To the issue of specifics of Vasiliy Rozanov’s creativity (the experience of the interpretation of suppositions)

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

Introduction

To study the work of V.V. Rozanov, a special "strategy" of reading is needed, which, as we believe, is an assumption. In the Russian religious and philosophical tradition, the term "assumption" was used by E. N. Trubetskoy, who showed that the theory of knowledge is unable to do without metaphysical premises, and their "... overcoming by Kant was of a formal nature"^{[1, p.10]}. Assumptions are formulated by Trubetskoy as an answer to the questions posed by Kant, putting forward them The philosopher remains in the space of epistemology, and not of "pure metaphysics". The term "assumption" asserts the problematic nature of the answer received due to the fact that the resolution of the question may be relative. M.K. Mamardashvili, emphasizing the problematic nature of philosophy, called for relying on the "presumption of the mind"^{[2, p.27]}, according to which the "opinion" of the philosopher can be commented on dialogically. The problematic nature of an opinion is its dignity due to the relativity of human knowledge, therefore the term "assumption", defined by S. I. Ozhegov as a guess and as a preliminary plan, demonstrates the problematic nature of knowledge as an advantage of vision.

The special meaning of the term "assumption" was developed by G.G. Gadamer. Based on his concept, we first considered the intuitions of V.V. Rozanov, expressed in the treatise "On Understanding" and included as images in "Fleeting", "Solitary", "Fallen Leaves", "The Apocalypse of our time", and then the interpretations of Rozanov's work, which have developed in the history of Russian philosophy as assumptions, thus Thus, the subject of the study is the experience of interpretation Rozanov's creativity through assumptions; the goal is to explicate an assumption that brings together reflection and intuitive vision in the context of different strategies for interpreting Rozanov's work. The "pre-opinions" for our interpretation are the "points of view" of P.A. Florensky, V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Bibikhin, G.P. Fedotov, etc. Based on their interpretation in the context of A.F. Losev's teaching on the symbol and M.M. Bakhtin's chronotope theory, an assumption was formulated that allows us to consider Rozanov's work as a universal symbol, the features of which correspond to the intentions of the treatise "On Understanding".

Features of Rozanov's work as prerequisites for making assumptions

Creativity requires not only conceptual analysis, but also a dialogical feeling into Rozanov's image of the world, therefore V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Bibikhin and others considered Rozanov's teaching in connection with the peculiarities of his personality and life. V.V. Bibikhin had a special vision, explicating Rozanov's work in the toponymic and temporal context associated with the life of provincial Russia, in the spiritual space of which V.V. Rozanov's work "On Understanding" became possible.

The "desire" to refer Rozanov to the whole: the space-time continuum or the direction in philosophy It shows that, according to researchers, Rozanov is not included in this context (this also applies to V. V. Bibikhin, who defended Rozanov's right to represent the world as a whole). The "Apotheosis" this interpretation was the point of view of P. A. Florensky, who stated the impossibility for Rozanov to "become part of the whole world"^{[3, p.321]}. We are talking about an intuitive comprehension of the thinker's metaphysics, supported by rational arguments (Florensky compared Rozanov's legacy with chaos, which implies his opposition to the cosmos).

The paradox is that, to define Rozanov's teaching, the definition of metaphysics is suitable as "a naturalistic teaching about the supersensible world and its relation to the sensual world"^{[4, p.40]}; "two worlds are thought of opposing each other"^{[4, p.40]}. The "confrontation" of the worlds is the inner center of Rozanov's creativity to which the "lines" of the thinker's spiritual quest converge, as the content of the treatise "On Understanding" boils down to an apology for the idea of pure existence.

Rozanov explicates understanding as a concrete experience, which in the reader's perception turns out to be a set of schemes. For their reflection, it is necessary to comprehend the life and creativity of the thinker as a whole (in the second half of his life, associated with the creation of a family, the thinker showed that early ideas are included in the fabric of the world of things). The change in tone did not change the thinker's intuition, expressed in the "alphabet of the thinker's creativity"^{[5, p.258]}. V.V. Bibikhin, describing the difference between the early and late periods of Rozanov's work, drew attention to the thinker's language, it is "not the language of the speaker, but the language of the conversation that things lead with us"^{[6, p.25]}. Language unites the work of the early and late Rozanov, his assumption about the world as a whole. The study of Rozanov's work is a conditional approximation to this language, "sketching out the meaning"^{[7, p.317]}. For a thinker, it is a problem, therefore, approaching his assumption is to expand the context of his statement about the world by including the assumptions of interpreters in it. This feature concerns not only Rozanov's work as a whole, but also its individual sides (he, despite the rational nature of understanding, argues "... maybe there is something completely irrational, incomprehensible in the world..."^{[8, p.66]}; this is not a statement of the irrationality of the world, just as the schematism of understanding was not for the thinker a statement of his rationality "... these are incomprehensible sides in things, and things are well known to us by other sides of their being"^{[8, p.66]}.

Interpretation of certain provisions of V.V. Rozanov's treatise "On Understanding" as assumptions constituting the thinker's vision

Two assumptions can be formulated that define the relationship Rozanov's attitude to the world, which he expressed in his work "On Understanding". According to one of them, "... the system of mind schemes can coincide with the system of sides of the world ... and then the world will be completely solved"^{[8, p.65]}. But the possibility of coincidence of mind schemes and sides of the world looks doubtful, we are talking about "unobtrusive depth under the surface rationality"^{[9, p.9]}. Rozanov proceeds from this assumption to show the incomprehensible nature of the world (this is not rational incomprehensibility, but the absence of movement from the world to reason).

It can be assumed that the complexity of Rozanov's vision of the world lies in the fact that the thinker, unlike, for example, V.S. Solovyov or S.L. Frank, for whom the discovery of the incomprehensibility of the world is the first step towards its comprehension, understood incomprehensibility as absolute. The solution to the question of whether incomprehensibility can be interpreted as a possibility of comprehension depends on the "removing assimilation of one's own preconceptions and preconceptions" ^{[7, p.328]} (for example, for V.V. Bibikhin, this is "the expectation of a close decisive comprehension"^{[9, p.9]}, which consists in "liberating knowledge of unconditional the incomprehensibility of the world"^{[9, p.9]}; we are talking about the speculation of what Rozanov suggested ^{[8, p.65]}; knowledge of incomprehensibility for Bibikhin means more than the opportunity to bring Rozanov's intuition to the system).

With such a "reading", Rozanov's confessions of "... lack of self-control and monstrous thoughtfulness" become understandable ^{[10, p. 175]}. In describing thoughtfulness, the thinker combines the incompatible - unbearable heaviness, stoniness and absolute lack of will - an easy switchability of attention, which should "interfere" with this thoughtfulness, and in Rozanov's work it strengthens this thoughtfulness. In recognizing his own weakness lies Rozanov's assertion of the incomprehensibility of the world.

The "peculiarity" of Rozanov's assumption lies in the fact that it does not exclude an alternative "assumption", which boils down to the coincidence of the schemes of the mind and the sides of the world with each other. This can explain Rozanov's desire to be practical "one must walk in polished boots"^{[10, p.96]}. In this fragment, the combination of the spiritual and material spheres in one statement is of interest, the thinker moves from talking about boots to talking about the mind, the domination of mysticism over which should be "completely deep, completely hidden in itself"^{[10, p. 96]}, giving an idea of the coincidence of the scheme of reason with a specific side of the world. "Boots" are an expression of the practical aspect of the world, and mysticism is an expression of the spiritual aspect of the world do not exclude each other. The state of affairs described by Rozanov does not contain secrets, showing the "exposure of the reception"^{[11, p.146]}. Rozanov, clashing the spiritual and material spheres, talks about something completely different, related to the world as a whole, demonstrating a "deep", hidden" domination over the mind. This is a realized understanding that describes reality without giving the reader anything new. Rozanov shows the current state of things as a coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world", without demonstrating the "solution", which he wrote about in his first work. The "Solitary" confirms the assumption of A.V. Sobolev that "the intimate thoughts of the late Rozanov are not so far from the ideas of his early treatise"^{[12, p.80]}

The coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world" has become commonplace. The "thinker's assumption" returns"to the reader's vision the acuteness at which he should see "... the missing links in the chain of understanding"^{[8, p.18]}. The coincidence of reason and the world lies in the fact that abstract questions are connected with human life "... with the very foundation of it"^{[5, p.259]}. In "Fleeting" Rozanov expressed the same state of things "... there is what there is"^{[13, p.26]}; "it's one thing to live in your house, and another to admire the sunset"^{[13, p. 26]}. Rozanov's remark is also like the phrase about domination over The mind contains the "solution" that the thinker promised readers "About understanding" if there is a coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world".

The recipe for discovering the mystery of the world is to leave the mystery of the world a mystery and fix attention on it when it opens to a person, give her the right to a voice (this is the "exposure of the reception"), following which the mystery of the world will manifest itself in everyday things. "Living in a house" means having a foothold in a changing world, a place that is its own in it, but Rozanova "... tears ... from every place where he stood"^{[10, p.93]}, that is, his place is everywhere and nowhere. In this sense, "admiring the sunset" means openness to the world, willingness to accept what it offers a person. Openness It does not come down to finding out the secret of the world without bringing a result, expressed in a discovery that allows a person to master the world. Rozanov, does not look at things from the point of view of their correspondence to a human or divine "scenario", but admires them "... it saddens me that everything is imperfect: but not in the sense that things do not fulfill some commandment, some expectation from them (and does not come to mind)..."^{[10, p. 154]}. This is both Rozanov's "strength" and "weakness". "Strength" lies in openness to a vision that is not limited by formal requirements, and "weakness" lies in the inability to repeat the experience of seeing that cannot be "set" or mastered. An attempt to master it will lead to its insignificance.

Rozanov's assumption of the comprehensibility or incomprehensibility of the world is subordinated to the experience of understanding, therefore it is resolved due to the openness of the thinker's vision to the world (statements about the coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world" and the statement about their discrepancy are potentially brought closer by Rozanov in one assumption). It can be interpreted both from the point of view of the coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world", and from the point of view of their discrepancy. The thinker "chooses" between a rational and an irrational "scenario" of the relationship between mind and the world. Related to this is the ambiguity of Rozanov's work, emphasized by V.V. Bibikhin, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Zenkovsky, and others, his uncertainty, which "... does not just take the place of any certainty - on the contrary, it opposes any definition that becomes radically insufficient"^{[14, pp.82-83]}.

Rozanov stops in surprise at the world as a whole "... I never guessed, did not look, did not peep, did not think. But suddenly something struck me...."^{[10, p.153]}. Continuing his thought, Rozanov remarks "... that's how it would be or throw a light from there"^{[10, p.153]}. Rozanov's statement explains the peculiarities of the thinker's assumptions, showing the nature of the "selectivity" that dictated his life attitudes of the thinker. Uncertainty for him is not a pre-selected scenario, but the opportunity to accept any of them. "To throw light" means "to understand what is already known as knowledge"^{[8, p.15]}, but it can be done in different ways - this is Rozanov's understanding. He is not talking about knowledge, but about what is known as knowledge, demonstrating its incompleteness.

The interpretation of incompleteness is perceived by Rozanov as a failure. The injection of uncertainty, as well as the quantitative increase in knowledge, "does not correspond" to the state of things, in which both the coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world" and their discrepancy are possible. In a world striving for certainty, uncertainty cannot become a "point of reference" because thinking "guesses" a new form of certainty in it. Rozanov's "throwing the light" turns out to be "ineffective", since "throwing the light", like Gadamer's "sketching the meaning", involves comprehending something new and may turn out to be different. Rozanov believed that understanding is complete in itself "... understanding acquires a closed character when it becomes perfect"^{[8, p.15]}.It can be assumed that he considers the possibility of understanding by analogy with perfect knowledge, but Rozanov believed that self-contained understanding represents a different quality of being in relation to knowledge. This position is closer to the intuition of Aristotle, which connects absolute knowledge with the cosmic mind – the prime mover, than to the position of modern philosophy, for which the intuition of absolute knowledge is associated with the endless improvement of existing knowledge. Rozanov tries to avoid the "bad infinity" when the acquisition of new knowledge entails its expansion, therefore, moments of uncertainty are associated in the treatise "On Understanding" with the discrepancy between human knowledge approaching understanding and self-contained understanding, therefore "Rozanov will not bring opposites to unity. He knows that the cliff is included in the economy of being"^{[9, p.10]}.

The discrepancy between the "schemes of reason" and the "sides of the world" for Rozanov is predestination, as evidenced by the thinker's attention to the forms of uncertainty in nature and life, which demonstrates Rozanov's understanding of history "... isn't history a monstrous other person who swallows people into his food, not thinking at all about their happiness… How terribly and ruthlessly everything is arranged"^{[10, p.94]}. This statement of Rozanov contains the "key" to the interpretation of the thinker's assumptions concerning the "schemes of the mind" and "sides of the world". The thinker's words suggest a reference to the cosmic order, correct but ruthlessly arranged. This ruthlessly arranged world includes the coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world", and their discrepancy "... why harmony, not confusion"^{[13, p.26]}. According to the position of the thinker, evil is as necessary as good, order is as desirable as disorder.

Understanding according to Rozanov demonstrates an assumption, without offering a solution found, it makes the possibilities assumed by the thinker potentially necessary. There are an infinite number of these possibilities, therefore, an indefinite number of other questions remain from the question posed by Rozanov about the world. They are solvable, but their resolution turns out to be inhuman. Rozanov's proposed exit has the possibility of many exits, making the "hopelessness" of the situation acceptable. This is either stated by Rozanov as a fact "... there is no rule without exception" - the world is based on this"^{[15, p.458]} or the "resolution" of the issue is given as drawing the reader's attention to Rozanov's personality, most often due to the inability to solve the specified issue.

The key to this "inability is Rozanov's explanation of it "... who knows the truth? – That's it. – And not the wise men? – Everything is a sage; and there is always only one"^{[15, p.527]}. The thinker's assumption can be interpreted both as a "denial" of one's right to possess the truth, and as recognition of the truth as a common property. One can interpret these words of Rozanov in such a way that no one owns the truth individually, and the approach to it is relative. "Relativity" "resembles" a positivist reliance on facts, however, "... man is shedding, shedding, and the whole world is in eternal decay"^{[10, p. 179]}. Rozanov's "support" lies in the security of the human vision of the world, which, although relative, remains the only one for the thinker.

This feature of Rozanov's vision was described by V.V. Bibikhin "the true goal of science according to Rozanov is to understand what is"^{[5, p.259]}. In Rozanov's "there is", everyone is approaching the truth, but the process of this approximation does not guarantee success. Rozanov's assumption is that the ontological source of knowledge, in which it is given in its certainty (in this Rozanov does not disagree with A.F. Losev), is defined and revealed to man through the openness of the horizon. Rozanov demonstrates openness both by doubting the authenticity of specific knowledge and by showing that knowledge as a whole is manifested in the experience of uncertainty. "Uncertainty" is ontologically justified due to the fact that people would not be able to endure certainty "... is not the world full of horrors that we do not know at all? Is it not because there is no complete vision that the mind would not tolerate it, and especially the human heart would not tolerate it?" ^{[10, p.161]}. In this description, the "apotheosis" of certainty is given, open, but not subordinate to man, although correlated with him. It is no coincidence that the thinker lovingly described the physical connection between the world and man, believing that, unlike the spiritual connection, it is indissoluble, although not definable in human terms.

In Rozanov's world, an inversion occurs: physical relations, the "external" side of a person, which for rational philosophy was the focus of uncertainty, becomes a form of certainty. The thinker assumes that certain forms of nature and life testify about the "schemes" behind them. What speculative knowledge considers definite turns out to be a form of uncertainty for Rozanov, and the variability of a thing, movement, feeling "demonstrates" the certainty of an indefinite cause behind it, therefore Rozanov's "concrete" descriptions turn out to be "isolated". This also applies to Rozanov's first book "On Understanding", about which V.V. Bibikhin noted that for its true assimilation it is necessary not only to correlate the content of Rozanov's intuitions with the general form of what modern man is accustomed to mean by philosophy, but to interpret, trying to follow not Rozanov's terminology, but his intentions

^{[9, p.25The correctness of V.V. Bibikhin's interpretation is evidenced by the fact that any real object can be summed up under the schemes presented by Rozanov in the work "On Understanding"; their formal immutability includes variability. It seems that the thinker follows the general trend of philosophy – universalization, when a phenomenon assumes a reason behind it, this is partly what happens, but Rozanov stops at a particular phenomenon expressing a general meaning. We are not talking about a schematic union of the general and the particular, but about the phenomenon of meaning. Assumptions Rozanov explicates the meaning in the phenomenon without disturbing its "living" tissue. It becomes clear why Rozanov is "interested" in individual things, behind which "stands" the whole expressed in them. The "abstract" whole, seen by Rozanov outside of reference to this expression, is something terrible, therefore the thinker sees the state or the fatherland only through specific images of peasants, priests, etc.[15, p.448]}. The "open" expression of the whole "scares" Rozanov "... he is a terrible genius"^{[13, p. 214[by genius Rozanov understands the absolute manifestation of meaning, which cannot change, pass into another). The impossibility of transition to another is synonymous with the unraveling of the world, the possibility of coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world", therefore, the thinker emphasizes the features of originality in the interlocutors. But we are not talking about genius, for example, when a thinker describes the talent of his friends Shperk, Rza and Florensky[10, p.71]}, their originality turns out to be correlated with his own originality (Rozanov brings other people closer to the whole through his own personality, which turns out to be a "substitute" for the whole).

The possibility of rapprochement with the whole "allows" Rozanov "to speak "on behalf of the world"demonstrating "a prophetic gift^{[10, p.81]}. It is no coincidence that the thinker calls himself "... average in the prophets"^{[10, p.81]}. Prophecy for Rozanov is his domestic circumstance, without a mission "... to change the fate of the people"^{[10, p.81]}. The "averageness" of the attitude does not indicate Rozanov as a prophet, but the whole, of which he becomes the exponent (the thinker's prophecy is addressed not to the world, but to the people, the philosopher considered it a purely Russian phenomenon that is, Rozanov's whole is expressed through the concrete, the spiritual is shown through the material). This feature of Rozanov "continues" his assumption about the discrepancy between the "schemes of reason" and the "sides of the world", predetermining the impossibility of choosing a position "... I feel good alone and with everyone. I am not a loner or a social activist"^{[10, pp.47-48]}.

In the thinker's statement, both the "external" side is interesting (Rozanov describes the thought that has just come to him as a "revelation") and the "content" (the transition from describing one's own personality to describing the whole, the transition is in Rozanov a transsense - going beyond the present; it is placed in a "worldly" context and is not formally justified). The general reveals itself in the particular, but this is emphasized by the thinker in such a way that the particular "replaces" the general. Rozanov's "picture of the world" explicates the extremely general, revealed in a particular moment.

The "complexity" of the thinker's vision is that the thing or person caught in Rozanov's "lens" is characterized by a specific detail, which can be explained by the difference between eidos and the idea "eidos has a differential nature, and the idea has an integral nature^{[16, p.145]}. In order to highlight the eidos of a thing, it is necessary "... to run your eyes over the outlines of the object, absorbing its originality, so different from everything else and analyze this difference"^{[16, p.144]}. When selecting an "idea", unlike eidos, the mind observes "how an object is created from these details"^{[16, p.144]}. Rozanov's vision of the world is eidetic, it captures particular moments of a thing or characteristics of a person (person), focusing on their differences from everything else. A. F. Losev emphasized that "both eidos and idea indicate a certain vision, significance, one or another directly contemplated reality"^{[16, p.144]}.

Rozanov demonstrates a vision in which the whole is presented as a set of eidos "... the genius is to combine art with craft. And the highest with the most ordinary"^{[15, p.351]}. The thinker emphasizes the fragmentary nature of the vision, emphasizing its concreteness, it is about running through the object with the eyes and the whole seen in this way. The whole is inseparable from seeing as understanding as a result is inseparable from understanding as a process. Private it shows correlation with the whole, but the whole, taken outside the "vision", remains an abstraction "... on the right with a form that seems soulless.... It should consist in a strict and explicit distinction between a person and a job"^{[15, pp.196-197]}. The face in its uniqueness eidetically represents the whole, and the work as a whole shows the idea of this whole. But the work, taken impersonally, is an abstraction, the abstract order of the world seems to the thinker to be destruction, therefore he opposes the abstract German order and the Russian laxity. Rozanov is looking for a middle ground between two extremes, he is interested in the moment of their rapprochement, which is realized through specific singularities, and the whole according to Rozanov not only includes singularities, but also maintains their independence due to its existence; therefore, for the thinker in his "... coping with the form" ^{[15, p. 196]}, the place of the person, the subject, remains important in it. "On the right with the form" combines the incompatible: correlation with the form, without which "... the world is not worth it"^{[15, p. 196]} and its "removal", taking place in the name of a single whole "... but here is the secret of my dialectic: "my present day ... and gave me all the strength and all the insight"^{[10, p. 73]}. Rozanov's present day is a concrete moment, a single thing expressing the whole.

The inexpressible "essence" of Rozanov is that the singular, the finite, is for him a point of reference. This explains what V.V. Zenkovsky called "faith in human nature and tender love for it"^{[17, p. 440]}. For Rozanov, faith in human nature is devoid of the features of "naturalism". The thinker emphasizes the moment of uniqueness of human existence. We are talking about an apology for the uniqueness of man, which is prevented from developing by a religious doctrine imposed on it or a positivist-oriented science. The apology of human uniqueness, as already indicated, does not pass from Rozanov into the absolutization of human nature, which turns out to be correlated with the world as a whole.

The peculiarity of Rozanov's assumption is that the "abstract" definition of the whole, by which one should mean a free and indefinite world ^{[13, p.95]} and which the thinker called science, associating with understanding, lies in the fact that the abstract whole is realized in concrete things and people. It points to them, and they point to him; this is evidenced by Rozanov's "dialogue" with K. A. Timiryazev ^{[15, pp.209-210]}, in which the world studied by positivist science is compared to a corpse. The characteristics of the "living" world, which, if viewed in isolation from the whole, are sustained by Rozanov in a pantheistic way, do not relate to "admiring" the world, but to pointing out the inexpressible essence of the relationship between the world and man. It consists in preserving the positions of the thinker and the positivist scientist parodied by him. While remaining opposite, they do not exclude each other, connecting with each other in a "neutral" space, which is understanding for the thinker. Rozanov's "neutrality" lies in the insufficiency of both his position and that of his opponent. The point is that both positions "enter" into the mystery of the world unknown to the interlocutors. The difference between Rozanov and the positivist scientist is that Rozanov retains respect for the mystery of the world, which his opponent considers necessary to use in order to master the world.

Rozanov's position is connected with the religious "pre-understanding" of the world as a whole, which determines the spiritual searches of his contemporaries V.S. Solovyov, N.N. Strakhov, etc. For the thinker, both his position and the position of the opponent are included in the understanding, therefore in Rozanov ".. there is a gradual process of rejection of a person of his era and his circle from positivism"^{[18, p. 64]}. Rozanov rediscovers the world of tradition by returning to it, but we assume that his position has not changed since the time of writing "On Understanding". This is a peering into the world, discovering something new, not in order to show the connection of what has been found with the accepted doctrine, but so that the doctrine changes in accordance with the new, therefore its essence is "... in the great newborn"^{[15, p.324]}. It consists in the fact that the thinker rediscovers the world for himself. In this "discovery" Rozanov demonstrates the already mentioned "exposure of reception"; the event is called anew, being shown from a new side. Rozanov's "own" place is outside the event, he sees the world in a different perspective: "... you are just made things. Shop of made things"^{[10, pp.114-115]}. This fragment allows us to explicate several points important for the creativity of the thinker. One of them is the rejection of completed forms of things that do not have the potential to change, self-determination, individualization, at the same time, the variability of things emphasizes the immutability of understanding "... understanding is not related to life, it makes up a special world"^{[5, p.259]}. Changing things is not directly related to understanding, but it is necessary for it so that it happens exactly as it happens.

This feature of Rozanov's vision duplicates one of the points concerning the functioning of the ideas of reason necessary to achieve a complete understanding "... each of the ideas (schemes) of being does not contain all other ideas, but externally relies on them as necessary conditions for everything that exists, in its very essence there is something heterogeneous from everything else, there is something original and unrelated to anything except the very being, the side of which it is"^{[8, p.49]}. Rozanov's assumption contains the essence of the relationship of understanding (being) to individual things (the individual is based on the general, but they are not externally connected in any way, their correlation is given by understanding).

In understanding, it is possible to bring together what is not brought together in empirical experience "... A ball in a kennel with which you can play ..." ^{[10, pp.114-115]} the thinker is closer than his interlocutors. For Rozanov, the form in which understanding is given is important. In his later works, he does not resort to the help of abstract schemes, carrying out a "collision" of things, "breaks" the reader's perception. Sharik is opposed in his concreteness to the bearers of spiritual ideals, the existence of which Rozanov considers an abstraction. In addition to the opposition of a living being to an abstract spiritual alien world, there is an "artificiality" of a situation invented by a thinker in which opposition is possible. This is a situation of understanding "planned" by Rozanov, the thinker's assumption about the world, the experience of comprehending it, which cannot be put, nevertheless it was "put" by Rozanov on the pages of the "Solitary". Rozanov offers readers a "version" of the statement of the experience of understanding, describing his attitude to events "... it is amazing that sometimes I look with all my eyes at an event, and even write articles about it, finally pronounce deeply separate words about it, of clear and significant meaning, into the level and into the core of the event: and meanwhile I don't see it at all..."^{[10, p.53]} (this is a moment of "pure" understanding, different from knowledge about an event; a description of the connection between an event - a specific entity - and the idea of understanding that defines what exists; in Rozanov, the idea of understanding does not define what exists - a specific event, but a separate side of this event). At the same time, due to the eidetic nature of the thinker's descriptions, he is talking about the event as a whole. Due to the fact that, as already mentioned, the "scheme of the mind" may not coincide with the "side of the world", the position of the event remains problematic.

The thinker's "choice" of an event and reaction to it cannot be explained, Rozanov marks events, correlating them with his own subjectivity "... I have a lingering soul of an event..."^{[10, p.53]}. She is the mediator between the event and the state of affairs, which reflects the metaphysics of the thinker. The relationship between these "dominants" of Rozanov's work may change, but their correlation remains unchanged "... at least I completely abandoned some thought, even if at last I hated it, nevertheless I have it, that is, I think so, but I think already in the form of a weak impression..."^{[13, p.16]}. This is explained by the understanding attitude of Rozanov's work, in the center of which is not a specific point of view, but the possibility of putting forward many assumptions, which is the point of convergence of the vision of the early and late Rozanov.

In the field of view of researchers, as a rule, it turns out to be either late, as in the study of N.O. Lossky and A.V. Sobolev, or early Rozanov, as in the works of V.V. Bibikhin. This is explained by how important the "pre-opinions" concerning the creativity of the thinker are for the researcher. According to them, the late Rozanov is more understandable than the early one, and the statements of the thinker, which have become popular, represent Rozanov's work as a whole, V.V. Bibikhin wrote about the controversy of this position. This assumption reveals the problem of the connectivity of the worlds of the early and late Rozanov, since stylistically the works of the late Rozanov differ from the early works. We believe, we believe, that in the work "On Understanding" we are talking about a terminologically fixed vision of the whole, and in the "Solitary", "Fleeting", "Apocalypse of our time" about seeing the whole from the point of view of the individual.

The difference between the thinker's early and late works becomes a condition for the perception of the features of Rozanov's work, demonstrating how the thinker's ideas were seen by him in the context of everyday life. The connection between Rozanov's early and late works is actualized, as we assume, in the symbolism of the vision (we are not talking about the holistic attitude of Rozanov's work, which is interpreted symbolically).

The symbolism of creativity as a supposed possibility of convergence of the intentions of the "early" and "late" Rozanov

The symbolism of Rozanov's works is a "pre-opinion" - a potential opportunity to explain the thinker's creativity, allowing to explicate its features. The explication of symbolism is carried out on several "levels" of the thinker's creative vision. Their "deployment" is carried out in our work from the singular to the general. At the most specific "private" level, symbolism is expressed in the fact that the general indicates the particular, and the particular indicates the general, which can be interpreted from different positions.

According to one of them, Rozanov's specific statements are interconnected in the abstractly understood space of the text (we are talking about finding these statements in one book, for example, in the "Solitary"). A more complex version of the symbolic relationship between the general and the individual is Rozanov's work as an abstract unity of ideas, views, etc., for example, in the analysis of Rozanov's work by Lossky and Zenkovsky. In this interpretation, there is a symbolically given connection - the parts and the whole do not just point to each other, but show the connection as something concrete. Based on V.V. Bibikhin's intuitions, we assume that at a higher qualitatively different level, which determines a different degree of concreteness of individual moments, Rozanov's work is a symbol for which understanding becomes symbolized as an incomprehensible meaning, and Rozanov's life becomes symbolized (this "pre-opinion" cannot be understood literally, since it "diverges" with the statement of the thinker concerning the coincidence of "mind schemes" and "sides of the world"; the contradiction is solvable, given the fact that "On Understanding" eidetically emphasizes the points of difference between knowledge and understanding; this feature "prevents" Rozanov from being classified as a "positivist" camp).

The possibility of interpreting understanding as knowledge also emphasizes the symbolism of Rozanov's world. A.F. Losev pointed out the generalizing nature of the symbol "... a symbol is a generalization indicating a set of facts for which this generalization is a principle, law and method, sign and force"^{[19, p.30]}; (according to Bibikhin, it is "an understanding gesture, the grasp, dexterity of the master"^{[9, p.12]}, which can be applied to different things, but is not related to them as the signified and the signifier in the symbol are not related to each other). The peculiarity of Rozanov's "understanding gesture" correlates with the description of the symbol "... the symbol is an internally externally expressive structure of a thing and a sign of this structure that has no connection with the signified content"^{[19, p.45]}, "... the symbol is based on a different substrate than the one it symbolizes"^{[19, p.55]}.

The definition of the symbol, in our opinion, demonstrates the peculiarity of Rozanov's vision - things indicate an understanding that is not directly related to them, which "generates" the apophaticism of the thinker's creativity (what cannot be proved, but can only be seen lies at the heart of the evidence "... I never told a lie. All my "yes" and "no" are equally true" ^{[15, p. 198]}). The peculiarity of this description is that the personality of the thinker becomes the "substrate" on which understanding unfolds: it is demonstrated that the substrate can be anything, since the personality changes, remaining unchanged "... you need to have a thousand points of view on the subject"^{[15, p.527]}, "and reality is only through a thousand points on it the point of view is determined"^{[15, p.527]} (reality is indefinable and at the same time symbolic, indicating something by which it is determined without being connected with it).

Rozanov's description of reality corresponds to the definition of the symbol "... the symbol is not a given thing, but a given, its assumption, assumption"^{[19, p.12]}. Reality, on which there can be a thousand points of view, according to Rozanov is not given, but set, it can be expanded from a thousand points of view, at the same time each point of view reveals the task only partially "... in the symbol, generalization creates an infinite semantic perspective"^{[19, p. 40]} (infinite semantic perspective, considered from the side of finite things, expresses Rozanov's creativity).

According to another definition, the symbol represents "... a function that is a model for an infinite number of approximations to it"^{[19, p.15]}, based on which Rozanov's intuition represents a single moment of approximation to eternal understanding. A specific point of approach contains a particular understanding (Rozanov refers abstract definitions to specific things). Outside of symbolization as an approximation to the whole, the interpretation of the thinker's work is incomplete. The definition we have proposed, as already indicated, is a "pre-opinion", according to which symbolization introduces the interpreter into relation to Rozanov's world as a whole. We assume that with regard to Rozanov's intentions, Losev's teaching on the interpretative symbol approaches the methodology of hermeneutics, despite the difference in the initial attitudes of vision "... the whole in the text should be understood on the basis of a part, and the part should be interpreted on the basis of the whole"^{[6, p. 72]}), which corresponds to the doctrine of the interpretative symbol, but Gadamer's speech about a work of art, and Losev's is about a symbol as a task that must be completed.

We assume that in relation to Rozanov's work, the "task" cannot be fulfilled, since it is an infinite symbol, the interpretations of which are strategies for comprehending it. N. O. Lossky considered Rozanov's work as a whole based on its particular moments. V.V. Zenkovsky, on the contrary, proceeded from the understanding of the thinker's creativity as a whole, to which particular moments are subordinated.

N. O. Lossky's point of view is that "... Rozanov's works were not of a systematic consistent nature, but sparks of genius were often found in them" ^{[20, pp.396-397]}. The philosopher characterizes Rozanov's work based on his particular moments that anticipate the picture of the whole, at the same time Lossky modestly evaluates Rozanov's work "On Understanding"; for him, the expressive side, his style, indicating "sparks of genius", appears to prevail in Rozanov's work.

V. V. Zenkovsky considers Rozanov's work as a movement from the whole to the parts, highlighting in the spiritual quest of the thinker the periods of "pure" Orthodoxy, the distinction between the religion of Golgotha and the religion of Bethlehem and the Christian faith"^{[17, p.438]} (in our opinion, the reflection of the symbolism of Rozanov's work lies at the basis of the definition of periods). Each period indicates the creativity of the thinker as a whole, which is expressed through him. Zenkovsky's assumption, despite its correspondence with Rozanov's intentions, while highlighting the whole, "ignores" the particular, since, characterizing the thinker's transition from one period to another, it does not pay enough attention to their originality. The symbol deployed by Zenkovsky, if perceived in isolation from the particular moments of Rozanov's work, those "sparks" that N.O. Lossky pointed out, becomes an abstraction.

The image of the "spark" used by N.O. Lossky is confirmed by V.V. Bibikhin "... Rozanov's work is marked by breakthroughs"^{[9, p.13]}. It is explicated as a realized symbol through "breakthroughs" or "sparks" (G.P. Fedotov called this "the process of disintegration of the atom"^{[3, p.387]}, that is, "the disintegration of radical positivist and church conservative consciousness in Rozanov"^{[3, p.387]}; therefore, "ideas are available to Rozanov only in abstract clumps of everyday life"^{[3, p.386]}). G.P. Fedotov noted Rozanov's trait, which allows to bring together an opinion about the thinker's work as a whole and as a set of particular moments. Symbolization is possible for Rozanov if an infinite semantic perspective is associated with a specific thing. This is the "grinding" of a symbol, when, pointing to an infinite semantic perspective, it nevertheless cannot be distracted from the "substrate" ^{[19, p.44]} on which it is given. Rozanov described this feature of his vision as "... it's great to think like that..." ^{[13, p.334]}, which indicates different perspectives of vision.

One of them is related to the state of the subject, and the other is related to the state of things that should be good. The thing according to Rozanov, symbolizing something, comes closer to him. We assume that in Rozanov's "small" world, convergence makes the semantic perspective finite, so he returns to what he calls "... his present day"^{[10, p. 73]} (what A.F. Losev called approximations to a function, for which this function becomes a model, is carried out by Rozanov as an absolutization the approximations themselves); therefore, Rozanov is in no hurry to express the "last" judgment about the thing, and in its symbolism, the movement towards the infinite presupposes the possibility of returning to the finite.

This feature of the thinker's creativity is, as already mentioned, the strength and weakness of Rozanov's position. The "power" lies in the unlimited possibilities of symbolization. The weakness lies in the fact that the resulting symbol – Rozanov's work turns out to be "changeable", therefore "... not a single sluggish line throughout such an immeasurable length of all his works..."^{[13, p.13]}. Rozanov's desire to discover new things "opposes" completeness. We are not talking about an infinite semantic perspective, but about a finite perspective that absolutizes the spiritual quest of the thinker and their ontological source – the personality of the author. Rozanov stated that "... simply has no form (Aristotle's causa formalis)"^{[10, p.34]}, which confirms the authenticity of Florensky's intuition about Rozanov's non-entry into the whole world. We assume that the essence of non-occurrence remains the symbolism of the thinker (Rozanov, without entering into the whole, points to him, demonstrating that the world exists, and its existence differs from human representations).

The thinker's self-exposure makes it necessary to take an approach that makes it possible to explain Rozanov's "out-of-place", which is why the thinker's position is changeable. We assume that the intuition with which Rozanov's work can be explained is contained in A.F. Losev's teaching about Himself. In this context, the essence of the thinker's "movement" towards the world becomes clear, explicating the features of Rozanov's vision and determining the transition from the apophatics of a thing - its absolute indeterminability to the cataphatics - the possibility of defining it against the background of signs abstracted from it^{[21, p.323]}. The "transition" according to Losev can be defined only in terms of dialectics as the logic of a symbol^{[21, p.346]}. The symbol exists in order to reveal the Very Self of a particular thing, "... indicating that here it is a thing" ^{[21, p. 318]}. We assume that Rozanov, in his creative symbolism, carries out the process of explication of the inexpressible of the Most concrete things without passing to the otherness of a thing when it is defined against the background of its signs. The thinker stops at the Very thing Itself, demonstrating its irreducibility to nothing else. Rozanov's things are indeterminate in their concreteness, but the indeterminacy of a thing presupposes the possibility of putting forward its features.

Rozanov's position is a "balancing act" between the indefinable Very thing Itself, which the thinker intuitively explicates and the multitude of its phenomena. Rozanov does not come to it in a rational way (rationalization, if it was carried out, is carried out by him after the fact; it is no coincidence that A.F. Losev considered the Very Itself "... a terrible powerful reality"^{[21, p.334]}, pointing to the irrational characteristics of the Very Thing underlying the rational definition of Existence, as Rozanov intuitively noted, "... the most essential thing is simply reality" ^{[10, p. 169]}). This feature is also shown by the thinker from a different point of view "... truth is higher than the sun, ... higher than God..."^{[10, p.52]}. If we combine these statements of Rozanov within the framework of one "assumption", then it can be formulated in such a way that reality is the truth about the world. If for Losev, the apology of Himself is the rational defense of the irrational source of knowledge and being, then for Rozanov it is an affective experience of Himself as the inexpressible truth of the world."…I don't want the truth, I want peace"^{[10, p.169]}. The thinker, emphasizing the inexpressibility of what he has to say, gives way to silence, in which the most important thing has already been said (we are talking about Rozanov's desire to begin to "manage" what he did not own; this is connected with the accusations of the thinker of immoralism, a change of positions).

We assume that the inexpressible Itself expresses itself by entering the symbolic world of Rozanov's work. We have considered the features of the "entry", which the thinker observes rather than participates in, in another work ^{[22, p. 109]}. The interpretation of the thinker's creativity in the context of the doctrine of the Most non- explains the whole, and concerns its individual sides, which is necessary in order to move from the "pure" apophaticism of the Very Itself to assumptions that reveal Rozanov's work as a concrete whole.

We assume that one of the "theories" that make it possible to make the transition from the explication of Rozanov's work as a whole to the description of concrete things by the thinker is Aristotle's doctrine of potency (we are not talking about the commonality of the "doctrines" of Aristotle and Rozanov, but about the commonality of view; the work "On understanding" contains the doctrine of potency, which the thinker considered important for his work "... I have not described almost all the philosophers in more detail about potentials"^{[23, p. 358]}). To understand Rozanov's work, Aristotle's intention turns out to be significant "... in general, if you look for elements of existence without distinguishing between the many meanings of existence, then you cannot find these elements" ^{[24, p. 91]}. Aristotle criticizes the teachings of natural philosophers, but the remark about the "multitude of meanings of existence" characterizes Rozanov's "position" - in order to find the whole, it is necessary to know the multitude of meanings of the particular "... the same truth arises in humanity an infinite number of times"^{[25, p.23]}, thus, many potencies of truth and transitions between them.".everything that happens is due to what is given in its realized form"^{[25, p.48]}, and in the cosmic mind, pursuing its own conceivable, there is a synthesis of the aspiration of the goal and its achievement^{[25, p.54]}. Rozanov's understanding, which has a human character (V.V.Bibikhin) and differing in this from the Mind of Aristotle is a synthesis of striving for a goal and achieving it. Rozanov in "On Understanding" paid attention to the distinction between an active, but not independent mind from a passive, but absolutely self-sufficient mind, which reveals itself only at those moments when "life itself tries to become its reflection"^{[8, p.25]}.

We assume that the "common" feature of Aristotle and Rozanov is the intention of the realization of the world - the desire to show how the theory is realized in the "living" cosmos. Potency becomes the form of its realization for both Aristotle and Rozanov. A.F. Losev distinguishes from Aristotle four meanings of the term "potency" "... potency is the principle of movement and change, present in something else or because it is the other"^{[25, p.106]}. The first meaning of the term "potency" is the ability; the second is "the principle of change under the influence of another, or since this itself is in the passive sense another" ^{[25, p.106]}; the third is "... the principle of doing something well or by prior calculation"^{[25, p. 106]}; the fourth is "a habitual state in which something is not easily exposed affectations"^{[25, p. 106]}.

Rozanov noted that "potency is the ability or a set of conditions with the addition of others to move to real existence or together and the desire for this existence"^{[8, p.39]}; potency as the ability of a seed to move into a tree is simple and indefinite, while a growing seed containing, in addition to the ability, the desire to move into The tree is a complex structure^{[8, p.39]}. According to Rozanov, certain potencies, due to the latent vitality contained in them, pass into one kind of real being^{[8, p.51]}; indefinite ones depend in their real being on complementary conditions^{[8, p.51]}.

Certain potencies are abilities that correspond to Aristotle's first "type" and indefinite ones that need complementary conditions correspond to the second "type". For Aristotle, the earth is the potency of the seed, for Rozanov it is the potency of the plant, and the seed is a complementary condition for its realization ^{[8, p.51]}. The difference between Rozanov and Aristotle is that for Rozanov, the main role in the realization of potencies is played by complementary conditions; they are connected with the real world, for Aristotle they are speculative in nature. This explains Rozanov's attention to specific events as conditions for the realization of potencies. For a thinker, potentiality is important as a phenomenon that captures the possibility of one thing passing into another. This feature determines the thinker's assumptions, making it possible to interpret his work in the context of a theory based on the dialogic nature, in particular, of M.M. Bakhtin's spiritual quest.

S.A. Shultz brings together the work of Rozanov and Bakhtin due to the common opportunity for thinkers to discover new things in philosophy and literature ^{[26, p.45]}, which unites the spiritual searches of V.V. Rozanov, M.M. Bakhtin and A.F. Losev, who emphasized the "news of becoming"^{[21, p.340]}. "News ..." as the unexpected convergence of things characterizes the symbol. Losev's teaching about the symbol ^{[19, p.40]} and Bakhtin's intuitions correlate with each other under the assumption of the infinity of the semantic perspective of the symbol. "...the transition of an image into a symbol gives a semantic perspective"^{[27, p.381]}, therefore, Rozanov's work is a specific symbol associated with the peculiarities of the style and content of the thinker's works. Our interpretation is based on the intuition of potentiality, emphasizing things as additional conditions in which potencies or meanings need to be realized, and on Bakhtin's intuition, according to which "... entry into the sphere of meanings is carried out through the gates of chronotopes"^{[28, p.406]}. Bakhtin's chronotope is symbolic due to the fact that time and space interact in it and entering into a new relationship that cannot be reduced to either time or space separately, at the same time they can be represented as separate quantities from each other, causing the "materialization of time in space"^{[28, p.399]}.

Our assumption about the possibility of convergence of the chronotope theory and Rozanov's works is due to the fact that the thinker in recent works brings the depicted and depicting worlds closer together. The "differentiation" of the early and late Rozanov is based on the arbitrariness of the boundary between them (V.V. Bibikhin, V.V. Zenkovsky, A.V. Sobolev; V.V. Rozanov's choice of such a form for articulating ideas of potentiality was analyzed by us in another work, where we suggested the possibility of chronotopy of the world Rozanov, defining the chronotope as "a universal meeting realizing the potential meanings of Rozanov's creativity in space and time of the material world"^{[29, p.251]}); based on this, we put forward the assumption about the possibility of explication of Rozanov's creativity as a series of symbolic meetings in which his generalizing intuition is concretized, defining the macrocosm of the thinker through chronotopes of growth, peace, home, Russia and family.

The chronotope of growth for Rozanov is any potential change. "... growth has been, is and will be"^{[10, p.415]}. The chronotope of the world "transforms" universal potentiality into a certain potency. We are talking about the order in which growth is carried out as a universal change. The world may be his own and alien to Rozanov, or it may be hostile to him "just a hole"^{[10, pp.139-140]}. In the chronotope of the house, which is close to both the metaphysical world and the real world of space and time, there is a contradiction between the house and the antidome, which become a condition for the authenticity of the question "shut the doors of the house tighter"^{[10, p.286]}. In the chronotope of Russia, the contradiction between the real Russia and the real country is experienced as Rozanov's personal tragedy. This is the perception of one's own as someone else's, which does not cease to be one's own, which resembles Bakhtin's intuition concerning "others' own words" ^{[27, p.385]}. In the chronotope of the family, the "meeting" of one's own and another's worlds becomes a personal pain for the thinker "... I feel that I am not metaphysically connected with children, but only with a "friend", Except with Tanya"^{[10, p.245]}.

We assume that Rozanov's chronotopes are "constructed" as follows: The chronotope of growth, expressing absolute potentiality, is the most abstract and at the same time the most concrete. It corresponds to the intention of the thinker, other chronotopes indicate the chronotope of growth, being connected through it with each other. Our assumption about the chronotopy of Rozanov's worlds he does not remove contradictions, but accepts them, bringing together the style and content of his works "... the more diverse the parts of a single whole, the more powerful the manifestation of this one in the universe"^{[30, p.16]}. The variety of "approaches" allows us to "see Rozanov's man"^{[31, p.208]}, bringing the thinker's own assumptions and the assumptions of the interpreters into a concretely realized unity.

Conclusion

The study of the peculiarities of Rozanov's work involves movement in the hermeneutic circle from the whole to the parts and from the parts to the whole, "closing in" on the transition from understanding as being to understanding as an event^{[6, p.22]}, in which the world opens as a symbolically realized understanding. The "discovery" of the world introduces Rozanov's search into a special context in which "thought tries to think something for which there is no language and, moreover, it is unable to reliably hold on to its own intention"^{[6, p.37]}. Reflection on Rozanov's "discovery" is possible as a thinker's assumption about the world, accommodating Rozanov's creativity as a whole. The "movement" towards the whole is carried out using the assumptions of researchers interpreting Rozanov's "assumption". The "convergence" of these assumptions occurs in our work on the basis of the symbolism of Rozanov's world, which makes it possible to interpret the work of the thinker in the context of A.F. Losev's teaching on the interpretative symbol and the theory of the chronotope by M.M. Bakhtin. The multiplicity of interpretations and the variety of interpretations of creativity testifies to the authenticity of Rozanov's question, the eternal meaning of his suffering, indicated by "will I be read? I think forever"^{[13, p. 63]}, which determines the possibility of a person finding his place in the world.