In contact with

Classmates

This article represents excerpts and individual quotes from S.N. Bulgakov’s essay “Philosophy of Economics,” which will help to understand the essence of the work.

PREFACE

To understand the world as an object of labor and economic influence is the next task of philosophy.

The problem of economy is taken in this study in a threefold formulation: scientific-empirical, transcendental-critical and metaphysical. And this way of considering it is not at all explained by the whim of the author - it is suggested by the very essence of the matter. For what in the empirical field constitutes the subject of “experience” poses problems for science, and what is considered from the side of cognitive forms is the construction of “ transcendental subject”, – its existential roots go to the metaphysical earth.

CHAPTER FIRST

THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY

I. MODERN ECONOMISM

Life is, first of all, an economic process, such is the axiom of this modern economism, which has received the most extreme and even arrogant expression in economic materialism.

Actually economic materialism is the dominant philosophy of political economy. The limited horizons of economic thought, which is revealed in this case, is expressed not so much in the predominance of the philosophy of economism (although this is quite symptomatic), but in its naive dogmatism. The task of philosophical criticism, therefore, first of all, is to smash this naive dogmatism and, by calling it into question, make it the subject of special philosophical study.

Economic Science belongs to the number of the most conditioned and philosophically least independent disciplines, but at the same time, in terms of its actual role and life influence, which belongs to her in our century, she claims to be an imperative legislator of thought, wants to become philosophically decreeing, to spread influence far beyond her borders. Political economy with its economism especially needs philosophical revision and deepening of its foundations, in refreshing them with philosophical doubt. Philosophical research into the general preconditions of economic activity and economic thinking in general is the direct task of economic philosophy.

The philosophy of farming is general philosophy, constitutes an essential part of it, and is not just an illegitimate creation of political economy. What can economic philosophy be as a philosophical teaching?

II. PHILOSOPHY AND LIFE

So, life there is a concrete, indecomposable unity of the logical and the alogical, only from this position does the fact of knowledge - both philosophy and science - become clear, and even in our self-consciousness we find this same living synthesis of the logical and the alogical.

III. PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Philosophical system is also a kind of work of art, “poetry of concepts”, it has its own internal necessity and logical pattern, just as in a work of art there is a necessary coherence and harmony in the relation of parts to the whole, although not logically provable, but self-evident for the “artistic mind” . However, at the same time, creative freedom in planning the composition and artistic tact in choosing the initial orientation are preserved; this is where philosophical and artistic talent is most manifested.

The difference between philosophy and science lies not in their object, but in cognitive interest, in the way of approaching the object, in their problems. Scientific study is an isolating, deliberately one-sided approach to a subject. On the contrary, philosophy is little inclined to the detail that distinguishes science so much.

IV. CRITICISM AND DOGMATISM

The dispute between “dogmatism” and “criticism” in the current setting comes down to the question of establishing a normal relationship between the practice of knowledge, which is characterized by immediacy, immersion in the object of knowledge with the indistinguishability of subject and object, or form and matter of knowledge, apriori and aposteriori, and criticism, which expresses reflection on a given act of knowledge and is the second potency in relation to it.

V. PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF THE FARM

The entire world and historical process stems from the contradiction between mechanism, or thingness, and organism, or life, and from the desire of nature to overcome the mechanism in itself as the beginning of necessity, in order to be transformed into an organism as the beginning of cosmic freedom, the triumph of life, panzoism.

All human economy can be considered as a special case of the biological struggle for existence.

The struggle for life with the hostile forces of nature in order to protect, affirm and expand, in an effort to master them, tame them, become their master, is what - in the broadest and most preliminary sense of the word - can be called farming

Farm there is a struggle of humanity with the elemental forces of nature in order to protect and expand life, conquer and humanize nature, transform it into a potential human organism - the humanization of nature.

Farm there is a function of death, caused by the need for self-defense of life. In its most basic motive, it is unfree activity, this motive is the fear of death, characteristic of all living things.

The sign that establishes economic activity is the presence of effort, labor directed towards a specific goal. Farming is a labor activity.

Farm sign- labor reproduction or conquest of life's goods, material or spiritual, as opposed to their free receipt. By the sweat of the brow, through economic labor, not only economic products are produced, but the entire culture is created.

Only he lives a full life who is capable of work and really works.

The economy, as labor reproduction and expansion of life, is the opposite nature, as a set of free (for humans) “natural” forces of life and its growth.

Nature Therefore, there is a natural basis for culture, material for economic influence; outside of it, economics is just as unthinkable and impossible, just as concrete experience is impossible outside of life.

CHAPTER TWO

NATURAL PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMIC THEORY

I. IDEALISM AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

Any economic act represents some objective act, the actual exit of a person from himself into the outside world and action in it. He is some action in the world of things and on things.

All farming represents such an objective activity that obviously presupposes some objective reality. It is the constant influence of the owner, economic entity(for now it makes no difference whether individual or collective) to things (nature or matter, no matter how it is further philosophically constructed), i.e. farm object. And every economic act carries out a certain fusion of subject and object, the introduction of the subject into the object, the subjectification of the object, or the exit of the subject from himself into the world of things, into the object, i.e. objectification of the subject. In this sense, economy, abstracting from any given form or content, no matter how different they may be, is a subjective-objective activity, an actual unity of subject and object.

True founder of philosophy economy is, however, not Kant, the philosopher of subjective idealism, passive contemplation, but Schelling, philosopher of nature and objective reality.

II. SCHELLING'S PHILOSOPHY

The answer to the question about the relationship between subject and object or, which in a certain sense is the same thing, about the possibility of nature outside of us, us in nature and nature in us, was the main philosophical doctrine Schelling about identity, about the identity of subject and object, spirit and nature. “Nature must be the visible spirit, and the spirit must be the invisible nature. Thus, here, in the absolute identity of the spirit in us and nature outside of us, the problem of how nature outside of us is possible must be resolved.”

CHAPTER THREE

THE IMPORTANCE OF BASIC ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS

I. CONSUMPTION

The economic cycle consists of these two acts, production and consumption, these are the essence of the main functions of the economy. Therefore the general question How is farming possible? breaks down into two more specific questions, namely: how is production possible and how is consumption possible?

Herself life in this sense, there is the ability to consume the world, to join it, and death there is a way out of this world, a loss of the ability to communicate with it, and, finally, Sunday there is a return to the world with the restoration of this ability, at least to an infinitely expanded degree.

Food is natural communion, – communion with the flesh of the world. When I take food, I eat the matter of the world in general, I partake of the flesh of the world and thereby really, by the very deed I find the world in myself, and myself in the world, I become a part of it.

So, possibility of consumption is fundamentally based on the metaphysical communism of the universe, on the original identity of all things, thanks to which metabolism and their circulation are possible, and first of all presupposes the unity of living and nonliving things, the universality of life.

II. PRODUCTION

The question before us now is: how is production possible? Production there is such an active influence of a subject on an object, or a person on nature, in which an economic entity imprints, implements its idea in the object of its economic influence, and objectifies its goals. Therefore, production is, first of all, a system of objective actions, the subjective here is objectified, the line between subject and object is removed, the subject actually emerges from himself into the object.

The world of inconspicuous, real reality is recognized by us as the subject of our influence and, together, as a force of counteraction, resistance, i.e. as economic object.

So, the living connection between subject and object, the bridge that leads the self into the world of realities and inextricably connects it with this world, is work, is human actuality, objectifying outside and thereby objectifying this world for us. Thanks to labor, there can be neither only a subject, as subjective idealism accepts, nor only an object, as materialism accepts, but there is their living unity, subject-object, and only when considering it in one respect or another through methodological abstraction, a subject or object is distinguished from it.

Cognition there is labor, economic activity that overcomes the division of subject and object and leads to their interpenetration.

That which is now outside consciousness or under consciousness, but can be illuminated by it, added to its wealth, is object of knowledge, full of possibilities as boundless as the external world as an economic object.

Farm is a process of knowledge that has become sensory-tactile, brought out, and cognition there is the same process, but in an ideal, non-sensual form.

Main idea exchange value theories can be interpreted this way. Large package: labor is the highest principle of economic life, establishing it; smaller package: this role of labor must correspondingly manifest itself in the phenomenology of economic life, on the surface of its phenomena; conclusion: Therefore the exchange proportions, or values ​​of commodities, are determined by the amount of labor expended in their production.

Economy era there is an equally characteristic and definite era in the history of the earth, and through it in the history of the cosmos, that from this point of view the whole cosmogony can be divided into two periods: instinctive, preconscious or pre-economic, - before the appearance of man, and conscious, economic, - after his appearance.

CHAPTER FOUR

ABOUT THE TRANSCENDENTAL SUBJECT OF THE ECONOMY

I. MAN AND HUMANITY

(Transcendental conditions are universally applicable).

What is called farming, in the empirical sense, is expressed in a multitude of fragmented economic acts performed by individuals over time and space, just as knowledge (science) exists only in the form of separate cognitive acts, scientific experiments, and special research.

Economy (and, again, knowledge) there is an organic, synthesizing activity that exists, as it were, on top of its individual manifestations, which, entering this circle, receive their qualitative certainty in it.

Human economy is a process of socio-historical development, and political economy teaches this as a self-evident truth. This means that it is not only a collective process (as in animals), but also a qualitatively social one. It exists only as a public one, - public is his natural property. Every individual who enters a household takes up a place in it that is, as it were, prepared for him. And therefore, individual efforts and personal actions here receive social, trans-subjective meaning.

The economy does not exist without knowledge, knowledge there is a projective, modeling side in the economy; at the same time, knowledge cannot do without economy; it exists only with it and in it, not in the sense of material, monetary dependence, but the unity of both activities. A person does not take a single step in knowledge without making it in practical life. Economy is knowledge in action, and knowledge is economy in idea.

Individuals they are copies or specimens, the genus is their idea, pre-existing in the Divine Sophia, an ideal model for reproduction.

II. SOFIANITY OF THE ECONOMY

We have hitherto defined the content of the economy as a dispute between life and death, as the restoration of the connection between natura naturans and natura naturata, or the resolution of petrified and lifeless products of nature into the forces that produce them, as the organization of nature. Through farming, nature recognizes itself in man.

Farm there is the creative activity of man over nature; possessing the forces of nature, he creates from them what he wants. He creates his own new world, new benefits, new knowledge, new feelings, new beauty - he creates culture, as a common formula these days says.

Creation requires two conditions for its existence: the presence of, firstly, a plan, freedom of will and, secondly, power, freedom of execution.

Human creativity– in knowledge, in economy, in culture, in art – Sofiyno. It is metaphysically substantiated by man’s real involvement in the Divine Sophia, who leads into the world divine powers Logos and in relation to nature as a product that has the meaning of natura naturans. Human creativity therefore does not contain anything metaphysically new; it only reproduces and recreates from existing, already created elements and according to newly found, recreated, but also pre-given samples.

The economy is Sofian in its foundation, but not in products, not in the empirical shell of the economic process, with its errors, deviations, and failures. The economy is conducted by historical humanity in its empirical limitations, and therefore not all of its actions reflect the light of sophia.

Man cannot multiply the creative forces of nature, extend his influence to the naturanaturans, the source of living forces. This means that a person cannot create through economic means, that is, through labor effort. new life. In this inability to create life lies the absolute limit for man as a creature.

The final goal of the economy- outside of it, it is only the path of the world to the realized Sophia, the transition from the untrue state of the world to the true one, the labor restoration of the world.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

I. PLURALITY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

"What is Truth?" and in the face of a long series of sciences: “What is Science?” Justifying science- this is one of the most important problems of philosophical science.

The picture of the world that science gives in reality, existing only in the form of individual sciences, is always conditional. It can be used for a specific purpose or orientation, but none of them can claim to adequately reflect the specifics of life and cannot therefore seriously force one to look at the world only through their glasses.

For Comte (partly now for Cohen), scientific reality is true reality, science is higher than life, because it is its quintessence, it reveals the laws of life, immutable, eternal, iron: knowledge is the discovery of these laws, their discovery in the true sense of the word.

Anthropologism in science- this is the general result of epistemological idealism and positivistic pragmatism. The problem of science is reduced to a riddle about man, science studies becomes a department of philosophical anthropology.

II. ECONOMIC NATURE OF SCIENCE

The science there is a social labor process aimed at the production of ideal values ​​- knowledge that, for various reasons, is necessary or useful for a person. As a labor process, it is a branch of general human economic activity aimed at maintaining, protecting and expanding life, and at the same time its organic part. No economy is conducted purely mechanically, without any plan and expediency - the elements of a cognitive-scientific attitude towards the world as an object of economy cannot be eliminated from it, and in this sense, science has never remained and does not remain completely alien to man.

Labor spent on science, pursues two main goals: expanding experience, or accumulating knowledge (what can be likened to the successive, from generation to generation, creation of material wealth and material culture: roads, cities, lands convenient for cultivation, factories, factories, etc.) , and their ordering, their scientific generalization in concepts or patterns (what can be likened to the accumulation of capital, the capitalization of labor products for the purposes of production). Both have the most direct and immediate relation to the economy.

III. SOFIANITY OF SCIENCE

Science is sophia- this is the answer that can be given to skeptical pragmatism and dogmatic positivism. She is alien to the Truth, for she is a child of this world, which is in a state of untruth, but she is also a child of Sophia, the organizing force leading this world to the Truth, and therefore she bears the stamp of truth, Truth in process, in formation.

IV. GNOSEOLOGY AND PRAXEOLOGY

Scientific knowledge is effective or, in other words, it technically. The possibility of technology, or the transformation of knowledge into action, a leap from contemplation to reality, shows that scientific knowledge, the logical connection of concepts, has a transsubjective nature, ensuring the technical suitability of knowledge. In other words, technology is logical or logic is technical. A pure theory of knowledge is not enough, it is even impossible; a theory of action based on knowledge is needed, not epistemology, but praxeology.

V. SCIENCE AND LIFE

Science is a function of life, it will be born in the labor process, and the nature of all labor is economic, with the goal of protecting or expanding life. Life never remains at rest; it is in a state of continuous tension, urgency, struggle. Life in this sense there is continuous business process. It is an activity in which moments of contemplation and theoretical knowledge exist only as moments of action. The economic attitude towards the world includes both a necessary means and theoretical orientation in it, i.e. science. Science is born out of practical need and develops under the same impulse.

Scientificity there is only a pose of life, its moment. Therefore, she cannot and should not legislate over life, being its servant.

Scientific and mechanical worldview- these are synonyms. The scientific attitude towards the world is the attitude towards the world as a mechanism.

VI. ABOUT THE “SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW”

This conditionally pragmatic mechanical worldview of science is often given an ontological interpretation, according to which the world is not only scientifically cognized as a mechanism, allowing for a mechanical orientation within itself, but is also a mechanism, and on the basis of this mechanism all existence is interpreted.

VII. SELF-AWARENESS OF SCIENCE

Science cannot understand itself, provide an explanation of its own nature, without crossing the line of determinism and a mechanical worldview and without entering into the soil of metaphysical problems.

Self knowledge there is activity, and only its products then acquire a frozen, objective character: science is created by labor, it is a function of life.

Any act of knowledge there is such a partial identification of subject and object, their unity revealed and felt, just as the answer to a question is the unity of question and answer. Only on this identity of subject and object, as explained above, can both knowledge and economy be fundamentally justified. And in this sense, I find the starry sky within myself, otherwise I would not see it above me. All knowledge is in this sense self-consciousness. Roots of Science- in Sophia, in the ideal identity and self-awareness of the world, in its ideal organism.

CHAPTER SIX

ECONOMY AS A SYNTHESIS OF FREEDOM AND NECESSITY

I. FREEDOM AND CAUSALITY

Liberty there is not uncausality, but self-causality, the ability to act from oneself (ase, hence the dissonant but convenient expression aseism), to begin causality from oneself, to refract the causal relationship in one’s own way and thereby violate the principle of the universal mechanism.

Causality has a dual character: it can be causality through freedom and through mechanism, therefore in fact being a combination of freedom and necessity.

All living things are self-caused(which has direct expression in the ability to spontaneous movements and in the general purposefulness of life), and in this sense all living things are free.

Freedom crowns the personality as a living unity of will and rational consciousness.

II. FREEDOM AND NECESSITY

How carriers of freedom, people are gods, beings potentially destined for deification, capable of pouring into the ocean of Divine existence, and only the like and the same nature can merge and unite. Therefore, nature is united with God only in man and through man as natural-supernatural creature.

Having the ability to want infinitely much, each individual person can want infinitely little.

Freedom of the Absolute has no boundaries and therefore coincides with absolute necessity: God wants only what he can, and can do everything that He wants or what He can want.

God wants only one thing that is consistent with His nature; His wisdom, His goodness and His love, which justify the need for His self-revelation in the universe. Divine freedom is not a negative, but a positive concept; God can want only one thing - Good, and be only one thing - Love. And if God is Love, then He cannot will that which is not love or is not completely love.

That's why absolute free will is holy will , and the highest freedom consists in submission to some holy necessity (Schelling).

In created consciousness an inevitable conflict between freedom and necessity arises, and by the presence of this conflict the concept stories. Freedom turns out to be bound and limited by necessity.

Any empirical personality, as a subject in an object, is a product of the environment, since the influence of an object that lies outside us and our will is manifested in it and on it.

III. SPIRIT OF HOUSEKEEPING

Story is created in the same way as individual life is created. And since all creativity is conditioned by exertion of will and labor, we can say that creativity and freedom are most clearly imprinted in the ability to work. The ability to work consciously, systematically, creatively belongs to free beings, that is, only to humans.

History must “represent a combination of freedom and necessity and is possible only on the basis of such a connection.”

Liberty is the general basis of the creative process, while necessity determines the framework of this process and, to that extent, predetermines freedom and directs its path. Both for an individual person and for historical humanity, necessity exists as a law of his own life.

Freedom extends only to the course of the historical process, but not to its outcome.

Economy viewed as creativity, there is also a psychological phenomenon, or, to put it even more specifically, the economy is a phenomenon of spiritual life to the same extent as all other aspects of human activity and labor. The spirit of farming(for example, the “spirit of capitalism”, about which much is now written, and, moreover, by such outstanding representatives of economic science as Sombart and Max Weber) is, again, not a fiction, not an image, but historical reality. Every economic era has its own spirit and, in turn, is the product of this spirit; each economic era has its own special type of "economic man", generated by the spirit of the economy, and declaring it a “reflex” of given economic relations is possible only with the logical fetishism into which political economy involuntarily falls when it considers the economy, the development of productive forces, and various economic organizations through the prism of abstract categories, outside of their historical concreteness.

IV. FREEDOM AS POWER, NECESSITY AS WEAKNESS

The consciousness of freedom lights up in the soul only through the feeling of its limitations.

There is wealth power, plus on the side of the subject, poverty – infirmity, plus on the object side.

Man strives to achieve economic freedom, to power over nature alienated from him, to economic power or “wealth.”

Economic freedom, overcoming an object as a mechanism alien to life is a power based on knowledge. Adam could only give names to all animals because he intuitively knew them and had within himself a cryptogram of the entire creature. Knowledge is self-knowledge and self-awareness of the world in man. Here it is appropriate to apply the well-known formula German idealism, so unsuccessfully picked up in Marxism, namely, that freedom is a recognized necessity. Freedom and necessity and their polar separation are removed only where power corresponds to will, and this occurs only to the extent that economic power increases.

CHAPTER SEVEN

LIMITS OF SOCIAL DETERMINISM

I. SOCIAL SCIENCE STYLE

The understanding of life as a constantly occurring synthesis of freedom and necessity, like creativity or history, is faced with the concept that is so widespread today sociological determinism, for which human life appears to be a mechanism of cause and effect, and history is seen as a region of exclusive domination of unchanging laws.

Social science , like any science in general, is rooted in practical need, in the need for orientation for the purpose of practical action.

Yes, social science has its own subject of study, - this is social life in its originality and originality.

With a similar discovery of a special object of social science– the social environment or social body, was the establishment of the fact that there is a special supra-individual or supra-individual environment that refracts rays in its own way, having its own special nature and pattern.

Social science does not take human life in its immediate concrete form, as it is summed up from individual actions, volitional and creative acts of individual individuals, it is completely abstracted from these individuals and their individual existence and examines only what is characteristic collection of individuals as a whole.

Concept of class there is a scheme of social relations, and only a scheme that may be suitable in its field and for its purpose, but loses all meaning and becomes a caricature of itself outside its boundaries.

II. SOCIOLOGISM AND HISTORICISM

Social determinism is not a conclusion of social science, but its methodological premise.

Sociology and history logically repulse each other, because for sociology there is no history, and for history there is no sociology. However, at the same time, history studies the same social life, although it has already occurred or is still occurring, which sociology also studies. Historical science, turning entirely to the completed past, which is already a completed, ready-made product, does not know freedom and interprets everything according to the law of causality, perceives it in the light of determinism.

Ontological roots of social science, like any science, - in the universal coherence of being, which can be felt at different points and in all possible directions. Everything is in everything and everything is connected to everything; this general ontological foundation of the sciences remains valid for social science.

III. THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL POLICY

Social politics there is a nerve of social science, it holds the keys to all its buildings.

Any activity, including social activity, such as creativity, is synthesis of freedom and necessity. In the case under consideration, freedom is expressed precisely in this subjectivism, the volitional aspiration of social activity at the moment of evaluation, and necessity is expressed in its scientific conditioning on the part of means. Of course, the determinism that many people imagine is no greater in social policy than in any living activity; Therefore, if by scientificity we mean its complete determinism, then it should be said that scientific social policy does not exist, just as scientific action does not exist at all, for science is the opposite of action, inaction, frozen contemplation. On the contrary, if scientificity is understood as the use of data from scientific experience in justifying a plan of action, then social policy can be scientific and, in fact, often is.

What kind of activity corresponds to social policy, for what art is it a technique? As is clear from the previous presentation, social policy has its own special area and its own object: it is an action on the aggregate, on the social body.

From the same scientific data, different, but at the same time with the same degree of scientifically sound, directions for social policy can follow; in other words, different uses can be made from a given scientific instrument.

CHAPTER EIGHT

PHENOMENOLOGY OF FARMING

I. THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

The economy as a single act of a transcendental economic subject is fragmented into phenomena and has its own phenomenology.

Economy in its phenomenology, that is, in immediate empirical reality, exists for us as a voluntarily or involuntarily accepted necessity that is imposed on us from the outside. We experience it as the oppression of need, as the constraint of life exposed to constant danger. Therefore, economic activity has the character of a struggle for life, and, in particular, for a given, certain standard of living.

Economic necessity there is always, to a greater or lesser extent, a socio-economic necessity, a person stands in the face of nature as a member of human society, but at the same time, his fellow men are not his voluntary allies (although they can become them), but slaves in labor and rivals in sharing the benefits achieved through this labor.

II. SCIENTIFIC STYLE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Therefore we can say that the magnifying glass political economy sees both more and less than the naked eye, it notices what is not at all accessible to it, but does not see what is accessible, ignores everything connected with individuality, but takes into account what goes beyond its boundaries and forms class and group phenomena.

This fundamental principle of political economy, that the phenomena of economic life have a quality of repetition or typicality, is a general methodological precondition for economic laws.

Nothing new, or the denial of the historical and individual, is therefore the fighting slogan of political economy.

So, political economy, as a branch of sociology, only has access to the statics of society, and not its dynamics.

The supreme rule for science is the economy of thinking, and therefore of scientific means: nothing superfluous and useless, such is the requirement of logical aesthetics.

Economic policy by its nature it is art, albeit scientific art.

CHAPTER NINE

ECONOMIC MATERIALISM AS A PHILOSOPHY OF ECONOMY

I. ECONOMIC MATERIALISM AS PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Economic materialism, as, indeed, any teaching that poses a significant and vital problem, it is not enough to simply reject it, turning away from it in impotence or due to a lack of interest in it, it must be overcome, and can only be overcome in a positive way, recognizing its truth, understanding its motive, but at the same time rejecting its limitations and perversions. Economic materialism speaks of a stern honesty of life; it devotes its attention to the meaning of need, the concern for a piece of daily bread, which weighs on the majority of humanity.

He is the first attempt at a philosophy of economy, in it, for the first time, its problem was consciously posed; a new motive sounded in the history of thought, inspired, of course, not by armchair speculation, but by life impressions of reality.

Economic materialism represents one of the varieties of pragmatism; it is, as it were, a special case of it; it could therefore be called economic pragmatism.

As a philosophy of history, economic materialism is not an empirical, scientifically positive theory of historical development, but it is an ontology, this is its most important philosophical feature.

The problem of economic materialism in essence this is: what is behind the apparent diversity and diversity of historical phenomena? What is the single pattern that connects the intricate multiplicity of immediate, proximate causes and justifies them?

The central doctrine of economic materialism is "base and superstructure" answers precisely this ontological problem. According to this teaching, the entire historical life of humanity in its external and internal, political and social, cultural and spiritual manifestations is only a superstructure over the economic basis, therefore, it does not have an independent metaphysical existence, there is only a “reflex”, i.e. it turns out to be ontologically determined in exactly the same sense in which all the empirical events of history in Hegel are conditioned by the victorious march of the universal spirit, passing through different phases of its development.

The causality of the “economic basis”... it has a metaphysical, not an empirical meaning, it does not directly connect phenomena, but stands behind the phenomena as their noumenal basis.

The economic basis is the noumenon history that underlies it all phenomena and the one that generates them, and the relationship that exists between noumena and phenomena, the intelligible and empirical world, of course, cannot be equated with the empirical causality of history.

So, economic materialism is the metaphysics of history, which, not realizing its real character, considers itself a science, but does not become entirely either one or the other.

II. CONTRADITIONS OF ECONOMIC MATERIALISM

The main idea of ​​economic materialism is that the economy plays a decisive role in history and in life, or that all culture has an economic nature and bears its imprint. He understands the world as an economy.

Farm, i.e., labor protection and expansion of life, labor creativity of life, is the common destiny of humanity, economic, i.e., labor, attitude towards the world is its original and most general self-determination. Man does not create anything anew that does not already exist in nature in a latent or potential form, but he reveals these forces of life and realizes its possibilities only through labor, and this labor, directed equally both to the external world and to himself, is spent for the production of both material goods and spiritual values, and creates what, in contrast to nature, i.e., the original, given and free, is called culture. Culture is carved out of nature only through the labor of mankind, and in this sense we can say, together with economic materialism, that all culture is economy. Economic labor, or the cultural creativity of humanity, is generated and supported by the need of life for self-defense and self-expansion. It is natural that it exhibits growth, has its own gradations, and at each given stage of development it is characterized by a general social coherence or social organization, as is quite rightly noted in economic materialism. To determine the general foundations of the economic process is a matter of economic philosophy with its unique problems, but to establish the coherence and mutual dependence of different manifestations of economic labor or, what is the same, different aspects of culture is a matter of empirical science, concrete history, and to present a theory here a priori, otherwise than in form of meaningless commonplaces, is impossible for the same reasons why history in general cannot be established a priori. From the necessity and universality of the economic relationship to the world comes a whole series of prerequisites, both of which are called upon to be revealed by the philosophy of economics. However, having come across such an important topic here, economic materialism goes astray the right way and moves on to a completely different order of thoughts. Its misfortune lies in the fact that, instead of placing the problem of economy with all its prerequisites in the center of attention and giving an independent philosophical analysis of it, economic materialism takes the concept of economy ready-made from a special science, namely from political economy.

Household work here there is labor aimed at the production of only material goods, or exchange values ​​(which is why the philosophy of economics is without any further ado called economic materialism, although in reality it is not necessarily materialism, since farming itself is as much a material as a spiritual process) . At the same time, political economy may not at all ask the general question of how labor is possible (just as every special science does not ask how knowledge is possible at all) or what is the relationship of man to nature, what general possibilities are outlined by them.

He remains logically constrained by them, seeing ready-made and exhaustive categories in front of him where problems should still exist. This condemns him to logical immaturity and remains "undeveloped and unfinished".

Economic materialism in this sense is nothing more than a philosophical delusion of grandeur that developed from political economy, which elevated itself to the rank of historical ontology.

In connection with this, there is still a contradiction that corrodes economic materialism: on the one hand, it is radical sociological determinism, looking at everything through the prism of an inexorable, iron necessity, on the other hand, it is no less radical pragmatism, a philosophy of action that cannot help to be to a certain extent indeterministic, for which “the world is plastic” and there is nothing ultimately predetermined, inexorable, inevitable.

Economic materialism, as a theory that claims to be scientifically true, is inexplicable within the confines of economic materialism itself; it is unable to theoretically demonstrate its possibility, much less its necessity, and must bow helplessly to skepticism.

Eine jede Philosophic ist ihre Zen in Gedanken erfasst

Every philosophy expresses its era in thought

One of distinctive features the historical state of our era is, undoubtedly, economism. Without exaggeration, it can be argued that no other historical era has been more clearly aware of the economic nature of life and was not more inclined to perceive the world as an economy. Of course, economic need, cold and hunger, hard work and poverty have been known to humanity at all times of its historical existence, as an iron necessity, to which nothing can be added or subtracted. In this sense, all eras are the same, and the economic “Sorge”, Need and Care, does not leave Faustus-humanity from the cradle to sunset.

Let the ear not hear me, Yet the heart breathes from me, different types I alone have the power to torture everyone*

Wurde mich kein Ohr vernehmen Musst"es doch im Herzen drohnen, In verwandelter Gestalt Ueb"ich grimmige Gewalt

But the modern ear hears these whispers, and the modern eye sees these gloomy faces bending over man. We live in an era of heightened economic reflection, intense and sophisticated economic self-awareness, when questions of economic existence have powerfully taken one of the first places in thought and feeling.

" Goethe."Faust", part II, act V, pp. 866-867, translated by Fet

==299

Explanations for this phenomenon must be sought, of course, not only in the intensification of general self-awareness or self-reflection, which our time generally characterizes, but also in the events of economic life, in the exorbitant acceleration of its pace and the colossal development of the economy. Capitalism with its iron tread, with its irresistible, conquering power, dragging humanity somewhere forward along an unknown and never yet tested path, either to the final triumph, or to the disastrous abyss - this is the world-historical fact that we involuntarily hypnotized, this is a stunning impression from which we cannot free ourselves. Man on the farm wins and conquers nature, but at the same time he is conquered by this victory and increasingly feels like a slave of the farm. Wings grow, but the shackles become heavier. And this contradiction, corroding the soul of a person, forces him to think more intently about the question of the nature of the economy. Previous instincts and skills lose their spontaneity, arouse anxiety, give rise to reflection, in a word, a kind of economic Hamletism develops, and our era is full of such economic Hamlets. Naturally, economic thought is celebrating its benefit performance; the doors of not only academic classrooms, but also people’s assemblies, salons and workers’ homes are wide open before it; attention is alert everywhere. The widespread development of economic sciences in recent years VI year century has a reason not only in practical need, caused not only by the need to navigate in the increasingly complex economic life, at the same time it finds favorable soil in the spiritual economism of the era. This economism received its most radical, and therefore most interesting, expression in the doctrine of so-called economic materialism, which therefore turns out to be one of the most influential and viable teachings of the 19th century. He gives theoretical expression to that dull, albeit universal, feeling of the economic conditionality of life, which is diffused in the consciousness of the masses, in his scientific and philosophical dogma about the primacy of economy in historical existence and consciousness. This militant economism affirms the economic nature of all culture and all human creativity, seeks an economic basis even for the highest and, it would seem, most spiritual manifestations of life. And it should be admitted without reservation that, no matter how one views the content of this.

teaching, one cannot help but listen to its motive, which is so intimately close to everyone, annoyingly urgent and irresistibly attractive.

Economic materialism therefore cannot simply be rejected, it must be positively surpassed, it does not allow itself to be rejected, but commands to be overcome. It is imprinted with special historical authenticity and sincerity. The number of actual followers of economic materialism is much greater than open and conscious adherents, for, it cannot be hidden, many economists are unconsciously given over to this militant economism, which in this sense arose long before Marx, at least in the days of Quesnay*, Smith, Ricardo and the entire classical school.

IN philosophical field There are significant points of contact with economic materialism in teachings colored by more or less radical voluntarism and professing the primacy of will and action over abstract thinking. Here, of course, we have to remember such a widespread philosophical direction, which has even become fashionable, called pragmatism. This, it must be said, extremely broad bracket also contains such trains of thought that lead directly to Marx, and for the historian of ideas it is very interesting to see how Marx anticipated, albeit in an undeveloped form, some of the theses of the current “philosophy of action” or pragmatism.”

Economic materialism interprets itself as economic determinism. He stands under the philosophical banner of materialism and a mechanistic worldview and wants to be their variety; in their general formula he substitutes only his own specific values, namely: the concept of management, the economic function of man, his economic existence. Where general materialism stops in its explanations, economic materialism comes into its own and continues its work, explaining the history of mankind. However, explanation only achieves its goal when it explains the unknown with the known, and does not merely replace it with a new unknown.

See Marx's philosophical theses given by Engels in the appendix to the pamphlet on Feuerbach "L Peuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen Philosophic" Cp "Philosophy of Economics", Chapter II

Are the basic auxiliary concepts of economic materialism known quantities in this sense? Of course, we know what farming means from direct experience, but has this concept been subjected to philosophical analysis and critical processing? Was the critical question asked: what is farming and how is it possible? There can only be one answer to this: no and no. Therefore, in a philosophical and scientific sense, for economic materialism (as well as for economism in general), the concept of economy itself is as unknown as everything it explains:

X replaced here y, but only. At the same time, a fairly common phenomenon in the history of thought is observed: the most general and basic concepts, and therefore the most familiar, are subject to critical analysis later than other, derivative, secondary and particular ones. Wasn’t this when, after a century of development of scientific thought, Kant posed his question about the nature of science, in particular mathematics, in his “Critique of Pure Reason”? And now we are faced with a question quite similar to Kant’s: what is an economy? or how is farming possible? what are its preconditions and principles? What is the content of a business act, its subject and object? Only for superficial reflection or a dogmatically prejudiced mind may it seem that this whole enterprise of “criticism of pure economy” was invented by “metaphysicians” and is created completely artificially, for there is no problem at all, as it still seems to dogmatic positivists even regarding the criticism of the scientific reason, Kant's problems. Meanwhile, in these seemingly preliminary questions lie the foundations of the philosophy of economism, and only on their basis can the doctrines of both economic materialism and anti-economic idealism be properly tested and critically assessed.

The main question that has not been studied, although in a certain sense was predetermined in economic materialism, is this: is the economy a function of man or is man a function of the economy? The eternal riddle about man, a constant stimulus for philosophizing, takes on a new side in economism. Is a person a thing, an object, the interpretation of which must be sought in the impersonal, also objective world of things and the mechanism of things that determines the economic process, or same, on the contrary, the latter itself is explained from nature

dy of an economic entity, generated by its activity, imprinted by its subjectivity? This series of general and preliminary questions largely predetermines the content of the philosophy of economics, which, strange as it may seem in the age of economism, does not find due attention either among philosophers or among economists, while it has equal rights to the attention of those and others.

Explanations for this should perhaps be sought in the mutual distrust and alienation between philosophy and science, especially economics, which to this day remains largely virgin in relation to philosophy. There are signs that the ideological stagnation in this area is coming to an end. In the general scientific, philosophical and religious anxiety that is increasingly gripping modern humanity, old partitions that previously hermetically separated different areas of thought are being broken, and the boundaries of their territories are changing. In this change of relationships and boundaries that is taking place in our days, he finds his justification and defends the rights to “academic” existence and real work, which in its plan belongs both to pure philosophy and to the family of socio-economic sciences.

So, we have before us the main question: what is a farm or who is the owner? Undoubtedly, in this issue there are many hidden ideological possibilities that have not yet been identified, an entire philosophical system is being developed, and paths are being outlined for building an entire worldview. Economic materialism makes an overly hasty and erroneous conclusion that economism is, at the same time, necessarily eo ipso* materialism, a thought that shines through even in the names it gives itself: economic, dialectical, historical materialism; the adjective changes, but the noun remains without change. Without any further discussion, an equal sign is put between the concepts: economism, economic And materialism, materialistic. This connection is considered inextricable and as if taken for granted. This is not only an arbitrary, but also a completely incorrect assumption. In economism as such, by no means to a lesser degree (and, in my opinion, even to a greater) extent, lie the possibilities of both spiritualism and mysticism, and along with materialistic economism, spiritualistic or mystical economism can be affirmed, and economism can be combined

==303

with a mystical and religious worldview (at least, “Philosophy of Economics” strives to show the internal possibility of such a connection). In essence, economism embraces the effective relationship of man to nature and, conversely, the influence of nature on man. But in the interpretation of this relationship, the possibility of different paths along which the philosophy of nature has generally followed is outlined, and the most difficult, of course, will be to interpret economism without contradictions in the spirit of mechanistic materialism, and in any case, here spiritualistic or mystical philosophy will argue with it.

This or that interpretation of economism, in any case, can only appear on the basis of an entire philosophical worldview and in connection with it, in other words, the philosophy of economics, by the force of things, unfolds into a philosophical system or, at least, adheres to it.

On the issue of the subject of the economy or the owner, the point of view defended in the “Philosophy of Economics” comes down to the recognition of the universal (transcendental) subject of the economy, the bearer of the economic function. Such a subject can only be humanity as such, not a collective or a collective whole, but a living unity spiritual powers and potentialities, to which all people participate, the intelligible person, which is discovered empirically in individual persons.

Man is a microcosm extending his influence into the macrocosm. This microcosm plays a central, unifying role in the macrocosm, forming its periphery, and at the same time an object of economic influence. A person is, as it were, a “contracted universe” (Schelling) *, and the cosmos is a potential body of a person. The possibility of gradual mastery of nature in scientific knowledge and economic influence is based on this connection. The concept of a transcendental subject of economics is therefore only a special expression, dedicated to the problem of economism, of an idea that has been known to philosophy since ancient times: it is nothing more than the world soul of the teachings of Plato and Plotinus, Boehme and Schelling, Baader and Vl. Solovyova. Here is the world demiurge, armed with the staff of the laborer Hercules and the torch of the god-

""Philosophy of Economy", Chapter IV: On the transcendental subject of the economy (I Man and humanity. II. Sophia of the economy).

the fighter Prometheus, the son of Poros and Singing, Care and Inspiration*, appears under the guise of economic humanity, not in a heroic mask or bacchanalian frenzy, but in a working apron and with sober prudence.

Economy, understood quite broadly, is not the work of livestock, but the creative activity of intelligent beings who necessarily realize in it their individual principles, individualities same freedom is inherent, even more, it should be said that it is this very freedom, and if freedom is creativity, then individuality is the truly creative principle in us, which is inextinguishable and irreducible in the economy."

Culture is created in the economy, all of it has an economic basis, and economic materialism is right in this. He is wrong in his interpretation of this thought, in which he substitutes mechanistic materialism, combined with social Benthamism, as the only possible philosophy of economism, and thereby leads to absurdity, vulgarizing a deep and valuable thought.

As a private research question common problem about the meaning of economy in the philosophy of economy, the question about the nature of science 2 should be considered. This question was already posed in economic materialism, which, quite correctly noting the connection between economy and knowledge, later “galimatized” (in Hegel’s words) this thought thanks to its narrow materialist and Benthamian interpretation: the interpretation of the general relationship between economy and science was replaced by the search for economic motives or interests in the emergence of this or that branch of knowledge, in the history of this or that scientific discovery.

This question becomes especially acute in our time, when people are so intensely looking for the volitional roots of thinking and knowledge, and when the idea of ​​the instrumental meaning of scientific concepts has made such progress. Economic philosophy poses in its own language the problems of epistemology, more precisely, the theory of science (scientific teaching), and resolves them in the sense of combining transcendental idealism with economic pragmatism in the doctrine of the economic nature of knowledge and its transcendental (a priori) foundations, and this connection is possible only

" Wed "Philosophy of Economics", Chapter VI: Economy as a synthesis of freedom and necessity.

2 “Philosophy of Economics”, Chapter V. The Nature of Science

==305

on the basis of the central metaphysical idea about humanity as a transcendental subject of the economy.

Thus, the philosophy of economics in its development includes the main problems of philosophical consciousness, but at its center is anthropology - the doctrine of man in nature. On its pediment is written the very saying of the Delphic oracle, to which any serious and sincere philosophizing cannot but listen : uyiv1 steo.itou - Know yourself, know yourself in the world and know the universe in yourself.

If the philosophy of economics is far from economic materialism, then it is no less far from transcendentalism and its varieties, which is widespread today. In contrast to materialism, it affirms the primacy of life, which is expressed in the potential animate of all things; for it there is neither an unconditional mechanism nor dead matter as independent principles that explain the phenomena of existence. Both are just a swoon of life, its changing border, constantly overcome and removed by the offensive energy of life. Therefore, although the philosophy of economics professes the reality of matter and is fundamentally realistic, this realism has a completely different meaning than in materialist philosophy: it is mystical realism, or, in the words of Vl. Solovyov, religious materialism. At the same time, Marx is translated into the language of Plato, Boehme, Schelling, Vl. Solovyov, and the mystical and religious meaning something that seeks expression in economic materialism, although it does not find it. Hardly, however, the more mystical economism of economic philosophy differs from transcendental idealism with its hereditary sin of unnaturalness and acosmism. Economic realism, the basis of the philosophy of action, remains alien to the logical schematism of the latter. Rejecting idealism as a worldview, the philosophy of economics fully accepts, however, its main idea that science presupposes the participation of the formative elements of apriorism or rational schematism, which must be recognized as such. It only refuses to recognize these schemes as self-sufficient, to see in their systematization the true work of philosophy or the world of absolute values ​​and principles. In the presence of this schematism of science, established by critical philosophy, she sees the most clear evidence of the instrumental character

pa scientific concepts, and therefore their conventions and relativity. Economic philosophy therefore interprets transcendentalism as idealistic pragmatism, which is a necessary prerequisite for understanding science in the spirit of economic pragmatism. The philosophy of economics, in a certain sense, translates Kant into the language of Marx and pragmatism. If Marx is interpreted in it in the spirit of Boehme, then Kant is understood in the spirit of Marx.

The philosophy of economics essentially has two faces, one of which is addressed to philosophy, the other to social science, in particular to political economy. Its general provisions must be compared with the corresponding provisions of the social sciences and a connection between them must be established. Philosophy of economics can apply its general theory of science to social science and therefore raises the question of its methodological principles or logical style." Here, philosophy of economics faces a double task: while defending the rights of the social sciences to exist against skeptics, it removes the excessive claims of sociologism and defines its true boundaries. The decisive word in the methodological crisis that the social sciences are now experiencing, and in the scientific skepticism it generates, belongs to the critical theory of science, and no less than other sciences, political economy, which can no longer remain in blissful ignorance, needs this methodological awareness. the times of the classical school and its socialist successors. In this critical analysis, the philosophy of economics claims to have its own special voice, since it considers the general theory of science to be its problem and at the same time establishes the philosophical theory of economics. In this study, only the main lines outlined by points are drawn. intersection of philosophical and scientific interests in the field of economic theory. In this case, the problem of social determinism, as well as the question of the relationship between science and politics, receives the greatest urgency and fundamental interest, in connection with the theory of so-called “scientific socialism”, which is a component of the credo of socialist

""Philosophy of Economics", Chapter VII: Boundaries of Social Determinism (I. Style of Social Science. II. Problem of Social Policy). Chapter VIII. Phenomenology of Economics.

==307

Philosophy of farming. Speech at a doctoral disputation

legions. This question was outlined for me as another topic of research even at the time of writing the book “Capitalism and Agriculture” (St. Petersburg, 1900, two volumes), and now the assumptions of that time are partly being realized.”

I must add that then, as now, the topic of research was determined for me not by abstract theoretical, professional, or scientific-sports interest, but by the vital necessity of solving the latest issues of worldview. The logic of things led to the fact that the center of gravity in the study of the problem of economism increasingly moved from political economy towards philosophy. The same problem confronted me both when it was solved in the sense of economic materialism, and now, when it is solved in the spirit of mystical realism.

And the ghosts are gone, but the faith remains unchanged...

(Vz. Solovyov)*

Every fundamental problem is a window through which we look at the world, and, of course, to a certain extent it colors this world for us with its colored glasses. What opens through a given window or through different windows in general is immeasurably wider and more significant than the windows themselves, and in their content and volume differs from each other much less than windows, these are just visual openings. The role of such a window in my philosophizing was played by the problem of economism, however, even in this specific and, for many, perhaps, strange form, the same questions that generally arise before the philosophizing consciousness, the same riddles of being that have been the Sphinx of life for centuries, appeared before me. asks the wise Oedipus. And in the end they all ask one thing - oh the meaning of life, A philosophy worthy of its name and truly imbued with a love of wisdom, and not of intellectual unnecessary things, has and cannot have any other content.

Different philosophical systems not only look at the world through different windows, but also presuppose different, albeit necessary, dogmatic bases, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. In other words, they are constructed from axioms, intuitive and unprovable. At the basis of every genuine philosophical system,

"Cf. also “From Marxism to Idealism.” St. Petersburg, 1903.

S. N Bulgakov

i.e., having an independent motive (and not being constructed compilatively), lies some internal intuition, a specially qualified worldview. It is impossible to argue about axioms, and, however, the difference in axioms necessarily leads to a difference in conclusions. For in their own way, both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are equally consistent, their axioms differ. And, based on such intuitionism in understanding philosophical systems, I must admit in advance that systems of economic philosophy can legitimately be distinguished if their initial axioms differ. Here lies the possibility of ineradicable, at least by the means of theory, disagreements; unity of thoughts is achieved only through life unity. And therefore it is clear to me that, along with this philosophy of economics, a completely different one can be built. This is true. But one thing can and, I think, I should insist on as indisputable - on the problem itself, in other words, on the legitimacy of building a philosophical system that views the world as an economy. This problem has not yet been posed in the history of thought in its entire breadth, although it has been closely approached from different sides by such different currents of thought as economic materialism, spiritualism, pragmatism, idealism, mysticism, and all these directions, intertwined in a peculiar way, are united in philosophy farms. And this problem must be posed precisely by our time, and in its light the main questions of philosophical and scientific consciousness will appear in a new aspect and from new sides. For it should be said about the history of philosophy that it is as much the history of various philosophical teachings or answers to questions posed by thought as of these questions themselves. And it seems to me that with the problem of economic philosophy a new, still unwritten page is turned in it.

In today's Russia, educated people (such people, thank God, still exist in our country) are well aware of the name of the Russian thinker Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871 - 1944). A very versatile personality: philosopher, economist, literary and art critic, priest, political and church leader. We will not delve into his biography, since it is described in detail in various sources (including on the Internet). In this publication we will focus our attention on the work of S. Bulgakov “Philosophy of Economics”, which was published exactly 100 years ago. Let us mark this date by trying once again to comprehend this book, taking into account the turbulent and tragic events of the past century and the challenges that Russian society faces today. And we will try to convey the main ideas of the outstanding Russian thinker to the modern reader. Perhaps after this he will have a desire to get acquainted with the book itself.

The speaker seeks his own glory on his own behalf; but He who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

In. 7:18

1. Introduction

During the years of perestroika and reforms, the creative heritage of S. Bulgakov, hushed up during the Soviet period of our history, became available to a wide audience. In the last two decades, such works by S. Bulgakov as “Two Cities” have been published in fairly large editions. Research on the nature of social ideals”, “Philosophy of Economics”, “Non-Evening Light. Contemplation and speculation”, “Philosophy of the name”, “The icon, its content and boundaries”, “Apocalypticism and socialism”, “Orthodoxy. Essays on the doctrine Orthodox Church"and a number of others.

Perhaps the work that was most in demand among our intelligentsia was “ Philosophy of farming" Particular interest in it was apparently caused by its name. During the years of perestroika and reforms, economic issues in our country came to the fore. With all the abundance of literature on economics, finance, and entrepreneurship on the shelves of bookstores, there remained a hunger for literature that would not reveal specifics, but would provide a metaphysical understanding of economics and economic life.

Bulgakov's "Philosophy of Economics" immediately attracted the attention of discerning readers with its promising title. However, even for many trained readers, the book was too tough for them. Individual quotes were “picked out” from it and peripheral issues were discussed. It turned out that “Philosophy of Economics” is not at all the light reading that many began to get used to in the post-Soviet period. There was also a certain disappointment: it turned out that it was devoted not so much to economics as to philosophy and required special philosophical training. And philosophy, according to the “spirit of the times,” is completely unnecessary rubbish, which no one has time to dig into in our dynamic times.

I don’t know about modern philosophers, but Bulgakov was not understood by economists. Bulgakov was expected to answer the question: “What should the economy be like?” And instead of a clear answer in the spirit of usual rationalism, his book “loaded” the reader with new questions and “antinomies”, very far from the pragmatic demands of our time.

In economics textbooks they generally forget to mention S. Bulgakov’s “Philosophy of Economics” or write it briefly and indistinctly. Even in textbooks on " Fundamentals of the philosophy of economics"(such a discipline has appeared in economic universities) Bulgakov’s “Philosophy of Economics” is given no more than one page (see, for example: Samsin A.I. Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Economics. Tutorial. - M.: UNITY, 2003, p. 79-80). It is, of course, impossible to outline the essence and originality of S. Bulgakov’s “Philosophy of Economics” in a few lines or paragraphs. Let's try to do this in article format.

Almost any serious publication about S. Bulgakov talks about the inconsistency of the Russian thinker’s work. Indeed, it is difficult to find both absolute admirers and absolute deniers of his intellectual heritage. The same can be said about the book “Philosophy of Economics”. Taking into account this consideration, we will structure our article according to the following plan: a) obvious achievements, constructive ideas of “Philosophy of Economics”; b) its shortcomings, mistakes, heresies; c) conclusions and suggestions.

2. “Philosophy of Economics” as philosophical view to the world through the prism of economics

1. S. Bulgakov gave a metaphysical understanding of the economy, the economic activity of man and society, going beyond the narrow, familiar framework of political economy (the subject of which, strictly speaking, is not the economy, but “economic relations” in society regarding this very economy). As an economist, he tried to strengthen the foundation of economic science (primarily political economy) by philosophical understanding economy.

Let us give several definitions of “economy”, scattered across different pages of the “Philosophy of Economy” (page numbers are given according to the publication: Bulgakov S.N. Philosophy of Economy. - M.: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2009).

(1) “The struggle for life with the hostile forces of nature in order to protect, affirm and expand, in an effort to master them, tame them, become their master and there is what, in the broadest and most preliminary sense of the word, can be called farming Economy in this sense is characteristic of all living things, not only the human, but also the animal world...” (p.79).

(2) “So, economy is the struggle of humanity with the elemental forces of nature in order to protect and expand life, to conquer and humanize nature, to transform it into a potential human organism. The content of the economic process can therefore also be expressed this way: it expresses the desire to transform dead matter, acting with mechanical necessity, into a living body, with its organic expediency, therefore, in the limit, this goal can be defined as the transformation of the entire cosmic mechanism into a potential or actual organism, in overcoming necessity with freedom, mechanism with the body, causality with expediency, as humanization of nature"(p.79-80).

(3) “...economy can be defined as the labor struggle for life and its expansion” (p. 82).

(4) “The hallmark of an economy is labor reproduction or the conquest of life’s goods, material or spiritual, as opposed to their free receipt. This is a strenuous activity. human life, in fulfillment of God's word: by the sweat of your brow bear your bread, and, moreover, all bread, i.e. not only material food, but also spiritual: by the sweat of the brow, through economic labor, not only economic products are produced, but the entire culture is created” (p. 83).

(5) “The entire economy is an objective activity that obviously implies some objective activity. It is the constant influence of the owner, economic entity(for now it makes no difference whether it is individual or collective) on things (nature or matter, no matter how it is further philosophically constructed), i.e. on farm object. And every economic act carries out a certain fusion of subject and object, the introduction of the subject into the object, the subjectification of the object, or the exit of the subject from himself into the world of things, into the object, i.e. objectification of the subject” (p.87).

(6) “Economic life comes down to metabolism, to a certain circulation or alternation of inhalation and exhalation. In the language of political economy, inhalation corresponds to production, and exhalation corresponds to consumption” (p. 111).

(7) “Economy is the creative activity of man over nature; possessing the forces of nature, he creates from them what he wants. He creates, as it were, his own new world, new benefits, new knowledge, new feelings, new beauty, - he creates culture, as the common formula of our days says” (p. 173).

In the work “Philosophy of Economy,” as well as in other works of S. Bulgakov, one can find many more long, detailed and short, laconic definitions of “economy,” like formulas. They do not contradict each other, but highlight different facets of a complex phenomenon called “economy.” Some definitions are presented in a purely scientific (rather ponderous) language, others are not devoid of poetry and demonstrate the flight of creative imagination of S. Bulgakov. In a synthesized form, S. Bulgakov’s understanding of economy and economic activity can be reduced to the following: interaction consciously built by humanity with the surrounding natural world in order to preserve, reproduce and expand life.

2. Economic activity, according to Bulgakov, has its own subject and its own object. Business entity humanity stands out. It is humanity, not individual people. The overall economic process consists of millions of individual actions of individual owners. But this is only apparent fragmentation. Even if individual owners carry out their activities within the framework of a subsistence economy and are not formally connected with each other by the threads of market commodity-money or other economic relations, the general economic process has its own internal logic. The task of economic philosophy is to comprehend this logic, and, perhaps, to provide humanity with the necessary guidelines for the systematic, conscious management of economic activity. Humanity as an economic subject- not only the totality of seemingly disparate people currently living on Earth, but also the sum of all generations of people who have lived on Earth since the time of Adam, who created material and intangible culture, which is the common heritage of humanity. At a doctoral disputation while defending his dissertation, S. Bulgakov noted: “On the issue of the economic subject or owner, the point of view defended in the “Philosophy of Economics” comes down to the recognition of the universal (transcendental) economic subject, the bearer of the economic function. Such a subject can only be humanity as such, not a collective or a collective whole, but a living unity of spiritual forces and potentialities, to which all people participate, an intelligible person who is discovered empirically in individual individuals” (p. 370).

Concerning farm object, then these are not only the immediate objects of labor (according to the provisions of political economy), but also the whole world, the whole universe. Ultimately, the object can and is the person himself (his spiritual, cultural, physical transformation). The line between the subject and the object of the economy is quite conditional and blurred. At the same time, in the process of production and consumption (two main economic acts), mutual penetration of subject and object occurs.

3. Having undertaken to solve a number of issues of political economy, Bulgakov reached the level of “eternal questions” of existence, the meaning of life and human history, freedom and necessity, the role of the individual in history, etc.

Bulgakov came to the conclusion that economic philosophy is not just a section (aspect) of philosophy, but a new version of an integral philosophical system with its own ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and cosmology. According to S. Bulgakov, his philosophical system overcame some of the shortcomings and contradictions of the philosophical system of Kant and others German philosophers, whose ideas fascinated the Russian intelligentsia back in the 19th century. Thinkers of different times found their own “gates” through which they penetrated into the endless and mysterious world of existence. For Bulgakov, the “economy” turned out to be such a “gate.”

4. Humanity, according to Bulgakov’s figurative expression, is a living organism functioning on the basis of free decisions and actions; the surrounding world is a mechanism functioning according to the laws of mechanical determinism. The invasion of humanity into the surrounding natural world leads to the fact that the latter gradually turns from a mechanism into an organism. Nature “fertilized” by human labor becomes, as it were, a continuation of the living organism of humanity. Life expands its domain, death and dead matter retreat. However, between life (organism) and death (bone nature) there is a continuous struggle for sphere of influence. The sphere of life of a weakened organism can narrow like shagreen skin.

3. Criticism of “economism” and its Marxist variety

1. Bulgakov criticized “economism”, or “economic materialism”, which at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. has become the dominant paradigm of thinking and life of humanity. There was no rational, scientific (and, especially, philosophical) understanding of this phenomenon by this time. Bulgakov did not just criticize “economism,” he examined the truth of life behind this worldview. Namely, the eternal (from the moment of the fall of man in paradise) struggle of man and humanity for life. “Economism,” according to Bulgakov, is a constant feature of fallen humanity. According to Bulgakov, “economism” differs from mammonism - the worship of Mammon; mammonism- a mass phenomenon of recent history associated with capitalism. By the way, at the time when “The Philosophy of Economics” was written, the term mammonism began to be quite widely used in German sociological literature, with which Bulgakov (judging by the numerous references in “The Philosophy of Economics”) was well acquainted.

2. Instead of a religious and philosophical understanding of the roots of “economism,” thinkers of the Reformation and Enlightenment eras created applied economic science, which, in essence, became an instrument of the mammonic aspirations of the emerging bourgeoisie. In “Philosophy of Economics” Bulgakov pays special attention to the analysis mercantilism- forerunners of English political economy of the 18th century ( Adam Smith And David Ricciardo). “Political economy was born under the sign of mercantilism, i.e. from very practical motives, from the need to understand the complexity of the economic mechanism. It is a child of capitalism and, in turn, is the science of capitalism, providing the basis for correct economic behavior. In political economy, certain practical problems are solved openly or disguised...” (p. 327). The criterion for evaluating certain economic decisions and projects, according to the teachings of the mercantilists, is the increase in wealth, which in those days meant primarily gold. Mercantilism as an economic policy of the state (protectionism, promotion of exports, gold mining, etc.) played a practical role in the formation of capitalism in Europe. Mercantilism as a type of the spirit of mammonism was preserved and strengthened in the political economy of the 18th-20th centuries. (although formally it was replaced by other theories and teachings).

A serious contribution to the formation of the mercantile spirit of political economy was made by Jeremy Bentham with his teachings utilitarianism. Bulgakov believes that the spirit of I. Bentham is also present in the political economy of the early twentieth century, including its Marxist version. Bulgakov calls Benthamism “moral arithmetic,” the desire to “apply numbers to ethics.” In general, Bulgakov states that ethics in contemporary economic science is replaced by numbers. We can say that in many economic studies of our time (XXI century) mathematical calculations and formulas finally supplanted the problems of ethics, and at the same time created the appearance that this is “science”. Bulgakov wrote in Philosophy of Economics: “Everything that contains “facts,” especially in the Kabbalistic form of a statistical table, is now accepted as science” (p. 329).

3. The author of the “philosophy of economics” showed contradictions and inconsistency Marxism as the most popular ideology of “economism”. However, Bulgakov began to notice errors and inconsistencies in Marx’s Capital much earlier, before writing Philosophy of Economics. But in his previous works, Bulgakov was engaged in a critical analysis of Marxism within the framework of political economy. In “Philosophy of Economics,” Bulgakov showed the inconsistency of Marxism as a worldview that claims to solve any “eternal” issues of human life. For example, Marxism claimed to have created its own sociology with “iron” laws (the idea of ​​determinism). At the same time, Marxism was an ideology of class struggle that called on the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. But calls of this kind were addressed not to the “atoms” of society, but to people and appealed to their feelings and reason. It was assumed that in the class struggle workers ceased to be “atoms” and turned into people with freedom of choice.

Figuratively speaking, Bulgakov showed that Marxism is the “naked king” and tried to do everything possible so that this “king” would stop ruling the minds of the intelligentsia (the work “Philosophy of Economics”, of course, was addressed to the most intellectual part of the Russian elite, which at the beginning of the twentieth century was fascinated by Marxism).

4. Labor, creativity, culture.

1. The key feature of the economy is labor, human labor activity. Labor is a person’s purposeful transformation of the nature around him, as well as the knowledge of its secrets. Revealing the secrets of nature (its laws, identifying new objects, revealing connections between individual elements of nature, etc.), in turn, represents necessary condition for subsequent practical conquest of nature. Thus, in Bulgakov’s concept, labor is viewed in a much more in a broad sense than in traditional political economy. In the latter, labor includes only such expenditures of physical and mental labor that lead to the creation of material products: “... political economy, although from its very inception, did not part with the principle of labor ( this principle means that labor is a factor of production, the main or only source of wealth - V.K.), but due to the low degree of philosophical consciousness and the limitations of her spiritual horizons, she did not know how to use this principle, what place to give it. And he was given a place that was completely inappropriate philosophical significance this principle. First of all, political economy represented by Hell. Smith, in fact, represented by the majority of her representatives, narrowed the concept of labor to “productive” labor, expressed in material benefits"(p. 135). In the concept of S. Bulgakov’s philosophy of economics, even the philosopher’s reflections on the structure of the world, the universe and existence are labor. According to Bulgakov, farming is not only material production. This is also science, including fundamental science. The Bulgakov farm also includes creative activity in the field of art and culture. Bulgakov sums up his understanding of labor: “The economy, in essence, includes human labor in all its applications, from the unskilled worker to Kant, from the plowman to the astrologer” (p. 83).

2. Important in Bulgakov’s teaching is the division of labor into: a) forced, involuntary; b) free, creative. He discusses how the ratio of forced and creative labor has changed in human history. He comes to the conclusion that expansion of the boundaries of life (the sphere of existence of an organism) in the world can only occur if economic life is carried out on the basis of free labor. Forced labor narrows the sphere of life. Moreover, it destroys the natural world created by the Creator.

Even in the conditions of the most unbearable economic “captivity” (dependence on natural and social conditions), a person must remember that he is the son of God and preserve inner freedom. Christians must do everything possible to ensure that: a) human labor is free and creative (creative labor likens man to God as the Creator); b) strictly treat their work responsibilities (regardless of the presence or absence of creativity in work).

3. Labor transforms not only the world around us, but the person himself. As S. Bulgakov notes, philosophy has still not said anything about this side of labor, and political economy does not notice this side of labor at all: “...political economy, due to its “economic materialism,” knows labor only in its products, in the object, and looks through it in the subject” (p. 136). Work, according to Bulgakov, has “irreplaceable importance for a person, as a means of developing the will, combating bad inclinations, and finally, as an opportunity to serve others.” He believes that the role of Christianity in social and economic progress can hardly be overestimated: it changed man’s attitude to work, made work a sign of valor and dignity, and overcame the prevailing ancient world an arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards work, thanks to this transformed the economic life of Europe.

Bulgakov calls on Christians to choose the “royal path” in their lives, meaning that both avoidance of work and excessive (voluntary) burden of work are equally dangerous for a person. He wrote: “Since Christianity commands everyone to maintain freedom from farming, not allowing worries to completely take over the heart, commanding them to remain spiritually free from farming under any economic system, just as decisively it does not allow anyone to free themselves from labor under one pretext or another. "(Bulgakov S.N. Christian socialism. - Novosibirsk, 1991, p. 212).

4. The result of economic activity is culture in the broadest sense of the word. Economic origin has not only material culture, but also spiritual culture, including works of art, literature, science, philosophy. The “imprints” of economic activity bear not only material world, directly surrounding man and humanity, but also space. The cosmos, as Bulgakov put it, is “revived”, “warmed” by the life and work of mankind. Bulgakov constantly emphasized that no matter how “refined” and “spiritual” human culture is, at its core it always has a material-natural beginning: “Culture, that is, labor or economically caused or realized growth of life, presupposes nature... Nature is therefore the natural basis of culture, material for economic influence; outside of it, economy is unthinkable and impossible, just as concrete experience is impossible outside of life” (pp. 84-85). Statements of this kind gave grounds for some commentators on “Philosophy of Economics” to call this work of S. Bulgakov “the religion of materialism.”

5. Science. Criticism of mechanical determinism

1. Bulgakov highlighted the true role and place of science, scientific activity in human life. On the one hand, Bulgakov showed the limitations of science as a means of understanding the world. Each science finds its own object of study and then begins to carefully study it, using observation, experiments, calculations, resorting to understanding the collected facts with the help of theories and hypotheses. But every science has its own Achilles heel. And not even alone. Firstly, each of them uses a set of axioms, and the axioms are based on faith, and faith can fail a scientist. Secondly, each science with its specific object of study looks at the world not through a wide window, but a tiny “window”. The researcher may not see the entire object and, moreover, not see the connection of the object with other parts of the surrounding world. Observation results may be incomplete and even distorted. During the Age of Enlightenment, the rapid development of numerous sciences began; different groups of people rushed to study the world around them, after dividing it into parts (objects of research). In fact, the object of the study was a corpse cut into pieces. But scientists could no longer connect these parts and resurrect the corpse. So, there was no holistic, metaphysical view of the world. The “scalpels” of such “partial” scientists killed the observable world. Bulgakov believed that the “philosophy of economics” could become the metaphysical basis on the basis of which humanity could study the world, not dismembered into pieces, with the aim of its subsequent transformation.

2. Bulgakov believed that scientific activity- not just an inactive contemplation of the world. He saw science as important part economic activity of mankind. In “Philosophy of Economics” he proved that there is no “pure” (external to economics) science. Any science appears only as a reaction to some need of humanity. At the same time, needs do not necessarily have to be grossly material. These may be cultural and spiritual needs. But the satisfaction of such “non-material” needs is also necessary for the reproduction of life. Ultimately, man’s efforts in the sphere of spiritual and cultural life expand his sphere of influence in the universe and “revitalize” the world.

3. Bulgakov gave criticism determinism in science- an idea that has reigned supreme both in natural science and social science since the times of Descartes and Laplace. If in natural science mechanical determinism was still tolerable, then in the field of social sciences it looked more than strange. Determinism in sociology actually meant that the only reason for any human actions are environmental conditions, external factors. Man as a being who freely makes decisions simply does not exist in sociology. There is only a certain social “atom”. Bulgakov examines this methodological absurdity using the example of Marxism (as we said above).

6. Criticism of political economy

1. Bulgakov paid special attention to the consideration determinism in political economy. Such determinism is based on the concept “ economic man”, which behaves in economic space like an “atom”, the trajectory of which can be calculated. Political economy, as the objects of its research, considers large aggregates of such “atoms”, which are called social groups, classes, societies. Behind the “economic man”, “class”, “social group” there is no living person visible. More precisely, this is no longer a living person, but an automaton, deprived of any freedom. But if the automaton is deprived of freedom, it ceases to be a creator, and if it is deprived of creativity, then economic development stops. The economy, however, is developing, new types of technology are appearing, the earth and its subsoil are being developed, people are rushing into space, etc. If all people were automata, then the economy would not only stop, but also fall into decay. Therefore, the message of political economy that all people are automata and atoms is not true.

2. Speaking about political economy (especially its Marxist version), Bulgakov notes that it provides “only a geometric drawing of human relations.” She learns large "social aggregates"”, behind which the entire individuality of a person disappears. For Marx, the worker is only an abstract, aggregate representative of the “proletarians of all countries”, who fiercely hates exploiting capitalists. This worker is not a real person, contradictory, multifaceted, but, as Bulgakov writes, a kind of “methodological ghost.”

Political economy is based on statistics, and special meaning It has statistics of large populations and averages. At the same time, incorrect use of statistics can lead to false conclusions (“ superstition of numbers") or reality can be greatly coarsened (" class masks, social schemes and blueprints"). “The interest in aggregates, in the study of the mass, the typical, the average in political economy sufficiently explains the predominant importance that statistical observations have here. Statistics, not as an independent science, but as a method of mass observation and “categorical calculation”, naturally became an auxiliary branch of political economy, which therefore often falls - however, it is not alone - into the superstition of numbers, looking for in them what cannot be found in them ...

By the method of aggregates, statistical or otherwise, everything individual is, of course, extinguished; instead, class masks, social schemes and blueprints appear” (pp. 320-321).

3. Political economy represents the course social development like some perpetuummobile (perpetual motion machine)). This “linearity” of the socio-economic movement of society does not at all correspond to the complex, by no means rectilinear trajectory historical process. Bulgakov wrote in Philosophy of Economics: “This is the fundamental principle of political economy, which phenomena of economic life have a quality of repetition or typicality (italics S.B.), there is a general methodological precondition for economic laws. At the same time, it is obvious that this position excludes in advance not only the individual, but also the generally new, historical: in this political-economic world, as before in the sociological world, nothing happens, no events take place, only some kind of economic perpetuummobile"(p.322).

Concept perpetuummobile, or “nothing new” not only distorts the real dynamics of social economic development, but often simply turns out to be an instrument of outright quackery in the hands of “political economists.” Marx's “forecast” about the inevitable replacement of capitalism with socialism based on extrapolation of existing trends in the concentration of capital is a typical example of such quackery. Bulgakov writes: “Marx’s “forecast” regarding the development of capitalism towards socialism is typical in this regard: it is entirely based on the premise ceteris paribus (other things being equal - V.K.) and represents a mental continuation of one of the “trends”, i.e. . generalization of some aspects of modern reality. And the general “trends in economic development” established by both statistics and political economy are constructed according to the same type. Nothing new (italics S.B.)“, or the negation of the historical and individual, is therefore the battle slogan of political economy, this eldest daughter of sociology, to the same extent as its mother” (p. 323).

7. History and sociology

1. Any sociological science(and political economy as well) is a large abstraction based on the fact that a person is an “atom” that does not have free will. Bulgakov does not reach the conclusion that, strictly speaking, there cannot be sociological sciences by definition. But the reader can inevitably figure this out for himself. In fact, we are not talking about sciences with “iron laws”, but about certain models, theories, hypotheses, and scenarios for social development. Bulgakov rightly noted that such “sciences” cannot answer the question: what will happen tomorrow? For man and humanity, the future is closed by an impenetrable curtain. Bulgakov says several times that such “sciences” can only be “orientations” that can and should be taken into account when developing and implementing policies (including in the economic sphere).

2. Regarding stories, then it certainly cannot be a deterministic picture of the life of mankind. History is, first of all, a continuous series of manifestations of the free will of individual people. Of course, this freedom is realized within the framework of necessity (both natural and social necessity). Marxists (though not only them) tried and are trying to squeeze a complex sequence of historical events into the Procrustean bed of certain “scientific” schemes. The Marxist scheme of history is the replacement of one socio-economic formation by another. The “engine” of history is a certain mysterious development of productive forces. Bulgakov showed the absurdity of the Marxist methodology of “economism”, with the help of which the followers of the author of “Capital” tried and are trying to explain any historical event. As well as any phenomenon of spiritual and cultural life.

3. The methodological basis of history during the rapid flowering of “economism” becomes political Economy. Of course, first of all, it focuses its attention on the present and the future (forecast of socio-economic development). But, nevertheless, it forces us to interpret the events of the past in a new way, adjusting them to our schemes. As S. Bulgakov notes in “Philosophy of Economics,” “The past is illuminated here by the reflector of scientific concepts of the present, however, we always consider the past through the glasses of modernity” (p. 324). This approach leads to a coarsening and often a caricatured distortion of history: “But it is obvious that although such a stylization of history in the taste of modern political economy represents considerable convenience for the purposes of orientation and economy of thought, achieved by the use of ready-made symbolism of concepts, however, this schematization and modernization , in which many see the very quintessence of science, sometimes obscures historical reality in its colorful individuality from us. This posing of the Greeks and Romans, Babylonians and Egyptians as capitalists and proletarians of modern times, which is increasingly becoming fashionable, has not only its own conveniences, but also dangerous negative sides, so that perhaps one day we will have to cleanse historical science of these the chaff of modernization” (p. 324). By the way, these “tares of modernization” began to actively litter Russian history after the revolution of 1917, when the chief Bolshevik historian N. Pokrovsky rewrote almost all the pages of Russia's past on the basis of the Marxist teaching about socio-economic formations and the “class struggle” as the engine of the historical process. Now there is an excruciatingly painful process of cleansing Russian history from the “chaff” of the “historical school” of N. Pokrovsky, and “historical reality in its colorful individuality” is gradually beginning to emerge. True, at the same time historical science in Russia it is beginning to become littered with “tares” of a different kind - schemes of economic liberalism (which, like Marxism, came to us from the West).

4. Although the main issue of “Philosophy of Economics” is the relationship between society (humanity) and nature (space), Bulgakov also paid some attention to the issues of relations between people within society. He, in particular, sufficiently defined his negative attitude towards capitalism. However, he assessed the Marxist model of socialism no less negatively. As for the social ideal achievable for humanity, Bulgakov called it social Christianity. The concept of “social Christianity” in “Philosophy of Economics” did not receive sufficiently deep elaboration. However, from his work it is clear that:

a) most perfect device life on Earth is possible only on the basis Christian faith and Christian foundations;

b) the life of Christians should not be limited only to the church-ritual side, they should not fence themselves off from the world; Christians and the Church must take an active social position in life, which, as Bulgakov showed, in all its manifestations is an economic activity.

8. Capitalism, socialism, social ideal of humanity

1. One of the “peripheral” issues of “Philosophy of Economics” is Bulgakov’s assessment of specific types of society. First of all, capitalist. His attitude towards capitalism is negatively critical. He perfectly sees the contradictions, injustice, and inhumanity of capitalism. For example, in his work “Two Cities” he harshly accuses capitalism of “enslaving man to man” (see: S.N. Bulgakov. Christianity and the Social Question // S.N. Bulgakov. Two Cities. Studies on the nature of social ideals. - St. Petersburg .: Publishing house RGHI, 1997). It can be noted that already in “Philosophy of Economics” (and even more so in subsequent works) Bulgakov extremely rarely uses the word “capitalism”. He moves away from Marxist ideological clichés (capitalism, socialism, slave system, etc.) and tries to describe the socio-political and socio-economic phenomena of human life using other terms that are closer not to the material, but to the spiritual side of life. Thus, in his extensive lecture “War and Russian Identity” (1915), he perfectly identifies the socio-economic causes of the First World War, but extremely rarely uses the word “capitalism” (around the same time V. Lenin wrote his famous brochure “ Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" and on almost all pages of his work he speaks about capitalism and its highest, monopolistic stage as the main and only cause of war). Bulgakov uses the concepts " modern European civilization », « bourgeois civilization», « mercantilism civilization" and so on. In our opinion, such a lexical selection is not accidental: Bulgakov seeks to show that the root of all evil is not in the socio-economic structure of life, but in the spiritual sphere. The socio-economic structure, which was then commonly called “capitalism,” is only a consequence of the spiritual structure public life.

2. That is why Bulgakov issues of assessing various forms of property, slavery, surplus value, and usurious interest are on the periphery of his thoughts. In his opinion, these are secondary, almost “technical” issues. Take, for example, the attitude of Christianity towards private and public (common) property. In “Philosophy of Economics” Bulgakov did not consider this issue as completely secondary. Four years later in a special work " The main motives of the philosophy of economy in Platonism and early Christianity", included in the book “ History of economic thought"(Pg., 1916). Bulgakov explained his position on issues of property, slavery, interest on capital and other “burning” socio-economic problems at that time. Here, in particular, are his thoughts on property: “...therefore, the question of forms of property for Christianity turns into a question of pure expediency, but does not have the same fundamental edge that it contains for socialism. Christianity has as little connection with economic individualism as with socialism, and equally addresses both with the same call and warning: not to immerse yourself in the economy to the end, not to allow its instincts to take over, but, if possible, living in economy to exercise their freedom from wealth, to subordinate it to religious and ethical norms. In a word, Christianity in matters of economics and socialism has only an ascetic overtone, a religious and ethical motive of self-restraint and service to one’s neighbor, and not one or another judgment concerning an economic fact, where necessity reigns with its expediency. And therefore, all the talk about “Christian socialism”, as the only normal form of Christianity in economic matters, is based on a misunderstanding: to affirm common property as a Christian form of property would mean to reify Christianity, connecting it with private forms of economic expediency: Christianity preaches freedom from property and allows the latter only under the condition of ethical regulation of its use. And between the ideal of Francis of Assisi and socialism there is as little in common as between the communist dreams of some Bellamy and the ascetic tasks that Girolamo Savonarola, like Plato, set for himself at the time of his influence, who, like Plato, sought to make the state a forced monastery for the education of morals" (quoted from : O. Platonov. Russian economy without globalism. - M.: Algorithm, 2006, p. The question of the form of ownership, according to Bulgakov, loses its paramount importance, being subordinated to the general goal of achieving economic and social freedom of man.

3. Bulgakov took an essentially similar position regarding the question of the advantages of capitalism and socialism. He, in particular, wrote that “the abstract categories of socialism or capitalism, so convenient for demagoguery, turn out to be completely inapplicable for an in-depth consideration of the issue in the light of conscience. But there is highest value, in the light of which it is necessary to give a comparative assessment of different economic forms. This is personal freedom, legal and economic. And the best of economic forms, no matter what it is called and no matter what combination of capitalism and socialism, private and public property it represents, is the one that provides the most for this state personal freedom from both natural poverty and social bondage. Therefore, in its judgments about economic forms and its attitude towards them, Orthodoxy is historical. This is the area of ​​relativism of means while the goal remains unchanged” (Bulgakov S.N. Orthodoxy. Essays on the teachings of the Orthodox Church. - M: Terra, 1991, p. 367).

4. Bulgakov is a realist; he understands that demanding the overthrow of the system that he called “the civilization of mercantilism” until the necessary spiritual prerequisites for this have matured means dooming society and people to even more serious trials. This point of view of Bulgakov can be called position of socio-political realism. This, according to Bulgakov, should be the position of Christianity as a whole. In his opinion, Christianity must take into account “the limits of the elasticity of the social fabric, so as not to rupture it or break the skeleton in the name of the desire to give the social body a new form” (Bulgakov S.N. Christian Socialism. - Novosibirsk, 1991, p. 96). Some of his politically charged critics perceived such statements by Bulgakov as a position of unacceptable social tolerance and opportunism. Bulgakov intuitively felt what kind of sacrifices and torment the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the “damned” capitalism, which was unfolding before his eyes, could generate for the Russian people.

5. S. Bulgakov constantly emphasized that a Christian must be social personality, has no right to focus solely on issues of personal salvation. Everything flows from the general spirit of the “Philosophy of Economics,” which appeals, first of all, to the conscience and feelings of a person whose soul is by nature Christian (Bulgakov often recalls this catchphrase of Tertullian). Such a soul cannot help but worry about injustice and oppression of both close and distant people. He sets out his point of view on the social side of Christian life in more detail in his work “Christian Socialism.” He, in particular, noted in it: “And if the commandment about the universal obligation to work and help those in need of material support was previously understood exclusively as duty of personal conduct, then now, after what we know from the social sciences, it alone cannot calm the conscience; it becomes clear to us, in addition, responsibilities of social behavior (my italics - V.K.)" (ibid.). Let us recall that Bulgakov not only theoretically substantiated the need for Christians to actively participate in socio-political life, but he himself practically tried to do this. He tried to create his own political party, participated in elections to the State Duma, and was a deputy of the Duma of the second convocation. However, all this happened even before the writing and publication of “Philosophy of Economics”. After the end of the first “Russian” revolution (1905-1907), Bulgakov experienced disappointment in political activity. His views on the forms and methods, content and meaning of Christian social activity in the conditions of the “civilization of mercantilism” were significantly adjusted. However, almost all of these considerations turned out to be outside the scope of “Philosophy of Economics” and were reflected in other works of Bulgakov.

9. Wandering through the labyrinths of philosophy. Sophianism

1. “Philosophy of Economics” is a kind of fork in the creative path of S. Bulgakov. With this work he actually put an end to his research in the field of political economy. He was completely disappointed in her, which is clearly seen from the same “Philosophy of Economics.” This work is the apogee of Bulgakov’s creative passion for “pure” philosophy (which, however, can be guessed even by the title of the work). But at the same time, as a very demanding researcher, Bulgakov was forced to introduce into his philosophical scheme some theological axioms (dogmas), which became the cornerstones of the “Philosophy of Economics”. For example, the position about the fallen nature of man (as a result of the fall of the first people in paradise), about the end of human history (Apocalypse), about God’s commandment to a man expelled from paradise to earn bread by the sweat of his brow, etc. Scattered here and there throughout Bulgakov's work are references to the Old and New Testament, on the prophets, holy fathers. It would be wrong to call Bulgakov’s work “purely philosophical” (like, for example, the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel). This is philosophy with “admixtures” of Christian theology (what is commonly called “ religious philosophy"). Bulgakov proves some things that are obvious to a Christian thinker (following from Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition) using complex philosophical reasoning. Personally, this reminds me of performing the multiplication operation 2 x 2 = 4 on a powerful computer. In Russian there is an apt word for this: “abstruseness.” By the way, to select theories that equally adequately reflect certain phenomena and processes, scientists use the one proposed by the Austrian philosopher Stroke"principle of economy". Bulgakov himself recalls this principle. Unfortunately (this is mine Subjective opinion) Bulgakov's philosophical scheme in some of its parts does not correspond to the “principle of economy.” However, many representatives of the intelligentsia and their faith in the omnipotence of science and philosophy move towards the Truth (God) along precisely such long, roundabout paths. We will say more about this below.

2. It wouldn’t be so bad if everything was limited to “abstruseness.” There are attempts to make “discoveries” that contradict the tenets of Christian theology. It's about an idea Sofia. “Philosophy of Economics” is the first serious work of S. Bulgakov, in which he outlined his thoughts about Sofia ( sophiology). Let us immediately note that Bulgakov continued to think about the theme of Sophia in his subsequent works, which gradually turned from philosophical works into theological ones. In fact, this was Bulgakov’s bold (rather daring) attempt to make his own contribution to the theological teaching of the Orthodox Church. The idea of ​​Sophia was first voiced by the Russian philosopher and poet Vladimir Solovyov. For Solovyov, it looked quite beautiful and was not perceived sharply as heresy. After all, Solovyov was not only a philosopher, but also a poet; many saw only poetic reflections in Solovyov’s Sofia. Archpriest began to deepen and develop the idea of ​​Sophia from philosophical and theological positions. Pavel Florensky and S. Bulgakov continued this baton. Even within the work “Philosophy of Economics” it is difficult to find an unambiguous interpretation of the concept “Sophia”, translated from Greek language meaning "wisdom". Quite often the author calls Sophia “the Wisdom of God” or simply “Wisdom”.

the ideal basis of the world;

world of ideas;

a certain principle standing between the Absolute spirit (God) and the cosmos;

soul of the world;

"third being";

demiurge;

the basis of universal communication;

a bond connecting all parts of the universe;

the creative soul of the natural world;

ruling human history the center (with the objective laws of the historical movement of mankind hidden in it);

the creative soul of the natural world (including the source of the evolution of this world), etc.

It is easy to notice that some of the definitions of Sophia that we find in Bulgakov complement and repeat each other. Some don't fit together. Above we gave Bulgakov’s definition of an “economic entity.” This is “humanity,” but at the same time Bulgakov clarifies: “ transcendental humanity" In other words, some kind of “otherworldly humanity.” In some of Bulgakov’s phrases, one feels that Sophia is “transcendental humanity,” and humanity that actually lives on earth is only a kind of pale, blurry shadow of an otherworldly origin. At the same time, the shadow in different periods history may more or less correspond to an otherworldly origin named Sophia.

From the above interpretations of Sophia, contained in the “Philosophy of Economics,” it is quite difficult to understand what place this very Wisdom occupies in relation to God. Judging by the context of individual passages in the Philosophy of Economics, in some cases Sophia is the result of God’s creation, part of the created world. In other cases - the hypostasis of God himself (“fourth hypostasis”). Bulgakov continued and deepened his teaching about Sofia in his next major work, “The Non-Evening Light.” When creating his doctrine of Sophia, Bulgakov drew inspiration not only from the works of the already mentioned V. Solovyov and P. Florensky, but also from the works of the ancient philosophers Plato and Plotinus, and the medieval mystic Jacob Boehme.

3. According to Bulgakov, there is no absolutely “dead” world. A sign of the “aliveness” of nature are the changes occurring in it, followed by not chaos, but some kind of evolution with a vector directed towards some mysterious final goal. The source of this evolution is Sophia. It is easy to notice that Bulgakov's sophiology smacks of pantheism. We are talking about the doctrine according to which God is in nature, and nature is in God; in pantheism there is no line between the Creator and the creature. Rather, Bulgakov does not have “classical” pantheism (as, for example, in the philosophy of Spinoza), but its “Sophian” variety: Sophia is in nature, and nature is in Sophia.

In the first chapter of “Philosophy of Economics,” Bulgakov writes: “On nature lies a dead mask of thingness, alienness, impenetrability for humans, and only selected mystical seers know that in reality” this is not so (p. 77). But as? He answers with lines from F. Tyutcheva:

Not what you think, nature,
Not a cast, not a soulless face,
She has a soul, she has freedom,
It has love, it has language.

But if in poetic creativity various metaphors, allegories and fantasies are acceptable (and even necessary), then for a scientist and philosopher to refer to “poetic insight” (he uses this expression below) is not acceptable. Apparently, S. Bulgakov considered himself one of the mentioned “chosen seers.” But ordinary readers of “Philosophy of Economics” (to which I also include myself) are not “selected seers” and perceive such “revelations” with bewilderment.

The mentioned “revelations” of the Russian philosopher are not as harmless as they seem. At the end of the last century, when interest in ecology, cosmism, the “big bang” theory, UFOs, etc. intensified among the intelligentsia. Heretical theories of the “living Earth,” “living space,” and “living nature” began to flourish in full bloom. Home-grown authors and propagandists of such “theories”, in search of authorities, even then referred to the names of a number of Russian thinkers, among whom V.I. Vernadsky, L.A. Chizhevsky, N.F. Fedorov and S.N. Bulgakov. “Natured” with the ideas of the “living Earth” theories, the most “poetically illuminated” representatives of our creative and technical intelligentsia evolved towards yoga and other Eastern philosophies, theosophy, occultism, and Kabbalah.

4. It should be borne in mind that the ideas of sophiology are a typical feature of “ silver age“with its reflections, mysticism, outrageousness, God-seeking and other diseases of the Russian intelligentsia, which was bored with orthodox Christianity with its “too simple” truths and laws. I was drawn to occult circles, Masonic lodges, and sessions of spiritualism. And the most “conservative” representatives of the “enlightened” intelligentsia hurried not to churches, but to religious and philosophical societies. Religion there was only an external entourage, and philosophical “delights” Plato, Plotinus, Boehme or Schopenhauer or as a last resort Schelling were much more interesting than Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The same sophiology has become an endemic disease of the Russian creative intelligentsia. They talked and wrote about her Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Zinaida Gippius, Prince Evgeny Trubetskoy, Andrei Bely, Alexander Blok and many other poets, writers, philosophers. However, among poets and artists, the understanding of Sophia was completely blurred (a kind of poetic reflection) and was not integrated into any philosophical system. For “professional” philosophers, Sophia played the role of the origin of the whole world and replaced the real God as Creator and Provider. This is how they demonstrated their sincere love for Sophia (remember that philosophy is translated as “love for Sophia” or “love for wisdom”). We can say that sophiology is a narrowly caste religion of “professional” philosophers.

5. It is no secret that the word “Sophia” is often found in the works of holy fathers and Orthodox theologians, but has a different meaning than in Solovyov, Florensky, Bulgakov. It originates in the Old Testament Scriptures in the form of the personification of the Wisdom of God. There, especially in places close to the New Testament revelation of Christ, the Holy Fathers unanimously saw an epiphany Hypostases of the Son of God. This is, for example, the general church understanding of the words about Wisdom contained in the book of Proverbs (9:1-9).
The fact that the name Wisdom of God was applied by the entire Orthodox Church to the Second Divine Hypostasis is evidenced by the Acts of the First, Third, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Yes, First Ecumenical Council speaks of the incomprehensible Wisdom, “Which created... everything created,” - about the uncreated Wisdom, without beginning, i.e. about Christ, because Christ is God's Power and God's Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24). The name of the Second Divine Hypostasis as the Wisdom of God is also indicated by the fact of the “dedication of churches to the Lord Jesus Christ, precisely as the Wisdom of God, from the most ancient centuries to the present time in different Orthodox countries… Thus, the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church about Jesus Christ as the Wisdom of God and this name of the Second Divine Hypostasis was accepted “by the entire universal Church as a clear and indisputable truth”” (Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) “New Teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God”, Sofia , 1935, p. 121).

The most consistent and complete critical analysis of Bulgakov's sophiology was given by the Russian thinker V.N. Lossky in work " Sofia dispute", and Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) in the work "New Teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God." Archbishop Seraphim, speaking about the Sophia teaching of Florensky and Bulgakov, calls it “a real heretical teaching with a Gnostic and pagan worldview,” generating “dogmatic chaos” (op. cit., p. 513). Let us note that the strict critical theological analysis of Sophianism by Archbishop Seraphim became the basis for its condemnation as a false teaching at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The heresy was also condemned by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Despite the declaration of Sophianism as a heresy (even during Bulgakov’s lifetime), after the Second World War its seeds sprouted poisonous shoots. In an interesting book L. Perepelkina“Ecumenism is the path that leads to destruction” (Jordanville, 1992) states that the heresy of Sophianism contributed to the development of ecumenism, and it also began to be used by church modernists in order to “feminize” God and the church (the introduction of a female priesthood), “edit "renew the Holy Scripture, etc. It says in particular that “its creators are priests. Pavel Florensky and others. Sergius Bulgakov, through an intricate teaching about Sophia (its roots connected with the pagan philosophy of Plato, Kabbalistic teaching, as well as with Gnosticism condemned by the Church, especially with the Gnosticism of the Valentinians and a number of other later Gnostic theosophists) introduces a fourth, female hypostasis into the Divine Trinity.”

6. B Lately one can observe some renaissance of sophiology in Russia. It was most clearly outlined in the recently published book “ Renaissance of economic philosophy"(Edited by Yu.M. Osipov and E.S. Zotova. - M., 2011). However, in today's Russia, a critical analysis of the sophiology of Bulgakov and his followers continues. As an example, we can cite a recently published article: Nazarov I.V. Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov: pro et contra // Philosophy of Economics. - 2012, No. 3.

10. “Religious materialism” by Bulgakov

1. Sergius Bulgakov in “Philosophy of Economics” mentioned the name of the Russian thinker several times N.F. Fedorov(1829-1903). The latter became famous for his philosophy of the “common cause” (his main work, “Philosophy of the Common Cause,” was published almost simultaneously with Bulgakov’s “Philosophy of Economics”). He simply mentioned it, but with respect and reverence, without revealing the reasons for his worship of this author. main idea Fedorova: ultimate goal humanity is to comprehend the secrets and conquer the energies of the world and resurrect with their help all deceased ancestors. Fedorov constantly expressed the idea of ​​humanity as a set of generations from the beginning of the world, of the relationship between children and fathers, and considered the resurrection of ancestors (fathers) to be the primary duty of children. Fedorov himself, although he called himself a Christian, did not fully share all the dogmas of Orthodoxy, introducing his own “adjustments” to them. However, these “corrections” during the life of their author were considered as the private opinion of the thinker; his fantasy about the general resurrection of the dead by humanity itself was not even qualified as heresy. To be fair, it should be noted that many famous contemporaries of Nikolai Fedorovich (L.N. Tolstoy, N.F. Dostoevsky, V.S. Solovyov) fell under the spell of Fedorov’s fantasies (very talented).

2. I believe that Bulgakov was fascinated in Fedorov’s teaching not so much by the idea of ​​resurrection on a “scientific basis”, but by the cosmism of this original thinker. Cosmism- a religious-philosophical and artistic-aesthetic movement that became popular among the Russian intelligentsia at the beginning of the twentieth century. The main idea of ​​cosmism is the belief that humanity, relying on science, will be able to achieve targeted regulation of natural processes not only on earth, but also beyond our planet, in the long term even going beyond the solar system and conquering the vast expanses of space. Man will become a “citizen” of the Universe. N. Fedorov believed that in the event of the resurrection of our ancestors, our planet would clearly not be enough to accommodate people, so space would inevitably become the home of an ever-growing humanity. In general, we are dealing with another beautiful scientific and philosophical utopia that leads a person away from living faith in God into unconditional worship scientific knowledge. N. Fedorov can be considered the founder of Russian cosmism; its other prominent representatives were K.E. Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), IN AND. Vernadsky (1863-1945), A.L. Chizhevsky(1897-1964). Were no strangers to cosmism V.S. Soloviev and about. Pavel Florensky. The most complete (from the standpoint of Orthodoxy) criticism of Russian cosmism is contained in the works of our famous philosophers BUT. Lossky And ON THE. Berdyaev.

The ideas of cosmism are, of course, present in the “Philosophy of Economy” by S. Bulgakov, who viewed economy as the conquest by humanity not only and not so much of the natural forces of our planet, but of the endless spaces of space. In all publications on the problems of Russian cosmism, in the list of the main representatives of this direction of religious and philosophical thought, the name of S. Bulgakov is one of the first places.

3. Some of S. Bulgakov’s statements in “Philosophy of Economics” regarding the possibility of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth (the idea of ​​so-called chiliasm) are very doubtful. It is noteworthy that in “Philosophy of Economics” and his other works, Bulgakov consistently and convincingly fights the Marxist version of chiliasm (communism as an analogue of the Kingdom of God, an earthly paradise without God). In explanation of this thesis, he writes: “Socialism is a rationalistic translation of Jewish chiliasm, translated from the language of cosmology and theology into the language of political economy, and all its dramatis personae therefore received an economic interpretation. The chosen people, the bearer of the messianic idea, or, as later in Christian sectarianism, the people of “saints”, were replaced by the “proletariat” with a special proletarian soul and a special proletarian mission” (Bulgakov S.N. Apocalypse and Socialism. // Bulgakov S.N. Works in 2 volumes. M., 1993 Volume 2, pp. 424-425).

At the same time, some of Bulgakov’s statements contained in “Philosophy of Economics” can be interpreted as follows: The Kingdom of God on earth is one of the options for the possible development of humanity. Some researchers rightly call this position of S. Bulgakov “ religious materialism"(See: "Religious materialism of S. Bulgakov // Philosophy of history. Edited by Prof. A.S. Panarin. - M.: Gardariki, 1999). Here I will allow myself to quote a fragment from the book of Prof. A.I. Osipova: "Idea "The Kingdom of God on Earth", i.e. achievements in earthly history of universal spiritual and moral prosperity, energetically defended almost until the end of her life by V.S. Solovyov and the thinkers ideologically close to him (Arch. S. Bulgakov, S.N. Trubetskoy, Archpriest P. Svetlov, N. Fedorov, etc.) is absent from the patristic works and fundamentally contradicts the Revelation of the New Testament (see: Matt. 24, 5-31; Apocalypse, etc.)" (Osipov A.I. The path of reason in search of truth. - M., 2003, p. 206).

In fairness, it should be said that in the indicated list of followers of chiliasm, S. Bulgakov is perhaps its least consistent adherent. In the works of S. Bulgakov one can find enough statements in which he agrees with the opinion of St. fathers about the fundamental impossibility of the Kingdom of God on earth in any of its variants, and he himself criticizes the most odious manifestations of chiliasm that reigned among the Russian intelligentsia (Dm. Merezhkovsky, Z. Gippius, etc.). In his emigrant work " Apocalypse of John"S. Bulgakov once again returns to the topic of chiliasm, giving a cautious and, in my opinion, balanced assessment of it.

4. The author of this article is not a theologian, therefore, probably, a number of deviations of S. Bulgakov from Orthodox dogma were not noticed by him. In one encyclopedic dictionary Orthodox direction, containing a brief article about S. Bulgakov, names the exact number of such “deviations”: “In his philosophical views, however, one can discern several (namely 16) personal opinions that are not acceptable by the Church” (Primer. Science, Philosophy, Religion. Edited by Archimandrite Nikon (Ivanov) and Archpriest Nikolai Likhomanov - M., 2001. - T. I. - P. 444.). However, “deviations” come in different types and weights. I think that “deviation” in the form of Sophianism is the main and root one. Some “deviations” can be attributed to the subjects of unfinished theological discussions. Among them, for example, is S. Bulgakov’s special interpretation of “the sufferings of Gehenna” and “the eternity of hell” (see: Osipov A.I. The Path of Reason in Search of Truth. - M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2003. pp. 412-414).

Those “excesses” and dogmatic distortions that S.N. Bulgakov admitted in his theological and philosophical works, which can be partly explained by the fact that he, as a thinker, belonged to the category not so much of “contemplators” as of “doers” and “transformers.” S.N. Bulgakov perceives man as an active, active being with powerful creative potential. Not without reason, in his speech at the Congress of Orthodox Culture in 1930, he again remembered his idol N.F. Fedorov, citing his words: “...the world is given to man not for looking, but for action” (S.N. Bulgakov. Dogmatic justification of culture // Bulgakov S.N. Works in 2 vols. Volume 2. - M. , 1993, p.290). Probably, such statements gave rise to the Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev talk about " the mysterious kinship of Bulgakov's Orthodoxy with materialism" However, in the age of the heyday of “economism,” among philosophers and other thinkers, “doers” and “transformers” began to clearly prevail over “contemplatives.” In this regard, Bulgakov was not a unique thinker. His originality lies in the fact that he tried to combine the “this-worldly” (the labor and economic activity of mankind) with the “otherworldly” (God). For which he needed Sophia as a link between God and the created world.

The originality of Bulgakov (compared to other Russian thinkers of the early late 19th and early 20th centuries) is that he represented a personality with many creative guises: a scientist, philosopher, theologian, poet. This is precisely what makes it difficult to use traditional approaches to assessing “Philosophy of Economics” and other works of Bulgakov.

11. S. Bulgakov: stages of movement towards truth

Having experienced considerable disappointment with Marx's political economy, S. Bulgakov tried to comprehend economic life primarily through the prism of philosophy. Until the end, he failed. There are too many contradictions, ambiguities, “inconsistencies” and “blank spots”. However, in my personal opinion, this inevitably accompanies any philosophical construction (theory). The only difference is that the constructions created by some philosophical authors may at first look quite beautiful, convincing and seem logical. However, after some time, their charm fades, and sometimes such philosophical constructions disappear into oblivion altogether. In the work “Philosophy of Economics,” philosophy prevails over theology. Actually, the few theological “inserts” in the work “Philosophy of Economics” play a purely decorative role, reminding either the author himself or the reader that the author professes Orthodoxy. It was only later, especially when Bulgakov found himself in exile, that in his works theology began to prevail over philosophy.

Here I am forced to make some digression. The question of the relationship between science, philosophy and theology in comprehending the truths of existence is extremely complex. The ineradicable desire to comprehend the truth forces the scientist to understand the limitations of his view of the world from the standpoint of the science in which he is engaged. An inquisitive researcher sooner or later comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to look at the object of his research from the height of metaphysics, i.e. a certain system that claims to have a holistic perception of the world. This is philosophy.

Young S. Bulgakov studied political economy (especially its Marxist variety). He taught political economy and wrote a number of works on economic topics. Among them: articles “ On some basic concepts of political economy" (1898), " On the question of the capitalist evolution of agriculture"(1899). In 1900 he prepared a two-volume dissertation “ Capitalism and agriculture"(in which, by the way, he questioned the correctness of K. Marx’s general conclusions about the trends in the development of capitalism in relation to the agricultural sector of the economy).

S.N. Bulgakov soon realized the conventionality, inaccuracy, and sometimes fallacy of many of the provisions of the scientific discipline called “political economy.” From an adherent of Marxist political economy, he began to turn into its critic (for which, by the way, he himself was subjected to sharp criticism from Russian Marxists, among whom was IN AND. Lenin-Ulyanov). The results of his critical reflections and doubts were presented by Bulgakov in the collection “ From Marxism to Idealism" And he began to try to discern the answers to the questions that tormented him, related to the sphere of social and economic life, from the height of the “bird's eye view” of philosophy. The young man especially became interested in German classical philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling). “Philosophy of Economics” is the result of such persistent searches by the economist S. Bulgakov. This fundamental research was preceded by such works in the field of philosophical understanding of socio-economic issues as “ Church and social question" (1906), " Mysterious Thinker"(about N.F. Fedorov, 1908), " National economy and religious personality"(1909), etc.

Having risen to the heights of metaphysics, he took a completely different look at many issues of economics. But, what is noteworthy, from these heights, in addition to the economic, many other spheres of existence were revealed to him, which were no less interesting and relevant than economics. Probably, after writing “Philosophy of Economics,” S. Bulgakov’s interest in economics as a science was largely lost. Philosophy came first. The focus was on such eternal subjects as ontology (the study of being), epistemology (the study of knowledge), anthropology (the study of man), cosmology, the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity, and many others. Now we will not evaluate the results of S. Bulgakov’s philosophical searches; we will talk about this later.

Let us note that the passion for philosophy also did not last very long. Conventionally, it can be defined by the chronological framework of 1903-1913. Every year S. Bulgakov felt more and more acutely the limitations of philosophical methods of comprehending the truth. Notes of doubt about omnipotence philosophical knowledge sound in the final part of S. Bulgakov’s speech at the doctoral dissertation “Philosophy of Economics” (September 1912): “Different philosophical systems not only look at the world through different windows, but also presuppose different, although necessary, dogmatic bases , sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. In other words, they are constructed from axioms, intuitive and unprovable. At the basis of any genuine philosophical system, i.e. having an independent motive (and not being constructed compilatively), lies some internal intuition, a specially qualified worldview. It is impossible to argue about axioms, and, however, the difference in axioms necessarily leads to a difference in conclusions. For in their own way, both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are equally consistent, their axioms differ. And, based on such intuitionism in the understanding of philosophical systems, I must admit in advance that systems of economic philosophy can legitimately be distinguished if their initial axioms diverge. Here lies the possibility of disagreements that are ineradicable, at least by the means of theory; unity of thoughts is achieved only through life unity. And therefore it is clear to me that, along with this philosophy of economics, a completely different one can be built” (p. 376).

Conventionally, we can say that 1913 - 1923. were a transitional period, a time of gradual transformation of S.N. Bulgakov from a philosopher to a Christian theologian. The predominance of theology over philosophy is already clearly visible in the work “ Non-evening light", published in 1917. However, inclusions of socio-economic issues are also present in the works of the transition period. For example, in the third part of the third section of “The Non-Evening Light” you can find many interesting thoughts about economy and theurgy, economy and art, and the eschatology of economy. The large work is quite rich in social issues “ Christianity and socialism"(1917). It is noteworthy that in this work he begins to move away from the bias towards the “religion of materialism” clearly expressed in “Philosophy of Economics.”

S. Bulgakov almost completely abandoned “classical” philosophy after his ordination to the priesthood (1918) and forced emigration from Russia (1923). It is obvious that the priestly ministry helped Fr. Sergius to go beyond purely armchair theology and rely on personal practical experience spiritual life. And the revolution, civil war and ordeal after the Bolsheviks came to power probably forced Bulgakov to take a fresh look at much of what he had written and thought out in “Philosophy of Economics.” After this, the “theological period” of life begins, which lasted until the death of Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov in 1944. His works such as: “ Burning bush"(1927), " Friend of the Groom"(1927), " Jacob's Ladder"(1929), " Lamb of God"(1933), " Comforter"(1936). Posthumously released: “ Apocalypse of John"(1948), " Philosophy of the name"(1953). In 1965, a book by Fr. was published in Paris in Russian. Sergius Bulgakov " Orthodoxy. Essays on the teachings of the Orthodox Church" - collection of works different years, including previously unpublished ones. The last of these books is the most concentrated presentation of the theological views of Fr. Sergius. It is noteworthy that this book has a small chapter “ Orthodoxy and economic life"(However, it does not contain anything fundamentally new in comparison with what was written earlier; among other things, it repeats a whole series of thoughts set out in the “Philosophy of Economics”). Of course, Father Sergius recent years His life cannot be called a “pure” theologian; philosophical and social issues are interspersed in his works. Therefore, biographers and researchers of Bulgakov’s work most often qualify him as “ Russian religious philosopher", we can agree with this definition.

The evolution of a thinker from philosophy to theology is not something unique. Many inquisitive minds have followed this path. For example, our famous ascetic of piety Hegumen Nikon (Vorobiev, mind. 1963) also went through this path of quest. Even before the revolution, he had a taste for the sciences, but then, seeing their limitations, he turned to philosophy. Let us note that at the same time the young man was very far from God. Here is what abbot Nikon Vorobyov said about philosophy at the end of his life: “The study of philosophy showed: every philosopher believed that he had found the truth. But how many of them, philosophers, were there? But there is only one truth. And the soul yearned for something else. Philosophy is all a surrogate; It’s like chewing rubber instead of bread. Eat this rubber, will you be full? I realized that, just as science says nothing about God, oh future life, so philosophy will not give anything. And the conclusion became absolutely clear that we need to turn to religion” (quoted from: A.I. Osipov. The Path of Reason in Search of Truth. - M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2003, p. 182).

We have already mentioned the name of the Russian religious philosopher N. Berdyaeva, who rather critically assessed a number of ideas of S. Bulgakov (not only the idea of ​​Sophianism, but also the “bias” towards materialism, excessive tolerance towards capitalism, etc.). At the same time, he recognized Bulgakov’s sincerity and passion in his search for truth. I also drew attention to the fact that S. Bulgakov, as a thinker, constantly grew spiritually and intellectually, successively passing through the stages that we mentioned. According to N. Berdyaev, this is a typical path of an honest Russian intellectual (who found himself in the tragic intertwined history of the first decades of the twentieth century): “Bulgakov’s quests are of great importance and should be highly appreciated. There is a captivating seriousness and sincerity about him. He is very Russian, and the religious crisis he experienced has significance for the fate of Russian consciousness. In the person of Bulgakov, the Russian intelligentsia seems to be breaking with its atheistic and materialistic past and moving on to religious contemplation and Christianity. This is a process of great deepening” (Berdyaev N.A. Revival of Orthodoxy (Fr. S. Bulgakov) // N.A. Berdyaev on Russian philosophy. Part 2. - Sverdlovsk, 1991, pp. 193-194).

12. From “Philosophy of Economy” to “Theology of Economy”

So, having moved from predominantly philosophical reflections to theological reflections, Bulgakov almost ceased to be interested in economic issues. Thus, Bulgakov did not take advantage of the interesting opportunity that opened up for him. He never laid a stone on the building." economic theology" However, Bulgakov had his own priorities; he probably believed that other theological issues were even more pressing. It’s not for us to judge this. But Bulgakov's work and the author's courage in “Philosophy of Economics” deserve respect. But, I think, it would be much more productive if S. Bulgakov devoted his work not to philosophy, but theological understanding of the economic life of man and society. It seems to me that it is on this path that truly serious results can be achieved, which are so necessary for an Orthodox person in modern conditions.

Unfortunately, for a whole century after the publication of the book “Philosophy of Economics” by S. Bulgakov, no fundamental works appeared that would be devoted to understanding the economy from the perspective of theology (we mean Orthodox theology; in the bosom of the Catholic and Protestant churches Quite a lot of such works have been and are being published).

Perhaps the only exception is the article N.V. Somina, which is called “We must create a “theology of economics”” (posted 01/09/2009 on the website “Christian Socialism as a Russian Idea”). primary goal theology of economics, as the author notes, “understanding the entire sphere of economic phenomena from the perspective of Orthodoxy.” The specific tasks of the theology of economics, as noted in this article, are, first of all, to determine those moral guidelines, which Orthodox man must be guided in its business activities. In principle, such guidelines are embedded in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, in the works of the holy fathers, Russian and foreign theologians and Orthodox thinkers. But most of this spiritual and intellectual “capital” lies hidden. Modern life, as S. Bulgakov noted, is characterized by the spirit of “economism”, which drowns out the “spiritual receptors” of a person. In the atmosphere of a general epidemic of “economism”, developing into “mamonism”, knowledge of these guidelines and the ability to use them correctly becomes the main condition for our physical survival and spiritual salvation.

One can agree with the formulation of the question contained in the article by N. Somin. With only one caveat: this should not be a “theology of economics”, but “ economic theology».

13. Once again about “economics” and “economy”

The fact is that “household” and “economy” are by no means synonymous, as is commonly believed. Please note that Bulgakov called his work “Philosophy of Economics”, and not “Philosophy of Economics”. Already during the time of Bulgakov, Marxism was the dominant ideology and philosophy in Europe and Russia. So “economy” by Marxism (as well as some other schools of thought) began to be interpreted as relations between people regarding the production, exchange, distribution and consumption of labor products. It turned out that “the economy” is something invisible, intangible, called “relations of production.” At the same time, industrial relations are integral part the entire spectrum of social relations, occupying a dominant, determining place in them. This is how we were taught in Soviet times in universities in classes on political economy and historical materialism.

But economic (production) relations are only one side of the coin called “economy”. In addition to these relations, the economy includes production and consumption itself - the process of continuous material and energy metabolism in the “nature-society” system. Most often in practical life, people using different combinations the word “economy” means precisely the second, material side of human life and society (“national economy”, “household”, “agriculture”, “homestead farming”, “farming”, “subsistence farming”, “world economy”, etc.). And Bulgakov, who studied and taught political economy, felt the limitations of the subject of this economic discipline. Therefore, he reached the metaphysical level of understanding the economy as, first of all, the relationship between humanity (society) and the world (nature). In “Philosophy of Economics,” he emphasized precisely this aspect of economics, which at that time was not really interested in political economists, philosophers, or representatives of specific sciences.

At the end of the twentieth century, due to the sharp aggravation of environmental problems in the world, an urgent need arose to understand the causes of this global catastrophe of mankind. One of the reasons lay on the surface and was quickly identified: the lack of a holistic, unified view of humanity on its relationship with the natural environment. It was striking, for example, that between natural and social sciences within several centuries since the Enlightenment, a real “Chinese wall” was erected. In Soviet times, our geographer Prof. spoke and wrote about this very convincingly and interestingly. V.A. Anuchin, whose lectures I was lucky enough to listen to (his ideas are presented, in particular, in the following work: Anuchin V.A. Fundamentals of environmental management. Theoretical aspect. - M.: “Mysl”, 1978). In the last decades of the last century, our and foreign philosophers made an unpleasant diagnosis: the lack of philosophical understanding of the interaction of humanity and nature, the economic development of the surrounding world by humanity. But this kind of holistic, metaphysical approach was precisely what S. Bulgakov proposed in his “Philosophy of Economics” at the beginning of the century. In this sense, the work of S. Bulgakov was even ahead of the teachings of another Russian thinker in its ideas - IN AND. Vernadsky, whom we consider to be the founder of the doctrine of the biosphere and noosphere, the author of the general theory of interaction between society and nature.

So, we set out with the task of creating precisely a “Theology of Economy”, the subject of which should be equally both economic relations in society and the relations of society with nature. Bearing in mind that In the process of economic activity, a person, first of all, is in one way or another with God. Let us recall: in “Philosophy of Economics” Bulgakov repeatedly emphasized that the subject of economic activity, i.e. humanity is the master. In the theology of the economy, a shift occurs: God is the Master, and humanity is only the manager of this Master, who (the manager) is entrusted with cultivating the land.

The formation of a “theology of economy” is a priority area of ​​activity for the newly created Russian Economic Society named after. S.F. Sharapova (REO). The main tasks in the field of developing the “theology of economy” are recorded in a document called “Concept of the activities of the Russian Economic Society named after. S. Sharapova."

The attentive reader may notice some contradiction in the position stated above. Namely: a society called “economic” declares that it will engage in “economy.” There is no contradiction, since in the name of our society the word “economic” does not go back to the Marxist narrow understanding of the word “economy”, but to the interpretation that was given back Xenophon (430-355 BC) And Aristotle (384-322 BC) and has been generally accepted for more than two thousand years. At that time, “economics” was understood as “the art of managing a household,” “housekeeping,” “housekeeping,” and later simply “housekeeping.”

“Economy” and “household” coincided during the heyday of Christianity; they diverged only in modern times. Today the gap between “economy” and “economy” has become simply enormous. The concept of “economy” began to include various kinds of financial markets and speculation (also “economic relations”, but not with regard to production, but with regard to the endless redistribution of the previously created social product). The connection of modern “economy” with labor and the creation of a social product is disappearing before our eyes. We are not dealing with the creation of a house, “house building,” but with the destruction of a previously built house. In fact, this is “anti-economics”. However, Aristotle foresaw that the economy could imperceptibly transform into its opposite, which he called “ chrematistics"(the art of accumulating wealth) and warned about this danger.

Bulgakov vaguely foresaw such a mutation of the economy and the crisis it generated for the economy and all of humanity. At a doctoral dissertation while defending his dissertation “Philosophy of Economics” (September 1912), he said: “Capitalism with its iron tread, with its irresistible, conquering power, drawing humanity somewhere forward along an unknown and never yet tested path, or to the final triumph, or to the disastrous abyss - this is the world-historical fact by which we are involuntarily hypnotized, this is the stunning impression from which we cannot free ourselves. Man on the farm wins and conquers nature, but at the same time he is conquered by this victory and increasingly feels like a slave of the farm” (p. 364).

Overcoming the economic crisis is possible only through the return of humanity to true Christianity, only in this case the discrepancy between economy and economy will disappear. And even more so, “anti-economics” (aka “chrematistics”) will disappear. Let's hope that with God's help REO, starting from positive ideas“Philosophy of Economics” by S. Bulgakov will be able to continue the metaphysical understanding of economic life on the basis of Orthodox theology.

V.Yu. Katasonov, Prof., Doctor of Economics, Chairman of the Russian Economic Society named after. S.F. Sharapova

Famous Russian philosopher, economist, theologian Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871 - 1944) made significant contributions to Russian idealistic philosophy.

After several years of working as a private associate professor at Kiev University in 1906, Bulgakov moved to Moscow, where he became a private associate professor at Moscow University, and from 1907 - professor of political economy at the Moscow Commercial Institute (now the Russian Economic Academy named after G. V. Plekhanov ). Bulgakov became interested in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov and began to create his own religious and philosophical system. Together with Berdyaev, he edits the magazine “New Way” and is published in the collection “Vekhi” (1909). In 1912, one of Bulgakov’s most famous books, “Philosophy of Economics,” was published, in which he seeks to highlight the problems of social philosophy and political economy from the point of view of religious Christian philosophy, and in 1917 the book “Non-Evening Light: Contemplations and Speculations” was published. , which the author himself considered the completion of the “Philosophy of Economics”.

In 1918, Bulgakov was ordained a priest. In 1922, he was expelled from Russia, lived first in Prague, and then moved to Paris, where he worked as a professor of theology and dean of the Orthodox Theological Institute.

One of the important philosophical problems for Bulgakov there was a problem of the true principle on which the structure of social life should be based. Among his most famous works devoted to this problem was the book “Two Cities” (1911). Moving away from Marxism, Bulgakov evaluates it as man-theaty, the elevation of the human race to the rank of God, and at the same time as a theory that “unceremoniously” relates to human individuality. If Christianity, according to Bulgakov, by forcing a person to feel the immortal spirit within himself, awakens personality, indicates for each person the path of his own development, internal growth, then Marx’s socialism abolishes individuality, placing it at the forefront public relations, reduces personality to “social reflexes” and borrows the messianic idea, replacing the concept “ chosen people” on the proletariat with its special revolutionary mission, and Satan on the capitalist class with its irresistible tendency to accumulate. Nevertheless, socialism is capable of becoming a means for implementing the “demands of Christian ethics,” but for this it must abandon atheism and economic materialism, because the growth material well-being in a society without the development of spiritual goodness only leads to tragedy. According to Bulgakov, “fundamentally Christian socialism is quite possible,” in which social equality and social justice are combined with religious revelation and the individual’s desire for absolute good—the divine principle. Bulgakov tried to put his ideas into practice, participating in the creation of the Union of Christian Politics in 1906 and being elected as a non-partisan “Christian Socialist” to the Second State Duma in 1907.

Criticizing revolutionary Marxism, Bulgakov could not help but draw attention to the role of the Russian intelligentsia in Russian public life. He notes her indifference to religion and faith in science, scientific progress, aversion to spiritual philistinism, as well as a feeling of “guilt before the people” who create material values ​​and lead a hard life. The relative isolation of the intelligentsia from life developed in it such traits as “dreaming, sometimes good-naturedness, and utopianism.” However, Bulgakov believes, the intelligentsia’s striving for the ideal of social justice is akin to the religious search for the “City of God” on earth; just like the latter, it is not looking for “lasting earthly well-being,” but for truth and goodness.

Bulgakov postulates a connection between religion and philosophy, arguing that philosophy should be a servant, but not of theology, as was customary in the Middle Ages, but of religion in general, since philosophy explores the world using the data of sensory experience, which must be combined to obtain their meaning with the religious experience underlying revelation.

Bulgakov’s religious and philosophical ontology was first formulated by him in two books - “Philosophy of Economics” and “Non-Evening Light”. Following V. Solovyov, Bulgakov proceeds from the concept that God, the absolute, is all-unity; there is and cannot be anything outside of God, that which would limit divine existence by its existence. God creates the world from nothing, thereby positing the existence of created things: the world is permeated with “divine energies,” which form the basis of its existence. God realizes himself into being, creating the world, he is realized in it, and in this sense the world is God becoming.

Between God and the world, connecting them and being neither one nor the other, is Sophia - the ideal basis of the universe, the object of God's love, the unity that accepts the love of God, the eternal Femininity. Sophia is also the organic unity of the ideas of all created beings: according to Bulgakov, any creature has its own idea, which is its essence, Sophia, therefore every living organism has two sides; negative - matter, the lower substrate, a separate part of material existence fragmented into objects; and positive, Sophia, ideal.

The world is a hierarchy of ideological beings, each of which longs for “Sophia’s illumination,” transformation in beauty, which is achieved under the leadership of Sophia as the universal “instinctively unconscious or superconscious soul of the world” (this, according to Bulgakov, is revealed in the expediency of the structure of living organisms and in their instincts of the ancestral beginning).

Bulgakov develops the theory of two Sophias: divine and created. The Divine Sophia belongs to the ideal world, she is outside of time, the created Sophia is revealed in the material world, realized in time. Since the positive content of the world is identical to the content that was in God before the act of creation, the created Sophia is close to the divine Sophia, which is “eternal humanity in God.”

PHILOSOPHY OF HOUSEKEEPING

(The world as an economy)

PREFACE

I do not intend in these lines to justify the topic of this study, because I believe that it speaks sufficiently for itself and does not need any special justification. It is not for the author, of course, to judge to what extent he managed to cope with his theme, and the imperfections in its execution are quite clear to me. There is only one thing I do not doubt - the enormous significance of the problem itself, which, I am convinced, should belong, if not today, then tomorrow in philosophy. Understanding the world as an object of labor and economic influence is her next task, to which economism, criticism, pragmatism, and mysticism equally lead. And I attach incomparably to the production itself higher value, rather than this experience her permission. In the development of philosophical thought, the formulation of problems and their awareness generally plays a primary role, from here an impetus is given to philosophical creativity, its motives are determined.

For the author, this work also has a very special meaning, because it sums up the internal result of an entire period of life, colored by economic materialism, and it is a debt of the author’s philosophical conscience in relation to his own past. The fact of farming has always aroused philosophical “surprise” in me, and the problem of the philosophy of farming - about man in nature and about nature in man - in essence never left my spiritual horizon, turning only in different directions. For me, the initial attempt to philosophically comprehend this fact was the theory of economic materialism with various critical amendments. And although this theory very soon ceased to satisfy the consciousness, just as the ideas of childhood cease to satisfy it, however, those questions to which it answers in its own way retained all their power. And one cannot simply turn away from the problem of economic materialism in the name of abstract “idealism” (as those who “return to Kant” or “unite” Kant with Marx do), because such “idealism” does not contain absolutely any answer to this problem, but leaves it completely out of consideration.

The problem of economy is taken in this study in a threefold formulation: scientific-empirical, transcendental-critical and metaphysical. And this way of considering it is not at all explained by the whim of the author - it is suggested by the very essence of the matter. For what in the empirical realm constitutes the subject of “experience” poses problems for science, and what is considered from the side of cognitive forms is the construction of a “transcendental subject” - its existential roots go back to the metaphysical earth. And this hierarchy of problems itself revealed itself to me with during the course of the research as it deepened, first, in an effort to comprehend the fact of economy, it was most natural to turn to. science about economics (political economy), which builds a special area of ​​scientific “experience” from the phenomena of economic reality. However, she remains deaf and blind to everything that goes beyond this experience. She singles out only one definite aspect of the economic problem. She is right, of course, within the limits of her special tasks, but it would be the greatest myopia, equating the whole with the parts, to limit the theory of economics to its phenomenology alone. Beyond these limits, the study of the issue, by the force of things, already falls into the general philosophical area. To find the boundaries of phenomenology, discovering the logical schematism of science, is the task critical philosophy, “critical idealism,” which plays an irreplaceable role in this, liberating one from the hypnosis of scientific empiricism, and those who once experienced its liberating effect will forever remain grateful to critical idealism for this, even if they did not agree to accept the critical Beatrice as the “beautiful lady" philosophy. But before the problem of economics, critical idealism essentially turns out to be helpless: here the purely theoretical, schematizing character of critical philosophy, with its incapacity for realism, is revealed most clearly. Therefore, critical idealism decisively refers to metaphysics - to ontology and natural philosophy, where the problem of economic philosophy is ultimately transferred. Thus, in this case, the very connection between philosophy and science that is postulated theoretically is realized, and, it seems to me, this can benefit both sides. Social science undoubtedly needs a fertilizing connection with philosophy in order to cope with the internal self-destruction that is overtaking it, because the general crisis of scientific consciousness that has quietly crept up here should be especially devastating. Philosophy, coming face to face with such life problem, in so far as it is freed from that scholastic formalism in which its “criticism” is increasingly entangled.

The problem of economic philosophy also acquires a special urgency for modern religious consciousness. In an era of decline in dogmatic self-awareness, when religion most often comes down to ethics, only colored by pietistic “experiences,” it is especially important to put forward ontological and cosmological side of Christianity, which is partly revealed in the philosophy of economy. But this is completely impossible with the means of the current cantizing and metaphysically devastated theology; for this it is necessary to turn to the religious ontology, cosmology and anthropology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa and other ancient teachers of the Church. These teachings currently lie in dogmatics as philosophically dead capital; more often, they are outright rejected, and on the ruins of Christian religious materialism, philosophical and economic materialism is erected on one side and idealistic phenomenalism on the other. The objectives of this study include an attempt to translate some of these teachings into the language of modern philosophical thinking and thereby discover how the truths of religious materialism are distorted and obscured in both materialism and idealism.

In this volume, only part of the entire outlined plan has been completed, namely: the general foundations of the economic process, its ontology, are considered here. The problem will remain for the second part justifications for the economy- its axiology and eschatology, in particular, the problem of the relationship between flesh and spirit (ethics of economy) and the meaning of history and culture should be explored here. However, the basis for these teachings is partly laid in the present part, which, within the limits of its problem, can be considered as a complete, independent whole.

As a parting word for this book, as an expression of its pathos and aspiration, may we be allowed to recall the prophetic words of F. M. Dostoevsky: “Love all of God’s creation, both the whole and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of God! Love animals, love plants, love every thing. You will love every thing, and you will comprehend the mystery of God in things" ("The Brothers Karamazov", from the teachings of Elder Zosima).

“What do you think the Mother of God is? - The Great Mother, the hope of the human race. - So, the Mother of God - great mother There is cheese in the earth, and great joy lies in that for a person" ("Demons", words of the old woman in the story of Lame Leg).

Chapter first. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY

I. Modern economism

In life and attitude modern humanity Among the most outstanding features is what can be called economism of our era. So-called economic materialism gives only the sharpest expression of this feature, and, no matter how controversial its doctrine may seem to us, no matter how shaky its philosophical and scientific, metaphysical and empirical foundations may seem, thanks to this significance it is something more than just a scientific doctrine that collapses when its inconsistency is revealed. In a certain sense, economic materialism is even indestructible, to the extent that it expresses some immediate reality of experience or historical well-being, which seeks theoretical expression in scientific or philosophical doctrine. This latter may be extremely unsuccessful in its execution, but the mood that created it is not eliminated. That special and irresistible truth of life, which has been revealed and intimately felt with such serious and bitter sincerity by our modernity, makes economic materialism, in a certain sense, irrefutable. It cannot simply be rejected and refuted like any scientific theory. It must be understood and interpreted - not only in its obvious errors and weaknesses, but also in the prophetic content that shines through it. He should not be rejected, but internally surpassed explained in its limitations as a philosophical “abstract principle”, in which one side of the truth is presented as the whole truth. In a word, the problem of economic materialism should be studied not only in its current formulation, in which it bears too obvious features of the accidental circumstances of its historical emergence and the spiritual individualities of its creators. For an impartial thinker, it is obvious that, in addition to this crude and unsuccessful form, the theory of economic materialism could be developed and is much more complete, distinct, more modern, and in general can be improved in this regard. Abstracting from any possible form of it, it is clear that, in essence, economic materialism remains as a problem, which inevitably appears before the philosophizing mind of our time, with its economism so sharply expressed. Our time understands, feels, experiences the world as an economy, and the power of humanity as wealth is primarily in the economic sense of the word. In contrast to the voluntary or forced asceticism of the Franciscan-Buddhist eras of history, which despised wealth and denied its power over man, our era loves wealth - not money, but precisely wealth - and believes in wealth, believes even more than in the human person. This is not only mammonism, self-interested and low (it has existed at all times, it still exists today), no, this is economism. Life is a process, first of all, an economic one, This is the axiom of this modern economism, which has received the most extreme and even arrogant expression in economic materialism. This latter is therefore characterized by such ideological vitality, which is also supported by the sharpness of ideological radicalism, attractive even in its naivety and spontaneity. And this is the secret of the peculiar charm of economic materialism, thanks to which it so hypnotizes modern minds. And I will say even more: not to experience this charm at all, not to feel its hypnosis (even if never completely surrendering to it) - this means having some kind of defect in historical well-being, being internally alien to modernity, whether remaining above it (which is generally accessible only to a few) or by artificially fencing ourselves off from life (this is why we are so little impressed and, to tell the truth, inspire so little sympathy with armchair “idealism”, inexperienced in life).

Nature