N.V. Ustryalov's philosophical dispute with Slavophiles in the light of modern events.

Skorokhodova Svetlana Igorevna Doctor of Philosophy Professor, Department of Philosophy, Moscow State Pedagogical University 119571, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo str., 88, room 818 moscow.belgrad@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The creativity of classical Slavophiles became the basis for the philosophical constructions of thinkers of the Russian diaspora and, in particular, the leader of the smenovekhovstvo N.V. Ustryalov. In the article I will try to reveal the philosophical dispute between Ustryalov and Slavophiles and answer the question of whether this controversy has any significance in modern times.

It is known that Ustryalov turned out to be in Harbin after the revolution and became a key political figure of the Russian diaspora. In emigration, he again turned to the questions posed by the Slavophiles: what is the meaning and purpose of Russia? In this regard, the philosopher paid close attention to the Slavophile search for a genuine "Russian idea", their theory of power as a duty, as a duty, as a special moral feat ^{[2, p. 66]}. The philosopher believed that Slavophiles are characterized by "mystical democracy". Their ideas of the uniqueness of the spiritual face and historical ways of Russia, the predominance of the spiritual principle over the formal forms of historical existence were dear to him. Russian russians strongly rejected their belief that the separation of the "state" and the "land" is the norm of Russian life, that the Russian people are "stateless". The philosopher believed that the Slavophiles, in search of an ideal embodied, for example, in the legend of the city of Kitezh, broke away from the real Russia. In his opinion, romanticism, idealism and "moral elevation" are largely inherent in them ^{[10, 63]}.

Ustryalov, unlike the Slavophiles, saw the main difference between Russians and other Slavic peoples "in the taste for powerful statehood", social plasticity. The "Petersburg idea", according to the philosopher, is one of the organic and essential aspects of the national image of Russia. I think that Slavophiles and Ustryalov can be reconciled on the basis of the antinomianism of the Russian national character, about which N.A. Berdyaev wrote a lot [see 1]. Russian Russians, on the one hand, Berdyaev emphasized the anarchism of the Russian people, and on the other hand, he wrote that it was the Russian people who created one of the most powerful empires – the Russian One.

The "Moscow School" cannot be represented as faceless: each of its representatives was an original and bright thinker. From my point of view, Yu.F. Samarin was closest to Ustryalov. In particular, the main idea of Ustryalov – the idea of national politics – first appeared in the philosophy of Samarin, who possessed a rare state thinking. Thus, the succession of Slavophiles and Ustryalov is much deeper than Nikolai Vasilyevich himself claimed. Samarin went further than his like-minded people: he was the only civil servant in their circle, striving to "somehow influence the course of things" and in any situation maintain a sense of historical reality [see 7].

Samarin's views have evolved. If at the first stage of his work, like other Slavophiles, he was focused on eschatological searches that had their source in Russian spiritual culture and were associated with the ideas of transformed power, a gracious type of being; then in the mature period of creativity, the idea of national politics becomes the key, in which power should grow out of the people and serve not the abstract Russian Russian state should have a Russian policy, not a French or English one" ^{[7, p. 262]}, it should be aimed at maintaining the "co-religionists" on the outskirts and at the prosperity of local nationalities, which is possible only with a strong state. 

Samarin considered it necessary to observe strict boundaries between church and state life, but pointed out the need for spiritual influence on the authorities. Samarin's political position is not in destruction, but in the creation of a state based on Orthodoxy, the peculiarities of the national way of life and on the outskirts of Russia. These ideas were only partly close to Ustryalov.

There is a well-known triad of Slavophiles: Orthodoxy (in the first place, unlike the Uvarov triad), nationality and autocracy. I tried to distinguish the main triad in the political ontology of Ustryalov. It turned out the following: power, nationality, religion, which, according to the philosopher, should be based on a creative idea.

Let's start with the first component of the triad. Ustryalov tried to penetrate deeply into the nature of power, rooted in the "true being" and being the "fundamental principle of the state." He came to the conclusion that the support of power is "not physical force, not guns, not fists, but human souls" ^{[13, p. 12]}. The relationship of domination and subordination, as the philosopher believed, should be recognized as psychological. The roots of power are in the recesses of the human psyche [ibid., p. 13]. On the one hand, a person in a sense longs for authority, since the "cross of freedom" is no less heavy than the "yoke of tyranny" [ibid., p. 12]. On the other hand, in every person, according to Ustryalov, there is also a desire for domination. It is not logic and reason that govern nations, but the irrational, the unaccountable, the instinctive. Power is the fundamental principle of the state.

The state in Ustryalov's political ontology is an "emotional phenomenon" [ibid., p. 13], a society or a union of people living in a certain territory and united by subordination to a single will. The philosopher agrees with P.B. Struve's opinion that the state is a "mystical being" [ibid.]. In the context of these arguments, the philosopher's unusual statements become clear: "the dictator is a lover of power, while the hereditary monarch (or the elected president) is her lawful spouse" ^{[10, p. 337]}, "neither Kolchak, nor Alekseev, nor Denikin had an eros of power" [ibid.], "they they were flabby politicians" [ibid.] and others.

However, power, according to Ustryalov, should not be for its own sake. The philosopher has always repeated that it is not domination and subordination, but joint activity in a certain direction that will lead to the prosperity of the state ^{[13, p. 19]}. The people should be not only the subject of power, but also the subject of law, because the state presupposes not only systematic violence, but also inter-class cooperation. The state should be guided not only by legal principles, but also by moral principles higher than legal ones. The complex historical nature of the state does not fit into the framework of pure law. And when a new force enters the world, the path of law is not for it [see ibid., p. 21]. Power acquires right only in the case of freedom [see ibid.].

It is difficult to agree with K.B. Ermishina, who saw Nietzschean motifs in the works of N.V. Ustryalov [see 11, p. 12]. According to the researcher, Russia, in the philosopher's understanding, is primarily a state implementing an expansion policy [ibid.]. However, Ustryalov believed that in a healthy national organism, public law is closely intertwined with the state and the will is inextricably linked with the land. He criticized Nietzsche for his immoralism ^{[10, p. 26]}, believing that good should become a vital and life-giving way that transforms nature and power: "true idealism is realistic", "an integral system of politics should be built under the sign of self-sufficient, absolute goodness" ^{[9, p. 46]}. Power is not a personal advantage, but a public service, a heavy duty. Farsighted class egoism is inevitably altruistic. And if the rights of the people are violated, then the uprising is justified, the philosopher believed. I assume that these reflections arose in Ustryalov largely under the influence of Slavophiles. However, his position in relation to state power is not unambiguous. There are statements that are directly opposite to those cited in this article earlier. For example, "the state is a conditional, relative form of earthly community, relatively alien to the supreme truth" ^{[13, p. 54]}. "The voice of the supreme truth will never prescribe to a person what contradicts the commanding voice of the state" [see ibid.].

I.V. Kireevsky seems to be opposing Ustryalov: "A state focused on earthly well-being, contributing by all measures to the development of the physical well-being of the people, will inevitably stifle spiritual development by all measures depending on it, which may be directly opposite to the temporary goals of earthly well-being. The names of the rulers who focused their state on achieving material well-being in a specific time historical period, no one dares to pronounce loudly: momentary comforts do not require justice, morality, or dignity" ^{[3, 249]}. The state, which makes it possible to acquire everything necessary for earthly life, according to Kireevsky, does not need freedom [see ibid.].

Ustryalov, to a much greater extent than the Slavophiles, advocated "strong-willed power", which primarily protects national interests. He believed that the way to revive Russia was to develop the "uplifting power of the people's spirit" to the level of a great state style. "The people need to rise to the state (highlighted by me. – S.S.), otherwise the state will have to curtail to the real capabilities of the people" ^{[14, p. 352]}. Thus, in the combination of "power-people", the first place in the philosophy of Ustryalov is, of course, power. Some modern researchers are close to Ustryalov in the question of the relationship between the state and society [see 1].

A statement directly opposite to these views is found in Kireevsky's legacy: "If there was a dark spot in Karamzin's bright mind, then, of course, this is a confusion of concepts about autocracy and autocracy, about the upbringing of a rude and ignorant people by an enlightened government! – here is the beginning of a split between the government and the people. The mind of the people – in churches, universities, in literature, in the beliefs of the estates, etc. – In government – the people's will; can there be a will smarter than reason? It may seem smarter when, not obeying reason, imitates someone else's way of acting. Hence the momentary brilliance and the inevitable disorder of the body. That is why Peter does not go in the way of the people, but in spite of them" ^{[3, p. 241]}.

Of course, these ideas of Kireevsky were shared by Yu.F. Samarin, who called for the development of "self-thinking of the people." "To develop a state form <...> is a matter for the people themselves" ^{[5, p. 11]}. Russian Russians, he believed, "to abolish the Russian nationality into Russian statehood is the same as to abolish the reason for being, the source of the strength and power of the state – what it lives, grows and moves, for which it is called Russia" [ibid.]. The state is "an essential condition of the dormitory, serves to achieve the goals intended for humanity" [ibid.]. The main idea of Samarin was that "every nation is reflected in its supreme power", that "power is reflected in the people" and that "omniscience is a firm and long–established legislative tradition" ^{[6, p. 391]}. Yuri Fedorovich also has the concept of "nation", which means the whole people, including all classes. At this historical stage, only "people's autocracy", in his opinion, is the most acceptable form for maintaining stability in society ^{[5, p. 11]}.

In a peculiar way, the concept of "nation" was revealed by Ustryalov. In the philosophy of the Slavophiles, this concept also occurs. According to Slavophiles, the nation includes all classes of the people, while their antagonism is capable of destroying society. From the point of view of Ustryalov, a nation is a state of consciousness. I think that you can find something similar in Strakhov's "organic geography", in which "soil" is a polysemantic concept. In one of its meanings, it expresses one or another national-cultural tradition, including the archetypes of national consciousness. But in Strakhov's legacy, not only faith, the spiritual, but also the natural and social in their unity are important for determining cultural and historical identity [see 8, p. 245].

Ustryalov believed that the objective reality of the nation is "psychic", spiritual, it is not just the unity of all classes, but "the union of living and dead generations" ^{[14, p. 310]}. Neither the unity of political power, language, religion, nor the existence of natural borders can be an unshakable belonging of the nation. At the heart of the nation is a community of traditions, needs, aspirations, a community of historical destinies, a community of memories. A nation is a dynamic, a process, a hereditary habit that turns into a character [see ibid., p. 316]. The Russian nation, the philosopher believed, is an objectively existing reality [see ibid., p. 332]. By asserting herself, she is asserting others. The philosopher was close to F.M. Dostoevsky, who wrote about the worldwide responsiveness of the Russian people.

Finally, we turn to the third component of the Ustryalov triad – the creative idea, which, according to Ustryalov, should be the basis of state power, since the state is the embodiment of the general cultural worldview of this historical period, this social environment. Naked force, violence is "impotence, a soap bubble" [see ibid., p. 304]. Strength should not consist in strong muscles, but in strong nerves, a strong soul. According to the philosopher, Western states are not so stable because the old faith has ceased to inspire citizens. Their new faith was positivism. Ustryalov agrees with V.V. Rozanov, who wrote in Autumn Leaves that positivism is a "philosophical mausoleum over dying humanity" [ibid., p. 305]. According to Ustryalov, "only some new grandiose spiritual impulse, some new religious tide, will bring rebirth" [ibid.]. But here's the question: can we say that the Bolsheviks, supporters of Marxism-Leninism, are the bearers of a creative idea, according to Ustryalov? I think that the answer to this question should be positive: the philosopher recognized that at this historical stage it is Soviet Russia that protects national interests. As is known, Russian religious philosophers also got sick of Marxism, seeing in it a creative impulse that encourages the transformation of society. Thus, not only religion, but also philosophy, from the position of Nikolai Vasilyevich, can contain a creative idea.

However, the question inevitably arises: can every creativity be positive and lead to positive transformations? It should be noted that the theme of creativity is very important for Russian philosophical thought. In particular, P.A. Florensky wrote that the freedom of the "I" consists "in the living creativity of its empirical content" ^{[15, p. 217]}. He answered the question posed in the following way: "If I did not put my treasure in my divine self-creation, clung not to my image of God in Christ, but to my empirical content, i.e., to the conditional, limited, finite and, therefore, blind, then it blinded itself by doing, deprived he enslaved himself to his freedom, and thereby foreshadowed the Last Judgment" [ibid.]. Such "creativity", in Florensky's understanding, is evil art. The philosopher believed that the creations of evil and good will do not disappear, but "always diverge in widening circles, and the one who aroused it is just as caught up by it as all the others" [ibid., p. 225]. In the modern world, an example of dangerous art, in my opinion, can be called attempts to "improve" and even change human nature, relying on the achievements of science and technology. But this should be discussed in detail in a separate article.

In a letter to P.P. Suvchinsky dated February 4, 1927, Ustryalov wrote that he was an Orthodox person, in the sense of "everyday confession", that he always believed in God and loved to go to the Orthodox church [see 11, p. 24]. The philosopher also pointed out that there were Old Believers in his family and that he brought up his "little children" in "our old way" [ibid.]. Nikolai Vasilyevich admitted that he "perceives the element of Orthodoxy in the same way as every truly Russian person perceives it" [ibid.].

However, he refused to recognize only one Orthodoxy as true, because he really and vividly felt that "there are many monasteries in the Father's house" [ibid., p. 25], that completeness is in diversity, not exclusivity. According to him, it was unpleasant for him to hear about some kind of Eastern interpretation. He considered fruitless efforts to combine the truth of Orthodoxy alone with some kind of recognition of other religious forms. In Japan, he said, he encountered the strongest way of life associated with paganism, Buddhism and "Shintoism". This way of life seemed to him unshakable: it contributed to the creative activity of the Japanese. The philosopher recognized that Eurasia is a special world with its own religious system [ibid., p. 35], in which all its components have an equal right to exist. Thus, he shared the principle of religious tolerance. He, in fact, recognized that public life in general can do without religion if the official government ideology contains a creative impulse.

The position of the Slavophiles is well known: a state mixed from different faiths cannot be stable. A.I. Koshelev entered into a polemic with Kireevsky, accusing him of reactionary and conservatism. According to Koshelev, the presence of the dominant faith in the state contradicts freedom of religion, such faith is easier to use as a means for worldly purposes. Kireevsky, defending the same faith, regarded the equality of all faiths as the oppression of all faiths in favor of one, pagan: "I... completely sympathize as a Christian, because... the law of conscience about the open and unafraid confession of one's faith is a Christian law. But I doubt whether all kinds of paganism and all systems of unbelief will find this law in their conscience (highlighted by me. – S.S.). "But there is one conscience," you will say. Yes, as one truth. This does not prevent, however, a person from often taking a lie for the truth. Conscience is faith. To demand one conscience from all people is the same as to demand one faith" ^{[3, p. 27]}. The existence of an Orthodox state is possible in the same way as a pagan, Jewish, or Mohammedan one. Kireevsky criticizes Koshelev's thesis that the faith of the state is public opinion, which consists of sums of human faith. From Kireevsky's point of view, in such a state, focused on private, temporary phenomena, there can be no freedom, no "harmonious arrangement". Orientation to the "majority opinion" can lead to the legitimate domination of a brute egoistic force that is numerically superior in random circumstances. In Russia, the more the statehood and government are imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the healthier the development of the people will be, the more prosperous the people will be, the stronger their government.

Who is right in this dispute: Ustryalov or Kireevsky, expressing the position of the Slavophiles? I think that every citizen will answer for himself.

It is true that tolerance should be shown in some cases. But still, in modern society, the spiritual image of which is well represented in Stanley Kubrick's latest film "With Eyes Wide Closed", it is important to remain vigilant and spiritual sobriety. Imagine the following situation: a person is attacked in order to destroy physically. At the same time, the victim not only does not try to resist, but, on the contrary, shows tolerance, tolerance, offers the aggressor to "live amicably." I think that in the spiritual sphere such attacks happen all the time. This is especially noticeable in the reality of our time. And if we completely abandon the principle proposed by I.A. Ilyin – resistance to evil by force, then at least modestly we will remain in the position of sorrow, about which the Russian philosopher N.F. Fedorov wrote so much. Otherwise, the goal of our opponents will be achieved: a false idea will capture the minds and lead society to a spiritual crisis.

If the people, especially the youth, do not seek support in the spiritual culture and national-historical traditions of their fatherland, then their position will be extremely precarious and unstable. He will not be able to resist those who are specially trained in the technologies of influencing human consciousness, both Jesuit, which have been perfected for many centuries, and the latest Zen Buddhist. A healthy, strong state is impossible without reliance on national identity and historical memory.

From my point of view, Ustryalov, seeing Romanticism in the political doctrine of the Slavophiles, was not free from it himself. Claiming that the Bolsheviks are the agents of Russia's national policy, he failed to discern the confrontation within the Bolshevik government itself and those forces that pursued far from the victory of revolutionary ideals, but their own goals and interests. Ustryalov was characterized by excessive psychologism and even mysticism in the understanding of power, which prevented him, in my opinion, from seeing its heterogeneity, undercurrents, shadow figures. At the same time, the philosopher was a true patriot. And even if he could have predicted his tragic death at home, he would still have returned to Russia, because, according to him, Pushkin would never have been an emigrant [see 10, p. 357].

Nikolai Vasilyevich did not focus on Orthodoxy as the basis of the spiritual culture of his Fatherland and especially of the East. He did not take into account the fact that national policy is based on a national idea, which is not invented, but develops historically. It is dangerous to reformat and change it.

In my opinion, the idea of national policy was not fully thought out by the philosopher. However, it is this idea that especially makes him related to the Slavophiles, who at the same time believed that the form of state power should grow "from within", from the organic development of people's life. They were very cautious about new-fangled philosophical and even more so religious trends, no matter how attractive they might seem from afar. I believe that their "revolutionary conservatism" was fully justified.

The idea of national policy is certainly important in modern times. It should become the foundation of Russia's political ideology. But this will happen only if it is not unfounded, but will grow out of the centuries-old spiritual and historical experience of our people.  It was this experience that shaped the Russian national character with its "universality" and "responsiveness", and the moral and legal structure of society. Only through understanding the heritage of the past is the revival of both the people and the state possible.