The Conception of Creativity of Rozanov in the Context of Ancient Tradition.

Akimov Oleg Yur'evich ORCID: 0000-0003-0941-7382 PhD in Philosophy Leading Researcher of the Western Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) 236016, Russia, Kaliningrad region, Kaliningrad, Artillery str., 62 aktula1@gmail.com Other publications by this author

       .

The study of V.V. Rozanov's creativity suggests the possibility of reading the works of the thinker in the context of a holistic idea-theme expressing Rozanov's definitions of things, events, relationships. The need to search for this idea is determined by the fact that the reader's attention is usually focused on the specific features of Rozanov's style. The main ideas- themes of the thinker are interpreted "within" the stylistic features of the thinker's texts, and often   as their "direct continuation" (V.V. Zenkovsky)^{[1, p. 436]}; the connection of ideas and text was not disputed, but it was not analyzed as a complete phenomenon (N. O. Lossky)^{[2, c 397]} This topic is reflected in the works of V.V. Bibikhin^{[3, c541]}, V.G. Sukach^{[3, c575]}, S.R. Fedyakin^{[4, c 597-605]}.    This context fits the point of view of O.E. Mandelstam, who believed that the meaning of Rozanov's "writings" is the search for support in language, an invisible acropolis around which culture stands and lives ^{[5, c71]}.

This judgment, in our opinion, is the starting point for the study of Rozanov's work as an apology for a specific idea of becoming, expressed through the thinker's attitude to individual things and events and has become a genuine thing. Vasily Rozanov. An event is understood as participation in the existence of the world, which has found  subsequently, the reflection in the hermeneutics of G.G. Gadamer ^{[6, p. 74]}.    

The idea-theme of becoming is not translatable into a conceptual language, is not reflected in the strict sense of the word, that is, it cannot be described as a purely conceptual reality, which for Rozanov is abstract, but can only be understood, that is, qualitatively related to it, having seen its connection with real life.  This is an idea- a topic that Rozanov himself tells the reader how "tasty / not tasty", "I don't want to" and, finally, how "it's not a pity" ^{[7, p. 38]} (what caused Rozanov's well-known accusations of subjectivism, the basis for which is the philosopher's style of thought).

Rozanov's subjectivism was associated by his contemporaries (A.F. Losev et al.) ^{[3, c 511]} with the thinker's decadence, with the fact that he is not interested in the problem or phenomenon itself, but only in the impression of the phenomenon, the trace in memory left by the phenomenon^{[8, c 34]}.   Rozanov's statements confirming this idea relate to his assessment of his own psychological state at the time of writing the text and the peculiarities of thinking as a technique (by analogy with the meaning of techne in Antiquity as artificially created products by man), Rozanov's dislike of which is also known "on the ontological level" ^{[8, p. 43]}. Rozanov's departure from technology, the powerlessness to express oneself with its help determines the intention of the thinker, by designating which we approach the understanding of Rozanov's idea-theme; the "designation" of the intention leads us to the world of ancient culture close to Rozanov. In the preface to V.V. Rozanov's main book "On Understanding" V.V. Bibikhin noted that Rozanov's themes can be adequately expressed only in the language of ancient philosophy ^{[9, p. 21]}, i.e. it does not imply direct following the path of ancient thinking, but the ability to understand and evaluate oneself by its means.

The uniqueness of Rozanov's position as a thinker lies in the fact that the features of decadence attributed to him in culture and philosophy form the external background of the genuine deep foundations of his philosophizing, which is largely a translation of the modern Rozanov "situation" into the language of ancient philosophizing (Rozanov's description describes the cosmogonicity of everyday life as a sequence of acts of reproduction and dying outside the social and psychological features of time^{[7, c 24-25]}, description of the family, its place in history- his thought is a return to the true meaning of the circle of birth and death, which interests Rozanov as a particular manifestation of the cosmogony of the earthly world).  

Rozanov's cry is a cry about the causes of everything and the connection of these causes with the ultimate goals of the world cosmogonic process. It is "played out" on various occasions on the pages of the "Solitary" and "Fleeting", and in the "Apocalypse of our time" it becomes a statement that "God is not being, not omnipotence, but the eternal morning of the world, from which everything then" ^{[8, p. 415]}.  This statement can be considered as an example of a characteristic Rozanov technique – demonstrating the result of the process instead of the process itself. In this case, God is not a general philosophical abstraction, but a model of bringing possible variants of the formation of the world to a single form. Another variation of the same Rozanov thesis in the "Solitary" is "My God is special"^{[8, p. 48]}. If you read this text of Rozanov from beginning to end, you will get an apology for Rozanov's subjectivity, ending with the phrase "God is only my mood" ^{[8, p. 48]}. Meanwhile, when Rozanov describes his condition through clarifying the features of this deity, the main emphasis is on the denial of the attributes of God accepted in monotheism. It turns out that the one who does not help, does not nourish, does not support "God", and not "God". Rozanov "reduces the degree" of the controversy by referring to the "bookish" idea of a monotheistic deity. Rozanov's serious attitude towards the deity is on the side of the "mood-god". This is indicated by the construction of a phrase similar to Rozanov's prayer "My God, my eternity ..." ^{[8, p. 49]}, when the thinker is serious and collected.

If we analyze the Rozanov fragments related to this topic, there is a stable association with the ancient category of "becoming" (it is an association, since it is quite difficult to prove something on the basis of direct borrowings from Rozanov). To prove this, it is necessary to combine in meaning the fragments written by Rozanov on this topic, revealing a "stable" meaning that integrates the specifics of Rozanov's writings (according to Rozanov, this meaning is in transitivity - the possibility of things, events, relationships flowing into each other)^{[8,c 415]}. To show the specific forms of this overflow, its "limit points" (meanings)- the life task of a thinker. They can be gathered into one meaning that coincides with the ancient idea of becoming, so Rozanov writes "blindly", that is, he does not set himself the goal of describing an object, phenomenon or state, but almost "photographs" the phenomenon, comprehending it later, as if "scans" the external side of the phenomenon, because otherwise it would have turned out pure abstraction.

Ancient thinkers (Plato and Aristotle) teach that in order for becoming to take place, it is necessary that what does not become (Plato's One, Aristotle's Mind). According to Rozanov, this is the ultimate point of formation, the fulcrum, the beginning of action, and therefore the end point of history, which is lost. This death is a complete zero, an absolute end ^{[8, c 89]}. At the same time, death, after which there is no rebirth, transition to a different form, is impossible in the ancient world, so Rozanov "instinctively" looks for a fulcrum, and he does it not just inside language or thinking, but metaphysically, considering   life phenomena are manifestations of absolute being. All of them form a "vital nerve"Rozanova "sluggish knowledge is priceless, only knowledge drawn with a sharp needle in the soul is valuable" ^{[8, p. 206]}.

It is no coincidence that Rozanov calls himself a prophet ^{[8, c81]}. This is not a boast, and not an exaggeration, he really is a "mute witness" of becoming ^{[10, p. 69]}. In the "Solitary" one can conditionally distinguish several typical descriptions for Rozanov – evidences of the formation of the world. One of them is a "hidden" description of becoming, when it comes to such non-changing "quantities" as God.  Becoming is presented as a fait accompli, the present state of the phenomenon is postulated as its eternal essence.  Rozanov's attempts to find the eternal essence of religion (the transition from paganism to Judaism and from Judaism to Christianity) in the changing factology of the religious can also be attributed to this^{[8, from 137]}.  Rozanov is not interested in the explanation of religions, but in the vital and material forms of becoming hidden in the outlines of the sacraments (the starting point for the "pagan" Rozanov is Christianity as the ultimate target point of transition, and, consequently, the limit of becoming).

Another description of becoming is descriptions of feelings, physical and psychological states of a person, where the features of becoming can be found by comparing these descriptions with the starting point of birth and the end point of death (these are descriptions of falling in love, and the arrival or loss of love in the "Solitary" ^{[8, p. 34-35]}, and the gradual aging of a person, as it were "creeping" into the world of death). Rozanov is struck by the inevitability of the ongoing changes, their inhumanity ^{[8, p. 85]}.

Another description of the description of becoming is fragments of the "Fleeting", which contains an indication of becoming as such (the variability of things, evasiveness, the departure of the world from definition, the necessity or uselessness of things, Rozanov's blessing of the lies of the world and man)^{[7, from 23-24]}. It should be noted that becoming in ancient culture is devoid of emotional connotations - this is a given; for Rozanov, "becoming to death" is a horror ^{[8, c89]}. Hence the materialism of Rozanov's descriptions, because only material things are becoming.  For Rozanov, there is only the material, it is it that opens up to him as an opportunity to fix becoming, since what does not change - for Rozanov, as if there is no "monstrous in me is my thoughtfulness, I am stone" ^{[8, c175]}. Rozanov, who is in search of a fulcrum, is sensitive to any manifestations of stagnation, stopping of action, "freezing", therefore, the embodied regularity, the completed thought, the realized plan for Rozanov becomes a reason for a pause, a pretext for the onset of death (the realized is already nearing the end, but at the same time the family is for Rozanov the most aristocratic form of life, eternal the realization of oneself in another, which cannot be set a limit)^{[8, p. 60]}.

The paradox of Rozanov's thought lies in the fact that for him the eternal search for a limit presupposes a new realization of a thing, the limit does not set fixed boundaries for things, it highlights a new outline of a thing, shows it from a new side; this is an eternity that frightens Rozanov ^{[8, p. 179]}. Thus, the thinker returns to the philosophical usage of the twentieth century the Aristotelian idea of what is.  It should be noted that a number of "watersheds" of Rozanov's thought are directly related to Rozanov's reflection on Aristotle's ideas. First of all, it is a special attention to reality (there is, what is, the most essential is simply reality) ^{[8, p. 169]}. A.F. Losev writes that in Aristotle, reality takes the place of the idea of transcendent being ^{[11, p. 48]}. Rozanov, like Aristotle, is interested in the process of embodying an idea in a concrete material thing, the transition of eidos into a thing (that's why he has things "so necessary alive.." ^{[4, p. 196]}. Commenting on the Aristotelian concept of "whatness", A.F. Losev notes that whatness is the correlation of meaning with otherness (another meaning), the collection of meaning controlled by one point ^{[11, p. 125]}. Thus, the unity of eidos with the non-aesthetic, meaning with its otherness in the sphere of expression, in other words, the expressed meaning, is obtained; this is what Rozanov's descriptions of things, events, and people testify to. Rozanov, as a rule, works with the sphere of expression, with "finished things"^{[8, p. 366]}. Everything that is not expressible, one way or another is not deducible into the external does not interest Rozanov; this realization of the internal through the external "gives the key" to Rozanov's something of the world, more precisely, to Rozanov's after-feeling of this something.  

Rozanov does not use Aristotle's terminology directly, but Rozanov's "thought images"^{[4, c597]} can be analyzed based on the specifics of ancient philosophizing, since in any other case, the features of Rozanov's thinking can be attributed to the author's subjectivism. This is confirmed by the thinker's words about the infinitely developed subjective principle in him ^{[8, c34]}. Interpreting these words, it is necessary to take into account that Rozanov often purposefully defines the secondary as the main thing, since he is only a person of today^{[8, p. 73]}, therefore, Rozanov cannot be attributed to specific philosophical views, his "position" can only be analyzed from the point of view of philosophy of a certain direction.    Rozanov's metaphysics is internally connected with the peculiarities of ancient thinking, this explains Rozanov's "naturalism".

 Rozanov, describing a specific thing and explicating the idea-theme of its formation, starts from its state at the moment. He does not set himself the goal of giving a specific definition of a thing, but describes a thing as a phenomenon, marveling at it ^{[8, c 154; 8, c216]}.  Rozanov reveals the unique features of a thing as such, which is similar to one of the Aristotelian definitions of "whatness" "whatness for each thing is what is said about itself" ^{[12, p. 354]}. This definition is suitable for what the thinker Rozanov wrote and tried to show. He gives, as it were, "ontological reliefs of things", including them, according to A.A. Gryakalov, in his "letter of testimony" ^{[3, p. 618]} At the same time, the thing itself is neither an instrument of a certain idea, nor a method of understanding the world, nor a subjective impression, although Rozanov's descriptions often resemble such impressions. This is rather an attempt to understand the implicit (not hidden, namely implicit) semantic connections of things themselves. The search for these connections is a vital motive  Rozanova^{[8, p. 293]}.  The thinker looked into the soul of the world, the essence, the essence, the root cause and at the same time into the ultimate goal from which everything proceeds and to which everything eventually returns. Rozanov perceives this return organically, it is not caused by any mechanical reasons, it is not predetermined in advance.

Rozanov's works are difficult to understand, because for modern thinking, which developed under the auspices of Cartesian doubt, there is an "ontological gap" between the subject and the object, therefore, the interpretation of Rozanov's writings as subjective revelations is one-sided, since Rozanov is interested in the general life of the cosmos, including the expressed meaning of his own life (individual something) in the something of the cosmos^{[8, with 48]}.  Rozanov "works" with the world of facts, which in eternal "fading", unlike "dreams", he is interested in the specific characteristics of what is in these facts^{[8, p. 323-324]}. Rozanov's works are "inspired" by the dialectic of ancient thinking, since Rozanov's descriptions of things represent a planned path from a thing as a fact to a thing as meaning. This is an attempt to find a middle space between fact and meaning, when "there can be a thousand"points of view on a thing"^{[4, p. 527]} therefore, the transition from pure meaning (abstract form, idea) to a meaningful thing, to a thing in which meaning is materialized, is of such interest to Rozanov. If the Aristotelian understanding of what is conceptual, that is, it is based on the antecedence of certain conditions for the functioning of meaning to the things themselves and the revealed meanings, then Rozanov's reading of "what is" intuitively is an attempt to return to the long-known, but for some reason, forgotten.  Rozanov goes back to the origins of the "birth" of things ^{[8, p. 198]}, therefore, in the works of the thinker there is a sacralization of the past as a time in which the realization of meaning in things took place, carried out in several directions.

Firstly, it is the sacralization of the lost or departed youth of things, people and relationships as a time in which the character of things and people was manifested with special force. In this regard, Rozanov has so many memories of deceased people with whom he met during his youth and whose connection has long been lost ^{[8, p. 55]}.  

Secondly, the sacralization of the "youth of phenomena", their initial state, in which the purpose of their being can still be revealed ^{[8, pp. 45-46]}. Therefore, Rozanov deals with the genesis of revolution, religion, family, and human relations. At the moment of origin, the beginning of formalization and comprehension, individual phenomena stand closer to each other than in old age and dying, when the power of their manifestation weakens. Rozanov is afraid of old age as a kind of blurring of the boundaries of the delineation of phenomena, when the forms of their implementation are more difficult to perceive ^{[8, p. 62]}. The thinker is "afraid" of losing the intuition of the connection of phenomena in their realization and therefore often emphasizes their paradoxical atypical characteristics. By drawing the reader's attention to certain problems, he helps him to realize his own connections with the upcoming existence in real things. Rozanov's ontologism is in constant search for a support, a foundation, the root cause of everything changeable. However, the finding of this root cause is delayed by Rozanov's distant future or attributed to the distant past.

The "position of research", the point of observation in which the thinker "is" and from which he looks at what is happening, is shifted, it does not coincide with a specific direction or a specific ideology that Rozanov adheres to at the moment.^{[8, p 53, 10, p 69]}. Therefore, he is a conservative, a liberal, a judophile, a Judophobe, a pagan and a Christian. His view changes along with the thing, and the only object of research is this change itself[, A.F. Losev wrote about this change in the work "Platonic objective idealism and its tragic fate", arguing that according to Platonic teaching, things change under the influence of the human soul on them [13, p. 344]. The change, taken and considered at its ultimate point (its brightest manifestation, beginning and end), "crystallizes" into a concrete phenomenon endowed with a pronounced meaning (meaning) and reflecting reality as what it is ^{[8, p. 169]}.  This change can be interpreted as Rozanov's subjective arbitrariness or as Rozanov's reading of the laws of the functioning of the cosmos discovered in ancient times.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, after the dominance of positivism in science and decadence in art, such a reading looks unusual, since subordination to laws is perceived as following a mechanical necessity, it is not by chance that A.V. Sobolev wrote about the combination of religious aspiration and positivism in Rozanov ^{[14, p. 82]}. This explains Rozanov's rejection of frozen forms of life, devoid of purpose or connection with all other manifestations of reality. That's why he loved people so much in their connectedness^{[8, pp. 139-140]}.  This connectivity is due not to external causes, but to the internal essential characteristics of the connected.  This arouses Rozanov's interest in organic forms of existence, such as wildlife and man^{[7, p. 199]}.

The peculiarity of Rozanov's vision is also that for its completeness and completeness it is necessary to see not just an object given as meaning, but a truly realized (alive), perceived meaning of reality ^{[8, p. 46]}. Understanding the world, Rozanov sees a complete picture of real life in all its complexity as an already perceived living whole of reality, in the language of antiquity it is its material face (eidos), which according to A.F. Losev is the differential of a thing ^{[15, p. 143]}. Therefore, Rozanov does not need to prove his rightness to someone when he writes that the soul has only a system and or that each of his lines is holy scripture because God wants it so ^{[8, p. 62]}.

Rozanov's appeal to God is a reference to a complete, complete reality, the degree of evidence of which does not need proof. Related to this is the use of  Rozanov of a generally offensive word ("face" "I never look in the face at an event")^{[8, p. 53]} and the connection of the face and soul in a person, for example, in the description of one of the first loves of the thinker ^{[8, p. 35]} in this case there is a "double accentuation" of the Rozanov theme-the idea of becoming: the expression of the phenomenon in reality and certainty, the meaningfulness of reality by a specific phenomenon; this is the description of the girl's appearance as a face (eidos) realized in reality beauty, and a description of the process of imprinting this face in the thinker's memory, which gives the process completeness and finality).  According to Rolzanov, a thought can be recorded only if it is musical ^{[8, c226]}. This coincidence of the characteristics of the initial and final manifestation of a thing (beauty as a thing) is not always found in Rozanov, sometimes the thinker only outlines the path to it ^{[8, p. 201]}. This cannot be attributed to Rozanov's subjectivism, he seeks in his descriptions to reveal the fundamental existential nature of a thing, describing the state of unattainability of this character "tears from any place where he stood" ^{[8, c93]}.  

Rozanov has no doubt that this extreme degree of expression of the thing is actually achievable.  This explains, for example, the thinker's "struggle" with literature as opposed to literature or revolutionism as opposed to revolution. Sometimes Rozanov arbitrarily "puts", as it were, the limit of this expression (literature is all nonsense; life is a lesson where you were a bad student; a black shadow lies on the world).^{[8, p. 174]}. This limit cannot be "invented" by thinking of an object "artificially"; it can only be experienced as an organic, natural, natural combination of the cause expressed with its purpose. Hence Rozanov's naturalism in life, thinking and describing what cannot be invented, and the absence of an essential lie with the external falsity of "wet vices, dirty" ^{[8, c304, 8, c317]}.

The explication of the theme- the idea of becoming in the work of V.V. Rozanov involves the "clarification" of the connection between the eidos and the thing, more precisely, the flowering of the qualities of the thing, indicating its "smart face".  Rozanov is interested in the possibility of interpreting the expressed structure of a thing as a specific unique quality.  The thinker correlates not an idea and a thing, but modifications of concrete ideas in things, and since there are many ideas, each concrete thing can be perceived as one or another degree of realization of the idea. This is how Rozanov's "the world does not stand without a form" can be interpreted ^{[4, p. 196]}, that is, it does not manifest itself as a realized whole that can be seen. The complexity of Rozanov's works lies in the fact that each of their features can be interpreted as the possibility of implementing an abstract category.  Rozanov considers all the processes taking place in the world and the world itself imprinted in memory as the potency of the whole. The full realization of this potency leads to the energetic realization (implementation in action), the embodiment, actualization of the implicit sides of reality, which is the true disclosure of the secrets of nature, the realization of what is hidden, and the implementation is regular-natural and beautiful. Rozanov binds together what is disconnected and restores the true face of reality (this is the subject of the "disclosure of pseudonyms in nature" ^{[7, p. 99]}, which does not involve mechanical action or perception of nature as a mechanism). Rozanov discovers the potential in nature as actual in reality, which began as completed, potency and energy as entelechy (realized reality).   Aristotelian categories help to understand the peculiarities of the organic cosmos seen by the thinker, considering which it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of Rozanov's thinking.

One of these features is imagery. It assumes that the reader understands Rozanov's hints and innuendos and is familiar with the concepts he uses, meaning not only familiarity, but also inner (intuitive) knowledge.   The enumeration of the concepts of Rozanov's lexicon (positivism, soul, body, reality, death, technique ...) shows that they relate to different subject areas and describe reality from different sides, thus there is a contradiction that the thinker resolves (we are talking about an arbitrary play on words, which is part of Rozanov's artistic and philosophical world, and therefore, we can consider this world simply as different techniques of description: A.N. Nikolyukin, V.G. Sukach, S.R. Fedyakin, V.B. Shklovsky, etc;. or about special philosophizing, which should obey the laws and include the experience of previous epochs).

In Rozanov's works ("On Understanding", "Solitary", "Fleeting", "The Apocalypse of Our Time"), the features of ancient (Aristotelian) philosophy are used not at the level of concepts, but at the level of imitation of the style of thinking. Rozanov experiences antiquity as he experiences love, literature, and life. Related to this is another feature of Rozanov's philosophy - the disclosure of concepts as everyday things. This is also the reason for the reproach addressed to Rozanov by his contemporaries of unscrupulousness and immorality. In order to "protect" Rozanov, it is necessary to turn to the categories of Aristotelian thinking (whatness, entelechy, energy), which for Rozanov are limiters (markers of the inner authenticity of philosophy). This is life realized as philosophy and philosophy understood as life.  It makes no sense for Rozanov to invent something of his own, since nature is the realization of the ideal in the material, then it can be viewed through things and human relationships. Rozanov considers this realization as an artistic projection of the real world, the authentic inner life of a person, his mood.  The thinker reveals the levels of this realization in things, ideas, expressed meanings.  Rozanov transfers the semantic characteristics of objects to the sphere of interaction of real things. The thinker considers meanings as certain forms of action, therefore Aristotelian categories in Rozanov's works become forms of perception of reality, concrete moments of its comprehension. According to Aristotle, an object immediately arises as a whole, and the individual qualities of a thing follow the essence in this whole. Thus, by gaining knowledge about the subject, we reveal the subject as a whole and at the same time perceive in this whole the individual characteristics of the thing. Rozanov, dwelling on a multitude of particular moments and, as it were, absolutizing them, never forgets about the whole, which is considered in his works as a totality of concrete things, a concentrated embodiment of individual features of their essence.

In order to understand Rozanov's vision of things, it is necessary to interpret Rozanov's images in the context of Aristotelian ideas, given that Rozanov considers these ideas as a continuation of the religious searches of the early twentieth century, when the private and individual are perceived as common.  Rozanov defines separate, disparate, individually dissimilar things as concrete moments of the embodiment of Aristotelian ideas about the order of the world, although these ideas themselves are considered by Rozanov only externally (a reference to Aristotle when using the term "entelechy")^{[8, p. 433]}.  It is possible to single out a specific semantic series (order), a moment, a point of reference, which is characteristic of Rozanov's works - this is the Aristotelian doctrine that eidos, actualizing, necessarily includes a material moment, that is, Aristotle's eidos has a connection in the formation of eidos and meon, as a pure opportunity to be something^{[12, c118]}. This means that, according to the teachings of Aristotle, there is a material component in eidos, emphasized in Rozanov's works. Rozanov also shows it in the quality of the thing, since the quality denotes the realized possibility of material embodiment (the presence of a material factor), and any fact (the actual manifestation of the thing)  it is a carrier of something. What for Rozanov, as for Aristotle, is the extremely pronounced individual meaning of a thing, that is, why a thing is exactly what it really is ^{[8, p. 93]}.  Therefore, Rozanov's individual so "successfully" correlates with the general. The individualist Rozanov is in search of a rule or a model of genuine cosmogony and only, failing to find this model, defends the individual (individual) characteristics of a thing as its genuine freedom to be what it really is. Being something realized, meaning that the essence of a thing in Rozanov's works correlates with a certain paradigm (the prototype according to which the world develops). If we try to explain this paradigm, then it is ancient (coming from Plato and Aristotle)- the antecedence of the common to the singular. For Rozanov, this is not a dead abstraction, but a rapidly changing life, this is the root of a person's birth ^{[8, p. 64]}.

The peculiarity of Rozanov as a thinker is that, as already mentioned in his works, the individual characteristics (what) of things are directly included in the process of becoming, (according to Aristotle, what is a singularity, covering all the moments of a thing characteristic of its formation)^{[11, p. 33]}. Rozanov's vision of the world is based on this uniqueness, the uniqueness of a thing, the existence of which is considered by the thinker from the point of view of two other Aristotelian categories used by Rozanov: potency and energy.

The topic of potentiality is devoted to Rozanov's first book "On Understanding" and the unwritten work "On Potentiality". By potentiality Rozanov, following Aristotle, understands the possibility of a thing becoming, the empirical possibility of a thing being different ^{[9, p. 38.]}. This is related to Rozanov's doctrine of complete (not requiring an impulse from outside) and incomplete potency. For Rozanov, this is a source of actualization of the "secret meaning" of a thing outside.  This is not always a sacred (religious) meaning, but rather an intimate side of a thing that has the opportunity to manifest itself externally and influence human perception. Rozanov actualizes hearing, smell, and touch as forms of realization of potentially given sides of a thing^{[8, p. 226]}. The sensory analogies used by the thinker emphasize the possibility of the realization of this feature (side) in the appearance of a thing ^{[8, p. 154]}. At the same time, the thinker emphasizes the impossibility of describing the characteristics of a thing purely mechanically, but only "without humiliating the subject, not rudely" ^{[8, c102-103]}. This absence of a formal structure reminds us that potential and actual (completed, completed) are for Rozanov, as for Aristotle, semantic modifications, ways of transmitting individual meanings of an object and fixing their interaction with each other.  Rozanov fixes the general moments of formation as the moments of development of individual things subject to general laws, therefore, he individualizes the general ^{[8, p. 102]}. This is the reason for Rozanov's contradictions, he does not have a pronounced transition point from the general to the individual, according to Aristotle from potency to energy. A.F. Losev defined Aristotle's potency as an abstract principle of the transition of a thing into its expression ^{[11, c103]}. We are talking about semantic shades, the main fixed feature of which is transitivity. This is difficult to put into words, since we are dealing, as a rule, not with a transitional form, but with an "established" thing with certain functions. In order to show the possibilities of this transition, Rozanov emphasizes in every thing and every process the moment of illogical formation, with which potentiality is associated.

In Rozanov's works, there are, as it were, toposes of real life, where the potential is actualized, often these are completely different areas of reality, such as education, history, power, revolution ^{[3, c626]}.  A common point for Rozanov is the predominance of a particular (energetic) moment, method and principle of expression over a common potential purely semantic moment. That is why Rozanov is so interested in the "kitchen" motives of the revolution or "I give the most intimate to everyone" ^{[8, p. 29-30]}.

 The realized potency, embodied in reality, in which the meaning is "seen in a new way", turns around in Rozanov with its other side (prostitutes are lost creatures)^{[8, pp. 107-108]} . We are talking about the unification of the common and the singular: in the ancient tradition, the initially relevant is potentially (the tree is already contained in the sprout), and in the process of becoming (the realization of the ideal in another), the actual is in the foreground in the real thing, and the potential "recedes" into the background. For Aristotle, whose follower Rozanov was, the energetic (actually manifested realization of eidos is important; eidos is not just an abstract semantic face, but the realization of this face within the framework of non-aesthetic formation).  Rozanov describes the "patterns" of this realization using the Aristotelian term entelechy- realized reality, the transition from potency to realized energy, containing the cause of itself and the purpose of its movement.  This is what Rozanov is striving for (the synthesis of the ideal and the real, the identification of matter and form), body and soul. Rozanov, defending corporeality, gives a reference to Aristotle's "soul is the entelechy of the body" (energy realization of potencies inherent in the body" ^{[12, c370]}. The body is an embodied, colorfully and structurally given, immortal soul, the "traditional" concept of which is dry and abstract for Rozanov ^{[8, p. 140]}. Only potency (the general as such) and energy (a single way of manifestation, a specific meaning of the general), being identified, structure entelechy as a realized reality. The result of this is a special "method" of understanding (potential and actual) as a non-reflexive, unthinkable picturesqueness of living being.

Vasily Rozanov's work, built as an acropolis around the theme – the idea of becoming, is dedicated to returning to the world of being as a verbal, artistic and ontological "reproduction" of the "forgotten" cosmos of ancient culture by means of the culture of the Silver Age, where technology was put at the service of the soul for the first time in history ^{[8, p. 140]}. This is how Rozanov's cosmos was "written" – the living, changeable and unchangeable cosmos of antiquity, in which an infinite number of variants of finiteness (everything is limited, "centralized") and crumbling, striving for the "artificial and imposed from the outside" "dictatorship of the whole" "cosmos of modernity", in which "heavy God strokes a man with an iron" by Vasily Rozanov ^{[8, p. 110]}.