CC BY
37
The problem of theodicy in Russian moral philosophy
Section 11. Philosophy
Antonenko Victoria Vladimirovna, Smolensk State University, Laboratory Assistant at the Department of General Psychology E-mail: [email protected]
The problem of theodicy in Russian moral philosophy
Abstract: The article analyses the definition and solution of the problem of theodicy by Russian philosophers. General and specific peculiarities typical for Russian philosophical theodicy are distinguished on its basis. Russian philosophers take a rational approach to the solution of the problem and give it a socio-ethic direction.
Keywords: theodicy, Russian philosophy, universal evil, good, original sin, freedom, responsibility.
Every person faces evil in life. To deny its obvious existence is senseless. Where does the evil come from? This eternal question has been pondered much and it will be pondered by both ordinary people and great thinkers.
Philosophical concepts and all religions have their own explanation of the evil’s origin. Their combination is called theodicy (derived from two Greek words: «theos» and «dike», which means «justifying God»). During different historical epochs, theodicy had its specifics in different national and religious confessions, reflecting socio-cultural character of an epoch and peculiarities of mentality. The definition and solution of the problem of theodicy is also specific in Russian philosophy.
F. M. Dostoevsky was one of the first to think about the question of the evil’s origin. According to him, «the nature of the evil is internal, metaphysical, but not external, social. A man, as a free creature, is responsible for evil» [1, 91]. Evil is personal; hence, only a personality can bear responsibility for it.
Sufferings help the man purify and elevate themselves to a higher spiritual level. It should be noted, that a desire to suffer can appear due to the inborn original sin. For instance, wishing something very much, the man torments themselves with waiting, postponing doing something.
The problem of evil is directly related to the problem of immortality. If there is no immortality, then everything is allowed and people are not responsible for evil. Evil is not absolute and death is a relative evil, which only kills the imperfect in the man enabling them to elevate themselves to a new spiritual level. The man should realize the end of their existence, reconsider their life and start striving for moral perfection.
Thus, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, evil «has a deep spiritual nature» [1, 55], and, consequently, only the man, as a free creature, makes a decision to commit evil; nothing and no one forces them to commit bad deeds; hence, they should not blame anyone but themselves.
The problem of theodicy is described in a more subject-related and purposeful manner by N. O. Lossky in the work «God and universal evil. Basics of theodicy» [4].
According to the philosopher, evil «is not primary and not independent» [4, 346]. Its appearance was caused by «excessive love to oneself, preference of own self to other personalities» [4, 347]. People should not blame God for the existing evil, because they abused their freedom and created the life full of sufferings on their own. But «derivative miseries experienced by us have a high curing sense» [4, 366]. And the mankind will learn it with time.
To explain sufferings of children and animals, N. O. Lossky develops a study about the pre-existence of souls and reincarnation. According to it, after death every doer chooses the environment that is more favorable for them and develops an imperfect body, which they will live in on their own, and God is not responsible for that.
Thus, N. O. Lossky created quite a logical learning about theodicy giving it a personalistic character. His solution of the problem is related to the theory of reincarnation without which it is impossible to substantiate theodicy and answer the questions about the evil’s origin, inherited sin, meaning of sufferings and what awaits the man after death. The idea of personalism and reincarnation gives justification of personal responsibility for evil in the world due to the man’s own egoistic nature. Disposal of egoism will come gradually in a few generations.
For V Solovyov, the world is not a purpose but a means to achieve perfection. «Internal freedom, i. e. voluntary and conscious preference of good to evil in everything, is the main, principle condition of this perfection and absolute good» [5, 293]. The man can reach perfection, but it takes time. Thus, the philosopher considers evil as a means of improvement and sees a possibility of good in all that exists.
According to S. L. Frank, the problem of theodicy cannot be solved rationally due to its essentially required non-solvability, but not due to the man’s weakness of cognitive abilities:
129
Section 11. Philosophy
«Any rational theodicy, any attempt to logically non-contradictorily bring together the fact of world evil with almighty and omnibenevolence of God is not only logically impossible, but also essentially and religiously inadmissible, because it reveals in itself some justification of the evil» [8, 29]. To explain this evil, one has to find its basis, which coincides with the sense. But, having explained the evil, the man justifies it thereby. It should not be explained but destroyed.
According to S. L. Frank, the simplest solution is to relate the appearance of evil with the man’s freedom, i. e. the freedom of free choice between good and evil. But, in the philosopher’s opinion, «evil is never chosen freely; — on the contrary, we are involuntarily drawn, attracted and driven to it; because evil attracts us. We lose our freedom in this very fact of attraction to the evil; we only strive for the good purely voluntarily, because only it ... forms authentic internal basis of our being» [6, 221]. Almighty and omnibenevolence of God is manifested in the fact that evil is not capable of destroying the universal good, because it is deprived of authentic being and is an illusory reality, although, it actually exists in the world possessing a huge power. However, it doesn’t relieve the man of the responsibility for both personal committed evil, the source of which they themselves are, and evil existing in the world, which they do not oppose.
Evil, just like good, is invisibly profound in the man’s soul and one cannot destroy evil by any violent actions. «Sin is overcome only in the man’s soul .It disappears on its own before good and love as dark disappears before light» [7, 392].
Realization of own sinfulness makes the man feel responsible for sins and judge themselves through their own voice of consciousness. Hence, suffering is required to heal the soul. However, subjective sense of responsibility is sometimes inversely proportional to the measure of personal sinfulness, because the ability to feel someone else’s guilt is related to the degree of development of moral consciousness. A remarkable example is the substitutive sacrifice of Christ.
Thus, S. L. Frank concludes that rational theodicy doesn’t exist; it is only possible in its inconceivability and trans-rationality. He states that theodicy is not only impossible in the rational form, but also an attempt to build it is spiritually impermissible.
Another philosopher covering the entire complex of theodicy problems is L. I. Shestov. He was particularly interested in the story of the Fall from grace, which, according to him, can explain the reasons of the evil’s appearance. Moreover, speculations of Lev Shestov are closely related to his contemplation of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, who considered the understanding of the Fall from grace from the point of personal experience and judged a man who didn’t sin from this position. Speaking about the world before the Fall from grace, he notes something else in it, something opposing the being and calls it — Nothing, the main activity of which is awakening of fear.
But Lev Shestov criticizes such approach. Because the nature of the man changed as a result of the Fall from grace
and it is wrong to conclude that first people had fear relying only on personal sensations. Because, fear appeared only after the Fall from grace. He reckons that fear of Nothing appears only in that soul of the man, which gained knowledge and it forces people to address the reason. While the man is learning, they are in the power of original fear.
Nothing established «the law of being» that says that all are powerless, both the wise and the stupid; herewith, the smarter the man is, the more powerless they are, because they realize their powerlessness. «The most genius, virtuous man is the biggest sinner» [9, 784]. But the man cannot free themselves from the power of Nothing, even when they see that it leads to death. One has to refuse reason. But how can the man with enslaved will do that? One can save themselves only through faith. Only it can return the pure freedom to the man. «Freedom doesn’t choose between evil and good: it destroys evil turning it into Nothing» [9, 778].
Thus, Lev Shestov makes an original conclusion that the Fall from grace lies in the desire of people to learn, but not in the obedience before God or attraction by fleshly temptations. Herewith, the thinker states that “«Intelligere» sucked all power and soul from God. His will turned out to be fainted, paralyzed and enslaved by some « beginning»” [9, 800]. It means that the reason enslaved even God.
Unlike other thinkers, a Russian thinker N. A. Berdyaev relates the problem of theodicy with the sense of history. He believes that the very understanding of the sense of history as a universal process will lead to justification of God for the existing universal evil. The mankind is interested in the idea of progress which negatively affects their lives.
N. A. Berdyaev explains the nature of evil by the existence of «primary», «non-created» freedom, over which God has no power, and calls it «meonic freedom». It creates evil. He makes freedom absolute separating it from God and the man and, hence, ontologizing evil.
In his opinion, the Fall from grace is the manifestation of free spirit in the man and, hence, the man is not a fallen creature. «Freedom of evil is good, because without freedom of evil, there wouldn’t be freedom of good, i. e. there wouldn’t be good. The possibility of evil is the condition of good. Violent prevention of evil ... would be a big evil» [2, 51]. This is the paradox of good and evil.
Art contributes to not only struggle with evil, but also creation of the other world. Because pure art strives for the eternal. «Death, an uttermost horror and uttermost evil, is the only exit from an ugly time into eternity, and immortal and eternal life is only possible through death» [2, 216]. Thus, on the one hand, death is a result of sin; on the other hand, it is a value and goodness.
Ifthe world existed endlessly in time, it wouldn’t have gained sense. Life has no sense if there is no eternal life after death. «One cannot wait passively for the end and death of the human personality and world in longing, horror and fear» [2, 227].
Immortality implies the responsibility for committed deeds. In this respect, the problem of death is related to the
130
Spiritual and moral foundations of women's social activities
problem of hell as a retribution for sins. N. A. Berdyaev criticizes the teachings justifying hell by the idea of justice. Hell is not an eternity; it is simply an eternal continuation in time. «In fact, hell is a ghostly, phantasmagoric, non-being sphere. But it can be the greatest psychological, subjective reality for the man. Hell ... cannot be eternal, but it can be experienced by the man as the eternal» [2, 231]. Experiencing of hopelessness in hell is subjective. «Appearance of hope is already the exit from hell» [2, 238]. Thus, he didn’t objectivate hell and didn’t attempt to build an analogy of hell.
Hence, according to N. A. Berdyaev, it is possible to solve the problem of theodicy only in existential sense. «There is no need ... to justify all miseries, sufferings and evils of the world with the help of the idea of God» [3, 53]. And one shouldn’t consider evil as a drawback of good, which was typical for most solutions of theodicy.
Russian philosophers have a rational approach to the solution of the problem of theodicy and relate the man’s freedom of will to their responsibility, which has a socio-ethic direction and bears deep religious character.
References:
1. Berdyaev N. A. World outlook of Dostoevsky. - Prague, 1923. - 238 p.
2. Berdyaev N. A. About the purpose of the man. - Paris: Contemporary notes, 1931. - 320 p.
3. Berdyaev N. A. About freedom and slavery of the man. Experience of personalistic philosophy. - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1939. - 224 p.
4. Lossky N. O. God and universal evil. Basics of theodicy. - M.: Terra - Book Club; Respublika, 1999. - 431 p.
5. Solovyov V S. Justification of the good. - M.: Institute of Russian civilization, Algoritm, 2012. - 656 p.
6. Frank S. L. The inconceivable. Ontological introduction to the philosophy of religion. - M.: AST, 2007. - 512 p.
7. Frank S. L. Reality and the man. - M.: RESPUBLIKA., 1997. - 478 p.
8. Frank S. L. Light in the dark. - M.: Published by «Faktorial», 1998. - 256 p.
9. Shestov L. I. Kierkegaard and existential philosophy. - M.: AST, 2000. - 800 p.
Djasanova Sayyora, Djizakh State Pedagogical Institute after named Abdulla Kadiri, the big teacher of the social sciences chair in the history faculty E-mail: [email protected]
Spiritual and moral foundations of women’s social activities
Abstract: This article analyzes directions in organizational and team behavior and its coherence with individual career strategies. In this paper we present a description and analysis of the three-factor model of personal orientations in professional activity in the area of its own and defined objectives.
Keywords: individual life strategy, career strategy, organizational and team behavior, strategy of individualization.
Because of independence of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the government is paying particular attention to the issue of women. Indeed, the role of women in society and humiliated universal rights — society cannot flourish. The mosque from the early years to improve women’s status, ensuring their active participation in social life, the protection of the interests of maternal and child health issues was one of the priorities of the state policy. For example, in 1998 — the “Year of the Family" in 1999 — the “Year of Women,” 2000 — “The Year of the Healthy Generation” in 2001 — the “Year of mothers and children” and the year 2012 the “Year of a family” to be announced as well as women legal, social, economic, spiritual protection of the interests of the state may be an example of the production of programs. At the same time social, spiritual and moral aspects of the activity of women in the social and philosophical, theoretical research is important. East, Central Asia, including the history ofwomen’s spiritual and moral
activity priority significance. The issue of women in the history of Central Asia, linking the past, present and future, as a nation, long recognized. All those factors offering the greatest development of the society also delivered women. They are a symbol of beauty, beautify. Therefore, paid attention to female beauty and the beauty of art.
Central Asia, which is located at the ancient archaeological monuments considered, found from Sopollitepa the first evidence that a pregnant mother can say. His social life in the past found confirms the high status of the mother. I treated him as a successor to celebrate generations also. Zoroastrianism, the religion’s holy book “Avesta” as the goddess of fecundity at Anakhita. As well as the “Avesta” the family as a source of social, philosophical and humane treatment also had given wide coverage to the issue of women.
In the middle Ages to the Chach (Shash) who is side by side with the current ruler, Queen described the launch
131
