Transrationality as a Methodological Principle of Cognition
in the Philosophy of S. L. Frank and N. O. Lossky

Tarkhanov Yurii Nikolaevich Postgraduate student, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, Smolensk State University 214000, Russia, Smolensk region, Smolensk, Przhevalskogo str., 4 tarkhanoff.y@yandex.ru

Relying on the classical forms and methods of research of Western philosophy at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, there is an interest in Russia associated with the study of metaphysics with a predominance of the religious aspect, which in turn added mystical content and meaning to the understanding of the Absolute and Being, where the subject of the study was an attempt to comprehend the essence of human being, the origin of things and everything the world as a whole, and an attempt was also made to overcome rationality and penetrate into the realm of the Super-world principle, the Incomprehensible, into the sphere of the Absolute ^{[4, p.13]}.

A fairly large number of studies have been devoted to the philosophical heritage of Russian philosophers Semyon Ludvigovich Frank and Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky in modern Russia, considering the issues of constructing their ontology, epistemology, ethics, anthropology and axiology. Among the works devoted to the issues of ideological concepts of these thinkers, one can single out the studies of such philosophers as A.M. Amelina ^{[1, pp.156-175]}, D. N. Barinov ^{[2, pp.153]}, N. K. Gavryushin ^{[3, pp.216-219]}, P. P. Gaidenko ^{[4, p.14-163] [5, pp.99-100]}, I. I. Evlampieva ^{[6, pp.8-21] [7, pp.173-181]}, V. V. Sukhorukova. The works of these philosophers consider problems related to the relationship between society and the individual, the relationship of rational cognition of being and irrational forms of human relations with reality, the meaning of human life, the essence of his personality and metaphysics.

The unifying moment of the ideological concepts of S. L. Frank and N. O. Lossky is the religious and humanistic orientation of their views, as well as the doctrine of unity, a living and integral world, which are the starting points in the construction of philosophical systems of both thinkers. S. L. Frank and N. O. Lossky build their theories as organically integral systems ^{[4, p.24]}, which can be characterized as realistic teachings: the teaching of N. O. Lossky, in fact, is ideal-realism, based on the arguments of the philosopher himself, where the thinker shows in his arguments the presence of both real being and the presence of ideal being, and the teaching of S. L. Frank is, in general, existential the direction in philosophy is religious worldview in particular, thereby anticipating the movement towards a "new ontology" in Western metaphysics ^{[6, p.8]}.

When constructing his system, S. L. Frank returns to the archaic tradition of considering ontology as the most important part of philosophy, thereby putting the consideration of issues related to the study of being at the forefront of his work, since a person is completely immersed in being. In his arguments, S. L. Frank believes that ontology is the knowledge of what really is, and metaphysics, in his opinion, is the fundamental ontology ^{[5, p.101]}. And although the philosopher rejects abstract knowledge and idealistic concepts, it can be argued that German idealism and German mysticism played an important role in shaping the views of the philosopher, as evidenced by the constant appeal of the thinker to such philosophers as Johann Fichte, Friedrich Hegel, Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, etc. But a special place, according to S. L. Frank, is occupied by cardinal, philosopher and theologian Nikolai Kuzansky, whom the thinker calls "the only teacher of philosophy."

Focusing his attention on the issues of metaphysics, N. O. Lossky believes that metaphysics is a science that is part of any worldview, giving information about true being, penetrating into its foundations and going beyond the world, into the realm of the Supersystem and the Superworld, into the realm of the Absolute. In his reflections, the thinker relies on the positions of traditional philosophical approaches, N. O. Lossky is impressed by German classical philosophy and this is where the priority arises in developing his worldview within the framework of epistemology. The philosopher is convinced that the nature of human thinking is objective in understanding the world, thereby emphasizing its proximity to "mystical empiricism" ^{[4, p.21]}.

In essence, N. O. Lossky's worldview concept is theistic, based on the principles of Christian doctrine, as Father V. V. Zenkovsky noted in the work "History of Russian Philosophy" that "Lossky seriously and deeply lives by Christian teaching" ^{[8, p.207]}, where the whole concept of N. O. Lossky is permeated with Christian views about being and where two principles play the most important role in the construction of the system of metaphysics, the first is the universalist principle, which is an organic whole, where all elements are connected with each other and cannot exist in isolation from the rest, and the second is the pluralistic principle, where each substance is an independent being – a substantial actor. Based on the views of the thinker, God is a principle that stands above all limitations and is in separation from the world ^{[15, p.261]}. Being and the world as a whole appear to be knowable for the philosopher, where, according to the thinker, only the sides can be distinguished, but not the multiplicity of any independent particles ^{[14, p.346]}. Everything is immanent to everything, the philosopher states, and it is the immanence of the world, which is based on epistemological coordination – preconsciousness, according to N. O. Lossky, that allows us to contemplate other entities as they are ^{[4, p.22]}.

S. L. Frank's ontological constructions are within the framework of the theory of pantheism: the rapprochement of God and the world, in which the philosopher asserts the unity of everything and nothing outside of itself, thereby establishing absolute Unity, namely, the unity of unity and multiplicity. According to the thinker, being as a whole is incomprehensible in nature, and is also a transrational unity, that is, the unity of rational and irrational ^{[17, p.254]}, where transrationality, according to the thinker, acts as a carrier of objective being ^{[17, p.223]}. Developing his philosophical worldview, S. L. Frank tries to open the curtain of the incomprehensible and thereby go beyond the limits of objectivity, comprehending the conditions that form the very essence of reality, approaching the understanding of transrationality ^{[17, p.282]}. The most important element in the philosopher's epistemology is sophisticated ignorance, which is a deeper vision ^{[17, p.28]}, in which the thinker's reflections echo those of Nicholas of Cusa in the treatise "On Scientific Ignorance", who showed that the higher the scholarship in ignorance, the closer the truth is ^{[10, p.54]}.

For N. O. Lossky, the pantheistic worldview is unacceptable neither in relation to philosophy nor in relation to religion. The thinker opposes theism to pantheism, believing that the pantheistic view of world existence has a "diabolical bias", arguing that only God is the creator, and the world's personal existence, according to the thinker, is a creature. From which we can assume that it is for this reason that substantial figures occupy an important place in the concept of N. O. Lossky, being a necessity for solving the issue related to the immanence of the world, and through which God, being a transcendent original, influences the world.

In general, we can observe that the whole philosophy of N. O. Lossky has the character of a clearly defined personalism, which sees in the personality the main being and the main value, both potential and real, expressed in the theory of monadology. It is with the help of monadology that N. O. Lossky manages to avoid the tendency to identify the concept of nature and God ^{[4, p.16]}, where substantial figures are united by connections. If we assume that the world is a single part of the whole, then in this case the Super-world beginning will no longer be the highest beginning, and that is why this beginning, by its nature, is transcendent, thereby the thinker asserts that the Super-world beginning and the world are not identical.

And it is in the field of the Supersystem, the Super-World principle, comprehended by N. O. Lossky, and the Incomprehensible, shown in the concept of S. L. Frank, that the problem of transrationality can be considered as a methodological principle of cognition in the philosophical systems of two thinkers.

N. O. Lossky considers the Superworld principle to be the highest, above the system, but at the same time it does not contain any multiplicity, since it is above everything logically defined ^{[15, p.206]}. Consequently, the Super-world principle is a super-relative principle and is by its nature metalogical, that is, not commensurate with the world. It is limited from the world, at the same time justifies the world, but itself, according to the philosopher, is not justified by anyone or anything. From the point of view of comprehension of being, the Superworld principle, in fact, is a metalogical, transrational object, the comprehension of which is possible, according to N. O. Lossky, only with the help of mystical intuition directed to the Supercosmic principle. A principle that is incommensurable with the world, which is a world that becomes the basis through absolute creativity or creation out of nothing. N. O. Lossky in his work "Ideal-Realism" reports that S. L. Frank in his work "The Subject of Knowledge" convincingly showed a beginning that encompasses all definiteness and thus stands above them, and belongs to the field of the metalogical ^{[12, p. 259]}. Metalogical unity, according to S. L. Frank, is a primary and indecomposable unity that generates a difference between its parts on the one hand and the whole on the other ^{[18, p. 302]}.

Transrational, according to S. L. Frank's definition, is that which is the opposite of everything comprehensible and definite ^{[17, p.280]}, where cognition, the thinker believes, is a definition, and definition is a difference, or negation. The incomprehensible, for S. L. Frank, is not absolutely unknowable, on the contrary, but at the same time the thinker believes that it is given to us in an accessible and achievable form. The philosopher argues that if we had no experience of communicating with the "incomprehensible", we would not be able to formulate the concept and use the word "incomprehensible" itself. The incomprehensible, proceeding from its nature, is the opposite of everything comprehensible, rational, that is, it is essentially transrational or, as S. L. Frank characterized the incomprehensible, "mysterious" ^{[17, p.281]}, where any judgment will be inadequate to the very essence of the incomprehensible, moreover, as the thinker pointed out, it will be contradictory and meaningless ^{[17, p.309]}. According to the philosopher, it is possible to comprehend the incomprehensible for us only in the form of antinomian cognition, which is a logical form of sophisticated ignorance or reconciliation of two logically unrelated judgments based on mutual denial, while internally merged, permeated with each other and representing a kind of "soaring", as S. L. Frank very accurately noted.

In general, for S. L. Frank, true philosophy is the overcoming of all rationality ^{[4, p.135]}, and, accordingly, objectivity. Based on the philosopher's reflections, we can construct the following logical construction, namely, every thinking is a judgment about reality in logical definitions ^{[17, p.302]}, and the perception of the incomprehensible as transrational is possible when thought is directed to the basic condition of itself, that is, to the principle of rationality, where the principle is a prerequisite, the root cause, and rationality is a logical definition. Objective thought is a thought directed at an object as a rationally formed reality, from which we can conclude that the transrational is the incomprehensible, which is a thought directed at what was the direct cause of thinking ^{[17, p.304]}, and we are looking for this reason, this principle through our inner being. And here a paradox arises. A paradox where the "inner" depth of the human soul is not just inside it, but goes beyond the boundaries of the subjective "I", beyond the boundaries of oneself ^{[17, p.405]}. That is, we can conclude that immanent self-knowledge at the same time represents transcendent thinking ^{[17, p.307]}, where transcendence is an experience, that is, the penetration of reality into us and its self-disclosure in experience, as the thinker points out ^{[17, p.405]}.

From the point of view of the cognizability of being, both philosophers are on opposite positions. S. L. Frank understands being as a transrational unity: the union of rationality – necessity and irrationality – freedom ^{[17, p.254]}. Beyond rationality, according to the philosopher, our reason is powerless and overcoming rationality, namely, comprehension of the transrational, is possible only with the help of antinomian monodualism. And the awareness of one's own ignorance, as S. L. Frank points out, is a defining sign of any genuine knowledge ^{[17, p.212]}, which correlates with the reflections of Nikolai Kuzansky, who believed that we only know about the truth that it is elusive, and since our mind is not equal and is not inherently Consequently, we are not able to comprehend the truth ^{[10, p.53]}. Echoing Nikolai Kuzansky, S. L. Frank argues that every thing and being in the world is something more that we imagine about them, know and can learn ^{[17, p.220]}. Proceeding from this, the philosopher points out that every cognition is essentially knowledge of a particular nature and is not knowledge of a comprehensive whole, and accordingly, everything that we have learned will be only partial knowledge, and the ontological proof is just a simplified scheme of the living evidence of the Deity ^{[17, p.459]}. Based on the above, we can conclude that everything basically remains unknown ^{[17, p.217]}, since truth is something indivisible, and equality between things, even of the same species and genus, is impossible, but, in turn, this gives things a unique individuality.

According to N. O. Lossky, a person can comprehend with the help of mystical intuition not only supersensible existence, but also the metalogical sphere of the Absolute world. But the philosopher also believes that there is an insurmountable ontological boundary between the world and the Supersystem principle or the creature and the Creator ^{[15, p.207]}. The world is not commensurate, it is not borrowed from the Supersystem principle, it is not a kind of necessity, but there is a completely new creation of the Absolute ^{[16, p.206]}.

The view of both philosophers that the worlds - human and divine - are separated, to one degree or another, seems to coincide with the only difference: N. O. Lossky believes that the Divine world is in principle limited by an ontological boundary from the human world, and S. L. Frank believes that the human world is flawed in relation to the divine world, where deep cracks run through the Unity of being – the abysses of non-existence, as if separating the Divine being from the empirical being, when the objective world is an imperfect world, in our human aspect. Thus, both thinkers confirm the words of John the Theologian, who stated in the First Conciliar Epistle that "the whole world lies in evil." Isn't that why the attempt to rationalize human life, to arrange its well-being on reasonable principles, to organize on the principles of expediency and usefulness fails, which confirms the important importance in human existence of the irrational, metalogical, leading to a more complete knowledge of being and reality, where faith becomes the most important element of the knowledge of being for us ^{[16, p.478]}, where the fullness of truth is in free soaring, where the Incomprehensible becomes visible, tangible and close to us, as S. L. Frank showed, God seems to take possession of us himself ^{[16, p.482]}.

By its nature, the incomprehensible is contradictory and logically impossible and is metalogical and supra-rational in its essence ^{[17, p.231]}. Thinking inherently belongs to rationality ^{[17, p.309]}, and rationality is objectivity. From which we can conclude that thinking is rational by nature and comprehension of the incomprehensible only within the framework of rationality is not possible, that is, where thinking ends, faith begins.

According to S. L. Frank, it is faith, the inner testimony, that is the real knowledge of being and reality ^{[4, p.100]}. It is faith, for S. L. Frank, that is the primary and immediate evidence of mystical penetration into being itself ^{[10, p.478]}. And it is faith that is the awakening of religious feeling, trust in the irrational and supra-rational, as a guarantee of the harmonious development of being in general, and human life in particular ^{[20, p.300]}. And it is faith that serves as the basis of a single metaphysical principle of existence of two worlds: the supra-rational world and the objective world ^{[17, p.41]}.

The idea of faith for N. O. Lossky, in turn, is based on more traditionalist principles, within the framework of Christian doctrine, where the thinker also assigns to faith the most important and fundamental function of human existence, and especially, the thinker points out, the importance of faith increases in the era of world cataclysms. Only faith gives strength to overcome the whole tragedy of human existence and all its vicissitudes, the philosopher believes. According to P. P. Gaidenko, the teaching of N. O. Lossky is a connection of faith and reason, which is not typical for modern philosophy, but is characteristic of the patristic tradition ^{[4, p. 4]}.

At the same time, faith by its nature is always, as it were, across the generally accepted mores, based on the principles of rationality, and is, at the meeting of eternal being and temporary human existence, a paradox, as shown by Seren Kierkigor on the example of the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, in the work "Fear and Trembling" ^{[11, p.11]}. The outside world is subject to the law of imperfection, the law of indifference, Seren Kierkigor believes: in the outside world, everything belongs to the one who already has it, who has accumulated worldly treasures, and he owns them regardless of the way they got to him, the thinker asserts. Isn't this one of the aspects of the manifestation of the abyss of non-existence shown by S. L. Frank, and is not that impassable ontological facet revealed by N. O. Lossky? In the world of the spirit, Kierkegaard notes, everything is different, only those who have worked receive remuneration ^{[11, p.37]}, thereby the philosopher confirms the instruction uttered in the second epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians: ... whoever does not want to work does not eat... Is it not for this reason that social ideals, in essence, are relative and partially feasible in the sense of the realization of absolute truth, where the desire to establish an earthly paradise seems in principle untenable due to the imperfection of human nature and the falsity of ontological justification, and thereby creates the possibility of planting hell on Earth ^{[16, p.105]}.

Both thinkers distinguish three aspects in being: S. L. Frank distinguishes objective being, ideal being and unconditional being. N. O. Lossky distinguishes real being, ideal being and metalogical being.

Here, the views of O. N. Lossky and S. L. Frank about real being echo the views shown in the treatise of Nikolai Kuzansky "The Wrong", where the thinker pointed out that the wrong precedes everything and is the cause and definition of everything and that everything is known and arrives only with the help of the wrong ^{[9, p.190]}. Objective being, conceived by S. L. Frank, also arises in unconditional being and is an integral element of ideal being ^{[17, p.279]}. O. N. Lossky believes that only on the basis of ideal being real being arises and takes shape ^{[13, p.197]}, which, according to the thinker, underlies the world and acts as his unity. It is in this connection that N. O. Lossky called his concept ideal-realism, thereby showing that ideal being asserts real being through substantial figures who are creative, independent entities created by God and who are the creators of events and forms of real being as a whole ^{[13, p.197]}. These figures are capable of cooperating with each other up to the formation of superindividual units: family, nation, humanity, while they do not lose their individuality, as they are endowed with free will, which gives them the opportunity to make ethical choices.

Here I would like to note that not all philosophers agreed with the theory of monadology in general and the concept of the transmigration of souls in particular, developed by N. O. Lossky. They were criticized by such thinkers as S. L. Frank, S. N. Bulgakov, N. A. Berdyaeva, V. V. Zenkovsky, etc. In fact, we know that substantial actors are endowed with freedom of will, and freedom of will is inherent only in rational beings, and every change in the state of a substantial actor is his own action, and nothing can be the cause of these actions. Only the substance itself and its creative force are the true cause of the events entering into real existence, where the figures move along the hierarchical ladder from lower substances to higher ones, which in fact is an ontological coordinate system – from hell to paradise. And here a simple question arises: why does God need a man in this case, and what is the role of man in the divine plan. If we assume that the purpose of a person is the cultivation of the soul, then substantial figures do an excellent job with this role, and a person loses his need and becomes, in fact, an extra element. It follows from this that the significance of substantial figures, by the thinker, is overestimated or perhaps, as V. V. Zenkovsky pointed out, it is just "fiction" ^{[8, p.212]}.

Thus, we can conclude that transrationality as a methodological principle of cognition plays an important role in the worldview of both Russian philosophers. The superworld principle for N. O. Lossky and the Incomprehensible for S. L. Frank act as transrationality or superrationality, and have a nature not commensurate with the objective world, where every judgment is inherently inadequate. And it is through the comprehension of the known that both thinkers consider it possible to approach the understanding of the unknown, and vice versa, it is through the unknown that the cognition of the objective world is possible, where the ideal being acts as unity and connectedness, acting as an indissoluble link of a person's personality with the general mystery of being, where faith and experience perform the most important and necessary function in the cognition of being, having not only external, but also the inner form, which is more important for human life. On the basis of this unifying principle, an organic unity arises, which is the unifying principle in the moral, spiritual and social life of man in particular and Absolute being in general.