thoughts on economics are found in other, especially the last chapters. So, let's start the analysis of the 16th chapter of the work, moving sequentially through the text.

On the moral and economic roots of national and criminal issues

Note that chapter 16 of "Justifying Good" is preceded by chapters entitled "The National Question from a Moral Point of View" (Chapter 14) and "The Criminal Question from a Moral Point of View" (Chapter 15). Continuing the conversation begun in these chapters, Vladimir Soloviev in Chapter 16 says that national conflicts and criminal crime often have economic reasons. Only on the surface does it all look like interethnic enmity and human-against-person criminal offenses (murder, robbery, robbery, etc.). Behind all this, as Soloviev notes, there is an economic reason: “If people and peoples learned to value other people's national characteristics as their own, if, further, in each nation, criminal personal elements were, if possible, corrected by re-education and reasonable care with complete abolition of all the remnants of criminal ferocity, this moral solution to the national question and the criminal question would not have eliminated an important reason for both popular enmity and crime - the economic reason (italics mine - V.K.) ”.

In the previous two chapters, Solovyov talked about how, by correcting the mores of society, it is possible to achieve, if not the disappearance of ethnic hatred and criminal offenses, then at least weaken the severity of these two problems. And now, he still talks about the need to eliminate the causes of the economic order. However, this conclusion of the philosopher is not original. Already a whole galaxy of bourgeois and socialist authors in the spirit of the philosophy of economic materialism spoke of the same thing. True, some authors went too far, arguing, for example, that national (as well as religious) wars have long since disappeared in the world. Wars are fought for economic interests (redistribution of markets, sources of raw materials, areas of capital investment), and the national (and religious) slogans of these wars are only a cover for someone's economic interests. This extreme point of view was adhered to, for example, by V.I. Lenin (she is most vividly presented in his work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism").

Soloviev's position is much subtler and deeper. Recognizing the economic reasons for interethnic strife and criminal crime, he argues that economic reasons, in turn, have moral root causes: himself suffers from a moral illness. Its abnormality is revealed in the economic sphere itself, since here the enmity of social classes over property is increasingly emerging, threatening in many countries of Western Europe and America with an open struggle not to the stomach, but to the death. " The root of all social problems is one, or rather the same. So teach the holy fathers, so it is written in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul said: "The love of money is the root of all evil." And one can fully agree with the fact that at the end of the 19th century the class struggle on economic grounds in Western Europe and the United States of North America intensified and threatened the stability of the then social system. This was the system of capitalism, in which the love of money became the highest meaning of life. Vladimir Soloviev already felt the fruits of the development of "Russian" capitalism since the 1860s, when the reforms of Alexander II began. He expressed fears that the class struggle in Russia could escalate into a revolution. Therefore, the economic issue of the philosopher worried not as an abstract scientific problem, but as a challenge of the coming twentieth century (to which he did not have time to live). Judging by a whole series of works by Solovyov, he saw the main danger in the internal social and class conflicts of the countries of Western Europe, America, and Russia. He did not see the threat of a world war (and even believed that such a war was unlikely). On the need to develop the position of the Eastern Church on social issues.

The Gospel (and just conscience) dictates to a person the need to feed and warm the hungry and cold. And if there are millions of such hungry and cold? - asks Solovyov. There are two options for behavior. Or forget about charity and aid altogether. Or try to do something so that you can feed and warm millions of suffering people. But in the second case, a person will inevitably be involved in solving social problems. This means that a Christian is doomed to be a social being. Those. think about the best order of society and participate in this dispensation. Moreover, in solidarity with other people who are prompted by the voice of conscience to do the same. Since the whole problem of goodness is viewed not from the standpoint of cold rationalism, but from the standpoint of Christianity, in fact Soloviev calls for Christianity as a community of people to have its own social policy:

“For a person holding a moral point of view, it is just as impossible to take part in this socio-economic enmity, as well as in enmity between nations and tribes. And at the same time, it is impossible for him to remain indifferent to the material situation of his neighbors. If the elementary moral feeling of pity, which has received its highest sanction in the Gospel, requires us to feed the hungry, water the thirsty and warm the chilly, then this demand, of course, does not lose its strength when these hungry and chilly are considered millions, and not just a few. And if I alone cannot help these millions, and therefore, I am not obliged, then I can and must help them together with others, my personal duty turns into a collective - not someone else's, but my own, broader duty, as the participant in the collective whole and its common task ”.

Soloviev was one of the first Russian thinkers who asked the question: why the Eastern Church does not have its own distinct position on social issues? In contrast, say, from the Catholic Church, where issues of social life in the time of Solovyov had already been studied in sufficient detail by Catholic theologians and explained in the papal encyclicals of the Roman throne.

It can be assumed that thoughtful Orthodox theologians see and understand the subtle connections between Christianity and the Church, on the one hand, and the social sphere and social behavior of a person, on the other. But millions of ordinary Christians need to be given a simple and convincing understanding of how to relate to the events of social life and how to build their own life in a large society (it should be noted that with an understanding of life in a small society - a family, things were much better). At the time of Solovyov, the idea of developing a document that could be called the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church was already in the air. Something like a simple law that was given by God to Moses to curb the cruel Jewish people. Solovyov in "Justification of Good" actually made sketches of such a document.

("The primary basis of conscience is a sense of shame"). Other "foundations of moral life" Soloviev calls pity and reverence. However, it is shame that distinguishes humans from animals. Being ashamed of natural needs, man demonstrates that he is not only a natural being. Shame reveals the difference between good and evil. In this case, it is not nature itself that turns out to be evil, but the subordination of the spirit to nature. Historically, morality is brought up within the framework of religion and asceticism becomes its first instrument. The main enemy of morality is the flesh (nature, which seeks to enslave the spirit), and the main arena of this confrontation turns out to be “the two main functions of our body”: nutrition and reproduction (more precisely, the “genital act”). Some ascetics try to extend this struggle to breathing and sleep as well. However, asceticism is immoral if it serves not goodness, but pride or vanity. Analyzing the concept of pity, Soloviev finds its source in the "organic connection of all beings" and altruism. Breaking this bond leads to alienation and selfishness. Through pity, we discover truth and justice. At the same time, pity reveals "negative inequality" (the one whom I feel sorry for is in a worse position than me). "Positive inequality" in this case can be called reverence - a religious feeling in a person that comes from gratitude and a statement of the superiority of a higher being (be it a parent, fetish or god). Hence, Soloviev considers the "cult of the dead" to be the primitive form of religion. Religion and morality are thought in unity, since good presupposes belief in its objectivity.

On the basis of moral life, virtues grow, which are "approved qualities." Virtues can be primary (faith, hope and love) and secondary (generosity, selflessness, tolerance, truthfulness, etc.). Analyzing the category of good ("ideal norm of will"), Soloviev comes to the paradoxical conclusion that it does not always coincide in our life with good ("an object of real desire", pleasure or well-being), because not everyone strives for good. Thus, the author of Justification of Good rejects false eudemonism. However, in the limit, good is an instrument of good, for "the unconditional essence of good contains in itself the fullness of good." Following Kant, Soloviev suggests that morality presupposes God as its guarantee.

Part two. Good from God

The entire history of mankind is a path from the kingdom of nature to the kingdom of the spirit: "The historical process is a long and difficult transition from beast-manhood to God-manhood" (2,8, VI). The historical process, in turn, is an integral part of the “ascending process of world perfection”, divided into five kingdoms: mineral, vegetable, animal, human, and the Kingdom of God (2,9, I). Soloviev does not deny cosmic evolution, and he calls each new stage of it a creation. The stones are inert, but plants are already striving for light, animals strive for satiety, people are looking for a better life. Soloviev recognizes the existence of consciousness in animals, which is expressed in language, facial expressions and expediency. A person has a mind as "the ability to comprehend the all-one and all-integrating truth." God-manhood begins with Jesus Christ ("the wandering rabbi"), who embodies the moral ideal, perfection. The Kingdom of God, as well as God-manhood, is thought by Solov'ev as an expression of the moral ideal, "a real moral order."

Part three. Good through the history of mankind

Since the moral and social ideal coincide, the book describes the history of society (as "organized morality"), which takes place in three stages:

Ancestral life went from hunting to agricultural life. The moral meaning of this stage is reverence for ancestors, solidarity, and cultivating shame. To clarify the life of the tribe, Soloviev refers to Morgan and the example of the Iroquois, where the genus is a consanguineous exogamous social unit ("the initial social cell"). A clan group forms a tribe, and a tribal group forms a tribal union (the embryo of a nation).
National and state system... Soloviev believes that states emerge as a result of wars and treaties. It is in the state that the family emerges as "a form of private, private life." At the heart of the state were "carriers of the supra-clan consciousness", united in "free squads". The first state forms were polity and despotism, from which "world monarchies" grew (the Assyro-Babylonian kingdom, the Achaemenid empire, the monarchy of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire). The moral character of the state lies in the feelings of patriotism and civic valor. Blood vengeance is replaced by law (“The task of law is not at all that the world lying in evil turns into the Kingdom of God, but only that it does not turn into hell until the time” - 3,17, VII). However, law and morality do not mix, because the fundamental difference between law is coercion, while morality is voluntary. Arguing about wars, Soloviev, following Hegel, recognizes them as a relative evil, since thanks to them law and treaties are born, states appear and ideas are spread. In the future, he foresees a world war between the white and yellow races ("of which the main representative, the Chinese people"):

This forthcoming armed struggle between Europe and Mongolian Asia will, of course, be the last, but all the more terrible, a truly world war, and it is not indifferent to the fate of mankind which side will remain the victor in it. (3.18, IV)

Worldwide communication appears within the framework of religions when a person is freed from tribal and national restrictions. Soloviev calls Buddhism the first world religion, but he places much greater hopes on Christianity, where "there is neither a Hellene nor a Jew." Soloviev rejects the extremes of both nationalism (which he calls "false patriotism" or "popular egoism" - 3.14, V) and cosmopolitanism ("it would be, however, a clear mistake to associate the principle of cosmopolitanism with Christianity"). Such a compromise is true patriotism, which acquires a universal character. Soloviev cites as an example medieval Catholic Europe, where European nations were not erased, but were consolidated with the adoption of Christianity. He refers to the essential features of the people: the unity of origin, the unity of the language and the common history. Speaking about Russia, Soloviev mentions the "Scandinavian origin" of the state, the baptism of Rus, and Peter's reforms.

Reflecting on social progress, Solovyov notes that as in the field of punishment there has been a refusal of blood feud, so there must be a refusal of "terrible retaliation" (a particular case of which is the death penalty), for the right must follow morality, and morality forbids the use of a person as a means. From the standpoint of morality, Soloviev also criticizes modern society, which he calls plutocracy, but he also criticizes the alternative in the form of Saint-Simonian socialism, because both approaches proceed from the principle that "man will live by bread alone." Rejecting the envious attacks of socialists against the rich and the idea of denial of property, he nevertheless considers it necessary to limit such extremes of plutocracy as: "falsification, speculation and usury"

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Opposition (chess)
Definition (syntax)

See what "Justification of Good" is in other dictionaries:

JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD.- “JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD. Moral Philosophy "- the work of Vladimir Solovyov, published in 1897 (last edition: Soch., Vol. 1. Moscow, 1988) and designed, according to the author's plan, to become the first part of the system of" positive "philosophy of" total unity ", which he ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Justifying Good- the main work of V.S.Soloviev in the field of moral philosophy. Initially, this work was published in separate chapters in the journal. Questions of philosophy and psychology, Books of the week, Bulletin of Europe and Niva since 1894. Its separate edition was published in ... Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia

JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD- the main work of V.S.Soloviev in the field of moral philosophy. Initially, this work was published in separate chapters in the journal. Questions of philosophy and psychology, Books of the week, Bulletin of Europe and Niva since 1894. Its separate edition was published in ... ... Russian philosophy: vocabulary

“JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD. Moral philosophy "- “JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD. Moral philosophy ”work of Vl. Solovyov, published in 1897 (last edition: Soch., Vol. 1. Moscow, 1988) and designed, according to the author's plan, to become the first part of the system of “positive” philosophy of “total unity”, which he ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

B.C. Soloviev Justification of good- briefly Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is the author of the most original philosophical system, in which the main features of Russian philosophy are presented especially vividly. It is enough to list the main philosophical works of Solovyov to compose the first ... ... Small Thesaurus of World Philosophy

Justification- Justification usually means recognition of something as admissible, excuseful, expedient, as well as recognition of someone as right, innocent. In addition, it can mean the justification for such a recognition, the arguments in its favor. Criminal acquittal ... ... Wikipedia

Tue, 03/03/2015 - 16:14 - Vyacheslav Rumyantsev

"JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD" is the main work of V. S. Solovyov in the field of moral philosophy. Initially, this work was published in separate chapters in the journal Problems of Philosophy and Psychology, Books of the Week, Vestnik Evropy and Niva since 1894. A separate edition of it came out in 1897, Soloviev believed that "Justification of Good" will be the first book, giving a systematic presentation of his philosophy. It was to be followed by the (and never realized) presentation of ontology and epistemology; thereby he abandoned the traditional scheme of constructing philosophy (ontology, epistemology, then ethics, etc.), when moral philosophy was only one of the last, finishing touches in the general presentation of philosophy.

For him, moral philosophy was to become a systematic indicator of the correct path of life's wanderings for people and nations, therefore, creating it, he deliberately distracts from metaphysics. Moral philosophy is defined by him as "complete knowledge of good." It is the solution of the problem of goodness that gives, Soloviev believed, an independent character to moral philosophy. Analysis of goodness allows you to find the key to solving other problems of ethics - the meaning of life and death, conscience, freedom, duty, pity, shame, etc. Therefore, in its content, the work "Justification of Good" contains all moral philosophy, all ethics. Soloviev considered the main purpose of his work not to analyze good as an abstract moment of an idea or its empirical manifestations, but to study the completeness of “moral norms for all the basic practical relations of a single and collective life” (Works: In 2 vols. T. I. p. 97). So the problem of goodness outgrows the framework of ethics: it is a justification of not only goodness, but of all being, all life in general, all God's plan for the world, for “good from God” and its creation cannot be unsuccessful. Good was understood by Solov'ev as a feeling that is definitely inherent in man, as an initial element of human morality, the most universal moral category and subject of moral philosophy. Hence, the justification of good as such is the main task of moral philosophy, while the justification of good as truth Solov'ev referred to the tasks of theoretical philosophy. Soloviev begins the justification of good with a consideration of human nature (part I of the work is called "Good in human nature"). It has long been noted in the history of ethics that in human nature there is aggressiveness and anger, laziness and envy, deceit and cunning, as well as many other vices. However, even Darwin recognized that the most essential difference between man and animals is the presence in him of a moral feeling, which he considered innate. Soloviev, in support of this, referred to such a quality of man, absent in animals, as a feeling of shame, which has a purely moral character: I am ashamed of my animality, therefore, I still exist as a person, and not only physically, but also morally (see p. 124 ).

Along with this basic moral feeling, in human nature there is a feeling of pity, understood as a feeling of someone else's suffering or need, solidarity with others, from which compassion, mercy, conscience, all the complexity of internal and external social ties grow. Among the moral qualities inherent in man, Solovyov considers reverence, the ability to bow before something higher, giving rise to such manifestations of moral life as striving for the ideal, self-improvement. Being organically simple, these feelings hold, according to Solov'ev, all morality, constitute a powerful enough counterbalance to all vices, egoism, and wild passions. Soloviev devotes Part II - "Good from God" to the problem of the origin of good and its character. Although human nature is arranged in such a way that it contains the necessary grounds for the affirmation of good, at the same time, one cannot fail to see that good is in a constant struggle with evil, and that virtue has not finally reigned over sins and vices. Therefore, good has only a relative character, hence morality must have an unconditional principle. The fullness of good, according to Soloviev, is expressed in 3 forms: in unconditionally existing, real perfection - in God, in potential - human consciousness and will, as well as in the actual implementation of good in the historical process of perfection, which is a long and difficult transition from beast-humanity to God-manhood. and here we can talk about progress not only in the field of science and culture, but also in the field of morality. since “the average level of universally binding and realizable moral requirements is increasing” (p. 245). Speaking about freedom as the basis of morality and moral philosophy, Solov'ev considered this to be reasonable freedom, identified by him with moral necessity, and not freedom of will, that is, an irrational arbitrary choice. From this point of view, morality "is completely compatible with determinism and does not at all require so-called free will" (p. 114). “I am not saying,” he wrote further, “that there is no such freedom of will; I am only asserting that it does not exist in moral actions” (p. 115).

The entire historical process develops the conditions under which good can become a truly common property (part III - "Good through the history of mankind"). In historical development, Soloviev distinguished three successive stages: the clan, the national-state system and the world communication of life (as the ideal of the future). Its purpose is to embody perfect morality in the collective whole of humanity; the real subject of improvement or moral progress is an individual person together with a collective person, or society. Society in its essence, he believed, is the moral replenishment or fulfillment of the individual in a given life circle, in other words, society is an augmented or expanded personality, and a personality is a compressed or "concentrated" society. Soloviev recognized that public morality has compulsory forms, but they relate only to the external implementation of order, as for moral improvement as an internal state, here any compulsion is both undesirable and impossible. In the moral sphere, good exists by itself, not connected with legal norms and not requiring any state influence. True, morality in the whole historical process cannot be separated from law and its embodiment in the state. Soloviev considered the mutual relationship between the moral and legal field to be one of the fundamental questions of practical philosophy. “This is,” he wrote, “in essence the question of the connection between ideal moral consciousness and real life; the vitality and fruitfulness of moral consciousness itself depends on a positive understanding of this connection” (p. 446). In this regard, he defined law as a form of balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good, as a compulsory requirement for the implementation of a certain minimum good, or an order that does not allow known "manifestations of evil." “The task of law is not at all that the world lying in evil should turn into the Kingdom of God, but only that it should not turn into hell until the time” (p. 454).

Soloviev also acted as a critic of nationalism and pseudo-patriotism. His understanding of the relationship between the universal and the national is expressed in the following words: "Nations ... live not for themselves only, but for everyone." He opposed nationalism with cosmopolitanism, by which he understood the requirement for the unconditional application of the moral law without any relation to national differences. This interpretation was fully consistent with his idea of the future total unity of mankind.

L. V. Konovalova. V. I. Prilensky

Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. the second, modified and supplemented. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Compiled by P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. - M., 2014, p. 447-449.

Compositions:

Justification of Good // Sozhtyev Vl. Cit .: In 2 t. M., 1988. T. 1; M., 1996.

Literature:

Polemics of Vl. Soloviev and B. Chicherin // Philosophical Sciences. 1489. No. 9-12; 1990, No. 1-4; Gaidenko P. P. Vladimir Soloviev and the philosophy of the Silver Age. M., 2001.S. 64-68.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Mari State Technical University

Department of Philosophy

on the topic: Justifying Good

completed: student gr. RTB-21

Slivin D.S.

checked by: Ph.D., professor

Maslikhin A.V.

Yoshkar-Ola 2008

Introduction

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The problem of the relationship between good and evil worried philosophers at all times. The book by Vladimir Solovyov “The Justification of Good” is one of the attempts to address this problem again. Why is this book given great and close attention?

Justifying Good is a unique piece. In this book, for the first time in the history of ethics, a theoretical work on good is generalized, meaningfully revealing and confirming it. Justification of Good is also unique because it is optimistic in spirit and firmly opposed to pessimistic and negativistic conceptions of morality. The most striking of these concepts was, of course, the concept of Nietzsche, set out in his book "Beyond Good and Evil." The main idea of this work was to "remove" the problem of good and evil, refusal to recognize its fundamental nature. Nietzsche proposed replacing the old normative ethics, distinguishing between good and evil, with a new ethics, which is on the other side of good and evil. Of course, such pessimism and “belittling” of good had been encountered before, so the moment came when the need to refute such concepts became quite obvious.

It is in response to this "criticism" of good that Soloviev writes an excuse for good in order to defend good from the charges against him. From this initial task a second one gradually grew - to try to give a positive theory of good. In addition, in his work, Soloviev also solved such a specific task as considering the basic ethical concepts - good, evil, the meaning of life, the meaning of death, suffering, love - in the light of new spiritual and social experience. Thus, a new image of moral philosophy began to take shape in Russia at the end of the last century. Even if, in the process of writing “Justification of Good,” Solovyov delved into the solution of only one problem: to investigate the good, to define it, to reveal its hypostasis, varieties, i.e. not to go beyond the bounds of ethics - even then the business he took up would have been significant and difficult.

But Vladimir Soloviev saw and set himself an even more difficult task: he saw the need to talk about the properties of good not as abstract moments of an idea and not as empirical facts, but having in mind “the completeness of moral norms for all basic practical relations of a single and collective life ”. V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. / Preface to the first edition / Thus, for a philosopher, the problem of goodness goes beyond the bounds of ethics, affecting the sphere of human history, sociology, psychology, metaphysics.

In his work, Soloviev tries to "justify" not only good, but also being, life in general, God's plan for the world. The solution of the second task - to justify trust in good, to inspire to do good - is associated, as the theory of ethics shows, with even greater difficulties.

The main question that Soloviev tries to solve, “justifying” good, is whether it is worth living if evil reigns in the world, and what is the meaning of life.

In order to answer this question, you need to consider a huge number of facts, deeply study life and the human psyche, turn to God and to world history. Soloviev chooses a long and difficult path, which determines the structure of the book: first he delves into human nature, then turns to God, and then to the crossroads of historical events.

The first part of Vladimir Solovyov's work is called “Goodness in Human Nature”. The philosopher considers the problem of “justifying” goodness set before himself through the prism of the human soul, human psychology, human essence. He really seeks, finds and explains "goodness in human nature."

Soloviev was firmly convinced that the meaning of life does not appear from somewhere outside. The person determines it independently. Calling a person “an unconditional internal form for good as an unconditional content” VS Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. / Preface to the first edition /, the philosopher explains that the meaning of life lies in the good of man.

But if the role of man in the implementation of good is so great, if he exists in the world to justify and assert this good, then what is the ratio of good and evil in human nature? The first part of "Justifying Good" is devoted to answering this question.

1. Sense of shame as the root of human morality

"Any moral teaching, whatever its inner persuasiveness, or external authority, would remain powerless and fruitless if it did not find solid points of support for itself in the very moral nature of man." V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. As we can see, Solov'ev does not doubt that universal human morality is the basis for any significant construction in the field of ethics.

It is well known and long recognized that a person is a creature that cannot be given an unambiguous assessment. The properties of his nature are too diverse and contradictory: beauty and greatness coexist with aggressiveness and anger, laziness and envy, deceit, cunning and a host of other sins and vices. In this regard, the question arises about the possibility of an unambiguously positive assessment of human nature from a moral point of view.

“Animals, obedient to instincts, do not have any excesses harmful to self-preservation, but a person, due to the greater strength of individual consciousness and will, gets the possibility of such abuses, and against the most harmful of them - sexual ones - a useful counterbalance - the feeling of shame ”Lossky NO. History of Russian Philosophy.

A normal person of the highest spiritual development is not at all ashamed of the fact that he is a corporeal or material being in general; no one is ashamed to have an extended body, of a certain shape, with a certain weight and color, i.e. we are not ashamed of everything that we have in common with a stone, wood, piece of metal; only in relation to what we are like the closest creatures to us from the kingdom of nature adjacent to us - the higher animals, do we have a feeling of shame and

internal confrontation, showing that it is here, where we essentially come into contact with the material life of the world, where we can really merge with it, - here we must break away from it and rise above it.

The subject of shame is that area of our material existence, which, although it is directly related to the spirit, because it can internally excite it, but at the same time not only does not serve as an expression of spiritual life, but on the contrary, through it, the process of purely animal life seeks to capture the human spirit into its sphere, subjugate or absorb it. It is this seizure from the side of material life that seeks to make the rational being of a person a passive tool or a useless appendage of the physical process, which causes the opposition of the spiritual principle, which is directly expressed in the feeling of shame. Here, a reasonable assertion of a certain moral norm is psychologically clothed in the affect of fear of its violation, or grief about the violation of what has happened. This norm, logically assumed by the fact of shame, reads in its most general expression: the animal life in man must be subordinated to the spiritual. Since the fact of shame does not depend on individual, tribal and other characteristics, and the requirement contained in it has a universal character, which, combined with the logical necessity of this requirement, gives it the full meaning of the moral principle.

Soloviev emphasizes the presence in man of such qualities that are absent in all other animals. For example, the feeling of shame, which “is already the actual unconditional difference between man and lower nature” V.S. Soloviev. Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. Unlike humans, no animal is ashamed of its physiological acts. Man is ashamed when the animal principle prevails in him over the human. The feeling of shame is amazing, because it cannot be explained by any biological or physiological reasons, benefit for an individual or for a genus. It has a different, more serious meaning: it testifies to the higher moral nature of man compared to animals: if a man is ashamed of his animality, therefore, he exists as a man; if a person is ashamed, therefore, he exists not only physically, but also morally.

According to Solovyov, the fundamental significance of the feeling of shame lies in the fact that it is precisely this feeling that “determines the ethical attitude of man to material nature”. Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. Man is ashamed of the domination of material nature in himself, he is ashamed to be subordinate to it, and thus he recognizes, relative to her, his dignity and inner independence, by virtue of which he must possess material nature, and not vice versa.

Further, in the first part of "The Justification of Good", the philosopher connects the feeling of shame with the principle of asceticism. A person is characterized by the consciousness of his moral dignity, which is semi-conscious and unstable in a simple sense of shame. By the action of reason, it is elevated to the principle of asceticism.

The philosopher believes that the spiritual nature of man is opposed to material nature. This opposition is expressed in shame and develops into asceticism. Its cause is not nature itself, but the influence of its “lower life”, which seeks to subjugate the rational being of man and turn it into an “appendage of a blind physical process”.

Analyzing the reflections of Vladimir Solovyov about the feeling of shame and the role of this feeling in the development of human morality, we can conclude that the feeling of shame is the fundamental factor that distinguishes a person from an animal. It forms man's ethical perception of material nature. The feeling of shame is a means to subordinate the elemental life of a person to spiritual life.

2. Feeling of pity as an expression of the ethical attitude of a person towards his own kind

Along with the feeling of shame, which Soloviev calls the basic moral feeling, in human nature there is also a feeling of pity, which is "the root of the ethical attitude no longer to the lower, material principle of life in every person, but to other human and living beings in general, similar to him." V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. ...

“Feelings of pity or compassion - as opposed to shame - are inherent (to a rudimentary degree) to many animals and, therefore, from no point of view can be considered as a later product of human progress. Thus, if a shameless person is a return to the bestial state, then a ruthless person falls below the animal level ”Golubev A.N. Vladimir Soloviev and his moral philosophy. The close connection of the feeling of pity with social instincts in animals and man is beyond doubt on the very essence of this feeling; however, it is fundamentally still an individual-moral state, which is not completely covered by social relations even in animals, not only in humans. If the only basis for sympathy was the need of a social organism, then every creature could experience this feeling only in relation to those who belong with him to the same social whole. So it usually happens, but not always, at least in higher animals. Numerous

facts of the most tender love (love in the purely psychological sense) of various animals for individuals of other, sometimes very distant zoological groups. Therefore, Darwin's assertion that among wild peoples sympathetic feelings are limited to the members of one and the same close society is very strange. Of course, among cultured peoples, most people display real sympathy mainly for their family and the nearest circle, but individual moral feeling in all peoples can - and indeed does since ancient times - overstep - not only these close, but all other empirical limits. To accept Darwin's assertion as unconditional, even if only for wild tribes, is to admit that the moral height that dogs, monkeys and even lions sometimes reach is beyond the reach of a wild man.

The philosopher understands pity as a feeling of someone else's suffering or need, solidarity with others. From this simple root, which is based on parental, especially motherly, love, then such specific moral feelings as compassion, mercy, conscience, all the complexity of internal and external social ties.

Agreeing that pity in the universal human understanding is good, and a person who manifests this feeling is called good, and a ruthless person is called evil. Soloviev, nevertheless, asserts that the entire morality and essence of all good cannot be reduced only to compassion.

The philosopher does not question the assertion that pity or compassion is the basis of morality, but he emphasizes that this feeling is just one of the three components of the basis of morality, which has a strictly delineated area of application, namely, determines the proper attitude of a person towards other creatures of his world.

Just as the rules of asceticism develop from the feeling of shame, so the rules of altruism develop from the feeling of compassion. Soloviev agrees that pity is the real basis of altruism, but he warns against equating the concepts of “altruism” and “morality,” since altruism is a component of morality.

The philosopher also reveals the true essence of pity, which "is not at all a direct identification of oneself with another, but the recognition of another's own (belonging to him) meaning - the right to existence and possible well-being." V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. This means that when a person pities another person or animal, he does not take it for himself, but sees in him the same animate being as himself. And since a person recognizes for himself certain rights to fulfill his desires, he, feeling pity, recognizes the same rights for others and in the same way reacts to the violation of someone else's right. A person, as it were, equates himself with the one for whom he feels pity, imagines himself in his place.

Based on these premises, Soloviev makes the following conclusion: “the conceivable content (idea) of pity, or compassion, taken in its universality and regardless of the subjective mental states in which it manifests itself,<...>there is truth and justice ”. V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. Thus, it is true that other beings are like man, and it is fair that he treat them as he does himself.

From this position, through various inferences, the philosopher deduces the main principle of altruism, which is psychologically based on a feeling of pity and is justified by reason and conscience: “do with others as you want them to do with you”. V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy.

However, Vladimir Soloviev notes that this general rule does not imply material or qualitative equality of all subjects. There is no such equality in nature, and it makes no sense to demand it. In this case, we are only talking about the equal right for all to exist and develop their positive forces.

3. A sense of reverence for the highest and "religious principle in morality"

In addition to these basic feelings (shame and pity), there is an equally primary sense of reverence for the higher in human nature. It expresses a person's attitude to something special, which is recognized as the highest, on which a person completely depends, before which he is ready to bow down.

The primary or innate nature of this feeling cannot

to be denied for the same reason that it is not seriously denied that we were born with pity or sympathy; both this latter, and the feeling of reverence in embryonic degrees and forms is already in animals. It is absurd to look for religion in them in our sense, but that common elementary feeling, on which religion is initially held in the soul of every person - namely, the feeling of reverent admiration for something higher - arises unconsciously in other creatures besides man.

A sense of reverence for the higher is the foundation of religion. It gives rise to such complex phenomena of moral life as striving for the ideal, self-improvement.

This feeling underlies the religious principle of morality.

Moving smoothly from the rules of justice and mercy, which are psychologically based on the feeling of pity, Soloviev examines the feeling of reverence using the example of the relationship between parents and children. According to the philosopher, these relationships are specific. They are not limited only to justice and philanthropy and are not derived from pity. The relationship between children and parents is built on the child's recognition of the superiority of parents over himself and his dependence on them. The child feels reverence for them, and from this feeling follows the practical obligation of obedience. These relationships definitely go beyond altruism, since the moral attitude of children to their parents is not determined by equality, on the contrary, it is based on the recognition of what makes these creatures unequal with each other.

Of course, such relationships do not contradict justice, but apart from it there is something special in them. Loving his parents, the child, of course, feels the need for their love, but the love that he feels for his parents is significantly different from the love that he expects from them. In the child's love for his parents, "the feeling of admiration for the higher and the duty of obedience to him dominate, and it is not at all assumed that the child demands the same respect and obedience from his parents as well." V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. According to the philosopher, filial love is in the nature of reverence.

Soloviev believes that it is precisely this attitude of children towards their parents, the positive inequality that is present in their relations due to the advantage of parents over children, that ensures their solidarity and underlies a special kind of moral relations. The philosopher sees here "the natural root of religious morality, which represents a special, important area in the spiritual nature of man." V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy.

4. The combination of three primary feelings as a guarantee of "goodness in human nature"

Thus, initially simple feelings (shame, pity and reverence for the highest) underlie human morality and turn a person away from evil. They are also the basis of virtue, showing what a person should be.

Vladimir Soloviev identifies precisely these three qualities as the most important for human nature. The philosopher, explaining his choice, claims that all other qualities, such as duty, freedom or justice, are far from unambiguous and are not devoid of internal contradictions, the presence of which can easily turn them either into direct evil or into a means leading to evil. It is also important that these feelings are not inherent in humans by nature.

However, there is more to come. For Solovyov, the most important thing is that only these three initial feelings - shame, pity and reverence for the highest authority - can be the guarantors of morality, i.e. to ensure the personal morality of a person. Only these simple feelings (each separately and especially all together) serve as a guarantee that the person who possesses them will not even make attempts to kill, steal, or otherwise harm other people. Such a person is ashamed to be bad, he can no longer do evil, he can no longer do it and will abandon it. He will now do good.

So, Vladimir Soloviev “justified” good in human nature and decided the question of human nature in favor of good.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to note that not only the first part, but the entire treatise is built on the most careful attention to human needs and aspirations, on the consideration of the most ordinary ways of human life, calling, despite the elements of evil, to the clear simplicity of truth and goodness established not by violence, but as a result of the most sincere impulses of the human will. He is imbued with a soft, benevolent, fatherly concern for bringing a person and his entire history to a successful conclusion.

The human attraction to goodness justifies what is very often considered an incompatible contradiction. So, morality is characterized by an ascetic principle. But it is not a goal at all, but only a path to good, and even then it is not the only one. It is characteristic that here there is a roll call with Buddhism, which also proclaims a "middle path" that does not encourage excessive deviations. This shows once again that no matter how many religions there are, they all have a grain of truth in them, you just need to be able to see it.

The person's personality is in the foreground. But this plan is also far from final. Vladimir Soloviev gives a whole theory of the family, where the personality, although in the foreground, is in agreement with another set of personalities, or ancestors, or descendants. Sexual love is fully justified, but it does not prevail, but also contains many other things. Childbearing is a blessing - a blessing, but also not the only one. Personality is fullness, but in order to complete this completeness, it needs society. Society is completeness, but the completion of this completeness is not just in society, but in the entire historical process, i.e. in humanity. Economic and political life, state and law are integral parts of the historical striving of mankind for truth and goodness. But the most general moral organization should be religious and end in the universal church, Vladimir Soloviev believes.

List of used literature

1. Soloviev V.S. Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy / V.S. Soloviev - M .: Respublika, 1996 .-- 479 p.

2. Golubev A.N. Vladimir Soloviev and his moral philosophy / A.N. Golubev, L.V. Konovalova - M.: Republic, 1994 .-- 446 p.

3. Lossky N.O. History of Russian philosophy / N.O. Lossky - M .: Higher. shk., 1991 .-- 559 p.

4.http: //www.philosophy.ru - philosophical portal

5.http: //www.modernphil.pp.ru - Philosophy in Russia