CC BY
17
СтатьяМЛск
УДК 1(091)
Б01:10.26795/2307-1281-2020-8-3-9
ПЕРСОНАЛИСТИЧЕСКАЯ КОНЦЕПЦИЯ СУБЪЕКТИВНОСТИ В ФИЛОСОФСКОМ НАСЛЕДИИ И.А. ИЛЬИНА
А. В. Ворохобов1
1 Нижегородская духовная семинария, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация АННОТАЦИЯ
Введение. Актуальность исследования концепции субъективности в творчестве И.А. Ильина связана с тем, что центром философской рефлексии русского мыслителя является антропологическая проблематика мировоззренческого характера, что созвучно с наработками и отечественных исследователей, и зарубежных мыслителей в связи с перманентными попытками преодоления наличного кризиса осмысления феномена человека в современном гуманитарном знании.
Материалы и методы. Материалом исследования являются работы И.А. Ильина, связанные с субъективистской тематикой. Принцип историзма, конкретности, метод реконструкции, компаративистский метод и феноменологический подход являются той методологической базой, которая позволяет оптимальным образом эксплицировать разработки И.А. Ильина в области субъективизма.
Результаты исследования. В результате проведенного исследования установлено, что проблематика субъективности является системообразующей для философской системы И.А. Ильина. Модели немецкой классической философии, с точки зрения И.А. Ильина, обнаруживают свою противоречивость, тогда как феноменологический подход требует дополнения с позиций онтологического реализма. С точки зрения И.А. Ильина, личность обретает свою конкретность через связь с инициирующей личностью Абсолюта. Обсуждение и заключения. Исследование позволило осуществить экспликацию, конституирование и анализ концепции человеческой субъективности в творчестве И.А. Ильина. Своеобразие понимания субъективности в персоналистической философии И.А. Ильиным произведено в контексте творческой рефлексии мыслителя относительно воззрений Канта, Фихте, Гегеля и Гуссерля. И.А. Ильин полагает, что непротиворечивая модель субъекта может быть выстроена лишь с учетом всех антропологических констант, включая и рациональную, и духовную компоненту в их направленности к абсолютному Субъекту.
Ключевые слова: Иван Александрович Ильин, субъективность, персонализм, антропология, сознание, немецкая классическая философия, феноменология.
Для цитирования: Ворохобов А.В. Персоналистическая концепция субъективности в философском наследии И.А. Ильина // Вестник Мининского университета. 2020. Т. 8, №3. С. 9.
THE PERSONALISTIC CONCEPT OF SUBJECTIVITY IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL
HERITAGE OF I.A. ILYIN
A. V. Vorokhobov1
1Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation ABSTRACT
Introduction. The relevance of the study of the concept of subjectivity in the work of I.A. Ilyin is connected with the fact that the center of the philosophical reflection of the Russian thinker is anthropological problems of a worldview nature, which is consonant with the developments of both domestic researchers and foreign thinkers in connection with permanent attempts to overcome the current crisis of understanding the human phenomenon in modern humanitarian knowledge. Materials and Methods. The research material is the work of I.A. Ilyin, related to subjectivist themes. The principle of historicism, concreteness, the method of reconstruction, the comparative method and the phenomenological approach are the methodological basis that makes it possible to optimally explicate the developments of I.A. Ilyin in the field of subjectivity. Results. It was established that the problem of subjectivity is a backbone for the philosophical system of I.A. Ilyin. Models of German classical philosophy from the point of view of I.A. Ilyin reveal their inconsistency, while the phenomenological approach requires supplementation from the standpoint of ontological realism. From the point of view of I.A. Ilyin, personality gains its concreteness through connection with the initiating personality of the Absolute. Discussions and Conclusions. The study allowed to carry out an explication, a constitution and an analysis of the concept of human subjectivity in the work of I.A. Ilyin. The originality of the understanding of subjectivity in the personalistic philosophy of I.A. Ilyin is made in the context of the thinker's creative reflection on the views of Kant, Fichte, Hegel and Husserl. I.A. Ilyin believes that a consistent model of the subject can be built only taking into account all anthropological constants, including both the rational and the spiritual components in their orientation towards the absolute Subject.
Keywords: Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin, subjectivity, personalism, anthropology, consciousness, German classical philosophy, phenomenology.
For citation: Vorokhobov A.V. The personalistic concept of subjectivity in the philosophical heritage of I.A. Ilyin // Vestnik of Minin University. 2020. Vol. 8, no. 3. P. 9.
Introduction
Modern philosophy is characterized by methodological and substantive uncertainty about the most important subject for the classical philosophical tradition related to subjectivity. This state of affairs is a natural result of the transformation of cultural paradigms and humanistic attitudes in the 20th century, when the rational foundations of human behavior, social life, based on classical philosophy, faced the "unreasonable" First and Second World Wars, revolutionary events, thereby revealing the limitations of classical strategies for understanding of rationality and subjectivity. The recognition that subjectivity is not subjectivity in itself, that the rationality of the subject does not
guarantee the rationality of the objective world, has led to an interest in studying the formation of subjectivity itself, its foundations.
The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the personalistic concept of subjectivity in the philosophy of I.A. Ilyin. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to reveal the originality of I. A. Ilyin's understanding of subjectivist problematic in the transcendental-phenomenological, rationalistic and phenomenological traditions, and then analyze his own personalistic model of subjectivity in the philosophy of the emigrant period of his work.
Literature Review
Despite the fact that the philosophical heritage of I.A. Ilyin has been studied in sufficient detail, the problem of subjectivity in his work largely remains for philosophical knowledge terra incognita. Russian and foreign researchers mainly focus on the political philosophy of the thinker.
One of the most significant studies of personalistic subjectivity in the philosophy of I.A. Ilyin is the work of I.N. Sizemskaya [31]. The author notes the orientation of I. A. Ilyin on the interpretation of the world in its integrity and synthesis of conceptual and figurative understanding of it, on the way of philosophizing, which is revealed as a specific function of the mind, which is not just able to realize something, but also to feel, filling the content of the intellectual process with a real experienced objectivity.
In the study of N.V. Borisova and A.A. Gostev "Formation of personality in the philosophical and psychological heritage of Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin" [2], the emphasis is on the anthropological aspects of the philosopher's creativity. The doctrine of man is reconstructed here on the basis of the ethical and psychoanalytic concept of "spiritual act". Reconstruction of the heritage of the Russian thinker is carried out in relation to the reflection of the problem of the spiritual and moral principle in modern psychology.
I. A. Dudina's study "I.A. Ilyin: metaphysical foundations of human existence" [11] examines the main aspects of human existence in the context of identifying the metaphysical foundations of the world and man.
The work of I.I. Evlampiev "I.A. Ilyin: pro et contra" [12] explores the intellectual biography of I.A. Ilyin, which allows to trace the evolution of the philosophical views of the thinker. This study is notable for its scrupulous study of the material and a high degree of objectivity.
The foundations of philosophical personalistic understanding of subjectivity are presented in the works of A.V. Vorokhobov [4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9], J.M. Burgos [36], J.F. Crosby [37], A. Montes [45], M.J. Healy and R. de S. Chervin [40].
The problematic associated with the understanding of subjectivity in the context of philosophical problems of our time is explored in the works of A. Baise [35], C. Durt [38], K. Kolozova [41], A. Liégeois [43], M. Rossato and W.M. Ramos [46], L. Sigl [47], J. Stewart [48], T.E. Feinberg and J. Mallat [39], S. Wark [49].
In addition, the theoretical basis of this article is the research of Russian and foreign authors who consider various aspects of the problem of the subject and subjectivity: S.M. Babintseva [1], M.F. Bykova [3], B.L. Gubman and S.A. Malinin [10], M.S. Ivanova [13], A.S. Kozyreva [23], A.S. Kolesnikov [24; 25], T.S. Kolomeitseva [26], S.V. Komarov [27], V.I. Molchanov [28], N.I. Muzofarova [29], I V. Polozova [30], Ya.A. Slinin [32].
Materials and Methods
The research material is the philosophical works of I.A. Ilyin of the pre-emigrant and emigrant period of his life, implicitly and explicitly considering the problems of human subjectivity.
The methodological foundations for the constitution of the tradition of subjectivity in the philosophical heritage of I.A. Ilyin are the principles of historicism, concreteness, as well as the method of reconstruction.
At the same time, an important component of the methodology is the comparative historical aspect, as well as the dialectical aspect of historicism, associated with the synthesis and integrity of the historical and logical epistemological components.
The method of reconstruction allows for a hypothetical reconstruction of the whole in accordance with the internal logic of the available fragments of the philosophical system of the Russian thinker.
The phenomenological method becomes the basis for describing of various anthropological phenomena in the works of I.A. Ilyin, constituted by means of correlation with both the immanent and the transcendental spheres.
Results
The evolution of the philosophical ideas of I.A. Ilyin had a complex character. This development was influenced by the deepest changes, on the one hand, in the socio-historical plane, both in Russia and in Europe, and on the other hand, in the general European philosophical process of the late XIX - first half XX century In the development of I. A. Ilyin's philosophical ideas, there are two stages - pre-emigrant (before 1922), where the thinker focuses on historical and philosophical problems, and emigrant (1922-1954). During the period of emigration the thinker develops his own original philosophical teaching. Nevertheless, the theme connecting these two periods is the study of the problem of subjectivity.
One of the areas of research of I.A. Ilyin of the pre-emigrant period was the philosophical ideas of I. Kant. In his works I.A. Ilyin seeks to overcome Kantian criticism and criticize the transcendental Kantian subjectivity.
Due to the fact that the limits of knowledge, according to I. Kant, is the area of "nonsensitive non-subjective", and as a result "absolute" placed him within the limits of the subject. I.A. Ilyin examines the issues that, in his opinion, show contradictions in I. Kant's model. It is about the problem of sensory representations. Their material, believes I. A. Ilyin, cannot be understood through the activity of "the subject, because the subject is active only in creating the form, nor by the "activity" or causality of another, "alien" to the subject of the transcendental principle" [16, p. 3]. Another question is the reliability of knowledge. This problem, according to I. A. Ilyin, I. Kant also failed to solve because it was necessary to justify the essential component of understanding the subject "in the same way as Kant deduced form from it" [16, p. 3]. However, I.A. Ilyin speaks positively about the philosophy of I. Kant, which was a revision of the existing versions of the knowledge of the Absolute and the search for other forms of his comprehension.
To solve the problem of dualism in the philosophy of I. Kant, to combine an absolute phenomenon in itself with an absolute epistemological subject, irrational-passive matter with a rational-active form, according to I. A. Ilyin, tried J.G. Fichte in his teaching about the "transcendental method" and "Absolute Self' and G.W.F. Hegel in the teaching about the "dialectical method" and "Absolute idea" [16, pp.5-6]. The Russian thinker qualifies the philosophy
of the "early" period of J.G. Fichte's work as "anthropocentric pantheism", which is not the same as atheism, because in the writings of J.G. Fichte the Absolute Self coincides with the Absolute. Consequently, the idea of the subject in the work of J.G. Fichte brings unity to the theory of knowledge. Thanks to this idea, all categories and judgments, that form the content of the theory of knowledge, form a system that becomes the fundamental principle of the real.
However, I. A. Ilyin is not satisfied with the fact that in J.G. Fichte's understanding of subjectivity, the solution of the issue occurs without taking into account the psychological prerequisites and circumstances required for practical scientific activity. It is about "the essence and content of the cognitive States of the soul, about knowledge as a state of mind; ... without introspective, preliminary analysis, it is impossible to approach the "transcendental" as such, because it is given ... in the cohesion and diversity of mental processes" [16, p. 15]. Attention to "mental processes" [33, p. 15] is the basis of the desire of I.A. Ilyin to develop his own philosophical method in line with the phenomenology of E. Husserl.
In the work "Schleiermacher and his "Speeches on religion"" (1912), the phenomenological method is defined by I.A. Ilyin as "introspective-analytical separation of essence from a phenomenon" [22, p. 11], or the detection and description of "evidence" experienced by the subject. However, for I.A. Ilyin, in the process of phenomenological description of evidence, in the first place is not consciousness, but the identification of spirit with the object under study. In the study "Hegel's Philosophy as a Teaching about the Concreteness of God and Man" (1918) the method of G.W.F. Hegel, designated I.A. Ilyin as phenomenological, described as cognitive-intellectual "penetration through the appearance of a phenomenon to its essence" [20, p. 59]. It takes into account the importance of subjective inner activity, which forms the nature and signification of the phenomenon, which is close to the Husserlian methodology. "Like an ancient hero who surrendered himself to the power of Fate, Ilyin's Hegel "floats in the element of the object, submissively surrendering to its waves", and in this absolute obedience lies a deep tragedy: denying in words the subjective in knowledge, Hegel actually practices penetration into the essence of the object with the help of intuitive knowledge "[26, pp. 15]. The second definition is based on the recognition of the substantiality of the essence. I. A. Ilyin accepts precisely the objectivity of the existence of meaning in the subject, and not in the subject, as E. Husserl believed. That is, I.A. Ilyin also criticizes Hegelian phenomenology, where the cognitive and the significative are combined, the approach of E. Husserl, in whom reality is viewed as something derived from philosophical constructions.
According to I. A. Ilyin, philosophical thinking begins with spiritual experience, which is not limited only to the constitutive activity of consciousness, but through which the ontological nature of the subject under study is revealed. At this stage of cognition, the subject "perceives", empathizes, gets used to it. By the exertion of all his cognitive faculties, he experiences a state of evidence. Then the subject-object identification takes place in this state. And, in the end, at the final stage of knowledge, a phenomenological description of the experience occurs [15, pp. 272-319].
Discovered in works on philosophy by J.G. Fichte contradictions I.A. Ilyin tries to solve it in his work "Hegel's Philosophy as a Teaching about the Concreteness of God and Man" (1918). The problem of subjectivity is not the main one in it, but it can be reconstructed by considering the specifics of I. A. Ilyin's interpretation of Hegelian philosophy.
The thinker notes that the understanding of the subject, the process of thinking in the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel differs from the philosophy that preceded him. G.V.F. Hegel identifies thinking and meaning, therefore, the singular as a temporary act of the individual's consciousness is identical with the universality of meaning; the processuality of thinking gives the "concept", as a result of universal thinking, a developing character. This is how the subject becomes a substance.
"The universal in the single, or the single universality" [20, p. 65] - so I.A. Ilyin characterizes the subject. But such an interpretation of the subject, from the point of view of I.A. Ilyin, requires a critical revision of the Hegelian approach. Development of the problem of objectivity of meaning I.A. Ilyin conducts, as has been shown, in the direction of the phenomenological philosophy of E. Husserl. Thanks to his works, I.A. Ilyin believes, the objectivity of meaning becomes unquestionable, since thanks to the act of experiencing the evidence, one can penetrate through the phenomenon of matter to its essence. However, in G.W.F. Hegel all mental processes, including experience, were regarded as parts of a "logical object" that served to discern reasonableness and logic in them. The phenomenological approach defines I. A. Ilyin's criticism of the Hegelian model of subjectivity [20, p. 513].
In the first volume of "Hegel's Philosophy as the Doctrine of the Concreteness of God and Man" the philosopher examines the Hegelian act of thought, the nature of the Concept, subjectivity, the laws of their development. I.A. Ilyin discovers the main difference in the understanding of subjectivity from the tradition preceding G.W.F. Hegel in the idea of "universal", which is determined by a qualitative comparison of "set and unity" [20, p.91]. The form of the "universal" is characteristic not only of the cognized object, but also of the cognizing mind. The "universal", like thinking, is changeable, but teleological.
I.A. Ilyin believed that G.W.F. Hegel's dialectics is a "method of the known object" [20, p. 115], and not a method of thinking. Dialectics was discovered by G.W.F. Hegel "intuitively" in the nature of the known object. Consequently, G.W.F. Hegel is not a dialectician, but an "intuitionist". At the same time, a distinctive feature of Hegelian philosophy, according to I. A. Ilyin, is that the law of "speculative concreteness" subordinates everything real.
A critical study of the philosophy of history by G.W.F.Hegel allows the Russian thinker to state that the historical process is not dialectical, and the "moments" of the world spirit do not achieve concreteness in their development. Therefore, the impossibility of a universal union of peoples shows the limit of man. However, the limit of man is also the limit of God. I.A. Ilyin says that the movement of God towards freedom in G.W.F. Hegel becomes "the path of unconquering suffering" [7. p. 469]. G.W.F. Hegel was never able to overcome the contradictions between the Absolute and the concrete-empirical world. Hegelian philosophy, his model of the Absolute subject are presented by I.A. Ilyin by the "suffering' of God, the world, and also man. Thus, I.A. Ilyin criticizes the rationalistic nature of Hegel's constructions and reveals their religious-mystical and intuitive-irrationalistic content [20, p. 498].
I. A. Ilyin resolves the inconsistency of the philosophical constructions of G.W.F. Hegel by using the concept of "religious-objective evidence" [34, p. 26]. Developing this concept, I.A. Ilyin says that the existence and action of the absolute in the world is "the way of conquering suffering" [20, p. 499]. According to G.W.F. Hegel, the basis of being is the Absolute Subject, which is known exclusively through speculative thinking. At the same time, most of the phenomena of human subjectivity are not logical, which introduces an irrational component to the Absolute. Thus, the production of a new model of subjectivity based on religious and objective evidence becomes one of the important problems of the late work of I.A. Ilyin.
The concept of religious-objective evidence arises on the basis of different teachings of the thinker, namely his philosophical ideas about the "Subject", "evidence" and "religiosity". In the formation of the concept of religious-objective evidence, the adoption of Orthodoxy as the basis of philosophizing is revealed. I.A. Ilyin develops an irrationalistic model of subjectivity in the spirit of Orthodox theology.
The doctrine of the "Subject" emerged at a time when I.A. Ilyin critically interpreted the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. In this case, the "Subject" is identified with the "Concept". But I.A. Ilyin abandoned rationalistic constructions. It is the discovery of contradictions in the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, his model of subjectivity directed the philosophical search of the Russian thinker in the direction of religious metaphysics. It can be assumed that it was the religious justification for the acceptance of the world and the formation of a person that caused the thinker's transition to palamist positions.
In nature, the world of phenomena, in man, I.A. Ilyin believes, the Absolute reality is present with its radiation. The human spirit is determined by "the radiation and energy of the Highest and Perfect beginning" [19, p. 400]. Moreover, in the rays of the Absolute, man finds his being. The concept of the energetic presence of God in the world, of His "radiation" in the terminology of I.A. Ilyin, is closely associated with orthodox energetism based on the palamite concept.
The synergetic principle, according to I.A. Ilyin, is characterized by the connection of the human "spirit' and the "Deity'. The connection of "spirit' is manifested in "contact", "perception", "presence". The connection of the "Deity" is found in the "connection of the spirit with the Spirit" [14, p. 64]. The "energetic" unity of man with the absolute determines the outcome of the formation of I. A. Ilyin's religious metaphysics, while in the interpretation of the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel's unity of man with the Absolute is essential.
Participation in Telos is achieved in the philosophy of I.A. Ilyin with the help of faith and the experience of a certain experience of evidence. Faith here means a certain way of finding the meaning of existence. Faith is a necessary human need. Real faith, according to I.A. Ilyin, does not deny reason, but a practical reason based on individual experience. Spiritual experience needs reason to ensure objectivity, for purification, sobriety [14, p. 119]. The absolute Object is experienced. Spiritual experience determines the true existence of a particular person. I.A. Ilyin's statement that experience is closely connected with intuition, and with any "insight", and with metaphysical reasoning, rationalistic deduction. "Contemplation", according to I.A. Ilyin, is connected with all the cognitive abilities of a person. Therefore, experience is interpreted broadly and is not limited in understanding only to sensory experience. The idea of the experience by I.A. Ilyin takes on a religious character. The subject, says I. A. Ilyin, perceives the object of contemplation in such a way that the latter will reveal the meaning and reality inherent in it [19, p.385]. So I.A. Ilyin demonstrates the possibility of the identity of the subject and the object which becomes possible to understand the holistic spiritual anthropological aspect. The experience of "evidence" is the result of "objective contemplation". Evidence here refers to the state of the subject in which there is an identity with the Object. True human judgment is determined by intentional focus on the Subject [19, p. 440]. Intentional concentration involves discovering and connecting with the essence of the thing being experienced. This is what I.A. Ilyin calls "the spiritual concentration". This is how I.A. Ilyin's formula appears: in the beginning - to be (spiritual, objective with the help of contemplation), then - to act, and then to philosophize [19, p.506].
Religiousness, or religious subjectivity, presupposes the presence of a religious act, religious content, and a religious Subject. Following the phenomenological tradition, I.A. Ilyin believes that human subjectivity is a stream of "states" that include "contents", or, in other words, a stream of "contents" [14, p. 122]. Moreover, the content of a religious act and its structure are inseparable from each other. The content of the act, on the one hand, determines the structure of the act, but on the other, it itself depends on its structure.
A genuine religious and spiritual act, in which a person is constituted, is impossible outside the Christian Church with its fullness of spiritual experience, believes I.A. Ilyin, because an individual is helpless and confused. Only in an ecclesiological context can a person seek advice from someone who "gave his religious act to his followers and thus arranged their souls" [14, p.132]. The religious act, according to the philosopher, is the basis of all things (including subjectivity).
Discussions and Conclusions
It can be stated that in the classical philosophy I.A. Ilyin did not find a consistent model of the subject that would make it possible to determine the way out of the crisis. So, in the philosophy of I. Kant, the subject reveals contradictions not only in the knowledge of himself and the world, but also of the Absolute. In the philosophy of J.G. Fichte, the subject (man) appears to be the focus of all being and all reality, nothing outside the subject exists, the Absolute is also derived from the subject. I do not agree Ilyin and ignoring I.G. Fichte of psychological factors in cognitive activity, as a result of which there was a need to develop his philosophical method in line with phenomenological philosophy. Using the phenomenological method I.A. Ilyin makes an attempt to penetrate the world of phenomena, things to their essence. E. Husserl's phenomenological model of subjectivity, where the meaning and content of things, objects is the result of the constitution of consciousness, and their existence in itself remains problematic, I.A. Ilyin examines from the standpoint of the "corrected" philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, where the objective existence of things, objects, their meaning, independent of human thinking, is recognized.
G.W.F. Hegel, according to I A. Ilyin, made a turn in thought: he transformed the understanding of the subject and its ontological foundations. The subject is being itself revealing itself in thought and through thought (Concept). In thinking and thought, the Russian thinker discovers not the subjective-human, but the subjective-objective, or Absolute principle. It is the speculative thought, the Concept, the Absolute that are the basis of the Hegelian model of subjectivity in the understanding of I.A. Ilyin. But G.W.F. Hegel failed in creating a philosophical system that accepts the empirical world. Therefore, the speculative laws of universality, concreteness, dialectics formulated by him turned out to be untenable.
Ilyin's anthropological project of the period of emigration is revealed through the concept of religious-objective evidence, with a clear emphasis on personalistic themes. This concept of the thinker arises from his developments concerning the absolute "Subject", "epistemological evidence" and "spirituality". In the formation of the concept of religious-objective evidence, the acceptance of Orthodoxy as the basis of philosophizing is revealed, on the foundation of which I.A. Ilyin develops a non-rationalistic model of subjectivity in the spirit of Orthodox palamist-oriented religious thought.
Communion with the ideal principle (Telos) is achieved in the philosophy of I. A. Ilyin with the help of faith and the experience of evidence. Through spiritual experience, the true reality of a particular person is formed. Spiritual experience is gained through "contemplation". The result of the process of moving towards the transcendent coincides with the emergence of a concrete personality in which there is an inner wholeness, harmony, unity with the absolute Object, the union of instincts and abilities, the unity of instinct with spirit, knowledge with faith.
In the personalistic philosophy of the Russian thinker, thoughts about the freedom of man, his significance and the personal nature of his being are combined with the idea of the individual as the center of the universe. This status of a person is due to the fact that all the complexities and
contradictions of existence are concentrated around the individual. In the human personality, the
heavenly and the earthly, the immanent and the transcendent are united, which determines the fate
of the entire world.
Список используемых источников
1. Бабинцев С.М. Миросозерцание И.А. Ильина. Глазов: ГГПИ, 1997. 172 с.
2. Борисова Н.В., Гостев А.А. Становление личности в философско-психологическом наследии Ивана Александровича Ильина // Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета. 2010. Вып. 39(18). С. 142-159.
3. Быкова М.Ф. Мистерия логики и тайна субъективности. О замысле феноменологии и логики у Гегеля. М.: Наука, 1996. 248 с.
4. Ворохобов А.В. Антропологическое осмысление концепта «природа» в творчестве Райнхольда Нибура // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2016. №9(100). С. 358-361.
5. Ворохобов А.В. Осмысление доктрины первородного греха в творчестве Рудольфа Бультмана // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2016. №9(71). C. 33-35.
6. Ворохобов А.В. Рудольф Бультман: грех как экзистенциальная категория // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2017. №1(104). С. 394-395.
7. Ворохобов А.В. Рудольф Бультман: экзистенция и сущность человека // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2020. №53. С. 117-127.
8. Ворохобов А.В. Эволюция протестантской антропологи в философско-религиозном наследии неоортодоксии: дис. ... д-ра филос. н. Н. Новгород, 2018. 520 с.
9. Ворохобов А.В. Экзистенция и грех в религиозно-философском наследии Райнхольда Нибура // Труды Нижегородской Духовной семинарии. 2016. Вып. 14. С. 7-30.
10. Губман Б.Л., Малинин С.А. И.А. Ильин: замысел и результат теодицеи Г.В.Ф. Гегеля // Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия: Философия. 2018. №4. С. 130-145.
11. Дудина И.А. И.А.Ильин: метафизические основания человеческого бытия // Вестник МГТУ. 2002. Т. 5, №3. C. 329-342.
12. Евлампиев И.И. И.А. Ильин: pro et contra. М.: Русский христианский гуманитарный университет, 2004. 209 с.
13. Иванов М.С. Феномен совести в «предметной философии» Ивана Ильина // Богословский вестник. 2018. Т. 28, №1. С. 43-56.
14. Ильин И.А. Аксиомы религиозного опыта: в 2 томах / сост. и автор вступ. ст. И.Н. Смирнов. М.: ТОО «Рарогъ», 1993. 448 с.
15. Ильин И.А. Искусство (1930 - 1933). Феноменология произведений искусства (Итальянские впечатления) // Ильин И.А. Собр. соч.: Письма, мемуары (1939 - 1954) / сост. и коммент. Ю.Т. Лисицы. М.: Русская книга, 1999. С. 272-319.
16. Ильин И.А. Кризис идеи субъекта в наукоучении Фихте Старшего. Опыт систематического анализа // Вопросы философии и психологии. М.: Типография Т-ва Кушнерев и Ко., 1912. Кн. 111 (I). С. 1-38. Кн.112 (II). С. 290-344.
17. Ильин И.А. О возрождении гегелианства // Ильин И.А. Сочинения: в 2 томах. Т. 1: Философия права. М.: Медиум, 1993. C. 5-57.
18. Ильин И.А. Письма к Л.Я. Гуревич / сост. и коммент. Ю.Т. Лисицы // Собр. соч.: Дневник. Письма. Документы (1903 -1938 гг.). М.: Русская книга, 1999. 608 с.
19. Ильин И.А. Путь к очевидности // Собр. соч.: в 10 т. М.: Русская книга, 1996. Т. 3. С. 381560.
20. Ильин И.А. Философия Гегеля как учение о конкретности Бога и человека. СПб.: Наука, 1994. 541 с.
21. Ильин И.А. Философия Фихте как религия совести // Вопросы философии и психологии. М.: Типография Т-ва Кушнерев и Ко., 1914. Кн. 122 (II). С. 165-185.
22. Ильин И.А. Шлейермахер и его «Речи о религии» // Ильин И.А. Собр. соч.: в 10 т. М.: Русская книга, 1994. Т. 3. С. 5-14.
23. Козырева А.С. Субъективность и единство в феноменологической перспективе // Вопросы философии. 2014. №4. С. 156-167.
24. Колесников А.С. Проблема субъективности в археологии знания М. Фуко // Вестник ВГУ. Серия Гуманитарные науки. 2004. №2. С. 7-17.
25. Колесников А.С., Ставцев С.Н., Формы субъективности в философской культуре XX века. СПб.: Санкт-Петербургское философское общество, 2000. 112 с.
26. Коломейцева Т.С. Антропологическая интерпретация гегелевской философии в творчестве И.А.Ильина: автореф. дис. ... канд. филос. наук. Екатеринбург: Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина, 2012. 24 с.
27. Комаров С.В. Проблема субъективности в трансцендентально-феноменологической традиции западной философии: автореф. дис. ... д-ра филос. наук. Пермь, 2007. 34 с.
28. Молчанов В.И. Понятие трансцендентальной субъективности в феноменологии Э. Гуссерля // Проблемы сознания в современной буржуазной философии. Вильнюс, 1983. С. 51-67.
29. Музофарова Н.И. И.А. Ильин о духовно-нравственных ценностях и образовании личности // Вестник Московского городского педагогического университета. Серия: Философские науки. 2018. №4(28). С. 76-81.
30. Полозова И.В. Философско-апологетические идеи И.А. Ильина // Социально-гуманитарное обозрение. 2018. Т. 4, №4.С. 67-70.
31. Сиземская И.Н. Русский персонализм. М.: Философская антропология, 2019. 190 с.
32. Слинин Я.А. Трансцендентальный субъект: феноменологическое исследование. СПб.: Наука, 2001. 528 с
33. Философия Фихте в России / под ред. В.Ф. Пустарнакова. СПб.: РХГИ, 2000. 368 с.
34. Целиков А.Н. Сравнительный анализ социально-государственных идеалов И.А. Ильина и А. Кожева: дис. ... канд. филос. наук. Н. Новгород: Нижегородский государственный университет имени Н.И. Лобачевского, 2007. 194 с.
35. Baise A. The objective-subjective dichotomy and its use in describing probability // Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2020. Vol. 45, no. 2. Pp. 174-185. DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2019.1705559.
36. Burgos J.M. Wojtyla's Personalism as Integral Personalism: The Future of an Intellectual Project // Quaestiones Disputatae. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 2. Pp. 91-111. DOI: https://doi .org/10.5840/qd2019926.
37. Crosby J.F. On the Difference between the Cosmological and the Personalist Understanding of the Human Being // Quaestiones Disputatae. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 2. Pp. 112-125. DOI: https://doi .org/10.5840/qd2019927.
38. Durt C. The Embodied Self and the Paradox of Subjectivity // Husserl Stud. 2020. Vol. 36. Pp. 69-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-019-09256-4.
39. Feinberg T.E., Mallatt J. Subjectivity "Demystified". Neurobiology, Evolution, and the Explanatory Gap // Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. Vol. 10. Pp. 1686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01686.
40. Healy M.J., Chervin R. de S. Interpreting Kierkegaard's Notion That "Truth Is Subjectivity" // Quaestiones Disputatae. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 2. Pp. 31-42. DOI: https://doi .org/10.5840/qd2019923.
41. Kolozova K. Subjectivity without physicality: machine, body and the signifying automaton // Subjectivity. 2019. Vol. 12. Pp. 49-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-0056-z.
42. Lewis V.B. Thomism, Personalism, and Politics: The Case of Jacques Maritain // Quaestiones Disputatae. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 2. Pp. 151-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2019929.
43. Liégeois A. Louvain Personalism as Foundation of Ethics. A Revision in the Care Context // Louvain studies. 2017. Vol. 40(4). Pp. 410-421. DOI: 10.2143/LS.40.4.3265655.
44. Lindsey J. Resilience isn't the same for all: Comparing subjective and objective approaches to resilience measurement // Advanced Review. 2018. Vol. 10, no. 1. Pp. 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.552.
45. Montes A. Toward a Thicker Notion of the Self: Sartre and von Hildebrand on Individuality, Personhood, and Freedom // Quaestiones Disputatae. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 2. pp. 65-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2019925.
46. Rossato M., Ramos W.M. Subjectivity in the development processes of the person: complexities and challenges in the work of Fernando González Rey (La subjetividad en los procesos de desarrollo de la persona: complejidades y desafíos en la obra de Fernando González Rey) // Studies in Psychology. 2020. Vol. 41, no. 1. Pp. 31-52. DOI: 10.1080/02109395.2019.1710988.
47. Sigl L. Subjectivity, governance, and changing conditions of knowledge production in the life sciences // Subjectivity. 2019. Vol. 12. Pp. 117-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-019-00069-6.
48. Stewart J. Hegel's Theory of the Emergence of Subjectivity and the Conditions for the Development of Human Rights // Filozofia. 2019. Vol. 74, no. 6. Pp. 456-471. Available at: http://ceish.icm.edu.pl/ceish/element/bwmeta1.element.cejsh-49a96f12-7d34-459f-b092-f25e185a3489 (accessed: 14.08.2020).
49. Wark S. The subject of circulation: on the digital subject's technical individuations // Subjectivity. 2019. Vol. 12. Pp. 65-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-00062-5.
References
1. Babincev S.M. The world outlook of I.A. Ilyin. Glazov, GGPI Publ., 1997. 172 p. (In Russ.)
2. Borisova N.V., Gostev A.A. Formation of personality in the philosophical and psychological heritage of Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 2010, vyp. 39(18), pp. 142-159. (In Russ.)
3. Bykova M.F. The mystery of logic and the secret of subjectivity. On the concept of phenomenology and logic in Hegel. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1996. 248 p. (In Russ.)
4. Vorohobov A.V. Anthropological understanding of the concept "nature" in the work of Reinhold Niebuhr. Evrazijskijyuridicheskij zhurnal, 2016, no. 9(100), pp. 358-361. (In Russ.)
5. Vorohobov A.V. Comprehension of the doctrine of original sin in the work of Rudolf Bultmann. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii ipraktiki, 2016, no. 9(71), pp. 33-35. (In Russ.)
6. Vorohobov A.V. Rudolf Bultmann: Sin as an Existential Category. Evrazijskij yuridicheskij zhurnal, 2017, no. 1(104), pp. 394-395. (In Russ.)
7. Vorohobov A.V. Rudolf Bultmann: Existence and Essence of Man. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Politologiya, 2020, no. 53, pp. 117127. (In Russ.)
8. Vorohobov A.V. Evolution of Protestant anthropology in the philosophical and religious heritage of neo-orthodoxy: PhD thesis. Nizhny Novgorod, 2018. 520 p. (In Russ.)
9. Vorohobov A.V. Existence and sin in the religious and philosophical heritage of Reinhold Niebuhr. Trudy Nizhegorodskoj Duhovnoj seminarii, 2016, vyp. 14, pp. 7-30. (In Russ.)
10. Gubman B.L., Malinin S.A. I.A. Ilyin: the idea and result of the theodicy by G.V.F. Hegel. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya, 2018, no. 4, pp. 130-145. (In Russ.)
11. Dudina I.A. I.A. Ilyin: metaphysical foundations of human existence. Vestnik MGTU, 2002, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 329-342. (In Russ.)
12. Evlampiev I.I. I.A. Ilyin: pro et contra. Moscow, Russkij hristianskij gumanitarnyj universitet Publ., 2004. 209 p. (In Russ.)
13. Ivanov M.S. The phenomenon of conscience in Ivan Ilyin's "objective philosophy". Bogoslovskij vestnik, 2018, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 43-56. (In Russ.)
14. Il'in I.A. Axioms of religious experience: in 2 volumes / compiler and author of the introductory article I.N. Smirnov. Moscow, TOO «Rarog» Publ., 1993. 448 p. (In Russ.)
15. Il'in I.A. Art (1930 - 1933). Phenomenology of works of art (Italian impressions). Il'in I.A. Sobr. soch.: Pis'ma, memuary (1939 - 1954) / sost. i komment. YU.T. Lisicy. Moscow, Russkaya kniga Publ., 1999. Pp. 272-319. (In Russ.)
16. Il'in I.A. The crisis of the idea of the subject in the science of Fichte the Elder. The experience of systematic analysis. Voprosy filosofii i psihologii. Moscow, Tipografiya T-va Kushnerev i Ko. Publ., 1912. Book. 111 (I). Pp. 1-38. Book 112 (II). Pp. 290-344. (In Russ.)
17. Il'in I.A. On the revival of Hegelianism. Il'in I.A. Sochineniya: v 2 tomah. T. 1: Filosofiya prava. Moscow, Medium Publ., 1993. Pp. 5-57. (In Russ.)
18. Il'in I.A. Letters to L.Ya. Gurevich / comp. and comments. YU.T. Lisicy. Sobranie sochinenij: Dnevnik. Pis'ma. Dokumenty (1903 -1938 gg.). Moscow, Russkaya kniga Publ., 1999. 608 p. (In Russ.)
19. Il'in I.A. The path to evidence. Sobranie sochinenij: v 10 t. Moscow, Russkaya kniga Publ., 1996. Vol. 3. Pp. 381-560. (In Russ.)
20. Il'in I.A. Hegel's philosophy as a doctrine of the concreteness of God and man. St.Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1994. 541 p. (In Russ.)
21. Il'in I.A. Philosophy of Fichte as a religion of conscience. Voprosy filosofii i psihologii. Moscow, Tipografiya T-va Kushnerev i Ko. Publ., 1914. Book 122 (II). Pp. 165-185. (In Russ.)
22. Il'in I.A. Schleiermacher and his "Speeches about Religion". Il'in I.A. Sobranie sochinenij: v 10 t. Moscow, Russkaya kniga Publ., 1994. Vol. 3. Pp. 5-14. (In Russ.)
23. Kozyreva A.S. Subjectivity and unity in a phenomenological perspective. Voprosy filosofii, 2014, no. 4, pp. 156-167. (In Russ.)
24. Kolesnikov A.S. The problem of subjectivity in the archeology of knowledge M. Foucault. Vestnik VGU. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki, 2004, no. 2, pp. 7-17. (In Russ.)
25. Kolesnikov A.S., Stavcev S.N. Forms of subjectivity in the philosophical culture of the XX century. St. Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskoe filosofskoe obshchestvo Publ., 2000. 112 p. (In Russ.)
26. Kolomejceva T.S. Anthropological interpretation of Hegel's philosophy in the works of I.A. Ilyin: dissertation of the candidate of philosophical sciences. Yekaterinburg, Ural'skij federal'nyj universitet imeni pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B.N. El'cina Publ., 2012. 24 p. (In Russ.)
27. Komarov S.V. The problem of subjectivity in the transcendental-phenomenological tradition of Western philosophy: dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy. Perm, 2007. 34 p. (In Russ.)
28. Molchanov V.I. The concept of transcendental subjectivity in E. Husserl's phenomenology. Problemy soznaniya v sovremennoj burzhuaznojfilosofii. Vilnius, 1983. Pp. 51-67. (In Russ.)
29. Muzofarova N.I. I.A. Ilyin on spiritual and moral values and personality education. Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofskie nauki, 2018, no. 4(28), pp. 76-81. (In Russ.)
30. Polozova I.V. Philosophical and apologetic ideas of I.A. Ilyina. Social'no-gumanitarnoe obozrenie, 2018, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 67-70. (In Russ.)
31. Sizemskaya I.N. Russian personalism. Moscow, Russkij personalizm Publ., 2019. 190 p. (In Russ.)
32. Slinin YA.A. The Transcendental Subject: A Phenomenological Study. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2001. 528 p. (In Russ.)
33. Philosophy of Fichte in Russia / ed. V.F. Pustarnakov. St. Petersburg, RHGI Publ., 2000.368 p. (In Russ.)
34. Celikov A.N. Comparative analysis of social and state ideals I.A. Ilyin and A. Kozheva: Ph.D. thesis. Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhegorodskij gosudarstvennyj universitet imeni N.I. Lobachevskogo Publ., 2007. 194 p. (In Russ.)
35. Baise A. The objective-subjective dichotomy and its use in describing probability. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2020, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 174-185, doi: 10.1080/03080188.2019.1705559.
36. Burgos J.M. Wojtyla's Personalism as Integral Personalism: The Future of an Intellectual Project. Quaestiones Disputatae, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 91-111, doi: https://doi .org/10.5840/qd2019926.
37. Crosby J.F. On the Difference between the Cosmological and the Personalist Understanding of the Human Being. Quaestiones Disputatae, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 112-125, doi: https://doi .org/10.5840/q d2019927.
38. Durt C. The Embodied Self and the Paradox of Subjectivity. Husserl Stud, 2020, vol. 36, pp. 69-85, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-019-09256-4.
39. Feinberg T.E., Mallatt J. Subjectivity "Demystified". Neurobiology, Evolution, and the Explanatory Gap. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, vol. 10, pp. 1686, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01686.
40. Healy M.J., Chervin R. de S. Interpreting Kierkegaard's Notion That "Truth Is Subjectivity". Quaestiones Disputatae, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 31-42, doi: https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2019923.
41. Kolozova K. Subjectivity without physicality: machine, body and the signifying automaton. Subjectivity, 2019, vol. 12, pp. 49-64, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-0056-z.
42. Lewis V.B. Thomism, Personalism, and Politics: The Case of Jacques Maritain. Quaestiones Disputatae, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 151-173, doi: https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2019929.
43. Liégeois A. Louvain Personalism as Foundation of Ethics. A Revision in the Care Context. Louvain studies, 2017, vol. 40(4), pp. 410-421, doi: 10.2143/LS.40.4.3265655.
44. Lindsey J. Resilience isn't the same for all: Comparing subjective and objective approaches to resilience measurement. Advanced Review, 2018, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.552.
45. Montes A. Toward a Thicker Notion of the Self: Sartre and von Hildebrand on Individuality, Personhood, and Freedom. Quaestiones Disputatae, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 65-88, doi: https://doi .org/10.5840/qd2019925.
46. Rossato M., Ramos W.M. Subjectivity in the development processes of the person: complexities and challenges in the work of Fernando González Rey (La subjetividad en los procesos de desarrollo de la persona: complejidades y desafíos en la obra de Fernando González Rey). Studies in Psychology, 2020, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 31-52, doi: 10.1080/02109395.2019.1710988.
47. Sigl L. Subjectivity, governance, and changing conditions of knowledge production in the life sciences. Subjectivity, 2019, vol. 12, pp. 117-136, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-019-00069-6.
48. Stewart J. Hegel's Theory of the Emergence of Subjectivity and the Conditions for the Development of Human Rights. Filozofia, 2019, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 456-471. Available at: http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.cejsh-49a96f12-7d34-459f-b092-f25e185a3489 (accessed: 14.08.2020).
49. Wark S. The subject of circulation: on the digital subject's technical individuations. Subjectivity, 2019, vol. 12, pp. 65-81, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-00062-5.
© Vorokhobov A.V., 2020
Information about the authors Vorokhobov Aleksandr Vladimirovich - PhD, Docent of Chair for Biblical studies, Philosophy and Theology, Nizhny Novgorod Theological Semenary, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation, email: [email protected].
Информация об авторах Ворохобов Александр Владимирович - доктор философских наук, доцент кафедры библеистики, богословия и философии Нижегородской духовной семинарии, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация, e-mail: vorokhobov@yandex. ru.
Поступила в редакцию: 01.08.2020 Принята к публикации: 20.08.2020 Опубликована: 08.09.2020
