Search results

The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the "social question" and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the "social question" and the problem of "Christian socialism". While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a "paradise on Earth" and the idea of a "Christian socialism", Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. "class struggle" and "exploitation") and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the "social issue" Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank's social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the "social issue" as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the "social question" and in the assessment of socialism.

The article provides a comparative analysis of two interpretations and methodological strategies for substantiating the idea of power, presented in the philosophical and political concepts of L.A. Tikhomirov and B.P. Vysheslavtsev. A problem-thematic method of analysis and presentation of the material in the research process was used. The article substantiates the thesis that both philosophers considered the concept of power in the general context of the Christian worldview and raised the question of the moral justification of power. The author shows that in L.A. Tikhomirov's conception, power, being the primary fact of social life, receives moral justification through service to God and the moral ideal of the nation; power is justified to the extent that it is the power of the idea, ideocracy. The article analyzes B.P. Vysheslavtsev's thesis about the incompatibility of the ideocratic model of state power with the Christian doctrine of freedom. The article shows that L.A. Tikhomirov considered power as the primary and constitutive principle of social life, not opposed to the idea of independence of personal existence; B.P. Vysheslavtsev, on the other hand, saw the essence of power in heteronomous coercion, incompatible with the presumption of the freedom and dignity of the individual. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the incompatibility of the two interpretations of power is explained not only by the fact that Russian philosophers defined the scope of the concept of "power" in different ways, but also by the fact that they were guided by various philosophical and anthropological presumptions. The author shows that L.A. Tikhomirov proceeded from the understanding of a person as a being striving not so much to rule over others, as to submit to the supreme power of an idea, while B.P. Vysheslavtsev saw the primary and natural intention of the human self in rebellion against a heteronomous authoritative order.