Nihilist in Russian Literature. Nihilist in Russian literature Nihilists in literature
Thus the nihilistic dream is "positive" in its direction. But truth requires that we view it from its proper perspective: not through rose-coloured nihilist glasses, but from the realistic perspective that this age's familiarity with the phenomenon of nihilism provides us with. Armed with the knowledge that this acquaintance provides, and the Christian truth that allows us to correctly evaluate them, let's try to see what is hidden behind the facade of nihilistic phrases.
In this perspective, those phrases that seem entirely and completely “positive” to the nihilist appear before the Orthodox Christian in a different light, as the provisions of a program radically different from that set forth by the apologists of nihilism.
1. DESTRUCTION OF THE OLD ORDER
The first and most obvious position of the program of nihilism is the destruction of the old order. The old order was the soil nourished by Christian truth; there, in this soil, the roots of mankind went. All his laws and regulations and even customs were based on this truth, they were supposed to teach it: his buildings were built to the glory of God and served as an obvious sign of his order on earth; even the generally "primitive" but natural conditions of life served (although, of course, unintentionally) as a reminder of the humble position of man, of his dependence on God for the few earthly blessings with which he was endowed, that his true home is there , far away, beyond the "valley of tears", in the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, in order for the war against God and truth to be successful, the destruction of all elements of this old order is required, it is here that the special nihilistic “virtue” of violence comes into play.
Violence is no longer one of the incidental aspects of the nihilistic revolution, but part of its content. According to Marxist "dogma", "strength is the midwife of any old society pregnant with a new one." Revolutionary literature is replete with calls for violence, even with some ecstasy at the prospect of its use. Bakunin awakened "bad passions" and called for the release of "people's anarchy" in the process of "general destruction", his "Revolutionary Catechism" is the ABC of ruthless violence. Marx zealously defended "revolutionary terror" as the only means to hasten the coming of communism, Lenin described "the dictatorship of the proletariat" as "rule unlimited by law and based on violence."
The demagogic excitation of the masses and the use of base passions have long and to this day been a common nihilistic practice. In our century, the spirit of violence has found its fullest embodiment in the nihilistic regimes of Bolshevism and National Socialism, it is to these regimes that the main role was attributed to the nihilistic task of destroying the old order. Whatever their psychological differences and the historical "events" that placed them in opposing camps, in their mad pursuit of this task, they proved to be allies. Bolshevism played an even more decisive role, since it justified its monstrous crimes with pseudo-Christian, messianic idealism, which Hitler only scorned. Hitler's role in the nihilistic program was more specific and provincial, but just as essential. Even in the failure, or rather, precisely in the failure of its imaginary goals, Nazism served to fulfill this program. In addition to the political and ideological advantages that the Nazi "intermission" in European history gave to the communist authorities - it is commonly mistaken to believe that communism, although an evil, is not as great as Nazism - Nazism carried out another, more obvious and direct function. Goebbels explained it in his speech on the radio in last days wars:
“The horror of the bombing spares neither the houses of the rich, nor the houses of the poor, until the last class barriers finally fall ... Together with the monuments of art, the last obstacles to the fulfillment of our revolutionary task have been shattered to pieces. Now that everything is in ruins, we will have to rebuild Europe. In the past, private property kept us in a bourgeois grip. Now the bombs, instead of killing all the Europeans, smashed only the prison walls in which they languished. Trying to destroy the future of Europe, the enemy only managed to smash its past to smithereens, and everything old and obsolete went with it.
Thus, Nazism and its war did for Central Europe (less obviously for Western) what Bolshevism did for Russia - they destroyed the old order and cleared the way for the construction of the "new". It was not difficult for Bolshevism to take over from Nazism, and within a few years all of Central Europe came under the rule of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for which Nazism had so well prepared it.
Hitler's nihilism was too pure, unbalanced, and therefore played only a negative, preparatory role in the entire nihilistic program. Its role, like that of the purely negative role of the first stage of Bolshevism, is now over, the next stage belongs to a power that has a more complex idea of the revolution as a whole, the Soviet power, which Hitler rewarded with his property in the words: "The future belongs only to a stronger eastern nation."
2. CREATING A "NEW EARTH"
For the time being, however, we will not have to deal only with the future, that is, with the aim of the revolution; between the revolution of destruction and the earthly paradise there still lies a transitional period, known in Marxist doctrine as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At this stage, we can get acquainted with the positive, "constructive" function of violence. The nihilistic Soviet authorities most ruthlessly and systematically sought to develop this stage, however, the same work was carried out by the realists of the free world, who were quite successful in transforming and reducing the Christian tradition to a system conducive to the development of progress. Soviet and Western realists have the same ideal, only the former strive for it with straightforward zeal, while the latter spontaneously and sporadically; this policy is not always carried out by the government, but is always inspired by it, and it relies more on individual initiative and ambition. Everywhere realists are looking for a totally "new order", built exclusively on a man freed from the yoke of the Divine, and based on the ruins of the old order, whose foundation was Divine. Willingly or unwittingly, the revolution of nihilism is accepted, and a new, purely human realm is raised by the labor of the leaders of all areas on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Its apologists see in it a hitherto unheard-of "new earth", a land used, directed, organized for the good of man, against the true God.
No place is safe from the encroachments of this empire of nihilism; everywhere people, not knowing the reason or only vaguely guessing about it, are feverishly working in the name of progress. In the free world, perhaps it is fear of the void, horror vacui, that drives them into such feverish activities. This activity allows them to forget the spiritual vacuum that accompanies all worldliness. In the communist world, hatred of real and imaginary enemies and - mainly - of God, whom their revolution “brought down” from the Throne, still plays a large role: this hatred makes them remake the whole world contrary to Him. In both cases, this world without God, which people are trying to arrange, is cold and inhuman. There is only organization and performance, but no love and reverence. The sterile "purity" and "functionalism" of modern architecture may typify such a world; the same spirit is present in the disease of universal planning, expressed, for example, in "birth control", in experiments aimed at the control of heredity, mind control or wealth. Some of the justifications for such schemes are dangerously close to sheer madness, where the refinement of details and technique is brought to a startling insensitivity to the inhuman purpose they serve. The nihilistic organization, the total transformation of the whole earth and society through machines, modern architecture and design, and the inhuman philosophy of "human engineering" that accompanies them, is a consequence of the inappropriate use of industrialism and technology, which are the bearers of worldliness; this use, if uncontrolled, can lead to their complete tyranny. Here we see the application in practice of this stage in the development of philosophy, which we touched upon in chapter 1 (see the preface), namely the transformation of truth into power. What seems innocuous in philosophical pragmatism and skepticism appears very differently in those who plan today. Because if there is no truth, then power knows no boundaries, except for those dictated by the environment in which it operates, or by another, stronger power that opposes it. The power of modern "planners", if nothing opposes it, will not stop until it reaches its natural end - the regime of total organization.
Such was Lenin's dream: before the dictatorship of the proletariat reached its goal, "the whole of society would be one office, one factory, with equality of labor and equality of pay." On the nihilistic "new earth" all human energy must be given to worldly interests, the entire human environment and every object in it must serve the purpose of "production" and remind man that his happiness is found only in this world: that is, the absolute despotism of worldliness must be established. . Such an artificial world, built by people who “eliminate” the last remnants of Divine influence in the world and the last traces of faith in God, promises to be so all-consuming and all-encompassing that a person will not even be able to see, imagine, or even hope that there is at least something beyond outside of it. From a nihilistic point of view, it will be a world of perfect "realism" and complete "liberation", but in reality it will be a huge and most adapted prison ever known to people, in the exact expression of Lenin, from which "it will be impossible to evade in any way, there will be nowhere get away."
The power of the world, which nihilists trust as Christians trust God, can never liberate, it can only enslave. Only Christ, Who "conquered the world" (John 16:33), liberates from this power, liberates when it becomes practically absolute.
3. FORMATION OF THE "NEW MAN"
The destruction of the old order and the construction of a "new earth" are not the only and not even the most important provisions of the historical program of nihilism. They are only a preparatory stage for an activity greater and more sinister than themselves, namely, the "transformation of man." Thus, the pseudo-Nietzscheans Hitler and Mussolini dreamed of forging a humanity of a "higher order" with the help of "creative" violence. Rosenberg, Hitler's propagandist, said: "To create a new human type from the myth of a new life - that is the mission of this century." Nazi practice clearly showed us what kind of “human type” this is, and the world, it would seem, rejected it as cruel and inhuman. However, the "massive change in human nature" that Marxism aspires to is not much different from it. Marx and Engels write quite unequivocally: “Both for the production of communist consciousness on a mass scale, and for success in achieving the goal itself, a massive change of people is necessary, a change that will take place in practical action, in a revolution: a revolution is necessary not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in some other way, but also because the class that will overthrow it can only do so in a revolution, rid itself of all the dung of the ages and prepared to refound society.”
Leaving for the moment the question of what kind of man will be produced by this process, let us pay special attention to the means used: this is again violence, which is necessary for the formation of the "new man" no less than for the construction of the "new earth". However, both are closely linked in the deterministic philosophy of Marx, since “in revolutionary activity, the change in the “I” coincides with the change in circumstances”6. Changing circumstances, or rather the process of changing them through revolutionary violence, transforms the revolutionaries themselves. Seeing the magical effect that the indulgence of passions produces in human nature - anger, hatred, indignation, the desire for domination, Marx and Engels, like their contemporary Nietzsche, and after them Lenin and Hitler, recognize the mysticism of violence. In this regard, we should remember the two world wars, whose violence helped to destroy the old order and the old humanity, rooted in a stable, traditional society, and played a large role in creating a new humanity, a humanity without roots, which Marxism so idealized. Thirty years of nihilistic war and revolution from 1914 to 1945 created ideal conditions for the cultivation of a "new human type".
For modern philosophers and psychologists, it is no doubt no secret that in our age of violence, man himself is changing not only under the influence of war and revolution, but under the influence of almost everything that claims to be “modern” and “progressive”. We have already given examples of the most striking forms of nihilistic vitalism, whose cumulative effect is calculated to deroot, integrity, "mobilize" the personality, to replace its balance and roots with a meaningless desire for power and movement, and normal human feelings with nervous excitement. The activities of nihilistic realism, both in practice and in theory, took place in parallel and complemented the activities of vitalism, including standardization, simplification, specialization, mechanization, dehumanization: its goal is to reduce the individual to the simplest, basest level, to make him a slave of his environment, an ideal worker on the world Lenin's factory
All these observations are commonplace today: hundreds of volumes have been written about them. Many thinkers are able to see a clear connection between nihilistic philosophy, which reduces reality and human nature to the simplest possible concepts, and nihilistic practice, which similarly degrades the individual person; there are many who understand the seriousness and radical nature of such a “relegation” and see in it a qualitative change in human nature, as Eric Kahler writes about this: “An irresistible desire for the destruction and depreciation of the human personality ... is clearly present in the most diverse areas of modern life : economics, technology, politics, science, education, psychology, art - seems so comprehensive that we are forced to recognize in it a real mutation, a modification of all human nature. But of those who understand all this, very few realize the deep meaning and subtext of this process, since it belongs to the field of theology and lies beyond simple empirical analysis, and they also do not know the remedy for it, since this remedy must be of a spiritual order. . The author just quoted, for example, hopes for a transition to "a kind of super-individual existence", thus only proving that his wisdom does not rise above the "spirit of this age", which puts forward the ideal of a "superman".
What really is this "mutant", this "new man"? He is a man without roots, cut off from his past, which was destroyed by nihilism, the raw material for the dream of every demagogue, a "free thinker" and a skeptic, closed to truth, but open to any new intellectual fashion, because he himself has no intellectual foundation of his own, and seeker of "new revelation", ready to believe everything new, because the true faith in him is destroyed, a lover of planning and experimentation, in awe of the fact, because he has refused the truth, and the world seems to him a vast laboratory in which he is free to decide that "it is possible "and what not. This is an autonomous person, under the guise of humility, asking only for what is rightfully his, but in fact filled with pride and expecting to receive everything that is in a world where nothing is forbidden by external power. He is a man of the moment, without conscience and values, in the grip of the strongest "stimulus", a "rebel", who hates any restriction and power, because he is his own only god, a man of the masses, a new barbarian, diminished and simplified, capable only of the most elementary ideas, yet despising anyone who only mentions something higher or talks about the complexity of life.
All these people constitute, as it were, one person - a person whose formation was the goal of nihilism. However, a simple description will not give a complete picture of him, you need to see his image. And such an image exists, it can be found in modern painting and sculpture, which arose for the most part from the end of the Second World War and, as it were, shaped the reality created by the culmination of the era of nihilism.
It would seem that in this art the human form is again “discovered”, from absolute abstraction, at last, distinguishable outlines emerge. As a result, we get a “new humanism”, a “return to man”, and what is most important in all this, unlike many other art schools of the 20th century, this is not an artificial invention, whose essence is hidden behind a cloud of irrational jargon, but an independent growth, deeply rooted in the soul of modern man. Thus, for example, the works of Alberto Giacometi, Jean Dubuffet, Francis Bacon, Leon Golub, José Luis Cuevas8 are true contemporary art, which, while maintaining disorder and freedom of abstraction, ceases to be a mere refuge from reality and tries to solve the question of “human destiny”.
But to what kind of person does this art "return"? This, of course, is not a Christian, not an image of God, because "not a single modern person can believe in Him", this is not a "disappointed" person of past humanism, whom all "advanced" thinkers consider to be discredited and obsolete. This is not even a man of cubist and expressionist art of our century, with distorted forms and nature. It starts just where this art ends; it is an attempt to enter a new area, to portray a "new person".
An Orthodox Christian who is interested in the truth, and not in what the current avant-garde considers fashionable or sophisticated, will not need to think long to penetrate the secret of this art: there is no person in it at all, this art is subhuman, demonic. The subject of this art is not a man, but some lower being that has risen - in the words of Giacometti, "come out" - from unknown depths.
The bodies in which this being puts on - and in all its metamorphoses it is one and the same being - are not necessarily distorted beyond recognition; broken and dissected, they are often more realistic than depictions of human figures in earlier modern art. Obviously, this creature was not the victim of a frenzied attack, but was born so distorted, a real mutant. It is impossible not to notice the similarity between some images of this creature and photographs of malformed babies born in recent years to thousands of women who took the drug Thalidomide during pregnancy, and this is not the last of such monstrous coincidences. Even more than the bodies, the faces of these creatures will tell us. They cannot be said to express hopelessness, because that would be to attribute to them a certain humanity that they do not have. These are the faces of beings more or less adapted to the world they know, a world that is not exactly hostile, but completely alien, not inhuman, but ahuman. The agony, anger and despair of early expressionism seem to be frozen here; they are cut off here from the world to which they used to have at least a negative attitude, now they have to create their own world. In this art, man is no longer even a caricature of himself, he is no longer depicted in the throes of spiritual death, being attacked by the vile nihilism of our age, which aims not only at the body and soul, but at the very idea and nature of man. No, all this has already passed, the crisis is over, now the person is dead. The new art celebrates the birth of a new species, a being from the very depths, a subhuman.
We have talked about this art for too long, disproportionately long compared to its intrinsic value. His testimony is unmistakable and obvious to those who have eyes: this reality, expressed in the abstract, seems incredible. Yes, it would not be difficult to declare the “new humanity” that Hitler and Lenin foresaw to be a fantasy, and even the plans of the highly respected nihilists among us, calmly discussing the problems of the scientific cultivation of the “biological superman” or constituting a utopia of the formation of the “new man” with the help of a narrow “modern education and strict mind control seem unlikely and only slightly ominous. But when confronted with the real image of the "new man", the image of cruel and disgusting, so unintentionally, but very insistently appearing in modern art, which has become so widespread in it, we were taken by surprise, and all the horror of the modern state of man strikes us so deeply that we won't soon be able to forget him.
|
07 / 09 / 2006
Nihilism is a philosophical movement that does not recognize the rules and authorities established by society. A person who shares such a worldview and questions any accepted norms is a Nihilist. This term is becoming increasingly popular in many areas: religion, culture, law, social sphere.
Considering nihilism as a component of the public sphere, you can find out why this direction arose and at what time. It is important to analyze the principles and views of nihilists and the goals they usually pursue.
A nihilist is someone who believes that life has no purpose, value, or meaning, including his own.
Nihilists do not believe in the existence of any objective morality, and any rules/laws they follow, if any, are superficial or are only observed by them for practical reasons.
Nihilist and Nihilism - Meaning
The meaning of the word "nihilist" is defined as the denial by the individual of certain things, such as the meaning of the existence of the individual, the presence of authorities and the worship of religious idols.The lexical meaning of the word "nihilist" implies a certain person who is a supporter of radical democratic reasoning and expresses his aversion to generally accepted laws, rules and traditions.
In modern society, the meaning of the word nihilist has acquired a deeper and broader meaning. But the views and beliefs of such people have not changed as before. Nihilists of the 21st century also adhere to worldviews that allow them to question the rules and standards of society, as well as deny any ideals, moral and ethical norms and natural forms of social existence.
Nihilist principles
The direction within which nihilistic principles are adhered to has acquired the name nihilism. This movement characterizes the way of thinking and life implying the rejection of everything. A more specific meaning and its manifestation in a given situation depends on the specific circumstances and time frame.In most sources, nihilists are characterized as negative and negative personalities. According to the majority, these individuals are constantly in a state of protest and rebellion, who are not satisfied with the established rules and laws of society. Supporters of nihilism are found in many areas of society. Each participant in the movement denies a direction convenient for himself: politics, culture, religion.
The first mention of nihilism appeared in the Middle Ages by Alexander III. German philosopher F.G. Jacobi also used the term nihilism.
It is also known that Nietzsche was a nihilist. He held a claim based on the denial of God and the failure of Christianity as a religion.
The nihilist, if only he is logical, doubts the existence of his interlocutor and is not sure of his own existence.
Victor Hugo. Outcasts
Traditional nihilism is the basis for the emergence of deeper and new types of this direction. Participants in the nihilistic movement are not always unanimous in their reasoning and conclusions. Even more disputes arise between society and representatives of nihilism. Ordinary members of society cannot understand nihilists and their beliefs.
It is even more difficult to understand a nihilist who does not accept any interaction and does not believe in anything. Nihilists find it difficult to understand a society that idealizes and gives meaning to things for no good reason. With their protest they are trying to prove that the existence of the world does not depend on people and their ideals. The world and the universe functions separately from everything and does not need cultivation and worship.
Thus, nihilism is characterized by a worldview based on progress and rationality.
Basic principles and views of nihilists
The views of nihilists are always clear and concise. Their statements are subject to specific principles and statements in which they believe.The most common statements of nihilists are considered to be the following:
- There is no chief ruler or creator, i.e. God does not exist, since there is no reasonable and understandable evidence for this fact.
- Morality and morality in an independent form does not exist.
- Life has no truth, and any objective action is no more important than another.
Types of nihilism
- Philosophical, arguing that existence does not carry a specific semantic load, truth, factor and value.
- Mereological. According to this type, objects and objects created from separate parts do not exist.
- Metaphysical. Here the basis is a position based on the theory of denying the existence of objects in real time.
- epistemological kind of nihilism denies any kind of knowledge.
- Moral the view asserts, given the metaethical opinion, that there is no such thing as moral or immoral.
- Legal nihilism. Here, the norms and rules of conduct established by the governing body are called into question. In this thinking in the public environment there is an active and passive denial of the rights of the individual. This is an obstacle to the normal development of society and can lead to illegal actions.
What does a nihilist and nihilism look like in real life and in literature
On the territory of Russia, the definition of nihilism appeared in 1829. The first to use this term was Nadezhdin N.I. At a later time, nihilism was indicated in the work of Bervi V.V. Nihilism in the form in which we know it became more widely known in Turgenev's novel by I.S. "Fathers and Sons". The fame of this work allowed the term nihilism to turn into a catch phrase.
In modern society, a nihilist can often be found in real life as well as in the literature. Undoubtedly, in literature, the term nihilism was most vividly and fully described by Turgenev in his work. With the help of the protagonist as a nihilist, the author conveyed to the reader the whole meaning of this concept, and the consequences of such behavior. This novel became very popular and gained its fans. As time passed, the meaning of the word nihilism began to include more and more meanings. To the previously established principles, the denial of authorities and doubts about the legal possibilities of citizens are added.
Nihilism is the despair of a person about the inability to do a job to which he is not called at all.
Vasily Vasilievich Rozanov. Apocalypse of our time
Nihilism as a direction is mainly found in Russia and other countries of the post-Soviet space. In Western countries, nihilism as a philosophical movement almost does not exist and manifests itself in isolated cases. Nihilism appeared in Russia in the early 60s of the 19th century. Chernyshevsky, Pisarev and Dobrolyubov were prominent representatives of this trend. The later representatives of the nihilistic movement include V.I. Lenin. Some features of his behavior and views allow us to attribute him to such followers.
In addition to representatives of Russian nihilism, the most famous is the German philosopher Nietzsche. He was an ardent nihilist in every way. His worldview and conviction is based on the depreciation of high values and the denial of God. In addition to all this, he denied the need for a person's compassion for another and took the presence of such a quality as weakness. According to his definition, the ideal is an evil and selfish person who is not capable of empathy and sympathy.
Conclusion
Although nihilism is not a new phenomenon, there are still no answers to many questions regarding this term. For everyone, this concept is interpreted differently. Some perceive such a position as a disease that interferes with normal existence in society. For others, on the contrary, it is a panacea for all diseases.The nihilist denies family values, spiritual life, moral principles, i.e. he does not recognize these fundamental concepts on which society rests and exists. Everyone should be aware that all these fundamentals are important and without them normal functioning among people is not possible.
Do you think nihilism is a sentence, or is it still possible to change a person's worldview? Are nihilists born or made?
INTRODUCTION
The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the fact that such a phenomenon as nihilism is constantly present in society, only the number of carriers of this worldview changes, the degree of categorical manifestation of it.
In the Russian public consciousness, the concept of "nihilism" was very common, especially since the second half of the 19th century. It assumed the denial of all established values and traditions, the complete rejection of the existing, not only without a real replacement for it with something new, but even without the proclamation of new values, a new world order, suggesting a new impetus for development. In Western literature, very often all the revolutionary teachings and movements that took place at that time in Russia are called nihilistic.
In philosophical literature, nihilism is often interpreted as one of the main tendencies of Western European culture and as a manifestation of a certain socio-cultural instinct of death, and at the same time as an expression of an element of criticality absolutely necessary for culture, brought to its extreme, when faith in reason led to an extremely critical attitude towards the possibilities of the mind itself.
Speaking of nihilism, one must keep in mind that it is not only a worldview and theoretical phenomenon, but also a certain form of behavior, a certain attitude, a psychological state. As a form of behavior, nihilism often manifests itself in adolescence, when the self-assertion of a young person entering life occurs through the denial of accepted norms of behavior and values. This kind of nihilism has existed since time immemorial. But at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the denial of everything without any attempts to imagine the possibility of improving the world, in its extreme manifestations, can lead a person to self-destruction, to a violation of the connection between a person and the human community. Focusing all the attention of a person on the rejection of being, its absurdity, its absurdity, nihilism can extremely complicate the possibilities of a person's orientation in the world. The experience of the 20th century with its two world wars, totalitarian regimes, the threat of nuclear war, environmental disasters has led to the fact that sometimes a person refuses to understand and accept all these horrors. To this we can add the fact that he often faces the need for a radical rejection of the usual norms and traditions. And then the influence of nihilism turns out to be possible, it covers the masses of people and has pronounced social consequences, it turns out to be intertwined with politics.
As a worldview, as a form of behavior, nihilism is especially characteristic of periods of crisis in social life and public consciousness.
At the same time, the spectrum of nihilistic perception of the world is very wide - from general doubt in everything to outright cynicism.
When interpreting nihilism as an integral part of the pan-European culture, one should pay attention to the fact that it manifested itself in different ways in different countries. In Germany - in philosophy, in Russia it has found wide distribution in the socio-political sphere and the ideology associated with it.
Without dwelling on the peculiarities of the historical development of Russia, which contributed to such a great influence of nihilism, we have to admit the very fact of such an influence. In Russia, nihilism turned out to be associated with the revolutionary-democratic, raznochintsy movement, with all forms of socialism, since it proceeded from the denial of the protective ideology of the autocracy, the traditional foundations of morality and life.
Russian nihilists - V.G. Belinsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev, were enlighteners who opposed the idealists of the forties of the XIX century. Due to the maximalist nature of the Russian people, the Russian enlightenment itself often turns into nihilism.
Russian nihilism is an expression of the needs of life directed towards the future, as they are understood by Russian radical thought. The destruction of the old is inseparable in Russian nihilism from the search for a new science and a new art, a new man, a new society.
The concepts and phenomenon of nihilism are closely connected with the philosophy of Nietzsche. Nihilism for Nietzsche is not one of many types of mentality, but a characteristic of the leading trend in European philosophical culture. The essence of Nietzsche's nihilism is the loss of faith in the supersensible foundation of being. "God is dead" is the formula of nihilism. Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is a kind of "intermediate" state, it can be an expression of both strength and weakness of a person and society. In its external manifestation, nihilism is the following: "the highest values lose their value." No truth, no morality, no God. But nihilism can be interpreted in two ways. The nihilism of the "weak" is decay and decay. Radical nihilism, the nihilism of the “strong” is the path of absolute authorship: the creation of a new morality, a new person. It is necessary, said Nietzsche, to embark on the path of "revaluation of values." Reappraisal of values, according to Nietzsche, should be carried out on the way to the formation of new value needs. The will to power should become the basis of new value orientations. The will to power is absolute overpowering, it has no purpose. Therefore, Nietzsche's destructive program did not imply the elimination of values in general; rather, Nietzsche proposed the maximum convergence of purpose and value. Values are a condition for stimulating and maintaining the will to power, these are “useful values”.
Nietzsche's philosophical views played a significant role in the history of Russian thought at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. His views influenced such thinkers as Merezhkovsky, Solovyov, Shestov and many others.
In this paper, we consider the views of Pisarev as one of the largest theorists of revolutionary nihilism of the sixties of the XIX century, who designated his ideas as "realism". We also consider the views of some Russian thinkers who were significantly influenced by Nietzsche's philosophical nihilism.
The purpose of this thesis is to study the phenomenon of Russian nihilism and its various aspects.
To achieve the goal set in the work, we solved the following tasks:
· consider what was meant by nihilism in Russia in the sixties of the XIX century.
· consider the views of D.I. Pisarev as one of the most important theorists of revolutionary nihilism in Russia.
· Analyze the influence of F. Nietzsche on the views of various thinkers Russia XIX- the beginning of the XX century.
The object of the work is the concept of nihilism as a philosophical and socio-political phenomenon. The subject is nihilism as a social thought in Russia since the sixties of the XIX - the turn of the XX centuries.
This problem is widely developed in the studies of domestic authors. We have taken as a basis the following works.
Primary sources:
Pisarev, D.I. Bazarov. - Literary criticism in 3 volumes. T.1. M., 1965.
Pisarev, D.I. Idealism of Plato. - Collected works in 4 volumes, v.1. M., 1955.
Pisarev, D.I. Scholasticism of the 19th century. - Collected works in 4 volumes, v.1. M., 1955.
Merezhkovsky, D.S. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. - Complete works in 17 volumes, v.8. M., 1913.
Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power. The experience of reassessing all values. - M.: REFL-book, 1994.
Nietzsche, F. So spoke Zarathustra. F. Nietzsche. - M.: Interbuk, 1990.
Solovyov, V.S. justification for goodness. - M.: Thought, 1988.
Tikhomirov, N.D. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Features from the moral worldview of both. - St. Petersburg: 1995.
Frank, S.L. F. Nietzsche and the ethics of "love for the distant" - Works, M., 1990.
Frank, S.L. The ethics of nihilism. - Works, M., 1990
Heidegger, M. European nihilism. - M.: Fiction, 1987.
Khomyakov, A.S. A few words about the "Philosophical Letter". - M.: Thought, 1968.
Chernyshevsky, N.G. Lack of money. - Complete works in 10 volumes. T.10. M., 1951.
Shestov, L.I. Apotheosis of groundlessness. - St. Petersburg, 1987.
As well as research:
Antonova, G.N. Herzen and Russian Criticism in the 1950s and 60s. - Publishing house of Saratov University, 1989.
Volynsky, L.L. Russian critics. - St. Petersburg: 1961.
Golubev, A.N. To the question of the formation of materialistic views D.I. Pisarev. - Scientific reports high school. Philosophical sciences. M., 1964
Demidova, N.V. Pisarev and nihilism of the 60s. - M.: Thought, 1969.
Demidova, N.V. Pisarev. - M.: Thought, 1969
Kuznetsov, F.F. Nihilists? DI. Pisarev and the magazine "Russian Word". - M.: Fiction, 1983.
Novikov, A.I. Nihilism and Nihilists. Critical characterization experience. - St. Petersburg: Lenizdat, 1972.
CHAPTER 1. D.I. PISAREV AS A REFLECTION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTIONARY NIHILISM IN THE 60S OF THE XIX CENTURY.
1.1.About the concept of nihilism
Nihilism (from lat. nihil - nothing? nothing) is a doctrine, the central postulate of which is the complete denial of traditions, norms, rules, social principles, authorities. Nihilism is a complex socio-historical phenomenon that has many varieties. There is socio-political nihilism associated with the denial of the socio-political system. Such nihilism manifests itself in the revolutionary movement; its supporters lean towards anarchism.
There is an ethical nihilism that denies universal morality, the existence of good in general. Such nihilism turns into pessimism. We can also talk about ethical pessimism, which denies artistic canons, the very concept of beauty.
Nihilism can be cognitive, declaring the unattainability of truth. Cognitive skepticism borders on agnosticism.
Finally, we can talk about nihilism as a philosophical position, within which the existence of absolute foundations of existence, the semantic orientation of life, is denied.
The term "nihilism" has long entered into cultural usage. In the Middle Ages, there was a heretical doctrine of nihilism, anathematized by Pope Alexander III in 1179. This teaching, falsely attributed to the scholastic Peter Lombard, denied the human nature of Christ.
As Heidegger writes, the first philosophical use of the word "nihilism" comes, apparently, from G. Jacobi: in his open letter to Fichte, the word "nothing" was very often encountered. It says: “Believe me, my dear Fichte, it will not upset me at all if you or anyone else calls chimerism the teaching that I oppose to idealism, which I convict of nihilism ...”. The representative of the philosophy of romanticism, Jean Paul, called romantic poetry "nihilism". For the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, the aesthetic point of view, the point of view of irony and play, was the expression of nihilism.
In Russian literature, the word "nihilism" was first used by N.I. Nadezhdin in the article "A host of nihilists" (in the journal "Bulletin of Europe" for 1829). When he had to rebuff - not without sarcasm - literary opponents who neglected classical traditions, he often used the Latin "nihil". In 1858, a book by Kazan professor V.V. Bervey, A Psychological Comparative View of the Beginning and End of Life. It also mentions the word "nihilism", but as a synonym for skepticism.
Critic and publicist N.A. Dobrolyubov ridiculed Bervey's book, picking up this word - but it did not become popular until I.S. Turgenev in the novel "Fathers and Sons" (1862) did not call Bazarov a nihilist. But none of the people of the 1860s officially accepted it. DI. Pisarev, who in a number of articles recognized in Bazarov the embodiment of the ideals and views of the new generation, called himself a "thinking realist."
Since the middle of the 19th century, the term "nihilism" has been, so to speak, legally included in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language. So, in the "Complete Dictionary of Foreign Words, Included in the Russian Language" (St. Petersburg, 1861), the word "nihilism" is given the following definition: "The doctrine of skeptics that does not allow the existence of anything whatsoever." Vladimir Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language says that it means "an ugly and immoral doctrine that rejects everything that cannot be felt."
Many researchers believe that the term "nihilism" has taken a strong place in European culture thanks to I.S. Turgenev and his novel "Fathers and Sons".
Nihilism as a Russian cultural and historical phenomenon is associated with the movement of Russian radical social thought of the sixties (N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev). Russian nihilism included both a critically destructive attitude towards modern society and a program of radical reforms. Utilitarianism, as an integral part of nihilism, sought to replace the abstract concepts of good and evil with the doctrine of utility as the main criterion of morality. Another point of the radical mentality was the "destruction of aesthetics", the struggle against "pure" art, the transformation of art into a "sentence" of reality. Finally, nihilism in the field of science and philosophy was expressed in the denial of everything that was outside of sensory experience, in the denial of all metaphysics. F.M. Dostoevsky in his Explanatory Word, to a speech about Pushkin, brought the nihilist as a “negative type” closer to a “superfluous” person, “who does not believe in his native soil and native forces” and suffers from this. Pisarev, a prominent representative of Russian nihilism, wrote: “It is necessary to emancipate the personality from those various constraints that the timidity of one’s own thought, the authority of tradition, the desire for a common ideal, and all that obsolete rubbish that prevents a living person from breathing imposes on it.”
Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, nihilists in Russian Empire they began to name young people who wanted to change the state and social system that existed in the country, denied religion, preached materialism and atheism, and also did not recognize the prevailing moral standards (advocated free love, etc.). In particular, this was the name of the populist revolutionaries. The word had a clear negative connotation. Nihilists were portrayed as shaggy, unkempt, dirty men and women who had lost all femininity of a girl.
N.Ya. Danilevsky: “The whole difference between our nihilism and foreign, Western nihilism lies solely in the fact that there it is original, while here it is imitative, and therefore has some justification, being one of the inevitable results of the historical life of Europe, while ours hangs in the air and. .. there is a funny, caricature phenomenon”
By the end of the 1860s and the beginning of the 1870s. the word "nihilist" almost disappeared from Russian polemical literature, but began to be used in Western European literature as a designation for the Russian revolutionary movement; it was also accepted by some Russian emigrants who wrote in foreign languages about the Russian revolutionary movement. In 1884, the story of Sofia Kovalevskaya "The Nihilist" was published.
Russian nihilism is not a synonym for simple disbelief, "culture fatigue", its decay. Russian nihilism is a kind of synthesis of positivism, individualism and socio-ethical or socio-aesthetic utopianism. Russian nihilism is an expression of the needs of life directed towards the future, as they are understood by Russian radical thought. The destruction of the old is inseparable in Russian nihilism from the search for a new science and a new art, a new man, a new society. It is possible to draw certain analogies between the destructive pathos of Russian nihilism and the "revaluation of values" of Nietzsche's philosophy. No wonder the Czech thinker and politician T. Masaryk called Pisarev "Russian Nietzsche."
The fate of the concept of nihilism in the West is connected with the name of Nietzsche. Nihilism for Nietzsche is not one of many types of mentality, but a characteristic of the leading trend in European philosophical culture. The essence of nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the loss of faith in the supersensible basis of being. "God is dead" is Nietzsche's formula for nihilism.
Today, social nihilism is expressed in a variety of guises: the rejection by certain sections of society of the course of reforms, the new way of life and new ("market") values, dissatisfaction with changes, social protests against the "shock" methods of the ongoing transformations; disagreement with certain political decisions and actions, hostility or even enmity towards state institutions and power structures, their leaders; denial of Western patterns of behavior and moral guidelines that are not characteristic of the Russian mentality; opposition to official slogans and guidelines; "left" and "right" extremism, nationalism, mutual search for "enemies".
1.2."Idealism of Plato" as an expression of the views of D.I. Pisarev
One of the significant figures of Russian thought in the sixties of the XIX century was D.I. Pisarev, a prominent representative of the radical circles of this period, is a typical progressive of the sixties. The whole life and activity of Pisarev is a very vivid reflection of a difficult stage in the revolutionary democratic ideology in the sixties, associated first with a huge rise, and then with a decline in the revolutionary wave and intensification of reaction after the reform of 1861.
And the very personality of Pisarev and the political sharpness of his convictions, expressed in the original form of nihilism and realism, his unique resolution of many issues of history, philosophy, morality and art aroused great interest in the past and continue to arouse it to the present.
Pisarev fully and deeply realized the peculiarities of the period after the first revolutionary situation. It was he who most clearly expressed the need to overcome all illusions in the revolutionary struggle - and overestimation of the activity of the people in certain historical periods, and blind faith in acts of single heroism, and simplified calculations for force, explosion, immediate destruction of obsolete political and social forces. Pisarev emphasized that one should not naively believe that “bloodshed” in itself or the removal of an immediate obstacle to the development of society, for example, a “living obstacle”, would be a sufficient condition for this development. It shows that reasonable and honest people group like-minded people, organize, discipline and inspire their future associates.
A necessary means in the struggle against the existing system, against various forms of false consciousness, whether it be passivity and silence or arbitrary unreasonable acts of external activity, turned out to be a sober, unprejudiced view of the world, a view devoid of false reverence, blind, unreasoning faith, constraint by conditional restrictions. The affirmation of such a view, the development and support of genuine inner freedom of thought presupposed the formation of a critical mindset, a fearless assessment of everything negative in life and thought.
It was precisely this ideological function, extremely essential in those years, that was performed by revolutionary nihilism. As already noted, the features of a sharply critical view of the world, a resolute and uncompromising denial of obsolete forms of life, have been developing over several years since the end of the sixties of the 19th century. Pisarev gave a theoretical justification for these views, and his concept of nihilism subsequently became an element of a more general theory of realism as a special type of worldview.
Pisarev's nihilism was sometimes met with incomprehension and protest from not only the defenders of the ruling system (which is quite natural), but also from many exponents of revolutionary democratic ideas. So, on the pages of Sovremennik, after the arrest of Chernyshevsky, in the mid-sixties, one could come across sharp, often unfair judgments about Pisarev's nihilism by Antonovich, Eliseev and others. All this made it possible for the opponents of revolutionary democracy to speak with gloating glee of the "split in the nihilists."
Pisarev's articles devoted to the defense of nihilism were indeed extremely harsh, completely uncompromising in their denial. The utilitarian approach to art, the ardent conviction that it is necessary for all thinking people to assimilate, first and foremost, the achievements of the natural sciences, and the like, led Pisarev to conclusions that were unacceptable not only for conservatives, but for many representatives of revolutionary democracy. Therefore, Pisarev's nihilism was sometimes regarded as something completely unusual, moreover, as a phenomenon that broke with the old traditions of the liberation struggle and progressive thought.
In fact, no such gap existed. Pisarev's nihilism was successively connected with the revolutionary thought of past years and was organically formed in the process of the formation of the philosophical and sociological views of the contemporary young generation of raznochintsy.
Pisarev's nihilistic concept developed during his short but eventful life. It is hardly possible to consider Pisarev's nihilism, which grew into realism and became its integral element, as an integral and complete, theoretically formalized education. It is rather a style of thinking, moreover, a worldview, a willingness to reconsider and reject any concepts and assessments consecrated by time and tradition, as well as social, moral and aesthetic phenomena, if they impede the progressive development of society and every human person. A negative attitude, a willingness to resolutely reject, were also extended by Pisarev to those phenomena that, although they were not an active obstacle to progress, were not consistent with the concept of immediate benefit, utilitarianism, and the solution of the most pressing social problems.
Understanding nihilism not as a complete system, but as a principle of evaluation, a point of view, a worldview does not mean at all that nihilism did not have its own internal logic.
Let us consider one of the aspects of nihilistic ideas - the field of the history of philosophy.
Quite rightly, Pisarev begins with the assertion of nihilism in the sphere of philosophy. He denies the inviolability of any authorities in this area. In one of his early works, Plato's Idealism, Pisarev does not so much evaluate the great thinkers of ancient Greece - Socrates and Plato, as is usually stated, but proclaims the principle of a fearless critical, and if necessary, a negative attitude towards any philosophical authorities.
First of all, Pisarev expresses his attitude to historical literature, in particular to the review philosophical activity Socrates and Plato, compiled by Zeller. The critic accurately reveals the fundamental methodological flaws of this review, the real contradictions between the scrupulous and detailed coverage of empirical material and the complete passivity of the German historian himself, who acts not as a critic and an objective judge, but only as a registrar. Pisarev rightly notes that “blinded by the brilliance of a name that has two thousand years of authority behind it, researchers, especially Germans, passing in front of these personalities. They disarm their criticism, modestly lower their eyes and limit themselves in relation to them to the role of a respectful and accurate transmitter.
Pisarev wittily reveals the peculiar clichés of the traditional historiography of philosophy, its attempts to derive direct "educational" benefit from the coverage of history. ancient philosophy. He notices the tendentiousness arising from such a premise: a patronizing attitude towards the Eleatics, Heraclitus and Democritus, the indignation caused by the sophists, tenderness before the personality of Socrates, “worship in the belt” to Plato, the denial of Epicurus, mockery of the skeptics. This is how it is customary, Pisarev comments ironically, this is how the interests of morality demand... Pisarev, on the other hand, demands that the spirit of critical analysis, fruitful doubt and fearless denial be introduced into the sphere of historical and philosophical science as well. From the clash of opinions, truth is born, he emphasizes and explains that the exposition of philosophical systems should be objective, which, of course, should not be compared with modern obscurantists Plato, and even more so blame their ideas. But, recognizing Plato as the son of his people and his era, Pisarev notes, we cannot treat his moral and political theories with respect and dispassionate politeness. Pisarev characterizes those ideological phenomena and formations that traditional historical and philosophical science associates with the name of Plato: the denial of experimental law and the proclamation of the right to the undivided dominance of a pure idea, distrust of the natural essence of man, to personality and the transformation of man into a gear in the state mechanism.
Pisarev's resolute speech against an uncritical attitude to philosophical authorities, against the substitution of scientific, objective analysis with respectful references, was an open challenge to official science. The article "Plato's Idealism", with the publication of which Pisarev made his debut in Russkoye Slovo, marked the beginning of his clear theoretical expression of the principles of revolutionary nihilism, not just in a declarative form, but in application to specific areas of social and spiritual life. This article was taken by opponents of genuine progress as an open expression of nihilism, understood as the denial of philosophy and all moral values in general.
As for the content of the article, this first of the writer's nihilistic articles clearly indicates that Russian revolutionary nihilism was not an unnatural phenomenon, alien to the process of development of spiritual culture. In addition, the article spoke about the organic connection of nihilistic ideas with a wide range of problems that occupied Russian thought. From the very beginning, nihilism in Russia acted not as a “European fad” brought onto Russian soil, but as a natural moment in the development of Russian philosophical and social theory.
Pisarev's criticism of Zeller's historical and philosophical work testified to the methodological maturity of the young Russian philosopher. He spoke not so much against Plato as such, but first of all against the false worship of the ancient Greek thinker.
Pisarev's speech, therefore, by no means meant a denial philosophical traditions as such. The article "Plato's Idealism" was one of the first steps towards solving the historical task of nihilism, overcoming illusory ideas, developing a sober and scientific view of the world. “Idealism gravitates over society,” Pisarev wrote, “and by fettering individual forces, it hinders rational and all-round development.”
In the same way, the sharp criticism of Zeller's book was by no means a denial of the achievements of science. It is not historical and philosophical science that Pisarev denies, but the empiricism characteristic of many of its representatives, which covered arbitrary constructions and conclusions with an external scientific character. In this denial, Pisarev followed the traditions of Russian revolutionary democracy, continuing and developing the ideas of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.
The denial of pure empiricism, the critique of devoid philosophical meaning factography was firmly established in the works of revolutionary democrats - historians of social thought. Chernyshevsky in "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", revealing the patterns of the history of Russian philosophy of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century, just like Belinsky and Herzen, emphasized that it was necessary to reveal the foundation, and not be content with particulars. But Dobrolyubov opposed empiricism especially thoroughly; his descriptions of the works of historians of social thought, written from the standpoint of "bibliography", gave the correct methodological orientation, warned against the dominance of empiricism. “Modern criticism,” writes Dobrolyubov, “deals with facts, it collects facts, and what does it have to do with conclusions. Draw your own conclusions…”
Thus, in Russian revolutionary-democratic thought, a stable line of opposition to empiricism and the rejection of the knowledge of laws took shape.
In line with this fruitful tradition of Russian philosophy, Pisarev's nihilistic position also took shape. Its programmatic expression was also the work "Scholasticism of the 19th century". It was directed against any "speculative philosophy", which he imagined as the cultural foundation of the pre-reform era. Outlining the contours of the new, post-reform democratic counterculture, Pisarev points to the "canonical materialism" as its most important basis. This "canon" of "fresh and healthy materialism" is based, from his point of view, primarily on sensationalism, for "evidence is the best guarantee of reality." Pisarev's nihilistic position in relation to philosophy was first expressed in Scholasticism of the 19th Century. But here he did not disclose his own understanding of philosophical knowledge, since, in fact, it was identified with experimental, scientific knowledge, with the only difference that a special socio-critical function was recognized for philosophy. The range of problems raised in the article is incomparably wider than in the thinker's previous articles. Pisarev directly formulates the tasks of contemporary journalism, which, as before, was the main exponent of the ideas of Russian social thought. She, Pisarev notes, should be addressed to the thinking public, should break its prejudices and help it develop a reasonable worldview, show that it is criminal "to soar with thought in the rainbow spheres of fantasy" It is characteristic that here the task of denial ("break prejudices") and the task of (“develop a world outlook”) act in unity.
Pisarev quite consciously opposes the materialistic worldview to the idealistic one, he supports the position of Chernyshevsky in his polemics with the religious-idealistic philosophers, the “scholastics of the 19th century”. Pisarev by no means bypasses social and political problems. His attention to questions of personality and morality was not a form of avoidance of politics. On the contrary, Pisarev's appeal to these problems expanded the scope of the revolutionary democratic ideology.
Pisarev, like Chernyshevsky, rejects all neutrality in times of acute social conflicts, thereby opposing liberalism with its "political moderation." He proclaims the need for a genuine democratization of culture. But Pisarev substantiates this requirement from the standpoint of utilitarianism. He very logically developed his views, opposing what in the language of modern sociology is called the status appropriation of culture. But in the heat of the polemic, the theoretician of revolutionary nihilism expressed quite a few very controversial, and sometimes completely incorrect judgments about many phenomena of art, in particular Pushkin's poetry. His initial principle was wrong, because immediate utility cannot be a criterion for evaluating a work of art. But, as Pisarev quite rightly said, “there are such brilliant mistakes that have an exciting effect on the minds of entire generations; at first they are carried away by them, then they become critical of them; this passion and this criticism for a long time serve as a school for mankind, a cause of mental struggle, an occasion for the development of forces, a guiding and coloring principle in historical movements and upheavals.
1.3."Thinking Realist". Pisarev about Bazarov
An important milestone in Pisarev's ideological development was his article "Bazarov", published shortly before his arrest and dedicated to Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons", which caused such a public reaction that, according to Timiryazev, an eyewitness of those events, did not cause any of the works of that time. The controversy was like a fierce fight, where everyone considered it their duty to defend or beat Bazarov. Hunters to finish off was the vast majority. It was argued that the image of the protagonist was allegedly “uncharacteristic” for the era of the sixties and was taken by Turgenev not from Russian society, but smuggled out of the border. In Russia, this type could only be in the "embryo". It was also argued that the image of Bazarov is a caricature of the younger generation, and that in this way Turgenev sinned against the truth of life. Not only obviously reactionary, but also progressive criticism mistakenly gave a negative review of this novel, not understanding it. On behalf of the “contemporary”, Antonovich spoke, who said that the meaning of the novel boils down to the fact that “the younger generation has moved away from the truth, wandering through the wilds of delusion and lies, which kills all poetry in it, leads it to hatred, despair and inaction, or to activities, but senseless and destructive. Most of the public leaned towards Antonovich's point of view.
Among this noise, Pisarev's voice sounded lonely, but boldly and impressively. He took a completely different position in relation to the image of Turgenev's hero, giving a peculiar interpretation of the image of Bazarov from the standpoint of realism. In his opinion, Turgenev presented in the novel a deeply life type, gave a truthful and vivid image of a representative of the younger generation, aptly caught the trend of its development and revealed live connection with the main direction of the new aspirations of the era. Pisarev emphasized that the novel embodies the “striking fidelity of the idea” that the progressive youth is passionate about, but Turgenev did not have enough material to more fully describe his hero, the bearer of this idea, so the negation side turned out to be somewhat protruding.
It was very important for Pisarev to defend Bazarov, since together with him he defended, explained and defended his idea of realism. For Pisarev, "to go to the battle for Bazarov, in the name of Bazarov, under the flag of realistic radicalism meant ... to fight for the shrine of his ardent ideological desires and passions." For Pisarev, the nihilist realist Bazarov was not only the bearer, but also the militant preacher of his theory of denial.
Pisarev was very well understood by the realist Bazarov, with whom he lives with the same thoughts and feelings. They were brothers "in spirit, in life, in struggle ...". Pisarev's negation, which is the basis of realism and based, on the one hand, on broad social generalizations, and, on the other hand, prepared by the entire course of his personal life, by the realization of the need to ruthlessly reject the entire system of old concepts and authorities, is similar to Bazarov's nihilism.
In the Bazarovs, Pisarev saw "thinking realists", representatives of a new generation who still lack the strength to change the existing order, but who cannot get along with the surrounding conditions and deny everything connected with the existing social foundations. Despite the excesses in the denial, they stand "immeasurably higher than what is being denied." Their nihilism is not only hallmark but also their dignity. Pisarev argued that it was Bazarov, this representative of the “destructive power of the present”, that the future belongs to. From people like him, who are alien to pessimism, eternally young, active, strong-willed, firmly believing in the correctness of their convictions, not cowardly even before death, able to merge thought and deed together, great historical figures can be developed under appropriate circumstances.
I.S. Turgenev emphasized that only Pisarev at that time was able to subtly analyze the image of Bazarov and give him an interpretation corresponding to the author's intention. In one of his letters he wrote: “The idea of a new novel flashed through my mind. Here it is: there are romantics of realism... They yearn for the real and strive for it, like the former romantics for the ideal. “They are looking for in the real not poetry - this one is funny to them - but something great and significant.” These people act as preachers and prophets, and their appearance in Russia, according to Turgenev, is useful and necessary.
So, the nihilist Bazarov is the embodiment of Pisarev's ideas. But his program, which focuses on practical and scientific activity, differs from the former program of nihilism, in which it was prescribed to strike right and left. Bazarov is given by Pisarev as a person awakened to activity by the natural sciences, as a person of the present, bringing the future closer with his generally useful work. Do not exhaust your strength in a fruitless struggle, while there are no conditions for victory yet, but work. Relying on the natural sciences, and help bring about the restructuring of society on a new basis. But at the same time, Bazarov is not a peaceful practitioner, but a potential revolutionary. Thus, Bazarov is a "thinking realist" who carries the idea of negation in a new historical setting.
The ideological opponents of Pisarev regarded the fact that Pisarev increasingly used the term “realism” and not “nihilism” when characterizing his direction, as a collapse, as public repentance and retreat, curtailing the program of the nihilists who had gone too far in their denial. They drew attention to the fact that Pisarev, as the leader of this trend, correctly noticed signs of rapid decay in the nihilistic camp and replaced the “dying nihilism” with realism, which, in their opinion, meant reducing his political role to microscopic dimensions and moving on to problems of exclusively moral order.
In fact, all this was far from being the case, although changes in the name of the Pisarevskoye direction, and partly, in its program, really took place. As for the replacement of the name "nihilism" with "realism", Pisarev himself explains it in this way. Nihilism, which entered with a very sharply formulated program for the radical destruction of the old social foundations, gave the enemies a reason to clothe his ideas in caricature forms, which could not but have a negative effect on their success. It was necessary, without abandoning the idea itself, to change the name somewhat, that is, to replace the too catchy word "nihilism" with another, less defiant, but reflecting the essence of the movement. Pisarev believed that it was "realism" that is the word that combines everything necessary. This term, according to Pisarev, exhausts the whole meaning of the nihilistic direction, and at the same time it does not frighten anyone, does not irritate. This word is quiet, meek and deep. The term reveals both sides of the views of nihilists based only on the real in nature and society.
The reason for a certain change in the program of nihilism was deeper. The fact is that at that time significant changes took place in Russia: there was a decline in the revolutionary situation and the reaction intensified. Although the peasants, dissatisfied with the result of the reform, continued to protest in subsequent years, it was clear that the movement as a whole was declining: neither the objective nor the subjective conditions for the victory of the revolution were ripe in Russia. Chernyshevsky's hopes for a successful revolution were not realized. In the changed socio-political situation, representatives of the progressive public faced the problem of finding new ways to solve the social issue. But outstanding figures of revolutionary democracy, for various reasons, were out of action. In the prime of his life, Dobrolyubov died, Chernyshevsky was arrested and exiled to Siberia, Herzen no longer enjoyed his former popularity in these years. The peculiarity and complexity of the situation increased Pisarev's responsibility for solving the problem of ways for the social transformation of Russia. Pisarev turns to a critical revision of the theoretical heritage and comes to the conclusion that various theories of social reorganization, both past and present, are only a beautifully drawn ideal, unsuitable for the given historical conditions of Russia. He argues that in life there are things that are possible according to the laws of nature, but unrealizable under the given conditions of place and time. Therefore, one can put forward theories of incredible scope, take comfort in brilliant prospects, and real life, limited by external circumstances and material difficulties, "will continue to drag along its own track." It is necessary to take a realistic approach to assessing the phenomena of life. And hence the conclusion: since the conditions for the victory of the revolution have not yet ripened in Russia, it is necessary to change the previous, unsuccessful tactics of directly calling for revolution and, without renouncing the revolution in principle, to replace one tactic with another that is really feasible under the given historical conditions. This is the essence of the change in the political program of nihilism. But this was not a fundamental departure from the revolution, and, consequently, from nihilism as a revolutionary negation. Realism, which offered a program of long-term and thorough preparation of the masses for the revolutionary reorganization of society. It was also a denial (only in a different form) of the existing socio-political structure and everything connected with it. This idea about the difference and similarity of nihilism and realism was aptly expressed by one of the then authors, saying that nihilism is a "frontal attack" of the autocracy, and realism is its "long siege". And it was not in vain that the Russky Vestnik called Pisarev's realism "red realism" emanating from the depths of "purebred red nihilism." the relationship between them is not in doubt. By 1863 Realism in Pisarev's views was finally established. In 1864, he already speaks of realism as the basis of his views, declaring the beginning of a new and "completely independent" current of thought. And although the term "realism" itself was in circulation until the sixties, however, Pisarev's realism, as contemporaries emphasized, in many respects was not similar to the directions that previously bore this name. Therefore, even the opponents of Pisarev recognized the originality of his teaching. “This realism,” said Nemirovsky, “is imbued with every thinking person, and only the mind, restrained and entangled by tradition, beliefs, sympathies, does not see through the full depth and truth of such a direction.” Pisarev, defining the realism proclaimed by him, said: “the essence of our government contains two main aspects that are closely related to each other, but which, however, cannot be considered separately and denoted by different terms. The first side consists of our views on nature: here we take into account only really existing, real, visible and tangible phenomena or properties of objects. The second side consists of our views on social life: here we take into consideration only really existing, real, visible and tangible needs of the human organism. Explaining the real direction in more detail, Pisarev emphasized that it comes from the need to resolve a number of burning problems of our time. is determined by the surrounding life, borrowing from it everything that "is in the most inextricable connection with the real needs" of society, which is "undoubtedly important, necessary, effective." Realism, according to Pisarev, is a connection with life in the broad sense of the word, a deep understanding of humanity and freedom, usefulness as a reasonable enjoyment of life and the ability to benefit oneself and the people. And finally, a sober analysis of the existing, criticism and mental progress - these are the main outlines of the trends of Pisarevskoe realism, leading ultimately to the solution of the problem of "hungry and naked." Consistent implementation of realistic principles in sociology, politics, philosophy, ethics and aesthetics and in the aggregate constitutes the "theory of realism", which is, as it were, the backbone of Pisarev's worldview.
A century later, it is not difficult to see the mistakes of this or that thinker. In this we are helped by socio-historical practice, which confirmed or refuted his beliefs. But, guided by the same historical point of view, we cannot but recognize the correctness of Pisarev's main line of struggle.
Thus, Pisarev's nihilism exactly fit into the framework of the transitional era of the sixties and its main goal was to negate the worldview of the previous generation of "idealists of the forties". This nihilism should not be confused with anarchism, either in its individualistic variety, prevalent mainly in the West, or with populist communist anarchism, which became influential in Russia after the death of Pisarev, in the seventies.
CHAPTER 2
2.1 General provisions of the philosophy of F. Nietzsche
The problems of nihilism presented in the writings of Nietzsche attracted close attention of representatives of Russian social thought of the late XIX - early XX century. Although there was an element of fashion in the enthusiasm for Nietzscheanism, however, many of his ideas were consonant with the ideas and constructions of some influential representatives of Russian philosophy and sociology of that time. This applies, first of all, to the problem of nihilism, which occupies one of the central places in the philosophical concept of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's attitude towards nihilism was controversial. He was one of the first to welcome nihilism as the destruction of obsolete ideals, the denial of established values, to which Nietzsche refers, first of all, the traditional values he hates: Christianity, revolution, the abolition of slavery, equality of rights, philanthropy, peacefulness, justice, truth. Nietzsche directed the destructive force of negation against the bourgeois-liberal worldview, against the illusions generated by Enlightenment optimism and the European bourgeois revolutions, against Christianity and its morality of patience. This morality, according to Nietzsche, is imposed on society by the "poor in spirit and body", whose most characteristic feature is the lack of vitality. These people elevated their weaknesses to virtue. The requirements of brotherhood, equality, rights and duties, according to Nietzsche's deep conviction, fundamentally contradict the essence of life, based on the survival of the strongest. Socialist ideals, Nietzsche believed, grow out of the same hateful Christian morality and, just like it, must be rejected. A decisive reassessment of the values that have been formed over the centuries is needed, otherwise humanity will perish.
Nihilism as the first stage of such a reassessment is necessary, but one cannot confine oneself to the denial of obsolete values. The next step is the creation of a fundamentally new worldview and worldview, overcoming the gap between "being and meaning", between the world of morality and ideology and the real world, between good and evil as two opposites. Nietzsche contrasts the one-sided, in his opinion, rationalistic and analytical perception of the world, associated only with science, with a fundamentally different comprehension of it, based on his holistic perception of the world as life, as an expression of the will, which is in the process of eternal pure movement. He is trying to overcome nihilism, to restore the integrity of being, the unity of being and consciousness, lost since the time of Socrates, to present man as a natural organic being, and his intellect - only as an auxiliary means for convenient consideration of the world, devoid of causality, regularity, sequence in reality.
Nietzsche's nihilistic attitude to reason, science, morality, and traditional religion reflected in a peculiar way the tendency of bourgeois philosophy to a growing doubt about the possibilities of science, raising the question of its "crisis". The content of the “crisis” included a statement of the discrepancy between scientific, technical and spiritual progress, growing specialization, fragmentation of knowledge, in which particulars acquire self-sufficient significance, obscuring the general meaning and moral value of knowledge.
Although the works of Nietzsche were widely disseminated in Russia only in the last decade of the 19th century, it cannot be said that the circle of ideas expressed by him was something absolutely new and unknown here. The perception of these ideas in Russia was prepared in a certain way by certain tendencies in Russian philosophy itself, in some of its idealistic currents. The assimilation and even more so the dissemination in one or another national philosophy of ideas transferred from other conditions is never a mechanical process of purely external artificial transplantation, transplantation, but is always determined by internal organic tendencies of philosophical development.
Of course, in a form identical to Nietzscheism, the circle of nihilistic ideas developed by Nietzsche could not have been formed in Russia. In the absence of developed capitalist relations, there could not have been such an intensive utilitarian development of science as took place in the West. Consequently, awareness of the internal contradictions in the development of science, the "crisis of science" could not be as acute as in the conditions of Western European countries. If the criticism of science was carried out, then, unlike Nietzsche, it was accompanied by the assertion of the value of religion.
As for Nietzsche's denial of enlightenment ideals, the ideas of equality and democracy, which were established in Europe after the bourgeois revolutions, in Russia these problems were perceived differently, often in a detached way. At the same time, the most significant Russian writers and thinkers, sensitively and keenly perceiving the present and the near future of Russia, were aware of and evaluated, although often from opposite positions, all the contradictory nature of bourgeois morality.
But this assessment, as a rule, had nothing to do with the principled moral relativism so characteristic of Nietzscheism.
If we talk about the extreme conclusions of Nietzsche's nihilism about the "death of God", then they could not be expressed in an explicit form, because neither state nor church censorship would have missed such statements. They could be published either in the uncensored foreign Russian press, or in a specific artistic form, for example, in the form of a monologue by Ivan Karamazov.
However, even taking into account all these circumstances, it can be stated that many ideas united by the Nietzsche concept of nihilism and its overcoming were in circulation in Russian philosophy already starting from the thirties of the XIX century, long before Nietzsche.
Such, for example, are many of the ideas of the founders of Slavophilism A. Khomyakov and, in particular, I. Kireevsky. Thus, Kireevsky criticizes the abstract rationalism and analyticity of Western European thinking, which are reflected not only in the features of Catholicism, but also in secular forms - in science. Kireevsky contrasts rationalism with integral, “living” knowledge, which is not limited to dry analysis, but includes a human assessment of phenomena, primarily their moral and aesthetic characteristics. Kireevsky speaks of a profound crisis not only in bourgeois consciousness (identified by him in general with Western European consciousness), but also in bourgeois society itself with its spirit of mercantilism.
The neo-Slavophiles of the middle of the 19th century picked up and developed these ideas. So, Apollon Grigoriev, rejecting rationalism, theoretical criticism, affirms the idea of unconsciousness of creativity, organic unity, integrity of thought and life. He writes about "folk organisms", anticipating the ideas not only of Danilevsky, but also of Nietzsche and Spengler. N. Danilevsky, one of the leading sociologists of neo-Slavophilism, not only perceives the ideas of Grigoriev and Strakhov about the organic integrity of life, but also fiercely criticizes European civilization, which, in his opinion, as well as Nietzsche's, is on the eve of an inevitable decline. Danilevsky considers materialism, nihilism, liberalism to be the main features of Western civilization, considering these phenomena as deeply "alien" and even "harmful" to natural, organic development. He considers the Slavic civilization, which is replacing the European one, to be the highest type of such development.
Danilevsky's like-minded person was K. Leontiev, the author of the book "The East, Russia and the Slavs." Some of its pages, as well as certain passages from his other writings, are strikingly similar to Nietzsche's statements both in form and in content. The same paradox and sharpness of form, the same fearlessness and even cynicism of the conclusions. However, the main manifestation of the closeness of Leontiev and Nietzsche is the coincidence of many ideas. Just like Nietzsche later, Leontiev has a sharply negative attitude towards contemporary Europe with its superficial progress, which he calls “liberal-egalitarian”, leveling. Any equation, equality Leontiev considered as something unnatural, alien to the organic laws of the world. The last stage in the development of society, according to Leontiev, is the so-called "secondary mixing simplification." Its essence is similar to the stage of decrepitude of the human body. The reason for the social decrepitude of the social organism is the loss of the natural principles of physical, social, political inequality, the confusion of estates, states, and nations. Leontiev's ideal, like Nietzsche's, is in the past.
Although the ideas of the neo-Slavophiles did not become widespread, and many of them provoked criticism in the most diverse layers of Russian social thought (N. Mikhailovsky, V. Solovyov), nevertheless, these ideas to a certain extent paved the way for the perception of Nietzscheanism in Russia. Not all of its elements, but many of them, such as the identification of Western civilization with materialism, nihilism, creative sterility, the dream of the possibility of overcoming nihilism by restoring forms of social structure and morality that have long gone into oblivion, opposing the artificial nature of modern civilization "the organic principles of life ".
2.2 V.P. Preobrazhensky and N.Ya. Grotto about the concept of F. Nietzsche
The first most serious analysis of Nietzsche's philosophical concept was an article by V.P. Preobrazhensky "Friedrich Nietzsche: a critique of the morality of altruism" 1892. Preobrazhensky, being a resolute opponent of both the bourgeois system of life and thought, in which the creative will is shackled by the unshakable way of the traditional way of life, and socialist tendencies with their ideal of general, regulated well-being, turned to the teachings of Nietzsche, seeing in it a real way to overcome petty-bourgeois inertia and socialist life leveling. Following Nietzsche, he criticized the moral precepts of modern society, in which, in his opinion, the ethics of altruism, generated by Christianity, dominated, putting the utilitarian principle of utility and happiness as the absence of suffering at the forefront and, as a result, leading to depersonalization, elimination of the individual principle in a person. The only way out of the regressive movement to the cultural collapse of the modern era, Preobrazhensky, like his teacher, saw in the reassessment of current ideals, the proclamation of new "tablets of values", the exaltation and ennobling of man. The researcher saw the main merit of the philosopher in the fact that for the first time in the science of morality he raised the very problem of morality, rising above all historically transient moral assessments and views, having crossed over to the other side of Good and Evil. Preobrazhensky emphasized that Nietzsche took a fresh look at morality, seeing in it a relative value. “Morality has only a relative value, not an absolute value. The relative value of morality is measured by the decline or rise of life.
Preobrazhensky's essay laid the foundation for a discussion that unfolded on the pages of a number of reputable periodicals. Among the most significant works of this period is an article by N.Ya. Grot's Moral Ideals of Our Time (1893), which contrasted Nietzsche's anti-Christian individualism with Tolstoy's Christian altruism. Grot resolutely rejected the concept of Nietzsche - "defender of pure paganism", seeing in it "the destruction of the Christian religious and moral worldview, in the name of the triumph of the positive and progressive-scientific, pagan" , and contrasted it with the teachings of Tolstoy, affirming the triumph of the Christian principles of life. Noting, on the one hand, the closeness of thinkers so spiritually distant from each other, expressed in the mutual desire "to create a free and self-sufficient personality and on this basis a new society and humanity", Grot, however, pointed out their fundamental difference in the choice of ways to implement the common ideal. . He briefly but succinctly outlined these paths with the formulas: "The more evil, the more good" - for Nietzsche and "The less evil, the more good" - for Tolstoy. Grot's essay was the first in a series of works devoted to comparing the philosophical concepts of Tolstoy and Nietzsche.
2.3 Views of D.S. Merezhkovsky
Since the 1990s, Nietzsche's ideas, and consequently his concept of nihilism, have been widely disseminated in Russia. They become one of the ideological foundations of a broad philosophical and aesthetic trend developing during this period - decadence (D.S. Merezhkovsky, N. Minsky), as well as heterogeneous idealistic speeches in philosophy, aesthetics, theory and history of literature. It is characteristic that one of the first theoreticians and practitioners of Russian decadence, one of the first theorists of the "new religious consciousness" D. Merezhkovsky seeks to combine Nietzsche's ideas with certain currents of Russian philosophy, to rethink them in accordance with certain ideological needs of Russian idealism. A kind of historical and philosophical transformation takes place: Nietzsche's nihilism, in particular his denial of modern civilization, the role of rational consciousness, criticism of the power of science and even the statement of the "death of God" are accepted as a revelation. At the same time, Nietzsche's nihilism is seen as proof that humanity has reached a dead end, reached an extreme limit, the way out of which lies only in a "new religious consciousness". Merezhkovsky finds parallels with Nietzsche's understanding of the world already in Pushkin, who allegedly anticipated the opposition of Apollo and Dionysus and Nietzsche's attraction to the Dionysian-disharmonious, irrational principle. Nietzsche's book The Birth of Tragedy, according to Merezhkovsky, reminded us of "the vision of the youth Pushkin, who, from the school of a Christian mentor ... fled ... to pagan idols." Even Merezhkovsky turns to Peter I to prove the readiness of Russian social thought to accept Nietzscheanism: Peter is seen as the only real incarnation of the Superman in history. At the same time, Merezhkovsky compares excerpts from diverse sources in such a way that an illusory idea is created about the stability of a nihilistic (in the Nietzschean sense) worldview in Russia as a sense of the last boundary of being, a premonition of the inevitable death of culture, civilization, and way of life. For this purpose, an apocalyptic in spirit, religious-conservative legend about Peter as a “beast that emerged from the abyss”, Pushkin’s lines about the “brazen horseman”, who “lifted Russia on its hind legs over the very abyss”, lines from Dostoevsky’s letters about that the path of Peter's reforms has been exhausted, "there is no further .... there is no road, it has all been passed," etc. Merezhkovsky refers to the mystical prophecies of Neoplatonism and, in particular, early Christianity, asserting "not only religious, but also philosophical, scientific, cultural and historical significance" of the problem of the end of the world, the inevitability of death not only personal, for each person individually, but for all mankind . Merezhkovsky considers this apocalyptic and nihilistic in the traditionally religious sense the idea of the end of the world to be deeply significant, putting man and mankind on the verge of being and non-being. Nietzsche approached the same idea of “the cliff of the mountain range of all historical cultures” in his own way; according to Merezhkovsky, it was also approached by the spokesmen for various trends in Russian philosophical thought - the heroes of Dostoevsky. Among them is Prince Myshkin, and especially the nihilist Kirillov from The Possessed, who speaks of the destruction of God and the "change of the earth." Merezhkovsky compares Nietzsche's words with Kirillov's reasoning that “God does not exist. God is dead. And we killed him”, about the entry of mankind in the future into “a higher history than all previous history”. Merezhkovsky absolutizes the outward coincidence of many statements, moreover, he gives quite specific forms of nihilism a certain global, universal, non-historical significance. Merezhkovsky seeks to show that Nietzsche's conclusions, which were the result of an assessment of the phenomena of the European world, completely coincide with the conclusions "from the depths" of Russian life. The meaning, the result of these heterogeneous currents is as follows: “From two different, opposite sides, they approached the same abyss, there is nowhere to go further, the historical path has been passed, further is the cliff and the abyss.” The work of exclusively scientific, critical, corrupting thought is already being completed, writes Merezhkovsky. Russia, like Europe, "has reached some final point and is vacillating over the abyss." He comes to the conclusion that there is still a way out of this crisis of science, rational thought, philosophy, morality. Religion is declared to be such a way out: “When history ends, religion begins”, only it is the “creative”, “non-historical” path. These attempts to use Nietzschean nihilism to justify religion, moreover, to use, paradoxically, Nietzsche's criticism of religion, his conclusion about the "death of God" to revive interest in religion, to attract interest in it, were not isolated. They were characteristic at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries not only for secular religious and philosophical thought, but even for the theoretical speeches of professional theologians. A specific feature of their writings was the desire to weaken the influence of Nietzsche's nihilistic anti-Christian speeches, which were explained by purely personal moments of life, mainly by his whiteness. Criticism of Nietzsche is conducted by religious philosophy, so to speak, from the right, but in this criticism there are sometimes rational aspects of a cognitive nature that can be used in the process of critical analysis of Nietzscheism and its nihilism.
Pisarev nihilism thinker Nietzsche
2.3.The views of S.L. Frank
The work of Nietzsche had a decisive influence on S.L. Frank - the largest domestic metaphysician, a representative of the religious philosophy of unity. Having already become an eminent thinker, Frank in his memoirs described the history of his appeal to the ideas of Nietzsche: “In the winter of 1901-1902. Nietzsche's book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" accidentally fell into my hands... From that moment on, I felt the reality of the spirit, the reality of depth in my own soul - and without any special decisions, my inner destiny was determined. I became an “idealist”, not in the Kantian sense, but an idealist-metaphysicist, the bearer of some kind of spiritual experience that opened access to the invisible inner reality of being.”
S. Frank is the author of the sensational work “F. Nietzsche and the Ethics of “Love for the Far” in 1902, which was included in the famous collection “Problems of Idealism”. It was the first serious philosophical work of the twenty-five-year-old thinker. He defined the main goal of his article as follows: "...characterization of Nietzsche's teachings as ethical idealism." From the writings of the German philosopher, Frank made the conclusion, which seemed paradoxical to many of his contemporaries, that Nietzsche's teaching is nothing more than "the moral code of the hero's life, the gospel written for the first time for people of creativity and struggle", "the ethics of active heroism", and even "the moral imperative of self-sacrifice".
The Russian thinker considered the main merit of Nietzsche to be the development of a new ethical system based on the principle of “love for things and ghosts” - the type of moral feeling first identified by the German philosopher, equidistant, according to Frank, both from egoism and altruism, and in its own way ethical value claiming to be of greater value than love for people. (Frank took the concept of “love for ghosts” from the famous saying of Zarathustra: “Higher than love for the neighbor, is love for the distant and future; even higher than love for a person, I value love for things and ghosts.” We are talking about love to abstract values - truth, justice, freedom, religious or moral ideal, beauty, honor.
Acceptance of the preaching of Zarathustra and the “love of the far” proclaimed by him meant for Frank the affirmation of the “moral rights of the individual”, that is, those “sacred and inalienable human rights that were once the socio-moral slogan of the time, and which now, with the dominance of positivist-utilitarian moral views have become "forgotten words". For him, as for N. Berdyaev, the pathos of Zarathustra was the pathos of a free person. However, individualism was not perceived by them as a beginning, identical to egoism. S. Frank even criticized Nietzsche for likening “love for the distant” to egoism. “Possessing more artistic depth and insight than the analytical power of the mind,” wrote Frank, “Nietzsche, in his protest against utilitarianism ... hit the opposite extreme, bringing “love of ghosts” closer to egoism.”
Despite the fact that the further intellectual evolution of the philosopher led him to a less unconditional acceptance of the views of the German thinker, as was the case in the first apologetic article, Frank continued to turn to the ideas of Nietzsche in his subsequent work.
2.4.The views of N.D. Tikhomirov
N.D. Tikhomirov in his article "Nietzsche and Dostoevsky" noted with alarm the widespread dissemination of Nietzsche's ideas among the Russian intelligentsia, a kind of halo that surrounds the ideas of Nietzsche's nihilism. He unduly brings together the popularity of the works of Maxim Gorky, as if with the Nietzschean character of the coverage of the heroes of his early stories. The convergence of the rebelliousness of the heroes of these stories with Nietzsche's nihilism was characteristic even of democratic criticism at the turn of the century (N. Mikhailovsky, E. Lyatsky). This illegitimate rapprochement evoked criticism from the most far-sighted authors, for example, Solovyov-Andreevich, the author of the informative "Experience in the Philosophy of Russian Literature." Not Western European philosophical influences, including Nietzscheism, but the real conditions of life and protest against them - these are the sources of the individualistic negation of the heroes of Gorky's stories. Nietzsche's nihilism, quite naturally, was evaluated by Tikhomirov outside of any concrete historical orientations, as a pure and fruitless negation (he did not resolve anything, did not eliminate anything). But although the criticism is conducted from the positions of abstract Christian humanism with references to temporary eternal values, it sometimes contains true observations that are of considerable interest. For example, Tikhomirov notes that Nietzsche's apology for strength "inspired the development of crude nihilism", the fruits of which were manifested in the suppression of the uprising in China, where "German soldiers gave no quarter to anyone." However, the religious philosopher is by no means limited to a simple rejection of the ideas of Nietzsche and his nihilism. He seeks to use his assessment of Nietzscheanism to validate the ideas of Christianity. Every attempt to answer the fundamental questions of being and meaning human life without religious foundations is doomed to defeat - this is the main meaning of Tikhomirov's conclusions. Dostoevsky is chosen as the antithesis of Nietzsche. Under the pen of Tikhomirov, the Russian writer, who expressed the painful ideological and moral conflicts of our time, appears as a purely religious thinker who anticipated Nietzsche, answered all the questions he posed in the spirit of “humility against pride”, “revived man with the forces of Christian love", while Nietzsche "places the powers of man too highly, trying to replace faith in God."
2.5.The views of V.S. Solovyova
The most prominent Russian idealist philosopher V.S. Solovyov. Many of his works contain extremely sharp criticism of Nietzscheism, which gave contemporaries reason to speak of Solovyov's boundless antipathy towards Nietzsche. This rejection had its reasons. Solovyov's teaching, with his desire to combine the highest values - truth, goodness and beauty into a "universal being" on a Christian basis, to turn this being into an object of philosophy, could not be combined with Nietzsche's denial of traditional philosophy and the traditional values of religion and morality. In addition, from the standpoint of Christian humanism and high ethical demands, the author of The Justification of the Good could not accept the apology of force and the denial of good. Solovyov, as you know, did not accept the early Russian decadence, sarcastically speaking out against the cult of individualism, the "strong personality", against the idealization of evil and "satanic" in man. Naturally, active rejection also extended to the Nietzsche ideals of Russian decadence. Solovyov writes ironically about “psychopathic decadents and decadents who tremble and kneel before the name of Zarathustra. However, for all its outward evidence, V. Solovyov's rejection of Nietzsche's nihilism could not be entirely consistent. Real differences and even direct opposition in the solution of many questions of philosophy and morality could not obscure the objectively existing common features of the initial attitudes of V. Solovyov and Nietzsche. They are united by a common negative attitude not only towards empirical knowledge, speaking in a positivist guise, but also practically to the scientific methods of cognition in general. From different positions, German and Russian thinkers moved from a largely just criticism of the one-sidedness of empiricism and the limitations of positivism to a direct denial of science. Both Nietzsche and Solovyov come to the idea of the need to create a philosophy of a new type instead of traditional speculative "school" philosophical systems. It should become a "philosophy of life", which serves not so much for the knowledge of the world as for the expression of the social activity of a person, his integral perception of the world. For Nietzsche, human life is based on organic inequality, “the will to power”, for Solovyov the philosophy of life is the embodiment of the principles of Christianity. But for both, it is a philosophy that opposes the scientific-materialistic understanding of the world. Finally, German and Russian philosophers are also brought together by the fundamental social utopianism of a reactionary nature, which was a kind of denial of the socialist prospects for the development of society. Nietzsche is looking for a social ideal in the pre-Christian barbarian and early antique world, Solovyov - in early Christianity. Rejecting the bourgeois civilization of their time, they both sought its antithesis outside the real process of social development, in the mythological darkness, in bygone centuries. It is natural, therefore, that Solovyov's criticism of Nietzscheanism with its nihilism could not but be effective. The development of Russian philosophical, aesthetic and ethical thought confirmed this.
2.6.The views of L.I. Shestov
The most significant reflection and manifestation in Russia of philosophical nihilism in the spirit of the ideas of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard was the philosophy of L.I. Shestov. As a philosopher and literary critic L.I. Shestov (1866-1936) spoke most actively at the beginning of the twentieth century from the positions subjective idealism and nihilism, a complete rejection of the cognitive and social role of art. Close to Russian symbolism, Shestov politically joined the ideas of Kadetism, collaborating in Rech and Russkaya Mysl. This combination of ideas was no exception. A whole galaxy of prominent Russian idealists—philosophers, sociologists, and aestheticians—has gone from superficial liberalism to active anti-Marxism. Among them are Struve, Berdyaev, Bulgakov. Shestov also occupied his place in this galaxy. His dislike for the October Revolution and his theoretical activity in exile in France were quite natural, where he naturally, like Berdyaev, "fit" into the general flow of irrationalist philosophy of a religious persuasion - personalism and existentialism. Shestov not only affirmed Nietzschean nihilism in Russian philosophical social thought, he sought to find analogies for it in Russian philosophy itself, a kind of Nietzscheanism before Nietzsche. And "finds" it, subjectively, contrary to the real meaning, interpreting Dostoevsky's work. Shestov justifies the legitimacy of such an approach by saying that art, by its very nature, cannot be either an expression or an object of logical analysis.
The artist had no "ideas," Shestov emphasizes, ironically putting the word "ideas" in quotation marks. The task of art, he believes, is to fight "against regulation and standardization, to break the chains that gravitate over the human mind striving for freedom", to wrest a person from "iron necessity". Rejecting the understanding of art as a reflection of reality, in general as a phenomenon, something other than subjective psychological acts, determined. Shestov opens up scope for any arbitrary constructions. Their goal is to present Dostoevsky as a direct spokesman for a trend analogous to Nietzsche's nihilism. Shestov directly formulates it: Nietzsche's "revaluation of all values" and Dostoevsky's revaluation of his convictions are identical. Subsequently, Shestov no less decisively identifies Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; One can, without fear of being reproached for exaggeration, call Dostoevsky a double of Kierkegaard. Not only ideas, but also the method of searching for the truth they have exactly the same ... ". Following his original methodological guidelines, denying the close connection of works of art with objective reality, Shestov considers Dostoevsky's work exclusively as a kind of self-expression, as a purely external personification of the artist's feelings and thoughts. “Not daring to express his real thoughts directly, he,” Shestov writes about Dostoevsky, “created all sorts of situations for them.” Shestov completely identifies the author with his characters. He characterizes "Notes from the Underground" as the highest reflection of social and moral nihilism, identical to Nietzsche's. Shestov considers this work as autobiographical, as a document testifying to Dostoevsky's complete break with the ideas of youth, as "a public renunciation of his past." The cynical anarchist willfulness of the “underground man”: “Will the world fail, or should I not drink tea? I will say that the world will fail” - is interpreted as the author's credo. Serving people is declared a lie, many social ideals and goals are declared meaningless "let them free the peasants, start the courts - it's not easier on the soul." Not a criticism of superficial liberalism and a mechanistic understanding of the individual only as a “product of the environment” is heard here by Shestov, but an assertion of the complete meaninglessness of social existence in general, the chaotic nature of life, the collapse of any goals and hopes. All former philosophy based on reason turns out to be powerless in the face of the “horror of life”. Shestov here replaces the general with the particular. The limitations of rationalism testify only to the relativity of any method, but not to the fundamental irrationality of human existence and the senselessness of trying to understand it. Shestov considers unbridled doubt the collapse of all ideals and values: “Socrates, Plato, goodness, humanism, ideas - the whole host of former angels and saints who protected the innocent human soul from skepticism and pessimism, disappeared without a trace in space, and a person experiences fear of loneliness.” The meaning of the tragedy of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, Shestov sees the philosophy of this tragedy in the fact that "hope has perished forever, but life exists." Life is defined as something meaningless in its inner essence. This thesis serves as the basis for Shestov's conclusions, in which the social meaning of his nihilism is most clearly manifested. If life is aimless, cruel and meaningless, then any plans for its reorganization in the future are just as meaningless, illusory. Moreover, they are vicious, for the hope for "universal happiness in the future" is the "justification of the present." The “underground man”, identical, according to Shestov, to Dostoevsky himself, comes to the rejection of all ideals and hopes: “What did he have in return for his former convictions?” Shestov asks. And he answers: "Nothing." In his writings, Shestov is not limited to well-aimed judgments about the inadmissibility of fetishizing rational approaches to spiritual life and prayerfully accepting any thesis sanctified by science. He transcends this fruitful and demanding doubt. And this, as noted, is a direct path to nihilism. In his desire not to stop at any boundaries and norms developed by mankind, Shestov raises the denial of science, reason, knowledge to the level of a universal principle. It is quite natural that at the same time he is trying to overthrow all the philosophical idols of mankind, to rewrite, and in fact to reject, the history of the philosophical thought of the past. Following Nietzsche, Shestov rejects the direction of this thought coming from Socrates. He considers the ideas of the great ancient Greek thinker a misunderstanding, his call for self-knowledge, faith in reason - meaningless. Subsequently, when Shestov became a faithful and staunch follower of Kierkegaard's ideas, he often turned to the name of Socrates in order to more sharply shade his hostility towards the champions of reason. Shestov formulates Kierkegaard's position in the following way, with which he fully agrees and which he adhered to even before becoming acquainted with the writings of the Danish philosopher: “Plato (through the mouth of his incomparable teacher Socrates) announced to the world: “There is no greater misfortune for a person than to become a misolologos, that is, a hater of reason” … If it were necessary to formulate Kierkegaard's most cherished thoughts in a few words, one would have to say: man's greatest misfortune is unconditional trust in reason and rational thinking. In all his works, he repeats in a thousand ways: the task of philosophy is to break free from the power of rational thinking and find courage in oneself ... to seek the truth in what everyone is accustomed to consider paradox and absurdity. Shestov proclaims the absolute unknowability of the world, an absolutely subjective, relative approach to philosophical ideas. In them, in his opinion, there is no - neither absolute nor relative - truth. This is pure philosophical nihilism, dividing people, turning their thoughts into a perfect nothing, into a complete and meaningless emptiness in its purity and uniformity. After all, none of these thoughts can be transmitted to other people. And if the act of communication, messages, has taken place, then this still does not change anything, because words are transmitted, their sound or graphic shell, but the meaning cannot be conveyed, it simply does not exist. Everyone can fill this shell with their own content. Identifying the ideas of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and considering them as the forerunners of his nihilism, Shestov strives to be more consistent than both of them, to completely banish the slightest remnants of faith in science and reason. Shestov chooses science as the main object of his merciless criticism. He begins by devaluing all accepted philosophical nomenclature and classification. The greater or lesser scientific nature of individual teachings is the purest fiction, according to Shestov. The most extreme positivist (and for Shestov, by the way, not only for him alone, positivism is almost materialism) does not differ from the idealist in the main.
The dispute between idealism and positivism and even with materialism, says Shestov, is only a dispute about words, in essence they agree with each other. The root defect of all philosophical systems is in their unaccountable service to reason. But the mind, Shestov believes, is unreliable. Once high hopes were pinned on him, but they did not come true.
Shestov reflected in his judgments a new stage in the development of philosophical irrationalism.
In the books of Nietzsche, the limitations of the philosophy of contemporary European positivism with its claims to the universality of assessments were noticed. Criticism of these vices of positivism is an essential element in the criticism of any scientism, that is, the absolutization of the role of natural science as opposed to morality, art, and all other forms of spiritual life. But while rejecting positivist claims, Nietzsche still did not deny all forms of scientific knowledge, be it biology or philology. Shestov, continuing the ideas of Nietzsche, at the same time denied scientific knowledge in general. “Does it really make sense even now, when everyone has so clearly realized the impotence of the mind, to take into account its needs?” he asks, and proclaims to affirm the primacy of faith.
In order to finally crush the claims of science, the role of reason in general, Shestov considers it necessary to discredit not only science, but also morality. It is in this matter that he proclaims his difference from his predecessors. Criticism of science by Dostoevsky and also by Tolstoy Shestov considers insufficient precisely because it was carried out on an ethical plane, was placed on moral ground. The social meaning of Shestov's nihilism was clearly manifested in the attacks on the moral sanction of science. Undoubtedly, science cannot live only on moral sanctions, cannot be based on the requirements of morality. The ethical substantiation of science introduces an element of subjectivism into it, tries to subordinate a strict objective regularity to ideal needs.
For Shestov, science in general is unacceptable, as a product of the mind, powerless to cognize and change the world. Morality is unacceptable as a form of justification of science. Shestov attacks Kant for "sanctifying" the laws of reason with morality. “It is impossible to fight science,” writes Shestov, until its eternal ally, morality, is overthrown. A person can live without "soil", that is, without moral and scientific values, without a worldview, the philosopher proclaims. He connects his appeals with the crisis of consciousness of the intelligentsia, which "previously wept over the suffering of the people, appealing for justice, demanded a new order," and now has become disillusioned with its own ideals. This disappointment, according to Shestov, should lead to fundamentally new attitudes: to the recognition of the insufficiency of science and reason, because they do not explain the complexity of life, do not eliminate its eternal tragedies. The only way out is the rejection of traditional forms of thinking and moral assessments, which are declared dogmatic. There is nothing stable in the world, everything is devalued. A person, Shestov believes, should develop a dislike for the accepted form of presentation of ideas. It is necessary to abandon the use of scientific terms, concepts, laws, because they have "an undesirable shade of distinctness and certainty." This "certainty" should be, according to Shestov, rejected because it creates the illusion of solid knowledge. Moreover, "philosophy with logic should have nothing in common: philosophy is art, the desire to break through the logical chain of conclusions and take a person into a boundless sea of fantasy."
The claims of science to explain everything deprive a person of true scope, limit his horizon. So, science forbids people to be afraid of death, demanding a sober attitude towards it. It is from here, according to Shestov, that utilitarianism and positivism grow. To overcome these narrow views, it is necessary to allow people to think about death, not to be ashamed of their fear of hell and devils.
Everything earthly, according to Shestov, is limited, moreover, it is insignificant, has no price. Public practice cannot be a measure of evaluation. “It is necessary,” he proclaims, that doubt should become a constant creative force, that it would permeate the very essence of our life. But doubt, not based on positive principles, on the assertion, in contrast to the denied, of other ideas and values that meet the objective needs of society, cannot become a creative force. It turns into fruitless doubt, cold skepticism that can only destroy a living organism.
In a polemical enthusiasm, but in accordance with his logic, Shestov proclaims a panegyric to darkness. He writes: “Let the sun hide, long live the darkness!” Optimism, faith in reason and progress are identified by Shestov with petty-bourgeois virtues, bourgeois integrity. And vice versa, the true expression of freedom is in alogism, in the distortion of all habitual concepts. With great frankness, Shestov formulates this credo of theoretical nihilism: “Let future generations turn away from us with horror, let history stigmatize our names as traitors to the universal cause, we will nevertheless compose hymns to ugliness, destruction, ugliness, chaos, darkness. And there at least the grass does not grow. There is a whole program of denial in this distinct formula. It seems to illuminate a whole chain of phenomena in the social and spiritual life of Russia since the beginning of the 20th century.
Thus, the legacy of the German philosopher Nietzsche left a deep mark on the history of Russian thought; it is legitimate to talk about a kind of "Nietzschean" layer of Russian culture. Not a single major Russian thinker of the late 19th - first quarter of the 20th century left Nietzsche's philosophy unattended. However, the perception of his ideas was far from unambiguous. In some circles, his name was considered synonymous with individualism, while in others, Nietzsche's philosophy meant collective creativity. For some, he was a "destroyer of historical Christianity", breaking traditional ideas about morality, for others - a "prophet of a new faith", a herald of the idea of religious synthesis, a new religious culture.
CONCLUSION
The term "nihilism" has a surprising and controversial fate. Depending on the content that was invested in it, this word sounded both as a proud challenge to an outdated society, and as an accusation of senseless destruction of culture and morality, and as a symbol of human desocialization.
All Russian radical-democratic concepts of the 19th century, with all their diversity, are united by a characteristic feature - denial. The denial of the "heinous", according to their adherents, Russian reality. And negation, as you know, is an essential element of nihilism. Therefore, apparently, we can agree with those who designate the phenomenon of Russian intellectual radicalism simply as "nihilism", identifying "Russian nihilism" with the theory and practice of the revolutionary movement in post-reform Russia.
The purpose of this thesis is to study the phenomenon of nihilism in Russia XIX. Based on this, at the beginning of the first chapter, we considered the origin of the word "nihilism" itself and the evolution of its semantic meaning.
The historical origins of nihilism as a special mentality are old, the European history of the word is extensive. Nihilistic ideas and moods are already found in the religious and philosophical teachings of the Middle Ages and even earlier. So, for example, in the 11th century, during the reign of Augustinianism, unbelieving heretics were called "nihilianists" (after the name of the heretical doctrine, later anathematized by Pope Alexander III for denying the human nature of Christ and his historical existence).
The modern form of the word - "nihilism" - was produced much later from the Latin noun nihil with a Greek ending.
In Russia, M.N. wrote about nihilism in the 19th century. Katkov, I.S. Turgenev, A.I. Herzen, S.S. Gogotsky, N.N. Strakhov, F.M. Dostoevsky and others, in the 20th century this topic was touched upon in one form or another by D.S. Merezhkovsky, V.V. Rozanov, L. Shestov, S.N. Bulgakov and took a special place in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, nihilists in the Russian Empire began to be called young people who wanted to change the state and social system that existed in the country, denied religion, preached materialism and atheism, and also did not recognize the prevailing moral standards.
Next, we examined the views of D.I. Pisarev as one of the most significant ideologists of revolutionary nihilism. Also, in particular, Pisarev's article "Bazarov" is considered as one of the stages of his development as a thinker. He formulated the combat program of action for the youth, “the ultimatum of our camp”: “what can be smashed must be smashed; what will withstand a blow is good, what will shatter into smithereens, then rubbish; in any case, hit right and left, there will be no harm from this and cannot be ”
Pisarev's nihilism served as a means of awakening in people the creative beginning, activity, sharpness of thinking, the spirit of criticism, so necessary in Russia. Where not only the official ideology, but also many opposition movements sang patriarchy, patience and humility as supposedly immanent valor of the people.
And in this matter, Pisarev's nihilism was a natural continuation and a kind of modification of a number of trends that had already made their way into Russian philosophical thought.
Also, in particular, Pisarev's article "Bazarov" is considered as one of the stages of his development as a thinker.
In 1864, he already speaks of realism as the basis of his views, declaring the beginning of a new and "completely independent" current of thought. And although the term "realism" itself was in circulation until the sixties, however, Pisarev's realism, as contemporaries emphasized, in many respects was not similar to the trends that previously bore this name. Realism, according to Pisarev, is a connection with life in the broad sense of the word, a deep understanding of humanity and freedom, usefulness as a reasonable enjoyment of life and the ability to benefit oneself and the people.
Thus, having considered the views of D.I. Pisarev, then we moved on to nihilistic European thought in the person of F. Nietzsche. We need a brief analysis of his main views in order to study his influence on Russian thinkers at the end of the 19th century.
Nietzsche acts as a radical nihilist and demands a radical reassessment of the values of culture, philosophy, and religion. The European nihilism of Nietzsche reduces to some basic postulates, which he considers it his duty to proclaim with harshness, without fear and hypocrisy. These theses: nothing is true anymore; god is dead; no morality; everything is allowed. It is necessary to understand Nietzsche precisely - he strives, in his own words, not to engage in lamentations and moralistic wishes, but to describe the future, which cannot but come.
It is significant that Russian Nietzscheanism did not have the character of a unanimous acceptance of the thinker's ideas and writings. The penetration of Nietzsche's work into the national cultural tradition went through internal controversy, criticism, refutation and rejection of a number of provisions of his philosophy. And the understanding of Nietzsche's ideas in Russia was far from uniform. It is hardly possible to speak of a certain single image of Nietzsche, since each domestic reader discovered something of his own in the German philosopher. In this thesis work, we examined the views of Preobrazhensky, Merezhkovsky, Solovyov, Shestov in the context of their view of Nietzsche's philosophy of nihilism
Thus, in the work we tried to consider the phenomenon of Russian nihilism, starting from the sixties of the XIX century.
LIST OF USED SOURCES
1.Antonova, G.N. Herzen and Russian Criticism in the 1950s and 60s. [Text] / G.N. Antonova. - Publishing house of Saratov University, 1989.
2.Antonovich, M.A. Asmodeus of our time. [Text] / M.A. Antonovich. - Literary-critical articles. - M., 1961.
.Volynsky, L.L. Russian critics. [Text] / L.L. Volynsky. - St. Petersburg: 1961.
.Herzen, A.I. Pisarev. [Text] / A.I. Herzen. - [Text] / A.I. Herzen. - Collected works in 30 volumes, vol. 20. M., 1960.
.Golubev, A.N. To the question of the formation of materialistic views D.I. Pisareva [Text] / N.A. Golubev. - Scientific reports of higher education. Philosophical sciences. M., 1964
.Grigoriev, A.A. Paradoxes of organic criticism. (Letters to F.M. Dostoevsky). [Text] / A.A. Grigoriev. - Articles. M., 1989.
.Grot, N.Ya. Moral ideals of our time. [Text] / N.Ya. Grotto. - Publishing house of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute, 2000.
.Danilevsky, N.Ya. The origin of our nihilism. [Text] / N.Ya. Danilevsky. - M.: Thought, 1970.
.Danilevsky, N.Ya. Russia and Europe. [Text] / N.Ya. Danilevsky. - M.: 1995.
.Demidova, N.V. Pisarev and nihilism of the 60s. [Text] / N.V. Demidov. M.: Thought, 1969.
.Demidova, N.V. Pisarev. [Text] / N.V. Demidov. - M.: Thought, 1969.
.Dobrolyubov, N.A. Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word. [Text] / N.A. Dobrolyubov. - Collected works in 3 volumes. T.1. M., 1986.
.Kireevsky, I.V. In response to A.S. Khomyakov. [Text] / I.V. Kireevsky. - M.: Nauka, 1989.
.Kuznetsov, F.F. Nihilists? DI. Pisarev and the magazine "Russian Word". [Text] / F.F. Kuznetsov. - M.: Fiction, 1983.
.Leontiev, K.N. East, Russia and Slavdom. [Text] / K.N. Leontiev. - M.: Eksmo, 2007.
.Merezhkovsky, D.S. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. [Text] / D.S. Merezhkovsky. - Complete works in 17 volumes, v.8. M., 1913.
.Nemirovsky, A.S. Our idealists and realists. [Text] / A.S. Nemirovsky. - St. Petersburg, 1993.
.Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power. The experience of reassessing all values [Text] / F. Nietzsche. - M.: REFL-book, 1994.
.Nietzsche, F. So spoke Zarathustra. [Text] / F. Nietzsche. - M.: Interbuk, 1990.
.Novikov, A.I. Nihilism and Nihilists. Critical characterization experience. [Text] / A.I. Novikov. - St. Petersburg: Lenizdat, 1972.
.Social sciences and modernity. / The Russian Academy of Sciences. - M.: Nauka, 2000, No. 6.
.Pisarev, D.I. Bazarov. [Text] / D.I. Pisarev. - Literary criticism in 3 volumes. T.1. M., 1965.
.Pisarev, D.I. Idealism of Plato. [Text] / D.I. Pisarev. - Collected works in 4 volumes, v.1. M., 1955.
.Pisarev, D.I. Scholasticism of the 19th century. [Text] / D.I. Pisarev. - Collected works in 4 volumes, v.1. M., 1955.
.Preobrazhensky, V.P. Friedrich Nietzsche: A critique of the morality of altruism. [Text] / V.P. Preobrazhensky. - M.: Nauka, 2004.
.Solovyov, V.S. justification for goodness. [Text] / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Thought, 1988.
.Tikhomirov, N.D. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Features from the moral worldview of both. [Text] / N.D. Tikhomirov. - St. Petersburg: 1995.
.Turgenev, I.S. Fathers and Sons. [Text] / I.S. Turgenev. - M.: Fiction, 1978.
.Philosophical sciences. / Academy of Humanitarian Studies. -M.: Humanitarian, 1998, No. 1.
.Frank, S.L. F. Nietzsche and the ethics of "love for the distant" Text by S.L. Franc. - Works, M., 1990.
.Frank, S.L. The ethics of nihilism. [Text] / S.L. Franc. - Works, M., 1990
.Heidegger, M. European nihilism. [Text] / M. Heidegger. - M.: Fiction, 1987.
.Khomyakov, A.S. A few words about the "Philosophical Letter". [Text] / A.S. Khomyakov. - M.: Thought, 1968.
Target: give the concept of nihilism, get acquainted with the characteristics of the definition of nihilism, given in different sources of different times; compare the concept of nihilism and the views of Bazarov; show how a person's beliefs affect his destiny; analyze the consequences of nihilism, lead to the idea of the destructive impact of nihilism on the character of the individual and society; development of skills of oral monologue speech, expressive reading.
Epigraph:
"Turgenev's heart could not be with the first Bolshevik in our literature."
Boris Zaitsev.
1. Introductory speech of the teacher.
Slide number 1.
The topic of today's lesson is "Nihilism and its consequences." Today we will try to find out more deeply what is hidden under the frightening word "nihilism", let's talk about the beliefs of Yevgeny Bazarov, the hero of I.S. Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons". Let's try to answer the question: “Does a person's fate depend on his beliefs. Can beliefs destroy a person, destroy his life, or, conversely, make him happy?
In preparation for the lesson, you guys had to re-read individual chapters of the novel "Fathers and Sons", complete some tasks.
2. We have to vocabulary work.
Let's see how the same concept of "nihilism" is revealed in different sources.
(Reading the wording of the definitions of nihilism, given in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary, V. Dahl's Dictionary, Explanatory Dictionary and Encyclopædia Britannica.)
Slide number 2.
NIHILISM (from Latin nihil - "nothing") - the denial of generally accepted values: ideals, moral norms, culture, forms of social life.
Big encyclopedic dictionary
NIHILISM - "an ugly and immoral doctrine that rejects everything that cannot be felt."
V.Dal
NIHILISM - "naked denial of everything, logically unjustified skepticism."
Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language
NIHILISM - "the philosophy of skepticism, the denial of all forms of the aesthetic." Social sciences and classical philosophical systems were completely denied, any power of the state, church, family was denied. Science for nihilism has become a panacea for all social problems.
Britannica
What did you pay attention to?
It is interesting to note that different sources give their own interpretation of this concept and its origin. The British Encyclopedia traces its history from the Middle Ages. Modern researchers attribute it to the beginning of the 19th century. Some publications believe that the concept of nihilism was first defined by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. “What does nihilism mean? - he asks and answers: - The fact that the highest values are losing their value ... there is no goal, there is no answer to the question "why?"
The history of the word "nihilist" in Russia is interesting.
Student message:
The word "nihilist" has a complicated history. It appeared in print in the late 1920s. 19th century And at first this word was used in relation to the ignorant, who know nothing and do not want to know. Later, in the 40s, the reactionaries began to use the word "nihilist" as a swear word, calling their ideological enemies - materialists, revolutionaries - so. The leading figures did not abandon this name, but put their own meaning into it. Herzen argued that nihilism means the awakening of critical thought, the desire for accurate scientific knowledge.
So, is nihilism a belief or a lack of it? Can nihilism be considered a socially positive phenomenon? Why?
Nihilism is a rigid and adamant belief based on the denial of all previous experience of human thought, on the destruction of traditions. The philosophy of nihilism cannot be positive, because rejects everything without offering anything in return. Nihilism arises where life is devalued, where the goal is lost and there is no answer to the question about the meaning of life, about the meaning of the existence of the world itself.
3. I.S. Turgenev in his famous novel “Fathers and Sons” outlined the idea of nihilism in a public form through the mouth of the character Yevgeny Bazarov.
slide number 7
Let's remember Bazarov's views. At home, you had to fill in the table, picking up quotes from the novel (reading quotes and discussing them).
Scientific and philosophical views:
- “There are sciences, as there are crafts, knowledge; and science does not exist at all ... It is not worth the trouble to study individuals. All people are similar to each other both in body and soul; each of us has a brain, spleen, heart, lungs are the same; and the so-called moral qualities are the same in all: small modifications mean nothing. One human specimen is enough to judge all others. People are like trees in the forest; no botanist will deal with every single birch."
- “Every person hangs by a thread, the abyss can open up under him every minute, and he still invents all sorts of troubles for himself, spoils his life.”
- “Now we laugh at medicine in general and bow down to no one.”
Political Views:
- “A Russian person is good only because he has a bad opinion of himself ...”
- “Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles ... - just think, how many foreign and useless words! Russian people do not need them for nothing. We act by virtue of what we recognize as useful. At the present time, denial is most useful - we deny ... Everything ... "
- “And then we guessed that chatting, just chatting about our ulcers is not worth the trouble, that this only leads to vulgarity and doctrinairism; we saw that both our wise men, the so-called progressive people, and the accusers are no good, that we are engaged in nonsense, talking about some kind of art, unconscious creativity, about parliamentarism, about advocacy, and the devil knows what, when it comes to urgent bread, when the grossest superstition is choking us, when all our joint-stock companies are going bust solely because there is a shortage of honest people, when the very freedom that the government is busy with is hardly going to benefit us, because our peasant is happy to rob himself, just to pour dope in a tavern ... "
- “Moral illnesses come from bad education, from all sorts of trifles with which people’s heads have been stuffed since childhood, from the ugly state of society, in a word. Correct the society, and there will be no diseases ... At least, with the right organization of society, it will not matter at all whether a person is stupid or smart, evil or kind.
- “And I hated this last man, Philip or Sidor, for whom I have to climb out of my skin and who won’t even thank me ... and why should I thank him? Well, he will live in a white hut, and burdock will grow out of me, well, and then?
Aesthetic Views:
- "A decent chemist is 20 times more useful than any poet."
- “And nature is trifles in the sense in which you understand it. Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it ... "
- "Rafael is not worth a penny..."
- “... The third day, I see, he is reading Pushkin ... Explain to him, please, that this is no good. After all, he is not a boy: it's time to throw this nonsense. And the desire to be a romantic at the present time! Give him something useful to read ... "
- “Have mercy! At the age of 44, a man, the father of a family, in ... the county - plays the cello! (Bazarov continued to laugh ...) "
Do Bazarov's views correspond to nihilistic views, or was Turgenev mistaken in classifying him among the nihilists?
Bazarov's views are quite consistent with nihilistic views. Denial, reaching the point of absurdity, of everything and everyone: moral laws, music, poetry, love, family; an attempt to explain all phenomena of reality, even inexplicable ones, with the help of scientific research, materialistically.
And what do the heroes of the novel "Fathers and Sons" say about nihilists?
Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov says that a nihilist is a person "who does not recognize anything." Pavel Petrovich adds, "who respects nothing." Arkady: "who treats everything from a critical point of view, does not bow to any authorities, does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respect this principle is surrounded."
Which of the 3 interpretations is more suitable for Bazarov's nihilism?
But what does Bazarov admit? (science, the huge role of self-education, work, work)
Is it good or bad to be critical of everything?
Looking at everything critically, you can find flaws, mistakes, correct them. Doubt and denial have always been the engine of scientific and social progress. Everything new is built on the basis of the negation of the old. But you can’t blindly deny everything, you can’t refuse positive experience, traditions. There must be a new positive program. What do you offer in return, in what ways?
Bazarov was critical of serfdom, autocracy, the state system in general, religion, laws, and traditions. Bazarov is going to "clear the place", i.e. break the old.
What are the people who break the old system called?
Revolutionaries.
This means that Bazarov is a revolutionary in his views. Turgenev wrote: "... and if he is called a nihilist, then he must be read as a revolutionary." Now tell me, in the name of what they break the old? For what?
To build a new one is better than the old one.
- And what is Bazarov going to build?
- Nothing. He says it's none of his business. His job is to clear the place, and that's it.
- What is good and what is bad in Bazarov's program?
- It is good that he sees the shortcomings of modern society. Too bad he doesn't know What build, and is not going to build. He has no creative program.
- How does Turgenev feel about Bazarov's convictions? Does he share them?
- The author does not share Bazarov's nihilistic convictions; on the contrary, he consistently debunks them throughout the course of the novel. From his point of view, nihilism is doomed, because does not have a positive program.
- Turgenev is a liberal in his worldview and an aristocrat by birth. How could he make his opponent better and let him win?
Perhaps you will find the answer to this question in the statement of Turgenev himself: “To accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life, is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies.”
According to these words of Turgenev, it turns out that the image of Bazarov is an objective truth, although it contradicts the sympathies of the author.
How do you feel about Bazarov? Why does Turgenev write about his hero like this: “If the reader does not love Bazarov with all his rudeness, heartlessness, ruthless dryness and harshness, if he does not love him, then I am to blame and did not achieve my goal.”
Turgenev is a great psychologist. His Bazarov, being cynical, shameless in words, is a moral person at heart. Much of what he denies is hidden in Bazarov: the ability to love, and romanticism, and the beginning of the people, and family happiness, and the ability to appreciate beauty and poetry. (In moments of despair, he wanders through the forest, before a duel he notices the beauty of nature; trying to hide his embarrassment, he behaves cheekily; a duel).
Why didn't Bazarov refuse to participate in the duel?
Pavel Petrovich threatened to hit him with a stick if he refused. So what? A person who sincerely does not recognize any conventions can afford not to care about public opinion. Bazarov is much younger than Pavel Petrovich and would hardly allow himself to be beaten. But he was afraid of something else - shame. And this proves that far from everything that he spoke about with a contemptuous smirk, he really was indifferent.
Without realizing it himself, Bazarov lives according to fairly high moral principles. But these principles and nihilism are incompatible. Something has to be given up. Bazarov, as a nihilist, and Bazarov, as a man, fight among themselves in their souls.
Do you think that a person's beliefs are reflected in his fate?
The hero's convictions, which he consistently brings to life, cannot but be reflected in his fate. They model his fate. And it turns out that a strong and powerful person, before whom no one has yet saved, who denies romanticism, trusts his ideas so much that the mere thought of a mistake leads him to despair, to a state of depression. For this he will be terribly punished: medical studies will be fatal for him, and medicine, which he so revered, will not be able to save him. The logic of the novel makes us see in Bazarov's death the triumph of the forces of common sense, the triumph of life.
4. Consequences of nihilism.
Can you give examples of nihilism in the history of our country?
“Only we are the face of our Time. The horn of time blows us.
The past is tight. The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs.
Throw Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and others off the steamboat of our time.”
These words were written in 1912. Under them are the signatures of several poets, including V. Mayakovsky.
Slide #10
The authors of the manifesto called themselves Futurists, from lat. futurum - the future. They despised society and its laws, old literature with its traditions, generally accepted rules of conduct, principles, authorities. They read their strange, rough, wild poems, appeared before the public defiantly dressed, with painted faces, they constantly mocked readers and listeners, were rude to them, showing them how they despise a well-fed, prosperous world. They tried to crush even the language and made daring experiments on the poetic word.
It seems to me that these people are like nihilists.
We will talk about the Futurists in detail next year. What is this direction, what did it bring to literature. But I want to note that V. Mayakovsky joined the futurists only in the very early work. And later his views were no longer so extreme. Moreover, he had poems in which he talks with Pushkin about the appointment of the poet and poetry.
A similar period in the history of our country was after the Great October Socialist Revolution, when some artists decided to abandon all previous experience and create a new proletarian culture from scratch.
Slide #11
It is to this period that the opinion of Boris Zaitsev, taken as an epigraph to our lesson, belongs: "Turgenev's heart could not be with the first Bolshevik in our literature."
Boris Zaitsev lived a long life. He observed the flourishing of the culture of the Silver Age, and then the split of the world, the destruction of the society in which he lived and worked, the destruction of culture and civilization. A forced emigrant who spent the rest of his life living abroad, an excellent connoisseur of classical literature, he had the right to see in Bazarov’s nihilism the militant nihilism of the Bolshevik and connect all the events that occurred half a century later with the ideas that Bazarov preached.
Now much is being said and written about the impending ecological catastrophe. Many species of animals and plants have disappeared. The ozone layer is decreasing. In big cities there is not enough drinking water. Various cataclysms occur in different parts of the planet: either earthquakes, or floods, or global warming. What does nihilism have to do with it, you ask? Let us recall Bazarov's phrase: "Nature is not a temple, but a workshop." Over the years, man has really treated nature as a workshop. He comes up with new high technologies, uses the latest achievements in chemistry, physics, and genetic engineering. And at the same time, he does not think that the waste of these high technologies, all kinds of experiments, cause great harm to nature and to man himself. And we must treat nature first of all as a temple, and then as a workshop.
The problem of the dialogue between man and nature is a universal problem. It was constantly considered by Russian literature of both the 19th and 20th centuries. Let's now listen to a poem by Robert Rozhdestvensky. Written in the 70s, it, unfortunately, remains relevant today.
Yes, there is less and less wildlife around us, more and more zones unsuitable for human habitation: the Chernobyl zone, the Aral zone, the Semipalatinsk zone ... And this is the result of a thoughtless intrusion into the natural world of scientific and technological progress.We cut the ice, we change the course of rivers,
We keep saying that there is a lot of work ...
But we still come to ask for forgiveness
By these rivers, dunes and swamps,
At the gigantic sunrise
At the smallest fry ...
For now, it's hard to think about it.
Now we are not up to it
Bye.
Airfields, piers and platforms,
Forests without birds and lands without water...
Less and less - the surrounding nature,
More and more the environment.
So, is nihilism a disease or a cure for disease?
Nihilism is a disease very familiar to our country, which brought misfortune, suffering, death. It turns out that Bazarov is a hero of all times and peoples, born in any country where there is no social justice and prosperity. Nihilistic philosophy is untenable, because while denying the spiritual life, it also denies moral principles. Love, nature, art are not just high words. These are the fundamental concepts underlying human morality.
We must understand that there are values in the world that cannot be denied. A person should not rebel against those laws that are not determined by him, but dictated ... Whether by God, whether by nature - who knows? They are immutable. This is the law of love for life and love for people, the law of striving for happiness and the law of enjoying beauty ...
Slide number 12-13
Look how beautiful our land is at any time of the year! Cultivate pity for a broken tree, for an abandoned dog. And when you grow up and become workers, builders, engineers, be able to think not only about production, but also about our land, about nature.
In Turgenev's novel, what is natural wins: Arkady returns to his parental home, families based on love are created, and the rebellious, tough, prickly Bazarov, even after his death, is still loved and remembered by his parents.
You need to understand: denying nature, you deny yourself, your life as part of human nature.
Let our today's lesson finish with the final lines of Turgenev's novel. Let them sound like a hymn glorifying nature, love, life!
Slide #14
“Is love, holy, devoted love, not all-powerful? Oh no! No matter how passionate, sinful, rebellious heart hides in the grave, the flowers growing on it serenely look at us with their innocent eyes: they tell us not only about eternal calmness, about that great calmness of “indifferent” nature; they also speak of eternal reconciliation and endless life…”
Slide #15
Homework assignment.
Group 1 - write an essay - an essay "My thoughts on the lesson" Nihilism and its consequences.
Group 2 - a written answer to the question "How do I understand nihilism."
Another socio-literary trend of the mid-60s, which removed the extremes of the Westerners and Slavophiles, was the so-called "pochvennichestvo". Its spiritual leader was F. M. Dostoevsky, who published two magazines during these years - "Time" (1861-1863) and "Epoch" (1864-1865). Companions of Dostoevsky in these journals were literary critics Apollon Alexandrovich Grigoriev and Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov.
The Pochvenniks to some extent inherited the view of the Russian national character expressed by Belinsky in 1846. Belinsky wrote: “Russia has nothing to compare with the old states of Europe, whose history was diametrically opposed to ours and has long since given color and fruit ... It is known that the French, the British, the Germans are so national each in their own way that they are not able to understand each other while the sociality of the Frenchman, the practical activity of the Englishman, and the vague philosophy of the German are equally accessible to the Russian.
The Pochvenniks spoke of "all-humanity" as a characteristic feature of the Russian people's consciousness, which A. S. Pushkin most deeply inherited in our literature. “This idea is expressed by Pushkin not only as an indication, teaching or theory, not as a dream or a prophecy, but is actually fulfilled, it is enclosed forever in his brilliant creations and proved by him,” Dostoevsky wrote. “He is a man of the ancient of the world, he and a German, he and an Englishman, deeply aware of his genius, the anguish of his aspiration ("Feast during the plague"), he is a poet of the East. He told and declared to all these peoples that the Russian genius knows them, understood them, touched with them as a native, that it can be reincarnated in them in its entirety, that only the Russian spirit is given universality, given the assignment in the future to comprehend and unite all the diversity of nationalities and remove all their contradictions.
Like the Slavophiles, the soil-men believed that "Russian society must unite with the people's soil and take into itself the people's element." But, unlike the Slavophiles, (*10) they did not deny the positive role of the reforms of Peter I and the "Europeanized" Russian intelligentsia, called upon to bring enlightenment and culture to the people, but only on the basis of popular moral ideals. It was precisely such a Russian European that A. S. Pushkin was in the eyes of the soil-dwellers.
According to A. Grigoriev, Pushkin is "the first and full representative" of "our social and moral sympathies." “In Pushkin, for a long time, if not forever, our entire spiritual process, outlined in a broad outline, ended, our “volume and measure”: all subsequent development of Russian literature is a deepening and artistic comprehension of those elements that affected Pushkin. A. N. Ostrovsky most organically expressed Pushkin's principles in modern literature. "Ostrovsky's new word is the oldest word - nationality." "Ostrovsky is as little a detractor as he is a little idealizer. Let him be what he is - a great folk poet, the first and only exponent of the people's essence in its diverse manifestations ..."
N. N. Strakhov was the only profound interpreter in the history of Russian criticism of the second half of the 19th century of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. It was not by chance that he called his work "a critical poem in four songs." Leo Tolstoy himself, who considered Strakhov his friend, said: "One of the happiness for which I am grateful to fate is that N.N. Strakhov exists."