St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

This article deals with the reception of V. S. Soloviev’s ideas in the West, studies its specifi cs and its evolution beginning from the response to the publication in 1886 in the journal Revue de l’Église grecque-unie of “nine questions” of the philosopher to archpriest A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov. The article analyses the polemic between Soloviev and Ivantsov-Platonov that took place in 1883 in I. S. Aksakov’s newspaper Rus’ as the philosopher’s work Velikiy spor i khristianskaya politika (The Great Debate and Christian Politics’) was being published. The article discusses the most prominent directions in the debate regarding Soloviev’s “nine questions” in French press of the late 1880s in the journal Revue de l’Église grecque-unie (Revd. Emmanuel Andre), the newspaper L’Univers (Arthur Loth), and the journal L’Union Chrétienne (Revd. Wladimir Guettée). Special attention is paid to the further interpretation of the “nine questions” by the French authors, who, on the one hand, spoke in support of Soloviev’s theocratic project of the Christian “Universal Church” and, on the other hand, criticised it. It demonstrates the further interpretetation of Soloviev’s ideas in the West in the context of polemic of the mentioned authors among themselves that took place in their periodicals during 1887. The article also analyses the response to the western interpretations of Soloviev’s “nine questions” from the Russian press, which was predominantly negative and which in the end led to strengthening of censorship’s pressure of the Holy Synod on the Russian philosopher. Drawing on Soloviev’s letters and articles of the relevant period, the article shows his own attitude to both positive and critical comments on his views in the West. A conclusion is drawn about the decisive infl uence of the publication of Soloviev’s nine questions in French periodicals on the attitude to his ideas in the West (in the first hand, to his texts “Russian Idea” and “Russia and the Universal Church”), which significantly supported the image of Soloviev as the “Russian Newman” who converted from Orthodoxy into Catholicism.

Vladimir Soloviev, theocracy, reception of Russian philosophy in the West, 19th century French periodicals, ecumenism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism

1. Chernyaev A., Berdnikova A. (2019) “Put’ V. S. Solov’eva k «Istorii i budushchnosti teokratii»: polemika o dogmaticheskom razvitii tserkvi na stranitsakh zhurnala «Vera i razum» (1884–1891)” [Vladimir Soloviev’s Way to “The History and the Future of Theocracy”: Controversy about the Dogmatic Development of the Church in the Magazine “Vera i razum” (1884–1891)]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriia: Filosofiia, 23 (2), pp. 118–132 (in Russian).
2. Gaponenkov A. (ed.) (2017) S. Frank. “Besedy o Vladimire Solovieve”. Voprosy filosofii, 6, pp. 109–121 (in Russian).
3. Khomiakov A. (1994) “Pis’mo k redaktoru «L’Union Chrétienne» o znachenii slov «kafolicheskii» i «sobornyi» po povodu rechi ottsa Gagarina, iezuita” [Letter to the Editor of L’Union Chrétienne on the Meaning of the Words kafolicheskii and sobornyi regarding the Speech of Revd. Gagarin, the Jesuit], in A. Khomyakov. Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh [Works in 2 vols], vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 238–243 (in Russian).
4. Kotrelev N., Rashkovskii E. (1989) “Primechaniia” [Commentary], in V. Soloviev. Sochineniia v 2 tomakh. T. 2. Chteniia o Bogochelovechestve. Filosofskaia publitsistika [Works in 2 vols. Vol. 2. Lectures on Godmanhood. Philosophical Essays]. Moscow, pp. 664–712 (in Russian).
5. Losev A. (1990) Vladimir Soloviev i ego vremya [Vladimir Soloviev and his Time]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Motin S. (2014) “«…Veroiatno, u menia naidetsia dlia vas chto-nibud’ menee spornoe, chem velikii spor» (k istorii vzaimootnoshenii I. S. Aksakova i V. S. Solov’eva)” [“...Probably I have Something Less Controversial for you than the Great Debate” (on the history of relationship between Ivan Aksakov and Vladimir Soloviov)”]. Solov’evskie issledovaniia, 2 (42), pp. 6–33 (in Russian).
7. Mochul’skii K. (1936) Vladimir Solov’ev: zhizn’ i uchenie [Vladimir Soloviov: Life and Doctrine]. Paris (in Russian).
8. Solov’ev V. (1989) “Velikii spor i khristianskaia politika” [The Great Debate and the Christian Politics], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniya v 2 tomakh. T. 1. Filosofskaia publitsistika [Works in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Philosophical Essays]. Moscow, pp. 59–167 (in Russian).
9. Soloviev V. (1989) “Neskol’ko ob»iasnitel’nykh slov po povodu «Velikogo spora», v otvet na primechaniia o. prot. A. M. Ivantsova-Platonova” [A Few Explanatory Words about the Great Debate, in response to Revd. Archpriest A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov’s Comments], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniia v 2 tomakh. T. 1. Filosofskaia publitsistika [Works in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Philosophical Essays], Moscow, pp. 168–173 (in Russian).
10. Soloviev V. (1989) “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu <gazety «Novoe vremia»>” [Letter to the Editors <of the Newspaper “Novoe Vremia”>], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniia v 2 tomakh. T. 1. Filosofskaia publitsistika [Works in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Philosophical Essays]. Moscow, pp. 203–204 (in Russian).
11. Soloviev V. (1989) “V raz»iasnenie nedorazumeniia (pis’mo v redaktsiiu <zhurnala «Tserkovnyi vestnik»>)” [To Clarify the Misunderstanding (letter to the editors <of the journal “Tserkovnyi vestnik”>)”], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniia v 2 tomakh. T. 1. Filosofskaia publitsistika [Works in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Philosophical Essays]. Moscow, pp. 205–206 (in Russian).
12. Soloviev S. (1997) Vladimir Solov’ev: Zhizn’ i tvorcheskaia evolyutsiia [Vladimir Soloviev: Life and Literary Evolution]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Strémooukhoff D. (1975) Vladimir Soloviev et son oeuvre messianique. Paris.

Chernyaev Anatoly

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Berdnikova Aleksandra

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article was prepared with the financial support of the RFBR within the framework of the project «Current reception of Russian philosophy abroad» (No. 19-011-00764). The authors express their heartfelt gratitude for the assistance in preparing this article to Senior Researcher of IMLI RAS N.V. Kotrelev and Doctor of Theology, Professor of Pontificio Istituto Orientale (Rome, Italy) Fr. Stefano Caprio.

The aim of this article is to provide a foundation for one of the variants of a sceptical response to the arguments from the evil by means of the analysis of the notion of the perfect goodness of God. It is shown that the contemporary arguments from the evil are usually based on the notion of the moral goodness of God. It is proposed to analyse this notion through the conceptual framework of philosophy of action. It is shown that the arguments from the evil assume the existence of flawless moral reasons for the elimination of the monstrous and unreasonable evil. Further, it is argued that the identifi cation of flawless reasons for a certain action demands an opportunity to compare the reasons for this action and the reasons for alternative actions. But the opportunity to compare the reasons for the alternative actions that are available to God is radically limited in human beings. This limitation is due to the absence of practical access of the evaluating subject to a range of possible grounds of God, where under the practical access one implies the ability to perform those actions which are conditioned by certain reasons. Thus, it is metaphysically impossible for the person to create the world where there would be no evil or to create an individual with such freedom of will that would not be capable of leading to the evil. Further, the principle of the expertise is introduced, in which the tenability of the procedure of balancing the reasons for a certain action in a certain domain of activity depends on the degree of the practical access of the balancing agent to this particular sphere of activity. Therefore, the larger practical participation of the agent in the sphere of activity correlates with more success of results of evaluating the reasons, where success means the identifi cation of better objectives and best actions that are needed to achieve these aims. The principle of expertise along with the radical limitation of the practical access to the probable grounds of God allow one to suppose that the defi nition of fl awless reasons for God’s actions do not have a tenable epistemic foundation. Accordingly, the statements that the evil in the world provides flawless reasons for God’s intervention are not totally justifi ed.

philosophy of religion, problem of evil, argument from evil, sceptical theism, divine attributes, perfect goodness, philosophy of action, perfect reasons

1. Adams M. (1988) “Problems of Evil”. Faith and Philosophy, 5 (2), pp. 121–143.
2. Adams M. (2000) Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. New York.
3. Alston W. (1991) “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition”. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, pp. 29–67.
4. Bergman M. (2001) “Sceptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument from Evil”. Noûs, vol. 35, pp. 278–296.
5. Bratman M. (1988) Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Boston MA.
6. D’Oro G, Sandis C. (2013) “From Anti-Causalism to Causalism and Back: A Century of the Reasons/Causes Debate”, in G. D’Oro, C. Sandis (eds) Reasons and Causes: Causalism and Anti-Causalism in the Philosophy of Action. New York, pp. 1–47.
7. Dougherty T. (2016) “Sceptical Theism”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/ entries/skeptical-theism (08.11.2019).
8. Gleeson A. (2012) A Frightening Love: Recasting the Problem of Evil. New York.
9. Hickson M. (2013) “A Brief History of Problems of Evil”, in J. P. McBrayer, D. Howard-Snyder (eds) The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. West Sussex, UK, pp. 3–19.
10. MacDonald S. (ed.) (1991) Being and Goodness: The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology. New York.
11. Mackie J. (1955) “Evil and Omnipotence”. Mind, 64, pp. 200–212.
12. Mann W. (2015) God, Modality, and Morality. New York.
13. Meister C., Moser P. (eds) The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil. Cambridge.
14. Morris T. (1984) “Duty and Divine Goodness”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21 (3),
15. pp. 261–268.
16. Morris T. (1990) Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois.
17. Murphy M. (2014) “Perfect Goodness”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/skeptical-theism (08.11.2019).
18. Plantinga A. (1974) God, Freedom, and Evil. New York.
19. Rosati C. (2016) “Moral Motivation”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/skeptical-theism (08.11.2019).
20. Rowe W. (1979) “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16, pp. 335–341.
21. Rowe W. (1996) “The Evidential Argument from Evil: A Second look”, in D. Howard-Snyder (ed.) The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, pp. 262–285.
22. Rowe W. (2005) “Divine Omnipotence, Goodness and Knowledge”, in W. Wainwright (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. Oxford, pp. 15–34.
23. Searle J. (1983) Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. New York.
24. Shokhin V. (2016) “Problema zla: teoditseia i apologiia”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 67 (5), pp. 47–58.
25. Tooley M. (2008) “Does God Exist”, in A. Plantinga, M. Tooley (eds) The Knowledge of God. Oxford.
26. Wierenga E. (1989) The Nature of God. Ithaca, N.Y.
27. Wykstra S. (1984) “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suff ering: On Avoiding the Evils of “Appearance”. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 16, pp. 73–94
28. Zagzebski L. (2004) Divine Motivation Theory. Cambridge.

Mishura Aleksandr

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

According to the English theologian John Milbank, “once there was no secular”. “The secular”, he believes, came into being due to the fact that thinkers such as Benedict de Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius “constructed” it along with the creation of “modern politics”, and in doing this they employed the new biblical hermeneutics. This new hermeneutics was to supersede the old (the “Catholic lectio”, as it is termed by Milbank) because it posed a permanent threat to secular authorities in the Early Modern Time. This article examines this hypothesis on the material of Benedict Spinoza’s texts and comes to the following conclusions. Firstly, there is no clear evidence that Spinoza had been planning to supersede the “Catholic lectio” with some new “«scientifi c» reading of the Bible” with the aim of creating a “specific sphere of the secular” or a “space of the pure power”. Moreover, there are serious doubts that this “lectio” bothered Spinoza, because in the Netherlands of the mid-17th century the traditional scholastic theology had already given way to Calvinism. Secondly, the analysis of Spinoza’s use of the terms saeculum and religio allows one to state that the Dutch philosopher depended on the traditional (going back to the classical ancient Stoicism) interpretations of these terms much more than it would seem. Besides, it should be noted that Spinoza’s conception of political virtues taken from classical ancient (in the fi rst hand, Stoical) philosophy makes extremely problematic the statement of Milbank that the Dutch philosopher was among those who created the antimoral “modern policy” of “pure power”, whose foundations are tyranny and abuse. Thirdly, it is possible to say that Spinoza’s main aim in his political studies was not an apology of the secular principle in any form, but the sacralisation of the state.

Benedict de Spinoza, John Milbank, secularism, concept of “religio”, philosophy of Modernity, Stoicism, natural theology, Christian theology

1. Appolonov A. (2018) “«Etsi Deus non daretur» («Kak esli by Boga ne bylo»): Gugo Grotsii i skholasticheskaia teologiia” [“Etsi Deus non daretur” (As if God did not Exist). Hugo Grotius and Scholastic Theology”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 77, pp. 63–71 (in Russian).
2. Beil’ P. (1968) Istoricheskii i kriticheskii slovar’ v dvukh tomakh [Historical and Critical Dictionary in Two Volumes], vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Boxer C. (1973) The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600–1800. London.
4. DeBrabander F. (2007) Spinoza and the Stoics Power, Politics and the Passions. London.
5. Gorski P. (1993) “The Protestant Ethic Revisited: Disciplinary Revolution and State Formation in Holland and Prussia”. The American Journal of Sociology, 99/2, pp. 265–316.
6. Israel J. (2001) Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750. Oxford.
7. Israel J. (2014) “«Radical Enlightenment» — Peripheral, Substantial, or the Main Face of the Trans-Atlantic Enlightenment (1650–1850)”. Diametros, 40, pp. 73–98.
8. Israel J. (2018) “Spinoza and Spinozism in the Western Enlightenment: The Latest Turns in the Controversy”. Araucaria, 20 (40), pp. 41–57.
9. Milbank J. (2009) The Future of Love: Essays in Political Theology. London.
10. Milbank J. (2002) Theology and Social Theory. 2nd ed. Malden, MA.
11. Strauss L. (1967) Spinoza’s Critique of Religion. Chicago.

Appolonov Alexey

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This paper is devoted to the study of main ideas of philosophy of religion of W. M. L. de Wette (1780–1849), the German and Swiss Protestant theologian and biblical scholar. Two elements of de Wette’s work had a prolonged infl uence on the development of theology and religious studies, i.e. the original and fairly elaborate doctrine of the religious feeling and drafts of topics and methods of the planned scientifi c study of religion in the framework of theological knowledge. The article shows which place de Wette’s constructions occupy in the development of the German-language philosophy of religion of the 19th century. They are close to Fries’s ideas, though they do not go back to them in terms of their origin. De Wette states that the essence and source of religion are the unconveyable, the initially non-conscious feeling that emerges separately in each individual and has its foundation in the perception of the unity and the need for separate objects and phenomena. The natural and at the same time supernatural ability to feel the divine is also termed by de Wette the inner revelation. This complex feeling is comprised by several elements, i.e. the anticipation of the presence and activity in the fi nite world of the eternal, non-conditional, omnipotent Will; the anticipation of God’s kingdom on earth; full trust and self-off ering to God; awe in front of the beautiful and elevated in nature and culture. The feeling is initially image-related, then it is conceptualised by the power of reason on the collective level of community; its symbolisation generates religious institutions. De Wette’s contribution to the development of knowledge of religion is made up of his focus on making clear what religion is, his desire to reconstruct the initially non-conscious religious feeling by means of extremely strict introspection and refl ection; the claim that in order to study religion, one should master the language of its texts; the claim that it is necessary to study history of religion. The article shows that in its conception and methodology, de Wette’s doctrine foreshadows both the later-to-come liberal theology and the early projects in religious studies.

philosophy of religion, Evangelical theology, Kantianism, Romanticism, aesthetics, religious feeling, anticipation, introspection, J. Fries, W. de Wette

1. Howard T. (1999) Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W. M. L. de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-Century Historical Consciousness. Cambridge.
2. Iff M. (2011) “Religionsphilosophie und Theologie. Rudolfs Otto Bezug auf Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette”, in J. Lauster, P. Schüz, R. Barth, Chr. Danz (eds) Rudolf Otto: Theologie — Religionsphilosophie — Religionsgeschichte. Berlin; Boston, pp. 191–202.
3. Iff M. (2016) “Vernunftglaube und Wahrheitsgefühl. Zur Religionstheologie W. M. L. de Wettes im Anschluss an J. F. Fries”, in D. Kannemann, V. Stümke (eds) Wort und Weisheit. Festschrift für Johannes von Lüpke zum 65. Geburtstag. Leipzig, pp. 267–276.
4. Mathys H.-P., Seybold K. (eds) (2001) Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette — ein Universaltheologe des 19. Jahrhunderts. Basel.
5. Nesmelov V. (1997) “Nauka o cheloveke. T. 1. Opyt psikhologicheskoi istorii i kritiki osnovnykh voprosov zhizni” [Studying the Human Being. Vol. 1. An Essay in Psychological History and Critique of Main Issues in Life], in N. K. Gavryushin (ed.) Russkaia religioznaia antropologiia. Antologiia [Russian Religious Anthropology. Anthology], vol. 1. Moscow, pp. 205–521 (in Russian).
6. Pylaev M. (2011) “Filosofi ia religii v fenomenologii religii Rudol’fa Otto” [“Philosophy of Religion in Rudolf Otto’s Phenomenology of Religion”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 6 (38), pp. 59–74 (in Russian).
7. Pylaev M. (2011) Kategoriia «sviashchennoe» v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka [The Category of the Sacred in the Phenomenology of Religion, Theology and Philosophy of the 20th Century]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Robinson J. (1992) W. M. L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: an Intellectual Biography. Sheffield.
9. Staehelin E. (1956) Dewettiana: Forschungen und Texte zu Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wettes Leben und Werk. Basel.
10. Zolotukhin V. (2017) “Chistyi teizm i kritika vseedinstva: fi losofi ia religii F. Bouterwek’a” [“The Pure Theism and Critique of the Universal Unity: Friedrich Bouterwek’s Philosophy of Religion”]. Voprosy filosofii, 6, pp. 190–199 (in Russian).

Zolotukhin Vsevolod

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article deals with the doctrine of knowledge developed by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, the Dominican and a prominent Catholic thinker of the fi rst quarter of the 20th century. It shows that Garrigou-Lagrange provides grounds for the realistic variant of epistemology and follows the category of “common sense”, but understands this category as a classical lumen naturale. This allows one to examine the relation of the “natural reason” and the external world and substantiate the fundamental logical principles of cognition on the one hand and to determine the boundary of “common sense” and outline its direction towards the “supernatural” as its aim on the other hand. Garrigou-Lagrange attributes the main signifi cance to the metaphysical interpretation of principles of being which guarantee its objectivity and cognoscibility. Following the assumption about the primordial act of grasping (apprehension) being as a fact of existence, Garrigou-Lagrange then deduces the main ontological and epistemological categories that describe reality and make up the foundation of the reasonability of reality and intellect (adаequatio rei et intellectus), of which speaks the Thomist understanding of verity. According to the Dominican thinker, this defi nition is based on logical categories of identity, contradiction, substabce, suffi cient ground, causality, and fi niteness. This being said, the category of fi niteness is no less important and fundamental than the initial category of identity, from which one deduces the ontological defi nitions of possibility and reality, cause and eff ect, etc. The fi niteness makes up the foudation of existence of the living unity of reality both in nature and in human spirit. Moreover, it makes up the foundation for the spirit’s transcending beyound its limits, to what is supernatural and superessential, to God as the ultimate aim of all. This allows one to describe the interpretation of problems of cognition given by Garrigou-Lagrange as a significant step in the development of Neo-Thomist gnoseology that overcomes the psychologism of Leuven dchool, and also as a starting point for a number of alternative epistemological projects, i.e. J. Maréchal’s transcendental Neo-Thomism, J. Maritain’s critical realism, and E. Gilson’s immediate realism.

Catholicism, Rationalism, Neo-Thomism, Neo-Scholasticism, epistemology, philosophy, theology

1. Berger D. (2005) Thomismus. Große Leitmotive der thomistischen Synthese und ihre Aktualität für die Gegenwart. Köln.
2. Blauberg I. (2017) “O znachenii idei Bergsona v tvorchestve Eduara Lerua” [On the Signifi cance of Bergson’s Ideas in the Work of Éduard Le Roy”]. Filosofskie nauki, 9, pp. 80–83 (in Russian).
3. Garrigou-Lagrange R. (1922) Le sens commun: la philosophie de l’être et les formules dogmatiques. 3-eme ed., revue et corr. Paris.
4. Garrigou-Lagrange R. (1932) Le Realisme du Principe de Finalité. Рaris.
5. Garrigou-Lagrange R. (1948) “Nécessité de revenir à la défi nition traditionnelle de la vérité”. Angelicum, 25, pp. 185–198.
6. Gélinas J. (1959) La restoration du thomisme sous Léon XIII et les philosophies nouvelles. Washington.
7. Gilson E. (1996) Le Philosophe et la Theologie. Moscow (Russian translation).
8. John H. J. (1966) The Thomist Spectrum. New York.
9. Livi A. (2004) Philosophie du sens commun. Logique aléthique de la science et de la foi. Paris.
10. McCool G. (1996) Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Search for an Unitary Method. 2nd ed. New York.
11. Peddicord R. (2005) The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the Life and Legacy of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. South Bend, IN.
12. Perler D. (2016) Theorien der Intentionalität im Mittelalter. Moscow (Russian translation).
13. Salamucha J. (2006) “Le thomisme comme philosophia perennis”. Revue des sciences religieuses, 80/1, pp. 57–65.
14. Zhelnov M. (1971) Kritika gnoseologii sovremennogo neotomizma [Critique of Contemporary Neo-Thomistic Epistemology]. Moscow (in Russian).

Savinov Rodion

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article studies the problem of comprehension of Ignatius’ of Loyola spiritual method. The fi rst part of the article outlines the basic principles that are necessary to carry out the study as to the functioning of the inner speech as the language of mind; it also pays special attention to N.I. Zhinkin’s conception of the twofold structure of the inner speech. The second part analyses Ignatius’ methodology of prayer described in the Spiritual Exercises and compares it with the tradition of lectio divina on the base of Guigo’s II text. The article studies in more detail the refl ection of the priciple of transitivity in the Spiritual Exercises, thanks to which principle the one who practises it acquires the objective of the possibility of communication with God. The transitivity is clearly implemented in the event placed in the title of the article which happened to Loyola in the shrine of La Storta, the analysis of which continues the aticle. The autocommunicative nature of this event — it had happened to Ignatius before writing the Spiritual Diary, — and those visual and auditive components that are present in it allow one to make a conclusion about the interrelationship of the visions and the gift of the “discourse” as constituent elements of Loyola’s religious method of spiritual self-cognition in the Spiritual Diary.

Ignatius of Loyola, autocommunication, inner voice, practice of prayer, religious method, lectio divina, transitivity

1. Bakhtin M. (1972) Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Guigo II Cartusiensis (2011) “Scala claustralium”, in Opera. Moscow, pp. 5–48 (Russian translation).
3. Ignacio de Loyola (2002) Autobiografía de San Ignacio de Loyola. Moscow (Russian translation).
4. Ignacio de Loyola (2006) Ejercicios espirituales. Diario Espiritual. Moscow (Russian translation).
5. Il’yin I. (2002) Aksiomy religioznogo opyta [Axioms of Religious Experience], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
6. L’vov M. (2000) Osnovy teorii rechi [Foundations of Speech Theory]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Lotman Yu. (1973) “O dvukh modeliakh kommunikatsii v sisteme kul’tury” [On Two Models of Communication in the System of Culture]. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, 6, pp. 227–243 (in Russian).
8. Melloni J. (2000) The Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola in the Western Tradition. Leominster.
9. Muskhelishvili N. (1995) “Religioznyi metod i «Dukhovnye Uprazhneniia» sv. Ignatiia Loioly” [Religious Method and “Spiritual Exercises” by St. Ignatius of Loyola], in Nachala hristianskoj psihologii [Principles of Christian Psychology]. Moscow, pp. 181–193 (in Russian).
10. Muskhelishvili N. (2014) “Traditsiia lectio divina: kognitivno-psikhologicheskoe prochtenie” [Tradition of lectio divina: Cognitive and Psychological Interpretation]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 1, pp. 99–101 (in Russian).
11. Muskhelishvili N., Bazlev M. (2019) “Vnutrenniaia rech’ i dar govora (loqüela)” [Inner Speech and the Gift of Speaking (loqüela)]. Voprosy psikhologii, 2, pp. 59–68 (in Russian).
12. Muskhelishvili N., Shreider Yu. (1997) “Avtokommunikatsiia, kak neobkhodimyi komponent kommunikatsii” [Autocommunication as a Necessary Component of Communication]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatsiia, 5, pp. 1–10 (in Russian).
13. Rabbow P. (1954) Seelenführung. Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike. München.
14. Rahner H. (1954) “La vision de saint Ignace a la chapelle de La Storta”. Christus, 1, pp. 48–65.
15. Rahner H. (2002) Ignatius von Loyola und das geschichtliche Werden seiner Frömmigkeit. Moscow (Russian translation).
16. Zhinkin N. (1964) “O kodovykh perekhodakh vo vnutrennei rechi” [On Code Shifts in Inner Speech]. Voprosy iazykoznaniia, 6, pp. 26–38 (in Russian).
17. Ziumtor P. (2003) Opyt postroeniia srednevekovoi poetiki [An Attempt at Creating Mediaeval Poetics]. St Petersburg (in Russian).

Muskhelishvili Nikolay

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Antonenko Andrey

This article critically analyses the book by Yury Pushchaev Philosophy of Soviet Times. М. Mamardashvili and E. Il’yenkov (Energies of Repulsion and Attraction) (Moscow, 2018). The analysis discovers in it a paradoxical mixture of a classic historical and philosophical study with an essayism of the conservative Orthodox fashion. Essayistic elements are incorporated in the book already on the methodological level, though they do not decrease the high quality of the work. The article discusses the main content of the book paying attention to its rhetorical strategy. On the whole, the author of this article thinks that Yu. Pushchaev has managed to demonstrate both the genuine philosophical signifi cance and the suffi ciently problematic character of the socalled Soviet philosophy, as well as the impossibility to describe it in terms of the binary opposition “true philosophers vs. ideologists-bureaucrats” and such like. Entering a polemic with the author of the book, this article points to the unfairness of its critique of phenomenology and the ideal of the “pure science” (as particular cases of insuffi ciently justified critique of rationality on the whole), the insuffi cient theological justifi cation of this critique caused by the fact that it originates from the Orthodox views of the author, elements of rhetorical cliches in his political and cultural criticism of modern time. However, the book on the whole is assessed as an achievement in the Russian history of philosophy in general and as a good handbook in the history of Soviet philosophy in particular.

Soviet philosophy, Il’yenkov, Mamardashvili, Zagorsk experiment, Marxism, religion

1. Konacheva S. (2019) Bog posle Boga. Puti postmetafi zicheskogo myshleniia [God after God. Ways of Postmetaphysical Thinking]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Mezhuev B. (2018) О sovetskoi fi losofi i na vykhode iz utopii: opyt konservativnoi kritiki [Soviet Philosophy in its Exit from Utopia: An Attempt of Conservative Critique], available at: https:// politconservatism.ru/interview/o-sovetskoj-filosofii-na-vyhode-iz-utopii-opyt-konservativnoj- kritiki (31.08.2019) (in Russian).
3. Pushchaev Yu. (2013) “Istoriia i teoriia Zagorskogo eksperimenta. Nachalo (I)” [History and Theory of Zagorsk Experiment. Beginning (I)]. Voprosy Filosofii, 3, pp. 132–147 (in Russian).
4. Pushchaev Yu. (2013) “Istoriia i teoriia Zagorskogo eksperimenta: byla li falsifi katsiia? (II)” [History and Theory of Zagorsk Experiment: Was there a Falsifi cation? (II)]. Voprosy Filosofii, 10, pp. 124–134 (in Russian).
5. Pushchaev Yu. (2017) “Sovetskie filosofy i religiia: sluchai Il’enkova (marksizm kak fi losofi ia zhizni i «beloe piatno» smerti)” [Soviet Philosophers and Religion: Case of Il’yenkov (Marxism as Philosophy of Life and the “Blank Spot” of Death)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 69, pp. 48-68 (in Russian).
6. Pushchaev Yu. (2018) Filosofiia sovetskogo vremeni. М. Мamardashvili i E. Il’yenkov (energii ottalkivaniya i pritiazheniya) [Philosophy of Soviet Times. М. Mamardashvili and E. Il’yenkov (Energies of Repulsion and Attraction)]. Мoscow (in Russian).
7. Schmitt C. (2016) Politische Theologie. Moscow (Russian translation).
8. Vakhitov R. (2019) “Ottalkivanie skhoyzhikh. Putschaev Yury. Filosofi ia sovetskogo vremeni. М. Мamardashvili i E. Il’yenkov (energii ottalkivaniia i pritiazheniia). М., 2018” [Repulsion of the Similar. Pushchaev Yu. Philosophy of Soviet Times. М. Mamardashvili and E. Il’yenkov (Energies of Repulsion and Attraction). Moscow, 2018]. Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli. Ezhegodnik za 2019 god. Мoscow, 2019, pp. 752–766 (in Russian).

Antonov Konstantin

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.