1. Definition of philosophy and its place in the system of scientific knowledge Life, science and culture as a whole require from us improvement, energetic curiosity, creative imagination, inquisitive thought, broad outlook and wisdom. We need to understand the secrets of nature,

Lecture 20. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

1. Definition of religion. Origin of religion.

2. Essence and signs of religion.

3. The structure of religion.

4. Functions of religion.

5. Religion in the system of spiritual culture.

Main literature

Philosophy: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, prof. V.P. Ratnikova. - M., 2004. S. 534-546.

Khrustalev Yu.M. General course philosophy. In 2 vols. - M., 2003. Vol. 2.

Khrustalev Yu.M. Philosophy. - M., 2004. S. 449-478.

additional literature

Men A. History of religion: In search of a way, truth and life. -M., 2001. Book. one.

Fundamentals of Religious Studies. Textbook for universities / Ed. I.N. Yablokov. - M., 1998.

Polikarpov V.S. History of religions: Lectures and reader. - M., 1997.

Religion in history and culture: Proc. for university students / Ed. M.G. Pismanika. - M., 1998.

Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: Proc. for students of higher textbook establishments. - M., 2001.

Philosophy: Proc. allowance for universities / Ed. ed. V.P. Kokhanovsky. - Rostov n / D., 2000.

Yablokov I.N. Religious studies: textbook. allowance and textbook. sl.-minimum in religious studies for university students. –M., 2000.

1. Definition of religion. Origin of religion

The subject of the philosophy of religion is the most important features of the phenomenon of religion, primarily its essence and structure, as well as the place of religion in the system of the spiritual life of society, the difference between religion and other ways of spiritual exploration of the world. The philosophy of religion is the worldview and methodological basis religious studies , which also includes the history of religions, sociology and psychology of religion, in which the issues of the emergence of religion, the reasons for its stability, the social functions of religion are studied, psychological mechanisms religious faith, etc.

The philosophy of religion must be distinguished from religious philosophy, which is a set of philosophical concepts that solve the main problems of philosophy from a religious standpoint, starting with ontology and epistemology and ending with anthropology and social philosophy.

Word "religion" of Latin origin, it goes back to the verb religion- connect, connect. This refers to the connection of a person with the other world, with other dimensions of being. According to V.S. Solovyov (1853 - 1900), "religion ... is the connection of man and the world with the unconditional beginning and center of everything that exists." Most religions proceed from the fact that our empirical reality is not independent, it is derivative, acts as a projection of another, true reality. Thus, religions double the world and point out to a person superior forces that have reason, will, and their own laws. The transcendent world is interpreted as sacred (sacred), in relation to this higher reality believers experience fear, awe and admiration, they worship her, revere her, feel dependence on her, obligations to her, they associate hopes for higher happiness and salvation with her. This is the most general characteristic of religion.

However, there is still no single definition of religion, just as there is no common understanding of its essence. In various philosophical concepts, the nature of religion is interpreted in different ways.

Theological (confessional) interpretations religions seek to understand religion "from the inside", on the basis of relevant religious experience, from the perspective of a believer. Common to such explanations is the idea of ​​religion as a connection of man with God, with the Absolute, with some higher power. So, for example, according to S.N. Bulgakov (1871-1944), "religion is the identification of God and the experience of connection with God." At the same time, supernatural forces are recognized as really existing, capable of influencing the life of a person and society, and a person is able to enter into communication with them, to achieve their goodwill.

Philosophical and sociological concepts religions tend to give a scientific, secular definition of religion, relying only on the empirical reality of nature, society and man known to science. Religion is interpreted here as one of the social phenomena, a form of spiritual culture that satisfies the needs of people in some kind of sacralization (sanctification, ritualization) of some moments, aspects of their lives. For example, in Marxism, religion is defined as "a fantastic reflection in the minds of people of those external forces that dominate them in their daily lives - a reflection in which earthly forces take the form of extraterrestrial ones" (F. Engels).

Biological and psychological concepts They also rely on science, but they look for the basis of religion in the biological or biopsychic processes of a person. From this point of view, the basis of religion is the “religious instinct” rooted in human nature, associated with feelings of dependence and fear, feelings of shame, reverence, etc. Such is, for example, psychoanalytic interpretation of religion, in which it is derived from a person's feeling of helplessness before the forces of nature and is defined as a universal collective neurosis that can alleviate the burden of existence in a complex and unpredictable world, free from feelings of fear and uncertainty.

On the highly controversial issue of origin of religion There are two very opposite positions. According to the first theistic approved pre-monotheism , that is, the original existence of faith in a single Creator God. This concept is the most full form was expounded by the Catholic pastor W. Schmidt (1868 - 1954). Supporters of the second atheistic positions suggest that there was a long pre-religious period in human history. However, a careful study of both archaeological sources and modern backward tribes has shown that religion arises on last step biological evolution of man along with the advent of the Neanderthal, and at first exists in the form of primitive beliefs. Their main forms: magic(representations and practices based on belief in mysterious forces that can be used to influence people and phenomena); fetishism(based on the idea of ​​the ability of certain objects, after contacting them, to positively or negatively affect a person); animism(belief in the existence of souls and spirits); totemism(assumes a family relationship between a community of people and a certain animal and plant). From the initial beliefs, tribal religions are formed, then national-state (ethnic) and world ones arise. Among the first, ethnic religions include Judaism, Hinduism, etc. The traditional world religions include Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

2. Essence and signs of religion

The most important, central feature of religion is belief in the supernatural the existence of any beings, things or relations to them. Back in the 18th century, Denis Diderot wrote: “The more enlightened and developed the people, the faster the faith in the supernatural weakens and disappears in it.” But what is the supernatural?

Some researchers believe that supernatural- it is supersensible, extra-natural, incorporeal, unextended, others give it more narrow sense- a special dimension of space, "the world of dwelling of spirits, souls and deities." The hypothetical and vagueness of the concept of the supernatural has forced many researchers to look for the essence of religion in something else.

The second important feature of religion is having faith, the latter is usually understood as incomplete, insufficient knowledge, as acceptance of something as true without prior verification and proof. Faith - this is a special state of the psyche, in which both rational (judgment about the truth of this or that information) and emotional (experience, feeling of confidence) elements are mixed.

The next sign of religion is the presence of cult activities, i.e. rites and rituals, called to propitiate the supernatural forces, to win their favor.

But religion includes not only ideas and feelings, covered by the concept of faith, and not only symbolic actions, covered by the concept "cult", but also something else: human organizations, moral views, etc. In order to cover by definition all the elements that a religion has or can have, one should use the concept "activity". Religion in this case can be defined as an activity through which belief in the supernatural is expressed and realized.

3. The structure of religion

The structure of religion has changed in the course of history. In primitive society, religion as a relatively independent entity has not yet been singled out and not divided. In the future, becoming more autonomous, it became more and more differentiated and complicated. There are four main components (subsystems) in the structure of developed religions: religious consciousness, religious attitude, religious activity and religious organizations.

Religious consciousness belongs to the defining position in religion. Religious consciousness is distinguished by such features as value and emotional saturation, sensual visibility, symbolism and dialogue. Its integrative force is faith as a special psychological state of confidence in something in the absence of accurate and proven information.

AT religious activities non-cult and cult sides differ. The first is carried out in the spiritual and practical spheres, it is formed by: the development of religious ideas, the composition of theological writings (spiritual side) and the production of religious objects, missionary work, participation in the work of "cathedrals", theological teaching (practical side). The most important view religious activity is cult(lat. cultus - care, veneration) - an interaction with the sacred reality that takes place in the form of a ritual, in which its symbols and events are actualized. A cult can be characterized as a "dramatization of a religious myth". It serves to unite believers, to satisfy their aesthetic needs (in this respect, the cult is similar to art).

Religious relations are also divided into two types. The first are interpersonal relationships, i.e. between individuals, religious groups and organizations. It can be a relationship of solidarity, tolerance, conflict, competition and even hostility. The second - attitudes to the phenomena of the sacred world, to hypostatized beings ( hypostasis - this is giving abstract concepts, such as good, holiness, sin, evil, love, etc., an independent existence along with natural and social material objects). Usually these are emotionally rich feelings of reverence, admiration, worship, love, but often they are mixed with fear and even hatred if the supernatural does not justify the hopes of the believer.

Religious organizations- these are associations of believers that have a hierarchy, division of powers and competences, their own system of social control, and norms of communication. to the main types religious associations include: church, sect, denomination.

Church is a relatively broad association, belonging to which is determined, as a rule, not by the free choice of the individual, but by tradition. There is virtually no permanent and strictly controlled membership in the church. In most churches, adepts are divided into clergy and laity, which is reflected in the organizational structure, in the strict centralization of management.

Sect arises as an opposition movement in relation to certain religious movements, often it is an expression of protest social groups dissatisfied with their position. Sects are characterized by a claim to the exclusivity of their role, doctrine, values, the mood of being chosen, charismatic leadership, but at the same time the equality of all members of the sect is emphasized (there is no priesthood).

Denomination can develop from other types of associations or develop initially as such. It is characterized by opposition to the church and sects, weakening of isolation, isolation from the world, calls to believers to participate in the affairs of the world. The denomination is characterized by a clear organization, the presence of an elite of leaders.

4. Functions of religion

Religion performs a number of important social functions that make it an integral part of society's life. The main functions of religion include:

1. ideological- Religion forms a special picture of the world, answers the most important questions of the world order, gives meaning and purpose to human life, provides a system of guidelines that connect the private existence of an individual with an absolute beginning.

2. compensatory– religion fills the limitations, helplessness of people, relieves stress, gives comfort and hope, is a source of spiritual pleasure, and also alleviates the distress of the disadvantaged through the system of church charity.

3. communicative- provides communication of believers both among themselves and with the Absolute, other supernatural beings.

4. Regulatory- through a system of norms, values, customs, manages the activities and relationships, consciousness and behavior of individuals, groups, communities, organizes social time and space, correlating them with the phenomena of sacred reality.

5. Integrating-disintegrating- Religion unites people in one respect (within a church or sect), and divides people in another (in relation to other churches and sects, unbelievers). From the point of view of E. Durkheim, the function of social solidarity is the most important function of religion.

6. cultural broadcasting- religion contributes to the development of spiritual culture, in particular, writing, painting, architecture, music, the preservation of spiritual heritage, its transmission from generation to generation.

7. legitimizing-delegitimizing- legitimizes certain social institutions, orders, institutions, norms and patterns of behavior as proper and legitimate, or, on the contrary, asserts the illegality of some of them.

5. Religion in the system of spiritual culture

Religion is an integral part of spiritual culture, its essential element. Many theologians generally consider religion to be the basis of spiritual culture, they believe that culture arises on the basis of religion. Hence the derivative of the word "culture" from the word "cult", i.e. from religious activities.

There is also a special concept religious culture ", denoting a set of methods and techniques for ensuring and realizing human existence, which are implemented in the course of religious activity and are presented in products that carry religious meanings and meanings. Religious culture includes in its structure many elements that are common to it with other forms of spiritual culture. We are talking about religious art, religious morality, religious philosophy, etc.

religious art is the area of ​​creation, perception, translation art treasures in which religious symbols "live". It includes religious texts (eg the Bible), religious paintings (icons, frescoes), religious music and architecture. Through religious art, religion develops and strengthens in believers artistic perception introduces them to the world of art.

religious morality is a system developed and preached by religion moral ideas, norms, concepts, feelings, values, filled with specific (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc.) content. Religion participates in the moral development of people, promotes the ideals of goodness, justice, and contributes to the humanization of social relations.

religion and philosophy What unites these two components of spiritual culture is that there are no common criteria for the truth of knowledge, they are addressed to other kinds of questions. However, it is possible to apply theoretical criteria to philosophy. Not facts, but logical arguments allow us to choose one or another philosophical interpretation as the most convincing (say, a materialistic, idealistic or pluralistic explanation of the structure of nature or the course of the history of society). As far as religion is concerned, neither empirical nor theoretical evidence will bring consensus. Religious claims cannot be verified in the usual way. You can either believe in them, or not, or doubt (refrain from a final conclusion). Only religious experience as a subjective experience of a certain revelation can serve as a basis for choosing one or another faith.

Special topic - topic relationships of science and religions. For a very long time, these were relations of confrontation, struggle - let us recall, for example, the inquisitorial trial of Galileo. Today, the rapprochement of religion and science is gradually beginning, the search for common points of contact and interaction. Many scientists of the past and present are deeply religious people, which indicates the compatibility of religious and scientific pictures of the world. This is confirmed by discoveries in cosmology and other sciences, showing the non-randomness of the appearance of life on Earth, the potential possibility of the existence of the Higher Mind, which laid in the Universe such values ​​of fundamental constants that predetermined its directed development towards complication, the emergence of life and mind on Earth (anthropic principle) .

In general, religion is not just a form of some kind of connections, relationships and actions of people, but a form of social and individual consciousness, a way of spiritual exploration of the world, a type of social activity based on belief in the supernatural or sacred, having a complex structure and performing important social functions.

Philosophy and religion have completely different tasks and essence. various essentially a form of spiritual activity. Religion is life in communion with God aimed at satisfying the personal needs of the human soul in salvation in finding the last strength and satisfaction, unshakable peace of mind and joy. Philosophy is, in essence, completely independent of any personal interests. the highest, final comprehension of being and life by seeing their absolute fundamental principle. But these, in essence, heterogeneous forms of spiritual life coincide with each other in the sense that both of them are feasible only through focus of consciousness on the same object – on God more precisely, through the living, experienced discernment of God. Of course, abstractly reasoning, it is possible to imagine the reverse relationship - namely, the complete divergence of the ways of accomplishing both tasks. Where, as, for example, in Buddhism, personal salvation is not found on the path of communion with God, and where, on the other hand, , reason strives to comprehend life and the world not from its eternal and absolute fundamental principle - there is nothing in common between religion and philosophy; not only do they contradict one another, but in this case they are just as out of touch with each other as, say, music and chemical analysis. But the whole point is precisely in the fact that such completely divergent paths are for both religion and philosophy imaginary paths that do not lead to the goal, and that, on the contrary, genuine the fulfillment of the tasks of both is possible only on the paths leading to the same goal - to God. With regard to this assertion, of course, no special proof is required; here we can calmly leave individual paradoxists to work, contrary to common human experience, to prove the opposite. On the contrary, in relation to philosophy, this is a thesis that requires final clarification and proof, by no means exhausted by the previous general considerations.

Modern consciousness, even if it thinks in terms close to the above considerations, seems unlikely or even completely impossible for the absolute, which is needed in philosophy as the highest logical category, uniting and ordering the theoretical comprehension of being, to coincide with the living personal God, which requires and with which alone religious faith can be satisfied.

Two doubts arise here, which, from different angles, express essentially the same difficulty. On the one hand, the religious idea of ​​God, apparently, contradicts the goals of philosophy in the sense that it presupposes in the nature of God and therefore in a living relationship to God the moment mysteries, incomprehensibility, inadequacy to the human mind, while the task of philosophy is precisely to understand and explain fundamental principle of life. Everything that is logically proven, understood, completely clear, already thereby loses its religious significance. God, mathematically proven, is not the god of religious faith. From this it seems that even if philosophy really knew the true God, proved His existence, explained His properties, it would precisely by this deprive Him of the meaning that He has for religion, i.e., would kill the most precious thing that exists in living religious faith. Such is the doubt of many religious natures, to whom it often seems that the more a philosophy is religious in its subject matter, i.e., the more stubbornly it is occupied with the logical comprehension of God, the more dangerous it is for the purpose of religion - for the living, believing possession of an unsearchable and inexpressible source of salvation. And the same train of thought sometimes leads philosophy to the conviction that its true task is to understand God, thereby destroying that lack of accountability and mystery of Him, which gives the character of an intimate faith; philosophy is in this case, as in Hegel, the replacement of unconscious, instinctive faith by clear knowledge - overcoming faith with knowledge. How can one not simultaneously experience the joy of living love for a person and take the same person as an object of cold scientific analysis So it is impossible to believe in God and logically comprehend Him at the same time.

In another aspect, the same difficulty takes the form of another doubt. religious faith, the source of personal salvation must be a living person. But, apparently, of all the categorical forms in which the central philosophical concept of the fundamental principle of being can be thought, the form living personality. Whether it is conceived in philosophy as the substance of the world or as its primary cause, as an all-one eternity or as a creative force of development, as a world mind or as life, it is, in any case, something impersonal, to some extent always pantheistically world-encompassing. a beginning in which philosophy, without changing its task of comprehending and logically comprehending being and without artificially adapting to the requirements of religious feeling, cannot see the anthropomorphic features of a living, punishing and loving person, necessary for a religious relationship with God. In a fatal way, regardless of the content of a separate philosophical system, the God of philosophy bears the stamp of his dependence on the needs of abstract thought, and that is why for religious feeling there is only an illusory surrogate for the true God - a dead stone instead of bread that satisfies the hunger of a religious soul, or, at best, , a useless, foggy, ethereal shadow of that truly existing, which in all the fullness and vitality of His reality is already possessed by direct religious faith.

Both doubts are ultimately based, as already indicated, on one difficulty; and it must be admitted that this is indeed a serious difficulty - one of the deepest and most important philosophical problems - in contrast to the easily resolved contradiction with which we dealt above and which arose only from superficial and completely false banal ideas about the essence of philosophy and religion. . This difficulty boils down to the question: can philosophy, which is the comprehension of being in the logical form of a concept, at the same time not be rationalism? It is noteworthy that this issue is decisive not only for the harmonization of philosophy and religion, but also for the possibility of philosophy itself. In fact, philosophy, on the one hand, is the comprehension of being in the system of concepts and, on the other hand, the comprehension of it from its absolute and all-embracing fundamental principle. But the concept is always something relative and limited; how is it possible to express the absolute in the forms of the relative, to master the infinite by catching it in the network of the finite? How is it possible, to put it simply, to comprehend the incomprehensible? It would seem that we are faced with a fatal dilemma: either we are looking for the absolute itself, which goes beyond the limits of everything finite and - thereby - logically expressible, and then we cannot really comprehend and logically fix; or we are looking for only a logical system of concepts and then we always stay in the sphere of only the relative, particular, derivative, not reaching the true fundamental principle and integral unity of being. In both cases, the task of philosophy remains unfulfilled.

Many philosophical systems have collapsed on this difficulty. But in its main thoroughfare, philosophy long ago reckoned with this difficulty and overcame it in principle. In the teaching of Heraclitus on the mutual connection and living harmony of opposites, in the most profound, overcoming early rationalism, the later dialogues of Plato, in the teaching of God by the Philo of Alexandria, in the whole direction of the so-called “negative theology”, in neo-Platonism and the philosophical mysticism of Christianity, in the teaching Nicholas of Cusa about docta ignorantia, in the most thoughtful and precise formulations of the so-called “ontological proof” of the existence of God, in Spinoza’s doctrine of the substantial unity of heterogeneous attributes, in Leibniz’s theory of the continuity of being, in Schelling’s philosophy of identity, in Hegel’s dialectical ontology, we have different - and different in depth and adequacy , - but basically identical and fundamentally successful solutions to this difficulty. The general meaning of overcoming it lies in the discretion supralogical, intuitive basis of logical thought. Philosophy comprehends – and thereby distinctly logically expresses – the absolute through direct observation and logical fixation of its eminent form, which exceeds the logical concept. We are deprived of the opportunity to give here a detailed logical explanation of this most profound and at the same time axiomatically self-evident relationship; we can only in a few words lead the reader's mind to the connection that is being revealed here. The perception of the absolute, all-encompassing nature of being, which goes beyond the limitations and relativity of everything logically fixed, is precisely its logically adequate view. Or, in other words: it is a logically mature thought that has reached the last clarity, seeing the inexhaustibility and infinity of the absolute, its fundamental difference from everything rationally expressible, humbly recognizing, therefore, the limited achievements of the mind in the face of true being, precisely in open and clear awareness of this correlation, and only in it alone, overcomes the limitations of the mind and takes possession of an object that surpasses its forces. As Nicholas of Cusa succinctly puts it, "the unattainable is achieved through its non-attainment." Therefore, true philosophy not only does not deny the consciousness of the mystery, the inexhaustible depth and boundless fullness of being, but, on the contrary, is entirely based on this consciousness and proceeds from it as a self-evident and first fundamental truth. In general, this consciousness is a constitutive sign of any true knowledge, in contrast to imaginary knowledge, which claims to be omniscient. Where a person, indulging in the pride of knowledge, imagines that he has exhausted the subject with his knowledge, there is precisely the first condition of knowledge - a clear vision of his subject; for where there is this vision, i.e. where—thus—there is knowledge, there is also the obvious insight into the incompleteness and incompleteness of knowledge. Genuinely perceived knowledge is always accompanied by the feeling that the brilliant creator of the mathematical system of the Universe Newton classically expressed in the words that he imagines himself a child collecting individual shells on the shore of a boundless and unexplored ocean. And vice versa, that stupid self-conceit, to which being appears as a limited and flat folding picture, easily and completely exhausted in a few formulas, not only contains an illegal exaggeration of the significance of any knowledge achieved, but is simply complete blindness, in which even the first knowledge step.

By this elucidation of the condition of the possibility of philosophy itself, at least the first of these two doubts about the relation between philosophical knowledge of God and religious feeling is immediately eliminated. In whatever concepts abstract philosophical thought expresses its knowledge of God, its basic intuition and thus its highest and supreme concept remains the purely religious idea of ​​the immensity, inexhaustible depth and mystery of God; and, in essence, the rest of the system of concepts has as its final purpose to bring thought closer to grasping precisely this supra-finite and supra-rational nature of God, which constitutes His absoluteness. The usual misconception in understanding the relationship between philosophy and religion at this point is that the sense of mystery is presented as a condition that blocks cognitive penetration, and, conversely, the passion for knowledge is a force that destroys the humble sense of mystery and therefore favors the conceit of atheism. In reality, on the contrary, a religious sense of the mystery and depth of being is the first and necessary condition for the development of philosophy, while the self-importance of atheism kills the very instinct of philosophizing at the root and is just as much a denial of philosophy as of religion. Opportunity and even private case intermediate forms - the insufficiency of philosophical energy, due to which thought, not penetrating to the last depth, stops halfway, sets itself the last limits here and, simplifying being, favors semi-unbelief or poverty and schematic religious consciousness - of course, does not refute, but rather confirms the basic, explained us ratio. The ongoing battle between the minds, so to speak. deep minds, that is, those who feel the depth and infinite complexity of life, and flat minds, imagining that life can be easily taken apart and put back together as you like, like a house of cards, there is as much a struggle for the religious as for philosophical, worldview.

This way the way to the solution of the second doubt is also found. True, since we will express it in a rough and logically firm formula, according to which faith is a human-like person. The god of philosophy is an impersonal absolute, it seems utterly irresistible. But only the one-sidedness and logical simplicity of the formula itself is to blame for this. Neither the God of religion nor the God of philosophy is the simple and unambiguous content to which this formula reduces Him, precisely because He is, first of all, inexhaustible depth and inexhaustible richness. He is the fullness all definitions, because it stands above each of them separately; and therefore one definition does not contradict another in Him - under the condition that each of them is taken in the proper sense, not as an exhaustive adequate knowledge of His very essence, but precisely as an understanding of one of His sides, having - due to the fundamental unity of His essence - only a symbolic meaning to define the whole. After all, even religious faith contains – at the very first attempt at any one-sided definition of It – a multitude of contradictions, which in reality are not contradictions, but antinomies agreed upon in a higher, supra-rational unity. On the other hand, philosophical knowledge of God is only in an imaginary way chained to the indicated impersonal and, as it were, formless concept of God as some kind of only all-encompassing principle. The seeming inevitability of this trend follows only from the one-sided restriction of the task of philosophy to theoretical understanding of the world. If we remember and keep in mind that the task of philosophy is not exhausted by this, but requires holistic understanding of being in all its living fullness and depth, embracing as one of its main moments the reality of spiritual life with all its moral and religious demands and problems - if we recall the need for such philosophical problems as the problem of good and evil, theodicy, the relationship between moral ideal and reality, freedom and necessity, reason and the blindness of natural forces, then we will understand that the highest clarifying unity that philosophy seeks is not only an impersonal unity. ordering the picture of the objective world being, but really a holistic unity of life in the deepest and most comprehensive sense of this concept. The whole point is that genuine philosophy, capable of fulfilling its purpose, must proceed from a real, i.e., absolutely complete and concrete total unity, and not from an imaginary, in essence, only partial and abstract unity of the system of objective being. And this means that the last source and criterion of philosophical knowledge is w only a dispassionate, purely contemplative intuition of objective being, and a holistic and living spiritual experience - comprehending the experiential survival of the last depths of life. The traditional school understanding of philosophy - insofar as it generally admits philosophy as metaphysics or ontology - sees in the latter the content of "theoretical philosophy" and separates from it as special, additional and, moreover, relatively minor branches of philosophical knowledge - "ethics", or "practical philosophy" , “aesthetics”, “philosophy of religion”, “philosophy of history”, etc. Practically and propaedeutically, such or a division of philosophy similar to it is, of course, inevitable, in view of the diversity of philosophical interests and the impossibility of immediately expounding the subject of philosophy from all its sides. But since it is believed that such a division accurately expresses the internal structure of philosophical knowledge, which follows from the structure of its very subject, this is a dangerous delusion that diverts the spiritual gaze from the true nature of the subject of philosophy. One side, any philosophy is an ontology or “ theoretical philosophy” (meaningless pleonasm - after all, philosophy is always knowledge, i.e. theory!), for philosophy everywhere and everywhere cognizes the truly existing; and, on the other hand, which is especially important here, true ontology is not a dispassionate study of the forthcoming picture of being alien to the spirit and only from outside it (for such a being is precisely not an integral being or a true all-unity), but the comprehension of absolute being, embracing and all the spiritual life of the subject of knowledge itself - the human personality. But the cognitive focus on the absolute in this, its only true sense, presupposes spiritual experience not as an external contemplation, but as based on a true internal experience understanding the essence and meaning of life. In short, a genuine, and not only school and propaedeutic, ontology must be based on living religious experience and therefore, in principle, cannot contradict him. The whole set of painful doubts, searches and achievements of religious experience, united in the theme “about the meaning of life”, is the problem of guilt, retribution and forgiveness, personal responsibility and human impotence, predestination and freedom, the reality of evil and goodness of the Existing One, the fragility of empirical existence and indestructibility. personality - is included as a legitimate and necessary theme in the ontology, deserving its name of the doctrine of being.

One need only remember this primary and basic being, concentrate on it and see in it the last criterion of knowledge, so that the whole correlation, which at first glance seems confusing and almost insoluble, becomes - at least in principle - self-evidently clear. There are not two truths, but only one - and it is where there is maximum completeness and specificity. No matter how different the personal-religious relationship to God may be from the cognitive relationship to Him in philosophy, no matter what differences we find between religious and philosophical interest, all these relationships are established within the same ultimate reality that lies before the spiritual gaze of the individual. and remains itself, no matter whether it is expressed in direct religious experience or in a mediated system of logical concepts. The main thing, however, is to have a living experience of reality itself. Only where religion takes the dogmas of faith not as symbolic and mysterious designations of the divine nature, but as complete and exhaustive adequate revelations of God, turning them into one-sided logical definitions, or where philosophy imagines in an abstract system of ready-made formulas to determine to the end the last depths of reality, - only there are possible - and even inevitable - conflicts between philosophy and religion. The internal connection and intimate affinity of philosophy were most of all obscured by naive and daring attempts to rationalize the dogmas of faith, compromising both philosophy and religion. Mysterious and significant religious intuitions - the fruit of the spiritual experience of religious geniuses and the conciliar religious consciousness - almost inaccessible in their depth to the inexperienced experience of the average person, are sometimes discussed - both in substantiating them and in refuting them - as simple truths, the meaning of which is accessible to common sense and can be established by simple logical analysis. Pitiable is that wisdom which, in ignorant conceit, refutes the dogma of the Trinity on the simple ground that one is not equal to three; but a bit of philosophical wisdom and in a bold attempt, without penetrating experience into this mystery, in an imaginary way "prove" it logically, by means of an abstract analysis of the poor in content and formless general idea of ​​the Deity. On the contrary, the deeper and more authentic philosophical knowledge, the more it is inclined to humility, to the recognition of the Socratic position that the source of knowledge is the consciousness of one's ignorance.

Philosophical knowledge in its achievements necessarily lags behind the achievements of direct religious penetration into the depths of being. There are substantial grounds for this, rooted in the very nature of both spiritual activities. First of all, religious faith, being a living, direct sensation and experience of the Divine, does not need for its achievements the hard mental work of rational explanation and substantiation of its truths. In addition, although religion, as indicated above, necessarily contains, as its main reference point, the moment of direct personal discretion of truth, it does not at all need this direct discretion to extend to all content of religious belief. On the contrary, it is characteristic that this moment of immediate evidence is inherent in the perception of truthfulness, unconditional truth. source of revelation whether there will be the same Deity or this or that intermediary between God and man - by virtue of which the content of the revelation acquires an indirect certainty of the truth, reported by a self-evidently reliable witness. Therefore, the property personal Faith can be - and even necessarily happens - the content of the conciliar religious experience, with all the achievements of religious geniuses included in it. This achieves the possibility of completeness, richness and depth of religious revelation, completely unattainable for philosophical knowledge. For although philosophical knowledge not posted here no major barriers and the possibility of infinite achievements is open, but the nature of philosophical knowledge requires logical unity content makes it nearly impossible for it to be used on a single system all the fullness of the religious experience of mankind. Only completeness and diversity all philosophical achievements of human thought, in principle, can become at the level of his religious achievements, but this completeness can only be given to spiritual-historical intuition, but not adequately expressed in any single system. A philosophical system that attempts to express and logically capture the whole religious experience of mankind, there is a plan similar to an attempt to draw a geographical map, on which all the diversity of geographical reality would be marked. And here, on the other hand, we are again convinced that correct ratio between religion and philosophy is possible only on the basis of that “wise ignorance” ( docta ignorantia), which is the most mature fruit of true enlightenment. A truly philosophical frame of mind coincides in its volitional structure with a religious frame of mind: in both - contrary to superficial opinion, which seems impossible - humility is combined with the boldness of creativity, and moreover, not in such a way that each of these volitional tendencies restrains and limits the other, but that each of them, on the contrary, nourishes and strengthens the other.