Ivan Ilyin - about resisting evil by force. Moral justification of violence in I.A.

Our time and social life are filled with evil. And the obvious question arises: “Is it Christian right to remain a contemplative in this situation? Can a person who believes in God not resist evil by force?

"Evil" is not empty word, not an abstract concept, not “the result of a subjective assessment.” Evil is, first of all, a human mental tendency inherent in each of us. Evil seeks to lull the vigilance of conscience, decency, morality, justice, weaken the power of shame and disgust, and instill indifference.

The more characterless and unprincipled a person is, the more natural it is for him not to resist evil at all.

However, a Christian cannot help but be a warrior! Every minute of his life he is in battle, and to win he needs both wisdom and determination. A person cannot be free. Only an animal lives out of necessity. No act of a wolf can be called either evil or good. Does he eat sheep? How can a wolf live? He has no choice, no trial!

God did not create evil; it stems only from man’s abuse of his freedom, the freedom to choose between good and evil. Here is the tragedy, the tragedy of the existence of human society...

And it’s all about freedom! But why then do the holy fathers so glorify freedom and call it the main feature that distinguishes man from other creatures? Why, they say, can God do everything except one thing - deprive a person of his Freedom? – Because man is created in the image and likeness of God! Deprived of freedom, he is just a living creature! Rationally thinking, but a creature incapable of love, creativity, compassion, mercy.

The spiritual experience of mankind testifies that the one who does not resist evil does not resist it because he himself is already evil, since he internally accepted it and became it.

He who does not resist evil at all also refrains from condemning it, for condemnation, even if internal and silent, is already in itself internal resistance. As long as disapproval or at least a vague aversion to evil is alive in the soul, a person still resists, he struggles within himself, and as a result of this the very acceptance of evil fails; even completely passive on the outside, he resists evil internally, condemns it, exposes it to himself, does not succumb to its fears and temptations and, even succumbing partly, reproaches himself for it, gathers his courage, is indignant at himself, turns away from it and purifies himself in repentance.

The complete absence of any resistance, both external and internal, requires that condemnation cease, that reproach subsides, that approval of evil prevail. Therefore, one who does not resist evil sooner or later comes to the need to assure himself that existing evil is not entirely bad, that there are some positive traits that there are a lot of them, that they may even predominate. And as he manages to persuade himself, the remnants of resistance fade away and personal self-betrayal occurs.

Individuals justify their “non-resistance” with love, replacing it with either sentimental tenderness or their own cowardice.

Christian love acquires its true meaning and its true purity only when it is spiritualized in its direction and choice. Only those who recognize their creation by God will see in others both the image and likeness of God, their brothers, and not their enemies. Only he will recognize the Greatness of man and bow before his Freedom as God-given. Only he can agree that every human soul in the eyes of God is more precious than the whole world, all these palaces, gold reserves and other everyday tinsel..

Good is spiritualized love, evil is anti-spiritual enmity. Goodness is by its very nature religious - since it consists of devotion to the divine. Evil by its very nature is anti-religious, for it consists of a blind, corrupting aversion from the divine..

The transformation of evil, conversion, purification and rebirth can only be accomplished by the power of spiritualized love. But if only spiritualized love has the ability to transform evil, does this mean that in the process of resisting evil, all power is completely weak, aimless, harmful and disastrous?

If I am obliged to create moral cleansing within myself, then does this mean that the villain has the right to live out his evil in external atrocities? If I see: a villain has raised a knife over my neighbor’s heart, and I have a pistol in my pocket. Do I have the right to shoot and prevent a murder? Or should I wait for the irreparable, and then talk about righteousness and love?
If I see a crime being committed, and there is no way to stop it either with a word or a prayer, then should I wash my hands, step away and give the villain freedom to blaspheme and spiritually destroy my brothers and my homeland? Or should I intervene and stop the villainy with resistance, deliberately going to danger, suffering, death and, perhaps, even to the derogation and distortion of my personal righteousness?

The position of indifference, lack of will and permissiveness has nothing to do with Christian forgiveness and cannot be justified by any reference to the Holy Scriptures.

He who resists evil must forgive personal offenses, and the more sincere and complete this forgiveness, the more the one who has forgiven is able to wage an impersonal, objective struggle with the villain, especially since he is called upon to be an organ of living good, not taking revenge, but coercing and suppressing. But in his soul there should be no place for naive and sentimental illusions, as if the evil in the villain was defeated at the moment when he personally forgave him. Forgiveness is the first condition of the fight against evil or, if you like, the beginning of it, but not the end and not victory. For for this great struggle against evil it is truly necessary to have no less “than twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53), and a real villain, until he sees these legions, will always see direct encouragement in “forgiveness”, and maybe secret sympathy.

But absolute spiritual blindness is needed in order to reduce the entire problem of resistance to evil to the forgiveness of personal offenses against “my” enemies, “my” haters and to “my” mental and spiritual overcoming of this offense.

To forgive an insult, to extinguish its malevolent power in oneself and not to allow a stream of hatred and evil into oneself does not at all mean to defeat the power of anger and evil in the offender. After forgiveness, the question remains open and unresolved: what to do with the offender, not as with the person who offended me and to whom revenge or “retribution” is “owed” from me for this, but as with an unrepentant and unrepentant rapist? For being a villain is not a problem for just one victim, it is a problem for everyone.

The offended person can and must forgive his offense and extinguish his resentment in his heart, but it is his personal heart that limits the competence of his forgiveness; what follows exceeds his rights and his calling. It is hardly necessary to prove that a person has neither the opportunity nor the right to forgive an insult inflicted on another, or a crime that violates divine and human laws - unless, of course, he is a priest with the power to forgive the sins of a penitent. In the composition of every untruth, every violence, every crime, in addition to the personal side of “resentment” and “damage,” there is also a super-personal side that brings the criminal to the court of society, the law and God, and it is clear that the personal forgiveness of a private person does not have the power to extinguish this jurisdiction and these possible sentences.

It is in this regard that the Gospel words “do not resist evil” should be understood. To interpret this call for meekness and generosity in personal affairs as a call for weak-willed contemplation of violence and injustice or for submission to villains in matters of good and evil would be senseless and unnatural. The teaching of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church put forward, of course, a completely different understanding. “God’s servants” need the sword and “do not bear it in vain” (Rom. xiii. 4); they are a threat to villains. And it was in the spirit of this understanding that St. taught. Feodosia Pechora, saying: “Live peacefully not only with friends, but also with enemies; however, only with your enemies, and not with the enemies of God.”

Calling to love enemies, Christ never called to bless those who hate and trample on everything Divine, to assist those who trample on all morality and integrity, to sympathize with the corrupters of human souls and to take every possible care so that someone who opposes does not interfere with their villainy. On the contrary, for such people he had a word of reproof, a driving out scourge and future eternal torment. Therefore, a Christian who strives to be faithful to the word and spirit of his Lord is not at all called to unnaturally arouse in his soul feelings of tenderness and tenderness towards an unrepentant villain. He also cannot see in this commandment either a basis or a pretext for evading resistance to evildoers. He only needs to understand that real, true resistance to evildoers fights against them precisely not as personal enemies, but as enemies of the cause of God on earth.

A. Sokolovsky

2004

Since childhood, we have all heard fairy tales that tell about the struggle between good and evil, where heroes fight with villains and where in the end good always wins. When we grow up, in the world around us we constantly observe the confrontation between the forces of light and darkness. Unfortunately, people often misuse the freedom of choice given to them and take the side of evil forces. And others are forced to somehow react to their actions. Therefore, since ancient times, people have been worried: how should one respond to evil? Here we recall the Old Testament “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, the words of Christ that one must turn the cheek, etc. The most complete and comprehensive answer to the questions: what is evil, how to fight it is given by Zoroastrianism, an ancient religion resurrected by the prophet Zoroaster.

Time passes, this knowledge is somehow forgotten and, as a result, evil in the world grows. But still, some people, with the help of God’s gift, hvarna, manage to resurrect them. One of these people is the Russian lawyer, philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin, born on the 20th sunny day of Vertragna according to the Zoroastrian calendar - April 9 (March 28, Old Style) 1883. One of the central works in his life was a work with a characteristic title "On resisting evil by force"(1925). He pondered the topic of this book for more than twenty years, understanding the responsibility and complexity of the issue. This work caused a wide response and heated controversy throughout the world. Let us note that Russian Orthodox priests thanked him for this work and expressed their gratitude to him. Let’s return to the book itself and its contents later, but for now let’s get acquainted with Ilyin’s biography.
He was born in Moscow into a noble family of educated, religious people; on his mother’s side he was of “German blood.” Ilyin received a classical education, graduated from high school with a gold medal, and knew several languages. In 1901 he entered the Faculty of Law at Moscow University, where he developed a deep interest in philosophy. His first scientific work published in 1910 and called “The Concept of Law and Force.” After graduating from the university, he remained to teach there, preparing for a professorship, and became a brilliant jurist and jurist.
After 1917, he remained teaching and did not stop criticizing and evaluating what was happening in the country. He believed that “everyone who does not go to the whites and who is not threatened with direct execution should remain in place, at the bedside of his sick mother.” The Bolsheviks arrested Ilyin six times and tried him twice for the fact that he “did not stop his anti-Soviet activities for a single moment.” On September 26, 1922, he was forced to emigrate to Germany, to Berlin. Abroad, he continues his scientific and philosophical work, travels around Europe with lectures on Russian writers, Russian culture, the foundations of legal consciousness, the revival of Russia, religion and the church, the Soviet regime, etc. He is very concerned about the fate of his Motherland and he actively speaks out as an ideologist and inspirer of the white movement. At the same time, he always remained in positions outside and above the party, and was never a member of any political party or organization. He dedicates his work “On Resistance to Evil by Force” to white warriors, bearers of the Orthodox sword, where he examines questions of moral philosophy: what good and evil are, how they manifest themselves in our lives, whether we should fight evil and what methods and means in this struggle is permissible for a believer. Until the end of his days, Ilyin remained an Orthodox Christian and for him there was no autonomous morality, divorced from religion.
Ilyin was immediately able to recognize the true face of Nazism. In 1934, for his resistance to the Nazi Party, he was removed from the Institute where he taught. In 1938, the Gestapo seized all of his published works and banned public appearances. Only as a result of several happy accidents (in which he saw the providence of God) he and his wife were able to move to Switzerland that same year. There he writes three books, united by a single creative act of writing - “to see and show “God’s ray” in everything.”
After frequent and prolonged illnesses, he died on December 21, 1954, without having time to complete everything he had planned. The life of the remarkable Russian philosopher, although difficult and thorny, was still bright. Ilyin endured the blows of fate with steadfastness and asceticism, maintaining his love for Russia and faith in its revival, as well as faith in God, until the end of his days.
Ilyin’s interpretation of the problems of good and evil does not contradict the Christian (as well as Zoroastrian) understanding of them, as anyone interested can see for themselves.
His work “On Resistance to Evil by Force”1 is based on constructive criticism of the philosophical teachings of L.N. Tolstoy and his associates. Their teaching about non-resistance to evil by force, despite its apparent harmlessness, had very sad consequences. It fell on the favorable soil of the Russian intelligentsia and led to the fact that many people succumbed to it, losing their true guide to the problems of good and evil, and becoming an easy victim of the forces of evil, which had such tragic consequences for the history of our Motherland.
Let us consider the main provisions of this work by Ilyin. At the very beginning, he formulates a spiritual law: those who do not resist evil are absorbed by it and become possessed. The evil that must be resisted is not external, but internal. Evil begins where man begins. The human soul-spiritual world is the true seat of good and evil. This means that the fight against evil and overcoming evil can and should be achieved precisely through the internal efforts of a person. That is, the root cause of all problems of good and evil is the internal spiritual choice of a person, which he can only make himself. Yet the manifestations of good and evil in the world are essentially the consequences of this choice.
Ilyin gives the following definitions of good and evil. Good is spiritualized love, evil is anti-spiritual enmity. Good is the loving force of the spirit, evil is the blind force of hatred. Moreover, goodness is not just “love” or just “spirituality,” but rather a synthesis, the inseparability of these concepts from each other. The same applies to the concept of evil, it is both anti-spiritual and anti-love.
Ilyin considers it very important problem spiritual education of a person. He believes that “the deepest basis and goal of spiritual education lies in self-education, in the ability to correctly find the line between self-compulsion and self-coercion, and not only in the awakening of love and spiritual insight.”
At the center of his work is the search for an answer to the question: does a believer and professing love for God have the right to resist evil with physical force. Ilyin explores this problem thoroughly in all its aspects.

Physical coercion and suppression is in itself, beyond good or evil. It can be used in one or the other direction. Physical suppression deprives a person of pleasure and causes him suffering, but a true educator knows that love for the person being educated should not at all be expressed in giving him pleasure and in cautiously protecting him from suffering. On the contrary, it is precisely in suffering, especially when sent to a person in a wise measure, that the soul deepens, strengthens and gains its sight; and it is precisely in pleasures, especially when wise measures are not observed in them (again, “everything is good in moderation” is the golden rule of Zoroastrianism), the soul indulges in evil passions and becomes blind. Because of his structure, man is drawn downward toward pleasure; and rarely attracts upward, towards the perfect. The path upward for a person opens and is given only in suffering and thanks to it. For the essence of suffering lies, first of all, in the fact that for a person the way down is closed or inaccessible; it is the first and main condition for ascent. Not every suffering, not every person, does not always elevate and spiritualize, for here a certain correct direction of the suffering soul and a certain inner skill are necessary. Suffering is the price of spirituality.
The spirituality of a person consists in the fact that he independently seeks, desires and has in mind objective perfection, educating himself for this vision and creativity. The spiritual principle in man is the source and instrument of divine revelation. This makes sense of life, suffering, and death.
Evil, of course, is not limited to physical attack, confiscation of property, rape, murder. These are far from its main manifestations.
A person perishes not only when he becomes poor, starves, suffers and dies, but when he weakens in spirit and decays morally and religiously; not when it is difficult for him to live or impossible to maintain existence, but when he lives humiliatingly and dies shamefully; not when he suffers hardships and troubles, but when he indulges in evil. Evil does not always come through physical violence; it is much easier for it to penetrate under a beautiful mask, deception and lies, through the awakening of negative traits in people, through the weakening of their will. Through physical violence, evil instills fear and enhances the effect of temptation. But the most important impact of evil and its destructive consequence is the qualitative corruption and decomposition of the living spirit (Ilyin showed here three faces of evil - fear, lies and pride - approx. K.S.).

To study the problem of the admissibility of resistance to evil through physical coercion and suppression, Ilyin puts forward a number of conditions. Firstly, “genuine evil must be manifested, and not its likeness, its shadow or ghost.” Secondly, “a person must correctly perceive evil, be competent in this, be able to distinguish real evil and, having perceived it, not accept it.” The third condition is “a person must strive for God, be truly spiritually loving, only then will he not remain indifferent to manifestations of evil.” Fourthly, “a person must think and care not only about himself, but also about others around him.” And, fifthly, “physical pressure is applicable only when all other methods are powerless to prevent a person from committing crimes, only as a last resort.”

Physical coercion and suppression are effective only with correct education, observing the laws of spirit and love. It deals not with evil itself, but only with its external manifestation; it is only an extreme measure of struggle. It means:
1. It should not try to evoke evidence in a person’s soul, such as recognition, acceptance, conviction, belief. This is doomed to failure and can only lead to hypocrisy.
2. It should not try to force a feeling of love (for example, devotion, fidelity) from a person. At best, the forced person will take the path of lies and betrayal; at worst, his soul will be imbued with contempt and hatred, hardened to the point of complete inability to love. Love is either voluntary and sincere, or it is not.
3. It must protect a person’s volitional ability, strengthening it, and promoting its spiritual education.
4. It is not necessary and not permissible where a person himself works to acquire evidence and love and controls himself.

The fight against evil is a living process, very complex and responsible, in which “evil” itself is always given in the form of a single - individual or social phenomenon. The task of someone who fights evil is always to objectively comprehend the nature of this phenomenon and find appropriate means for overcoming it. In this struggle, each must act according to his best judgment, motivated by love, trusting his spirit and relying on his observation. At the same time, of course, unfortunately, no one is immune from mistakes.
Ilyin formulates several rules as a criterion for guidance in resisting evil. We present them in full so that everyone can evaluate them.

1. The resister must develop sensitivity and vigilance to recognize evil and to distinguish it from phenomena similar to it in appearance. This is given only gradually, only in a long moral and religious purification of the personal soul, only in personal and genuine, spiritually meaningful life experience.
2. The resister must strive to comprehend those paths and laws along which the life of evil flows in human souls, as well as all the techniques for its internal overcoming developed by the great righteous and ascetics. Only those who master these laws and this technology will be able to correctly resolve all the current issues of social education.
3. When choosing measures and means in the struggle, the resister must always mentally begin with spiritual means, descending to measures of external struggle only insofar as spiritual means turn out to be impracticable, invalid and insufficient. And even when the need for physical influence becomes clear from the very beginning and immediately, the resister must remember that this measure is dependent, secondary, subordinate and extreme.
4. Turning to physical influence, the resister must always mentally and practically search for that moment and those conditions under which the physical influence can be stopped without damaging the spiritual struggle, preparing the way for it and, now, giving its place to it. For if the struggle is carried out correctly, all measures to counteract it are in the internal organic connection of mutual support and subordination to a single goal.
5. The resister must constantly check the true, internal sources and motives of his personal struggle against evil, in the confidence that the objective comprehension of the evil being overcome, and the mastery of the spiritual technique of struggle, and the choice of means, and the implementation of the struggle itself depend on this; Moreover, he must be sure that his personal correctness and steadfastness in resistance depend on this, and that this, in the final analysis, determines victory or defeat.

It makes sense to resist evil only by acting on the side of living good, because if, while fighting evil, a person awakens in himself the traits of evil (for example, hatred), then ultimately evil wins. Like in the fairy tale by E. Schwartz about a dragon that needed to be killed.

Resistance to evil itself stems from spiritualized love, is carried out by it, serves it, leads to it, grows and strengthens it. The beginning of the spirit gives love meaning and flight, manifests it, makes it sighted.
Love in itself, without spirit, is the beginning of blind passion. It is thirst and hunger, which do not include either the quality of drink or the quality of food. It is a kind of openness of the soul into which even that which is unworthy of love can freely enter. Love is attraction and strength; but how often attraction seduces, and strength is wasted or internally disintegrated in pursuit of a false goal... Love is acceptance, but not everything accepted is spiritually acceptable. Love is compassion, but does everyone deserve it? Love is like a kind of tender singing from the depths; but the depth of unspiritualized instinct can be touched by temptation and sing with pleasure in sin. Love is the ability to unite and identify with the beloved; but unity on a base level depletes and extinguishes this ability, and identification with evil can absorb and pervert the grace of love. Love is creativity, but is it really indifferent what exactly the creator creates? Therefore, love without spirit is blind, partial, self-seeking, subject to vulgarity and ugliness.

Ilyin, as an Orthodox Christian, conducts his philosophical reflections based on the Holy Scriptures. Two main commandments are known from it.

The first directs the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind and the whole strength of the human being and his love for God, the second teaches “to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. XXII, 37-40; Mark XII, 29-31; Luke X, 26–28). Fulfillment of the first commandment reveals God to man and thereby opens his spiritual eye. That is why the fulfillment of the second commandment is impossible outside and apart from the first. One should love the ray of God in another’s soul, its Divine beginning. True love is a connection between spirit and spirit, and then, to that extent, everything else.
It is impossible to love everything equally. No one is called to love evil. The perception of evil, this test for the soul, has only one justification and purpose - resistance to evil. Love has its limits, it ends where evil begins. There all that remains of her is spiritual benevolence, which can, if necessary, take the form of a cutting sword. They often incorrectly refer to the commandments of Christ, who taught to love enemies and forgive offenses. Christ, when calling to love enemies, meant the personal enemies of the person himself (“yours”, “you”; cf. Matt. V, 43-47; Luke VI, 27-28). Christ never called to love the enemies of God; on the contrary, he threatened them with severe punishment. A believer must understand that real, religious resistance to evildoers fights against them precisely not as personal enemies, but as enemies of the cause of God on earth. So the less personal enmity in the soul of the resister and the more he has internally forgiven his personal enemies - everyone in general and especially those with whom he is fighting - the more his struggle, with all its necessary severity, will be spiritually truer, more worthy and more vitally expedient. To forgive an offense means to extinguish its malevolent power within oneself and not to allow the flow of hatred and evil into oneself, but this does not mean to defeat the power of anger and evil in the offender. After forgiveness, evil is defeated within us, but not in the villain, where it still poses a danger to everyone. Therefore, forgiveness is the first condition of the fight against evil, its beginning, but not the end and not victory. Otherwise, the villain will always see “forgiveness” as direct encouragement, and perhaps even secret sympathy.
Thus, the spiritual principle limits and modifies love to “benevolence,” which always and sincerely wishes for everyone not pleasure, not pleasure, not good luck, not happiness, and not even the absence of suffering, but spiritual perfection, enlightenment and transformation, even when this can only be acquired at the cost of suffering and misfortune. This negative face of love cannot love the true evil in man, the self-affirming anti-spiritual malice in him.
Only love for God - for absolutely whole and complete perfection - can be absolutely whole and complete. Such an attitude towards a person taken apart from God is wrong. Resistance to evil is created by love, but not towards the animality of man and not towards his philistine “soulfulness”, but towards his spirit and spirituality.

Arguing about the relationship and mutual influence of all people on each other, Ilyin comes to the conclusion that each person is responsible for himself and for others, and therefore is obliged to fight his own evil and has no right to extinguish this fight.

A person’s evil act disrupts the spiritual balance of some, tempts others, infects others, and hypnotically conquers others. Hence, it is pointless and disastrous to defend the freedom of crime. People mutually send each other their achievements in good and their downfalls in evil, mutually perceive what is sent, and are mutually responsible for it. Therefore, it is the mutual responsibility of people to prevent the spread of evil.
The mental and spiritual connection of people in good and evil is so significant and penetrating that a person, once he has experienced and realized it, really sees the unity and community of the evil principle in the world and feels an incessant need not only not to participate in its infectious spread, but also to resist it in integral, volitional resistance. The evil principle is united and aggressive, and in this it is cunning and diverse. Anyone who does not resist him yields to him and goes in his retinue. Whoever does not stop it becomes its victim. Any crime provokes everyone around, forcing them to speak out and show up, to take a decisive position: against evil or in favor of evil. It is impossible to evade this test: for he who evades and turns away thereby speaks out in favor of evil. Thus, crime requires from the majority of spiritually unbearable heroism and courage. That is why he who suppresses evil does the right thing, precious for the entire internal struggle against evil in all people. He affirms in himself and shows others the power of good.

The entire history of mankind shows that the radical evil living in man triumphs until it is curbed and because it is not restrained. Ilyin formulates three goals for the use of “external compulsion”:
prevent a person from committing this crime;
to protect other people from the crime and its poisonous effect - from the mental and spiritual burn, example, temptation, seduction, call that this crime carries, as well as from the fear of evil;
to keep from the path of villainy all people who are capable of being tempted or carried away by it.
A constant leitmotif in this work by Ilyin is the image of a sword, one of the objects associated with Vertragna, which characterizes the manifestation of his hvarna sunny day birth. Specifically about the sword, Ilyin says the following.

As long as evil lives in the human soul, a sword will be necessary to suppress its external action - a sword that is strong both in its non-extraction and in its suppressing blow. But the sword will never be either creative, or the last, or the deepest manifestation of the struggle. The sword serves the external struggle, but in the name of the spirit; and therefore, as long as spirituality is alive in a person, the calling of the sword will be to ensure that his struggle is religiously meaningful and spiritually pure. For we will win when our sword becomes like love and prayer, and our prayer and love become a sword!
Can a person striving for moral perfection, religiously accepting God, His universe and his place in the world, resist evil with force and sword? The answer to this question, obtained by Ilyin for a morally noble soul, sounds unequivocal: physical suppression and coercion can be a direct religious and patriotic duty of a person; he has no right to evade this. The fulfillment of this duty will bring him as a participant in the great historical battle between the servants of God and the forces of hell.
Resistance to evil, as such, always remains a good, righteous and proper deed. The more difficult this resistance is, the greater the dangers and suffering it is associated with, the greater the feat and merit of the resister. Yes, the path of strength and sword in this struggle is not the righteous path. But we simply have no other way under these conditions. The tragedy of evil and the fight against it is resolved precisely through the acceptance and implementation of this feat. The fight against evil always requires heroism. It makes sense to take up the sword only for God's cause. Death is the living measure of the sword's acceptability. This is one of the tragic paradoxes of human earthly life: it is the best people (rulers, warriors) who are called upon to fight the villains - to interact with them, to stop them, without fighting the best means, among which the sword will always be the most straight and noble. It is important in this fight not to become infected with evil (not to become a dragon yourself according to Schwartz’s fairy tale). Authenticity, purity and depth of good will are the first and fundamental conditions for a faithful and victorious fight against atrocities. The religious and moral purification of a person, his soul (repentance and prayer) after the use of the unrighteous power of the sword does not allow evil to penetrate him. A person must be purer and higher than this struggle, so as not to get carried away by it.

These are the main provisions of this very interesting and in many ways instructive work by Ilyin. His works require careful and thorough consideration in order to clearly understand the problem of fighting evil.

prepared by Starostin Konstantin
magazine "Mitra No. 7(11) pp. 165-169

additionally /node/1850 Resistance to evil. Criticism of Tolstoy L.N. Ilyin I.A.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

TYUMEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Philosophy

Test

“The moral justification of violence in I.A. Ilyina"

Completed by: students 924 b gr.

Lyzhin S.A.

Turov A.N.

Checked:

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

Muravyov I.B.

Tyumen 2014

Introduction

evil violence Ilyin moral

The question of resistance to evil by force is undoubtedly one of the most difficult questions of Christian culture and one of the tragic questions of religious consciousness. It contains not only a cardinal problem of ethics, philosophy of law and philosophy of religion, but also one of the most important antinomies of Orthodox theology. According to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), “in the New Testament there is no permission to use force in the fight against evil,” although “there is no direct prohibition.” Moreover, “not a single church definition, not a single prayer of the Church gives an affirmative answer to the question: “Can a Christian, while remaining a Christian, allow violence in achieving good goals?” In a pointed form this issue we should recognize the global problem of Christianity’s attitude to war and the state. It is no coincidence that Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky asserted in his time: “The question of war, of the attitude of the ministers of the Church towards it, is one of the most difficult and controversial issues of our theology.”

A complete and final resolution of the problem of “Christianity and war,” precisely because of its antinomy, is unlikely to ever become possible. One can agree without hesitation that Christianity categorically condemns aggressive, unjust wars, but can it be said that Christianity also condemns defensive (or liberation), just war? It is true that every war, even the most just one, is murder, blood, and cruelty. We cannot close our eyes to the existence of this tragic reality in our world, but we can approach it in different ways to comprehend and overcome it.

Synopsis of the book "On Resistance to Evil by Force"

Introduction

Humanity grows wiser through suffering. Lack of vision leads him to trials and torment, in torment the soul is cleansed and begins to see clearly, and the clear gaze is given a source of wisdom - evidence.

But the first condition for wisdom is honesty with oneself and with the subject in the face of God.

Can a person striving for moral perfection resist evil with force and sword? Can a person who believes in God, accepts His universe and his place in the world, not resist evil with sword and force? This is a twofold question that now requires a new formulation and a new solution. Now especially, for the first time, like never before, because it is groundless and fruitless to solve the question of evil without having the experience of true evil, and our generation has been given the experience of evil with special force for the first time, like never before. As a result of a long-gestating process, evil has now managed to free itself from all internal divisions and external obstacles, open its face, spread its wings, articulate its goals, gather its strength, realize its ways and means; Moreover, it openly legitimized itself, formulated its dogmas and canons, praised its no longer hidden nature and revealed its spiritual nature to the world. Nothing equivalent or equal to this human history I haven’t seen it yet, or at least I don’t remember. For the first time such genuine evil was given to the human spirit with such frankness.

This question must be posed and resolved philosophically, as a question requiring mature spiritual experience, thoughtful formulation and an impartial decision. To do this, it is necessary, first of all, to abandon premature and hasty conclusions in relation to one’s personality, its past actions and future paths.

The whole question is deep, subtle and complex, any simplification here is harmful and fraught with false conclusions and theories, any ambiguity is dangerous both theoretically and practically, any cowardice distorts the formula of the question, any bias distorts the formula of the answer.

But this is precisely why it is necessary once and for all to abandon the formulation of the question, which was pushed and gradually pushed into philosophically inexperienced souls by Count L.N. Tolstoy, his associates and students with such blind persistence. ... this group of moralizing publicists incorrectly posed the question and incorrectly resolved it and then, with passion, often reaching the point of bitterness, defended their incorrect resolution of the incorrect question as divinely revealed truth.

And it is natural that a teaching that legitimizes weakness, exalts egocentrism, indulges lack of will, removes social and civic responsibilities from the soul and, what is much more, tragic burden of the universe, must was to have success among people, especially those who were stupid, weak-willed, poorly educated and prone to a simplifying, naively idyllic worldview. It so happened that the teachings of Count L.N. Tolstoy and his followers attracted weak and simple-minded people and, giving themselves a false appearance of agreement with the spirit of Christ’s teaching, poisoned Russian religious and political culture.

Russian philosophy must uncover all this nest of experimental and ideological errors that has imperceptibly penetrated into souls and try once and for all to remove from here all ambiguities and naivety, all cowardice and partiality. This is her religious, scientific and patriotic calling: to help the weak see and become stronger, and the strong to gain confidence and gain wisdom.

About self-devotion to evil

At the very threshold of the problem, it is necessary to establish clearly that non-resistance to evil in the literal sense of the word, none of the honest people even thinks that one inclination to such non-resistance transforms a person from a moral doctor and spiritual subject - into a moral patient and into an object of spiritual education. And this means that he will not discuss the problem of non-resistance, but about him there will be a debate about what exactly to do with it and how exactly it should be resisted to him or something that is in it.

Indeed, what would “non-resistance” mean in the sense of the absence of any resistance? This would mean acceptance evil: allowing it into oneself and giving it freedom, volume and power. If, under such conditions, the uprising of evil occurred, and non-resistance continued, then this would mean submission to it, self-surrender to it, participation in it and, finally, turning oneself into its instrument, into its organ, into its breeding ground - enjoying it and being absorbed by it.

This is the spiritual law: not resisting evil absorbed that's what it becomes obsessed. For “evil” is not an empty word, not an abstract concept, not a logical possibility and not “the result of a subjective assessment.” Evil is first and foremost mental inclination human, inherent in each of us, as if something living in us passionate attraction to the unbridling of the beast, a gravitation that always strives to expand its power and to complete its capture.

It is clear that the more spineless and unprincipled a person is, ... the more natural it is for him not to resist evil at all.

Possessed by an evil passion, the non-resisting one rages because he himself has rejected everything that restrains, guides and shapes: all the resisting force has become the power of the storm-bearing evil itself, and the breath of death is fed by the bitterness of the perishing one. That is why the end of his fury is the end of his mental-physical existence: madness or death.

A person who has been spiritually defective since childhood can even develop in himself a special mental structure, which upon superficial observation can be mistaken for “character,” and special views that are mistakenly taken for “beliefs.” In fact, he, unprincipled and characterless, always remains a slave of his bad passions, a captive of his developed spiritual mechanisms, possessive and omnipotent in his life, devoid of spiritual dimension and making up the curve of his disgusting behavior. He doesn't resist him, but cunningly enjoys their game, forcing naive people to accept him evil obsession for "will", him instinctive cunning for the “mind”, the impulses of his evil passions for the “feelings”.

Naturally, it is spiritual healthy people cause only irritation and anger in such a person and kindle in him a sick lust for power, in the manifestations of which outbreaks of megalomania inevitably alternate with outbreaks of persecution mania.

After the spiritual troubles that broke out over the world in the first quarter of the twentieth century, it is not difficult to imagine what a cadre of such people, possessed by malice and aggressively savage, could create.

In contrast, every mature religion not only reveals the nature of “good”, but also teaches the struggle against evil.

The spiritual experience of mankind testifies to the fact that he who does not resist evil does not resist it precisely insofar as he himself is already evil, since he has internally accepted it and became one.

There is no doubt that Count L.N. Tolstoy and the moralists associated with him do not at all call for such complete non-resistance, which would be tantamount to voluntary moral self-corruption.

On the contrary, their idea is precisely that the fight against evil is necessary, but that it should be entirely transferred to the inner world of a person, and, moreover, precisely that person who is waging this struggle within himself; such a fighter against evil can even find a whole range of useful advice in their writings.

They accept the goal: overcoming evil, but make a unique choice of ways and means. Their skill is a teaching not so much about evil, but about how exactly one should not overcome it.

About good and evil

So, first of all, “evil”, the resistance to which we are talking about here, is not external evil, but internal.

True, natural disasters can unleash evil in human souls, for weak people can hardly bear the danger of death, quickly become demoralized and indulge in the most shameful desires; However, people who are strong in spirit respond to external disasters with the opposite process - spiritual cleansing and strengthening in goodness, as is sufficiently evidenced by at least the historical descriptions of the great European plague that have reached us. It is clear that the external material process, awakening divine powers in some souls and unleashing the devil in others, is not on my own neither good nor evil.

Evil begins where it begins Human, and, moreover, it is not the human body in all its states and manifestations as such, and human mental and spiritual world - it is the true seat of good and evil.

In human life there is and cannot be either “good” or “evil” that would have a purely physical nature.

But if the real location of good and evil is precisely in the inner, mental-spiritual world of a person, then this means that the fight against evil and overcoming evil can and should be achieved precisely in internal efforts and transformation will be an internal achievement.

Whoever wants to truly resist evil and overcome it must not only suppress its external manifestations and not only stop its internal pressure; he must achieve that the evil passion of his own soul from its own depths, turning, sees; when she saw it, she caught fire; having caught fire, she became purified; having purified herself, she was reborn; having been reborn, she ceased to be in her evil guise.

Good and evil in their essential content are determined through the presence or absence of precisely these two combined features: love And spiritualization.

Human spiritual then and insofar as he voluntarily and independently turns to objective perfection...

Human loving then and insofar as it is addressed to the life content by the power of accepting unity, the power that establishes living identity between the accepting and the acceptable, increasing to infinity the volume and depth of the first and imparting to the second feelings of forgiveness, reconciliation, dignity, strength and freedom.

According to this, there is good spiritualized(or, otherwise, religiously-objectified, from the word “object”) Love, evil - anti-spiritual enmity.

The real overcoming of evil is accomplished through the profound transformation of spiritual blindness into spiritual sight, and of withdrawn, denying enmity into the grace of accepting love. It is necessary for spiritual insight not only to enmity, but also to love. It is necessary that not only spiritual blindness, but also spiritual sight should be kindled with love.

And so when Count L.N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people call for the internal overcoming of evil, for self-improvement, for love, when they insist on the need for strict judgment of oneself, on the need to distinguish between “man” and “the evil in him”, on the incorrectness of information the entire struggle against evil to one external compulsion, on the spiritual and moral advantage of conviction - then they follow in this the sacred tradition of Christianity; and they are right. The mysterious process of the flowering of good and the transformation of evil is carried out, of course, by love, and not by coercion, and evil should be resisted from love, from love and through love.

About coercion and persecution

This should be called coercion the imposition of will on the internal or external composition of a person, which does not address the spiritual vision and loving acceptance of the forced soul directly, but tries to force it or suppress its activity.

...the coercive imposition of will on human life can be carried out within the closed confines of an individual being: a person can force himself; but it can also occur in communication between two or many people: people can force each other. Any compulsion is or self-forcing, or forcing others.

...should be distinguished mental coercion and physical coercion; Moreover, both self-forcing and forcing others can be both mental and physical in nature.

...the state of mental self-force can be designated by the term self-compulsion.

A person can actually not only force himself mentally, but also coerce yourself to the bodily accomplishment and non-completion of certain actions. This state can be designated by the term self-coercion.

It is also possible to force others mentally and physically.

The essence of this [mental] compulsion consists in mental pressure on a person’s will, and this pressure should induce his own will to a certain decision and, perhaps, self-force; strictly speaking, this pressure can only complicate or modify the motivational process in the soul of the forced person, imparting to him new motives that he has not yet accepted in the order of conviction and devotion, or strengthening and weakening existing ones.

This influence encourages compels a person, approaching him “from the outside,” but turning to his soul and spirit; so we can agree to call it mental compulsion.

Finally an opportunity physical influence on others for the sake of forcing them - apparently there is no doubt.

Man is not given coerce others to genuine deeds, that is, to spiritually and mentally integral actions...

A person physically forced by another always has two outcomes that relieve him of this external pressure: hypocrisy And death…

It is clear, finally, that physical coercion can be aimed at someone else's doing and on someone else's idleness. Hence the possibility, along with physical coercion also physical suppression.

It would be a deep spiritual mistake to equate everything coercion - violence and to give central meaning to this latter term. The very word “violence” already conceals a negative assessment: “violence” is an arbitrary, unjustified, outrageous act; A “rapist” is a person who transgresses the boundaries of what is permitted, an attacker, an oppressor - an oppressor and a villain.

To prove the “admissibility” or “legitimacy” of violence means to prove the “admissibility of the unacceptable” or the “legitimacy of the unlawful.”

L.N. Tolstoy and his school are completely unaware of the complexity of this whole phenomenon. They know only one term, and moreover, precisely the one that predetermines the whole question with its affective coloring. They speak and write only about violence and, by choosing this unfortunate, disgusting term, they ensure themselves a biased and blinded attitude towards the whole problem as a whole.

Thus, from the entire sphere of volitional coercion, L. N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people see only self-coercion(“violence against one’s body”) and physical violence against others; They approve of the first, and they absolutely reject the second.

About mental compulsion

Despite all this, it is necessary to establish that the “forcer” does not thereby do an evil deed, and not only when he forces himself, but also when he forces others.

It is clear that you can force and coerce yourself not only for good, but also for evil. Thus, mentally forcing oneself to forgive an offense or to pray will not be an evil deed, but forcing oneself to bear a grudge, to deceive, or to prove a deliberately false and spiritually poisonous theory, or to compose a flattering ode - will be mentally forcing oneself to evil, self-violence.

And in this regard, the task of every person who spiritually educates himself is to correctly find the line between self-force and self-coercion, on the one hand, and self-violence, on the other hand, strengthening himself in the first and never turning to the second: for self-violence will always be equally dangerous and tantamount to spiritual self-betrayal.

...for a person incapable of good self-motivation, the only path leading him to this art is the test of external pressure coming from others.

All people continuously educate each other - whether they want it or not, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they know how or not, whether they care or are careless. They educate each other with every manifestation of theirs: response and intonation, smile and its absence, coming and going, exclamation and silence, request and demand, appeal and boycott.

Slavery corrupts not only the slave, but also the slave owner; an unbridled person is unbridled not only with himself, but also public environment who allowed him to unbridle herself; a despot is impossible if there are no reptiles; “everything is allowed” only where people allow each other everything.

It is designed by God and by nature in such a way that people “influence” each other not only intentionally, but also unintentionally; and this cannot be avoided.

The consciousness or even the vague feeling that the “other” person wants me to want this has always been and always will be one of the most powerful means of human education; and this means acts the more powerfully, the more authoritative this other is, the more definite and unyielding his will, the more faithful it is in the face of God, the more impressive it is expressed, the more responsible the decision must be and the weaker the will of the person being educated.

But what if all this mental coercion turns out to be insufficient and the coerced one still prefers not to “see” and not subject himself to the necessary self-coercion? Then there are two options left: either to grant him freedom of arbitrariness and crime, to admit that the order and prohibition are not supported by anything other than censure and boycott, and thereby bring forward the tempting idea of ​​external unhinderedness to the vicious and evil will, or to turn to physical influence... .

On physical coercion and suppression

It is in this connection and only in this connection that it is correct to approach the problem of physically forcing other people. Because this type of coercion is, first of all, not self-sufficient and not detached from other types, but is their support and consolidation. Physical influence on other people forms the last and extreme stage coercive compulsion; it appears when self-compulsion does not work, and external mental compulsion turns out to be insufficient or untenable.

…physical coercion of a person by a person is not evil and, further, that evil is by no means reducible either to causing physical suffering to one’s neighbor, or to influencing a person’s spirit through the medium of his body.

External physical influence as such is not evil simply because nothing external in itself cannot be either good or evil: it can only be manifestation internal good or evil.

... the question of the moral value of external physical coercion depends not on the “external physicality” of the influence and not on the “volitional intentionality” of the act, but on the state of the soul and spirit of the physically influencing person.

Physical coercion would be a manifestation of evil if, by its very essence, it were anti-spiritual And anti-loving. However, in reality it is not at all hostile to either spirit or love. It is a manifestation of the fact that the one who forces turns into the forced is not directly to evidence and love, which are fundamentally and essentially completely unforced, and to his will, exposing it through the body to coercion or direct external restrictions.

…bad Types of physical coercion and suppression can spiritually harm the coerced, but this does not mean that all types of coercion are “evil” and “harmful.”

It must be admitted that physical coercion and suppression is almost always unpleasant and often even mentally painful, and, moreover, not only for the coerced, but also for the coercer. But only a completely naive hedonist can think that everything “unpleasant” or “causing suffering” is evil, and everything “pleasant” and “causing pleasure” is good. In fact, it happens too often that evil is pleasant to people, and good is unpleasant

...it is precisely in suffering, especially when sent to a person in a wise measure, that the soul deepens, strengthens and gains its sight; and it is precisely in pleasures, especially when wise measures are not observed in them, that the soul indulges in evil passions and becomes blind.

...if physical coercion is necessary, but causes an evil feeling in the coerced person, then this does not mean that one should abstain from coercion, but means that first the coercion must take place, and Then must be accepted other, non-physical measures in order for the evil feeling to be overcome and transformed by the most embittered soul.

About power and evil

Apparently, in physical coercion and suppression as method of influence There are three points that may seem anti-spiritual and anti-love: first, an appeal to the human will as such besides the obvious and love, secondly, the impact on someone else’s will regardless of her consent and maybe even contrary to her consent, and thirdly, the impact on someone else’s will through the body forced.

However, physical coercion and suppression, while actually including all these three moments, does not become completely evil deed or "an evil way of communicating." It can be and should be Not anti-spiritual and Not anti-love; This is its essential difference from violence, and it is to this extent and only to this extent that it is subject to spiritual and moral acceptance.

... turning inward is the first and necessary condition for the purification and transformation of the soul, if it is still capable of this at all. That is why the one who suppresses the external villainy of the villain is not the enemy of love and evidence, but also not their creative motivator, but only their necessary and faithful servant.

...evil would not be evil, but good-natured weakness, if it tolerated opposition.

...compelling and suppressing resistance does not at all become a manifestation of evil or an evil deed because it is transmitted to a person through his body.

Indeed, a person’s body is not higher than his soul and not more sacred than his spirit. It is nothing more than the external manifestation of his inner being or, what is the same, the materialized existence of his personality.

And if it is inevitable and permissible for a person to physically express sympathy, approval and acceptance to another, then it is equally inevitable and permissible for people to physically convey to each other lack of sympathy, disapproval and rejection, that is, spiritual condemnation, righteous anger, and volitional opposition.

His [the villain's] body is the territory of his malice, and this spiritually devastated territory is by no means extraterritorial for the alien spirit. Reverent awe before the body of a villain who does not tremble before the face of God is unnatural: it is a moral prejudice, spiritual cowardice, lack of will, and sentimental superstition. This trembling, which fetters a healthy and faithful impulse of spirit with some kind of psychosis, leads a person under the banner of “non-resistance to evil through violence” to complete non-resistance to evil, that is, to spiritual desertion, betrayal, complicity and self-corruption.

Physical influence on another person against his will is spiritually shown in life every time internal self-government betrays him and there are no mental and spiritual means to prevent the irreparable consequences of a mistake or evil passion. The one who pushes an unwary traveler away from the abyss is right, who snatches a bottle of poison from an embittered suicide, who strikes the aiming revolutionary in time on the arm, who knocks down an arsonist at the last minute, who drives blasphemous shameless people out of the temple, who rushes with a weapon at a crowd of soldiers. , raping a girl, who will tie up the insane and tame the possessed villain.

Not every use of force against a “dissenter” is violence. Rapist says to his victim: “you are a means for my interest and my lust,” “you are not an autonomous spirit, but an animate thing subordinate to me,” “you are at the mercy of my arbitrariness.” On the contrary, a person who creates compulsion or suppression on behalf of the spirit - does not make the forced person a means for his interest and his lust, does not deny his autonomous spirituality, does not invite him to become a submissive animate thing, does not make him a victim of his arbitrariness. But he seems to be saying to him: “Look, you are managing yourself inattentively, erroneously, insufficiently, badly, and are on the eve of fatal irreparability,” or: “You are humiliating yourself, you are violently mad, you are trampling on your spirituality, you are possessed by the breath of evil, you are insane - and you destroy, and you perish, - stop, here I put the limit to this! And by this he does not destroy the spirituality of the madman, but lays the foundation for his self-restraint and self-construction; he does not humiliate his dignity, but forces him to stop his self-abasement; it does not trample on his autonomy, but demands its restoration; he does not “rape” his “convictions,” but shocks his blindness and introduces into his consciousness his unprincipledness; it does not strengthen his anti-love, but puts an end to his overflowing hatred. The rapist attacks, the suppressor repels. The rapist demands obedience to himself, the coercer demands obedience to the spirit and its laws. The rapist despises the spiritual nature in a person, the coercer honors him and protects him. The rapist hates selfishly, the one who stops is moved not by malice or greed, but by just, objective anger.

So, the entire teaching about the anti-spirituality and anti-love nature of physical coercion and suppression directed against a villain falls as untenable, as prejudice and superstition. What is anti-spiritual and anti-loving is not coercion or suppression, but vicious violence;

In fact, evil can and usually does manifest itself not only in the form of physical violence and associated physical torment. It would be naive to think that the activities of a villain are limited to physical attack, taking away property, wounding, rape and murder.

...physical violence is neither the only, nor the main, nor the most destructive manifestation of their villainy.

A person perishes not only when he becomes poor, starves, suffers and dies, but when he weakens in spirit and decays morally and religiously; not when it is difficult for him to live or impossible to maintain his existence, but when he lives humiliatingly and dies shamefully: not when he suffers or suffers deprivation and misfortune, but when he indulges in evil. And now it is much easier to bring a person to this self-surrender, to non-resistance, to obedience, to the enjoyment of evil and devotion to it, not by physical violence, but by other, softer means; Moreover, it is physical violence that often leads to the opposite result: to the purification of the soul, strengthening and tempering of the spiritual will.

Violence itself, with all its external brutality, carries its poison not so much to the body as to the spirit; murder itself, with all its tragic irreparability, is intended not so much for those killed as for those who remain alive.

That is why we must admit that external violence manifests evil and perpetuates its action, but evil is not at all determined and is not exhausted by external violence.

Statement of the problem

All these preliminary studies and considerations, clearing the way and clarifying the prospect, now allow us to turn to the formulation of the main problem: the spiritual permissibility of resistance to evil through physical coercion and suppression.

Every problem only makes sense at given values and with their faithful experienced perception; outside of this, it falls or becomes meaningless, and then the one who nevertheless continues to resolve it in this form finds himself in the ridiculous position of a person who ostensibly works on imaginary values ​​and then enthusiastically proclaims the absolute truth.

It makes sense to study the problem of the admissibility of resistance to evil through physical coercion and suppression only if the following conditions are present.

Firstly, if given true evil. Not his likeness, not a shadow, not a ghost, not external “disasters” and “sufferings,” not delusion, not weakness, not the “illness” of the unfortunate sufferer. There must be evil human will, poured out in external action.

Second correct perception evil, perception, Not passing, however, into his acceptance. As long as evil is not perceived by anyone, as long as not a single soul has seen the external act and has not seen the malice hidden behind it and realized in it, no one has either the basis or the reason to pose and resolve the problem of external resistance.

Third the condition for correct formulation of the problem is cash true love for good in the questioning and deciding soul. The problem of resistance to evil is not theoretical, but practical problem; its formulation, discussion and decision presuppose that a person not only perceives, contemplates or even studies the phenomena and actions of people, but evaluates them, connecting with them with a living, accepting and rejecting attitude, chooses, prefers and connects his well-being, his joy, your life and your destiny.

Fourth the condition for correct formulation of the problem is cash strong-willed attitude to the world process in the questioning and deciding soul. The practical nature of the question presupposes not only the presence of living love, but also the ability to volitional action, and, moreover, to volitional action not only within one’s own personality, but also beyond it - in relation to other people, to their evil activities and to the world process in which they are organically included.

Finally, fifthly, the problem of resisting evil through external coercion really arises and is correctly posed only on the condition that internal self-compulsion and mental compulsion turn out to be powerless to keep a person from committing crimes.

The absence of at least one of these conditions makes the question incorrect and the answer imaginary.

On the morality of flight

Posing the problem of the admissibility of fighting evil through physical resistance requires the philosopher, first of all, to have the correct spiritual experience in perception and experience evil, love And will and, further, - morality And religiosity. Because the whole problem is that morally noble the soul searches in its love - religiously faithful, strong-willed response to violent pressure external evil. To interpret this problem differently is to circumvent it or remove it from discussion.

And so L.N. Tolstoy and his followers try, first of all, to avoid this problem or to shed light on it by discussing it. Under the guise of resolving it, they are constantly trying to show the seeking soul that there is no such problem at all, because, firstly, there is no such terrible evil, but there are only delusions and mistakes that are harmless to another’s spirit, weaknesses, passions, sins and falls, suffering and disasters; secondly, if evil were revealed in other people, then one must turn away from it and not pay attention to it, not judge or condemn it for it - then it would be as if it would not exist; thirdly, this problem will not even occur to a loving person, because to love means to feel sorry for a person, not to cause him grief and to persuade him to love too, and otherwise not to interfere with him, so love excludes even “the possibility of thought "about physical resistance; fourthly, this is an empty problem, because a moral person cares about self-improvement and provides others with freedom of self-government, turning his will away from them and seeing “the will of God” in everything that happens; and, finally, fifthly, if we already fight external evil, then Always there are other, better and more expedient means and measures.

Thus, Count L.N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people accept and present their escape from this problem as a solution to it.

At the center of all the “philosophical” quests of L. N. Tolstoy is the question of the moral perfection of man; Strictly speaking, L.N. Tolstoy’s entire worldview was grown by him from moral experience...

Morality has become the highest, self-sufficient and the only value before which everything else has become worthless. His entire teaching is nothing more than morality, and in this lies and this determines everything that follows.

Tolstoy's morality as a philosophical teaching has two sources: firstly, living feeling of pitiful compassion, what he calls “love” and “conscience,” and, secondly, doctrinaire reason, which he calls “reason.”

His entire worldview can be reduced to the thesis, “one must love (pity), accustom oneself to this, for this one must abstain and work, find bliss in this, reject everything else.” And his entire teaching is a rational development of this thesis.

About sentimentality and pleasure

Even deeper and more defining connections connect the doctrine of "non-resistance" with meaningful the roots of all teaching. For the idea of ​​“love”, conceived and put forward by L.N. Tolstoy, introduces such content into all his principles and conclusions, which predetermines the inaccuracy of almost all of his questions and answers.

"Love", glorified by his teaching, is, in essence, a feeling pitiful compassion, which can relate to any one specific creature, but can also capture the soul regardless, plunging it into a state of pointless tenderness and softness. It is precisely this feeling, taking root in the soul, capturing its deepest sensitivity and determining the direction and rhythm of its life, that brings it a whole series of dangers and temptations.

So, first of all, this feeling in itself gives the soul such pleasure, oh the fullness and possible severity of which are known only to those who experienced it.

This “good” can chain the soul to itself not by the power of its spiritual superiority and perfection, but by the power of its delightful bliss, and, further, precisely to the extent that it can lead to cooling and instinctive aversion from everything that is not this good or that does not lead to him. This can give rise to the practice and theory of moral enjoyment (“hedonism”), which distorts and forces obviousness, And worldview, and the basics of personal character.

A moral hedonist instinctively gravitates towards everything that evokes in him a state of blissful tenderness, and just as instinctively turns away from everything that threatens to disrupt, break off and extinguish this state.

It is also clear that moral hedonism damages not only evidence, but also character of a person. The state of tenderness and dissolution not only does not include will, but dismisses it as a beginning, on the one hand, unnecessary, and on the other hand, straining, fettering and therefore interfering with dissolution and fluidity. For the will does not dissolve the soul, but gathers it and concentrates it;

The weak-willed love of a hedonistic moralist is rather "mood", easily coexistent with both lack of will and pointlessness. As a weak-willed mood, this love - sentimental, and as a pointless mood this love - aimless: it does not carry any spiritual assignments, neither spiritual responsibility.

Can such a weak-willed and sentimental character, consciously extinguishing the beginning of heroism in himself, sweetly drowning in a boundless and pointless mood and at the same time consciously asserting his rightness as the only and exemplary one for all people - can he pose and solve the heroic problem of resistance to evil?

It is also clear that sentimental love does not unite people, but separates them. In fact, if each person, following the rule of subjectivistic morality, left others to themselves, caring about his own moral sinlessness, then not fraternal unity would arise, but a scattering of passive atoms turned away from each other.

About nihilism and pity

The idea of ​​love put forward by L.N. Tolstoy and his followers suffers, however, not only from the traits of pleasure, lack of will, sentimentality, egocentrism and anti-sociality. It describes and affirms as an ideal state a feeling in a certain sense unspiritual And antispiritual; and this feature of sentimental love is perhaps of greatest importance for the problem of resistance to evil.

As has already been shown above, L. N. Tolstoy’s entire worldview was grown by him from moral experience, which replaced or supplanted all other sources of spirituality in a person, devaluing them or eliminating them completely.

Thus, moral experience replaces religious experience and takes his place. Morality is higher than religion; it judges all religious content by its criterion and affirms the limits of your experience as obligatory for religion.

Likewise, moral experience asserts its supremacy in the sphere of science. Not seeing the spiritual intrinsic value of truth and its measurement, the moralist considers himself the supreme judge of everything that the scientist does: he judges his work and his objects, measuring everything by the measure of moral benefit and moral harm, judges, condemns and rejects it as an idle, empty matter and even depraved.

Scientific knowledge is considered from the point of view moral utilitarianism, and this gives the whole worldview the character of a peculiar scientific nihilism.

The same moral utilitarianism triumphs in relation to art. The intrinsic value of artistic vision is rejected, and art turns into a means serving morality and moral goals.

The moralist seeks to impose on art a nature alien to it and loses its originality, its dignity and its calling. He himself sees this, recognizes it and pronounces it in the form of a certain principle and teaching, and thereby gives his whole theory a peculiar feature. aesthetic nihilism.

Even more acute is the denial with which the moralist approaches law and the state. Spiritual necessity and spiritual function legal consciousness eludes him completely. This whole sphere of precious, soul-nurturing spiritual experience says nothing to his personal well-being; he sees here only the most superficial appearance of events and actions; he qualifies this appearance as brutal "violence" and arbitrarily characterizes the intentions hidden behind this "violence" as evil, vindictive, self-interested and vicious.

Moral brotherhood embraces all people without distinction of race or nationality, and even more so regardless of their nationality: everyone deserves fraternal compassion, but no one deserves “violence”; we must give to the taking away enemy everything that he takes away, we must feel sorry for him for not having enough of his own, and invite him to resettle and live together in love and brotherhood. For man has nothing on earth that is worth defending for life and death, dying and killing.

The sentimental moralist does not see and does not understand that law is a necessary and sacred attribute of the human spirit, that every spiritual state of a person is a modification of law and rightness, and that it is impossible to protect the spiritual flourishing of humanity on earth without compulsory public organization, outlaw, court and sword. Here his personal spiritual experience is silent, and the compassionate soul falls into anger and “prophetic” indignation. And as a result of this, his teaching turns out to be a variation legal, state and patriotic nihilism.

And all life’s “wisdom” comes down to this. Suffering is evil, it is the first, hidden axiom of this wisdom, from which everything else is derived. If suffering is evil, then so is causing suffering. (violence!) there is evil. On the contrary, the absence of suffering is good, and sympathy for the suffering of others is a virtue. This determines the fate of our main problem: in the fight against suffering, is it permissible to inflict new suffering, multiplying and complicating its overall volume and composition? The answer is clear: there is no point in heaping the Peleon on Ossa... “Satan cannot be driven out by “Satan”, “untruth” cannot be cleansed by “untruth”, “evil” cannot be defeated by “evil”, “dirt” cannot be washed away by “dirt”. And this is the answer only consistent: if suffering is truly evil, then who will agree to increase its volume, striving to reduce this volume? Or - who will agree to enter the “path of the devil” in order not to enter it?..

Thus the fundamental principle of sentimental morality is revealed: it rests on anti-spiritual hedonism.

...life wisdom does not consist in fleeing from suffering as from an imaginary evil, but in accepting it as a gift and pledge, in using it and gaining inspiration through it. This acceptance must be made not only for oneself and for oneself, but also for others. It does not mean that a person will deliberately torment himself and his neighbors; but it means that a person will overcome the fear of suffering, will stop seeing evil in it and will not strive to stop it in come what may.

This sentimental hedonism teaches that there is nothing higher in the world for the sake of which people should suffer themselves and impose suffering on their neighbors. The whole task is for everyone to internally realize their suffering V compassion and thus paved their way to the highest pleasure.

This is the meaning and these are the consequences sentimental nihilism, put forward by L.N. Tolstoy and his followers as a one-saving, moral revelation.

About world-denying religion

One of the most significant consequences of this entire moral-nihilistic attitude is the peculiar practical hostility to peace, which serves as the last and most reliable refuge and cover for the “non-resisting”. This rejection of the outer world appears to spring from moral grounds, but is actually rooted in a vague and confused religious conception of the outer world.

The moralist, as has already been established, leads a life turned in on himself, and as a result of this he finds himself turned away from everything that is not his own soul, with its sometimes sinful and sometimes virtuous pleasures. This is precisely what explains the fact that L.N. Tolstoy has two directly opposite views on “nature” and “human society” - on these two great parts of the “external world”. According to first view, nature is divine and gracious. She was created by God, she is connected with him so much that her the law is His law. According to him, “the external world is a world of discord, hostility and selfishness,” it “lies in evil and temptation,” and the “irresistible” “law of the struggle for the existence and survival of the most capable” reigns in it.

It is precisely this view of the external world as a deeply anti-moral environment that leads to preaching asceticism, simplification and non-resistance.

The moralist is a creature frightened and depressed by the exorbitant, obsessive, pretentious reality of his “body” and its instinctive drives. He experiences these drives as directed towards the outside world, as offensive, attacking: starting from the struggle for food and shelter, for property, wealth and power and ending with the aggressiveness of the sexual instinct and its struggle for possession. All this leads to “violence”; all this puts him on the “path of the devil” and draws him to mortal sin, all this awakens his “animal personality” in a person and turns him into a cruel beast; all this comes from the “external world” and pulls into the “external world”; all this should be kept to a minimum and, ideally, completely suppressed.

Ascetically rejecting in himself the beginning of “flesh” and “instinct” as the beginning of “external”, “anti-spiritual”, “violent” and evil, the moralist categorically demands that a person indulge in his physicality as little as possible, so that he reduces its needs to the most necessary and invested all his bodily energy into the only worthy person, morally honest and honorable, not offending anyone and not exploiting physical labor. . We must descend to that level of primitive simplicity, which is “available to all people of the whole world,” so that everyone does only what All can do, and everyone would serve himself, without borrowing from others and without interfering with them doing what they want.

It is in connection with this rejection of the world that the demand to refrain from an active, suppressive fight against evil also grows: the external world lies in evil and man is extremely limited in his knowledge; therefore, he must consistently extract his will from it, allowing the inevitable to happen.

Tolstoy wrote: suppose that “a villain raised a knife over his victim, I have a pistol in my hand, I will kill him, but I don’t know and can’t possibly know whether the one who raised the knife would have accomplished his intention or not. not to commit my evil intention, I will probably commit my evil deed."... No matter what happens in external social life, a person must remember that everyone governs himself and only himself; we must remember this and not sin ourselves, and not think about the consequences, for they can never be available to us. It is arranged by God in such a way that each person is responsible only for himself and that no one has either the “right” or “the ability to arrange the lives of other people”; and therefore, at the sight of villainy, a person must “do nothing,” leaving the sinner to “repent or not repent, correct or not correct,” without interfering or invading his inner world, this sphere of God’s knowledge. Therefore, all I can do in defense of my neighbor who is being killed is to offer the villain the satisfaction of killing me; if he is not interested in my proposal and prefers to kill his victim, then all I have to do is see in this “the will of God”...

If the outer world “lies in evil” and the “eternal”, “irresistible law that rules it” is immoral, shouldn’t we, in fact, turn away and flee from the world, saving ourselves? And so the moralist frees man from the calling to participate in the great process of natural enlightenment and in the great historical battle between good and evil; and instructing a person to such imaginary wisdom and righteousness, he, apparently, does not at all realize that his teaching implants anti-religious arrogance and blindness in souls.

It is precisely this lack of correct religious self-awareness that allows him to cover up his blind flight with a reference to the “will of God.” However, the sentimental moralist does not take this into account and puts forward the idea of ​​“the will of God” every time he needs to cover up his own moralizing lack of will. He declares man's volitional participation in bearing the burden of the universe to be “crude superstition”; “true” faith consists in attributing everything that troubles his soul, “external” social evil, to the will of God. If we accept this teaching, it turns out that God “wants” not only that all people love and pity each other, but also that very many people, not succumbing to the compassionate persuasion of others, would rage and commit crimes, physically raping and killing the virtuous and spiritually corrupting the weak-willed and children; and, further, it turns out that “God” absolutely “does not want” the activities of these ferocious scoundrels to meet with organized resistance and suppression. “God” allows you to persuade villains; to expand the scope of their villainy by offering themselves as victims - “God” also allows; but if someone, instead of providing the villains with more and more defenseless victims and giving them babies for spiritual corruption, becomes indignant and wants to stop their uncontrollable villainy, God will condemn this as blasphemy and atheism.

The religious experience of the moralist is unspiritual, weak-willed, one-sided and meager; his “religious teaching” is the product of a self-satisfied mind, trying to extract divine revelation from pointlessly touched pity. His whole religion is nothing more than morality of compassion. But this morality and its compassionate approach gives a person not the experience of God's perfection, but only experience of human compassion: she sees a tormented person and reduces all revelation to sympathy for this torment.

Real religion accepts the burden of the world as the burden of God in the world, but this teaching rejects the burden of the world and does not comprehend that this rejection of the world is fraught with rejection of God...

Such are the religious foundations of this sentimental morality. Last word there is her religious lack of will And spiritual indifference and in this lack of will and indifference, she loses the objectivity and power of religious love and does not comprehend either its earthly tasks and paths, or its modifications and achievements in the world.

General Basics

When a morally noble soul seeks in its love a religiously faithful, strong-willed response to the violent pressure of evil from outside, then people who are timid, insincere, indifferent, irreligious, nihilistic, weak-willed, sentimental, not accepting of peace, not seeing evil can only hinder this quest, confusing, distorting and leading it to the wrong paths.

The question of the admissibility of external coercion and suppression is posed correctly only if it is posed on behalf of living goodness, historically struggling in the history of mankind with a living element of evil. Is it permissible that in this struggle, representatives of genuine living good mentally force weak people and physically force and suppress the activities of the evil, influencing their evil souls and evil bodies, and if it is permissible, then to what extent, under what conditions and in what forms? The whole question is posed Not on behalf of the villain, but on behalf of the one who loves good and wholeheartedly, sincerely serves him.

Similar documents

I. Ilyin’s book “On Resistance to Evil by Force” is a decisive refutation of Tolstoy’s teaching about “non-resistance to evil,” the physical impact on the bodily nature of evil when other methods have been exhausted. The phenomenon of law as an expression of the laws of human spiritual existence.

abstract, added 04/10/2009


The essence of the philosophy of the Russian philosopher, lawyer, political thinker, historian of religion and culture Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin. Ilyin's point of view on the political situation in Russia. Disclosure of the issue of the relationship between moral norms and law in his works.

test, added 09/28/2010


A brief sketch of the life and work of A.I. Ilyin as a Russian philosopher, writer and publicist, ideologist of the Russian All-Military Union. The origins of the concept of “crisis”, directions of its research and ways to overcome it. Determination of the crisis of Godlessness and the way out of it.

abstract, added 07/12/2015


Representatives of the Ilin family. Study of Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin at the Faculty of Law of the Imperial Moscow University. Publication "The problem of method in modern jurisprudence." Work as a professor at the Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin.

presentation, added 04/18/2014


Vital and creative path I.A. Ilyin, his creative heritage. Loyalty to the traditions of Russian culture. Requirements for specificity and search for evidence. Philosophical positions of Ilyin. Contemporaries about the philosophy of I.A. Ilyina. Key questions of human existence.

abstract, added 09/18/2013


Life of an outstanding philosopher and statesman public figure Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin. The expulsion of a group of philosophers and scientists, including Ilyin, from the country, periods of his emigrant life. A study of the religious act in his philosophical works.

biography, added 12/11/2009


The concept of violence and the nature of its research in philosophical science, the main features. The structure of violence, its objects and subjects, the order of their interaction. The dialectics of violence and the main stages of its development, the current state and place in society.

abstract, added 01/17/2010


Man, his essence and purpose, place and role in the world according to the philosophical anthropology of I.A. Ilyina. Human nature, the connection of body, soul and spirit. The problem of the insoluble contradictions of human existence, the tragedy of its existence in the world.

thesis, added 07/28/2011


Ethical and legal synthesis in the concept of revived natural law by P.I. Novgorodtseva. Disclosure of the concept of legal consciousness in the philosophical and legal doctrine of I.A. Ilyina. Description of the moralism of Russian revolutionary populism by P.L. Lavrova and M.A. Bakunin.

course work, added 01/30/2016


The nature of human morality in the teachings of Vladimir Solovyov. Religious doubt and return to faith of the Russian philosopher. Moral principles of human activity. The main philosophical work "Justification of the Good", dedicated to problems of ethics.

V. DAVATZ

Resistance to Evil

Series "RUSSIAN WAY" I. A. ILIN: PRO ET CONTRA Leehnewsband creativityhThe life of Ivan Ilyin in memoirs, documents and assessments Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology Publishing house of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute, St. Petersburg, 2004

There are books that are difficult to write about. Not because the subject being interpreted is complex and unclear or the assessment is controversial and conditional. But because behind all the interpretation and assessment there is a living spirit and a warm soul. Because it is not enough to read it and formally understand it, “but having understood it, one must feel it, and having felt it, try it on, as it were, and in this subjective persuasiveness find reinforcement for its objective evidence.” These books include the just published work of Prof. I. A. Ilyin "On resistance to evil by force." The problem of resistance to evil in our age is as abstract as it is practically concrete, for, as the author says, “it is groundless and fruitless to solve the question of evil without having real evil in experience.” But in our time, “evil has managed to free itself from all divisions and external obstacles, to open its face, spread its wings, articulate its goals, gather its strength, realize its ways and means.” And therefore “such genuine evil was first given to the human spirit and with such frankness.” In this revelation of “true evil, you were all accomplices, spectators and warriors.” But - I will say for myself - the identification of “true evil” may have forced us to turn more persistently and deeply to the search for “genuine good”. And this appeal forces us, in these years of the deification of matter and human benefits, to raise the question more deeply and tragically about the justification of our own paths, about introducing them to the spirit of truth and illuminating them with the light of good. That is why I. A. Ilyin’s book goes beyond the framework of a philosophical treatise. It responds to a purely practical need to find some kind of support against the aggressive movement of the evil principle; look at your past from some new point of view and, in a special aspect of spiritual transformation, find your way in the future. First of all, the author, with his characteristic brightness and precision of thought, exposes the doctrine of “non-resistance to evil,” which, with the light hand of L. N. Tolstoy, was perceived by many as correct interpretation Gospels. Essentially, Tolstoy’s “non-resistance to evil” is not at all “acceptance of evil” and not submission to evil; where even disapproval or aversion to evil is alive, there is already resistance to evil. Tolstoy's “non-resistance” actually means resistance and struggle, “however, only by some favorite means.” And Tolstoy’s teaching is a teaching “not so much about evil as about exactly how one should not overcome it.” L.N. Tolstoy does not see “the connection of people in evil and good”; he proceeds in his reasoning from an incorrect spiritual experience, “naively starting from his own mental states.” Someone else's soul is not an object for him to influence; “the will of God” reigns there. And if a person experiences an obligation, then this is a personal and subjective obligation - “not to do evil.” Moral desertion is created in the face of the pressure of world evil, clouded by the problem of “human moral perfection.” Effective love is replaced in him by a feeling of pitiful compassion, on the basis of which reason weaves its theoretical moral doctrine. Tolstoy's "love" gives, first of all, the soul itself a feeling of the greatest pleasure in its righteousness, and everything comes down to a kind of moral pleasure ("hedonism"). True, a moral soul must love in such a way that it is always capable of personal sacrifice. But this personal sacrifice is made again in order to increase the pleasure of one’s own soul, but not in order to reduce the evil contained in the world. Because, according to L.N. Tolstoy, every sacrifice must follow the path of righteousness, and if circumstances would force one to sacrifice one’s own righteousness, then such a sacrifice, of course, will not increase the goodness of the moral hedonist, and is therefore rejected. The dramatic element of the world is replaced by a saccharine and sentimental ideology. There is no place for the tragic. “Virtue enjoys its “love”, and vice freely pours its will into the world.” Resistance to evil, once it has gone beyond the limits of the personal soul and personal compulsion, is already interpreted by L. N. Tolstoy as sinful “violence.” I cannot save a child who has fallen into the hands of evildoers unless I have to use external force. According to Tolstoy’s teachings, I can only, while remaining righteous, offer myself instead of this child and thereby show the power of my “love,” but my death will be “moral” only when I die in the name of this sentimental love, but it will be sinful if I I will die fighting against rapists. Several chapters devoted by I. A. Ilyin to the teachings of L. N. Tolstoy, are extremely necessary both for the development of the author’s thoughts, and in themselves, outside the subject being treated. Only by reading these fascinating pages do you feel how Tolstoy’s teaching deeply captured us Russians, and even those who were not inclined to Tolstoy’s nihilism. Having rejected all the complexity of the world problem, gr. Tolstoy drew a simple and convenient diagram; and, having created it, he passed off this teaching not as his own, but as the teaching of Christ, cleared of centuries-old layers. Appealing to simple and kind human feelings,<таким>like “kindness”, “pity”, he hid the tragic face of true, spiritualized Love. And since the practical conclusions from his teaching as a denial of the forms of human social life were alien to many, the foundations of his teaching were perceived in a hidden form on a wide scale. But besides general meaning these pages, I. A. Ilyin needs them for the further development of his book. Only those who feel completely free from Tolstoy’s “love” can follow I. A. Ilyin to the origins of true Love. Only those who feel the falsity of sentimental philosophy can rise to the problem of fighting evil. Only those who free themselves from the concept of Tolstoy’s “violence” will be able to take upon themselves the tragic problem of the sword posed by the author. “Violence”, “love”, “forgiveness” turn out to be much more complete and complex after this spiritual liberation from L.N. Tolstoy. Since for L.N. Tolstoy the matter of “improvement” is a purely subjective act, isolated from human society, for him “all-forgiveness” is not only an individual right, but also the duty of a righteous person. For I. A. Ilyin, a person’s life is his active struggle against evil, a struggle in which, willingly or unwillingly, all people bound by the goal of good and evil participate. And it is clear that the problem of “forgiveness” cannot be interpreted by him from the point of view of an isolated human individual. “An offended person can and should forgive his offense and extinguish his resentment in his heart,” says I. A. Ilyin, “but it is precisely his personal heart and his personal damage that limits the competence of his forgiveness; further exceeds his rights and calling. It’s unlikely it is necessary to prove that a person has neither the opportunity nor the right to forgive an insult inflicted on another, or a crime that violates divine and human laws... As part of every untruth, every violence, every crime, except for the personal side of “offense” and “damage” , there is also a super-personal side that leads the criminal to the judgment of society, the law and God... Who gave me the right to “forgive” on my own behalf the villains who commit desecration of the sacred, or the villainous seduction of minors, or the destruction of the Motherland? Christ, calling enemies to love enemies, never “called to love the enemies of God... On the contrary, for such people, and even for those incomparably less guilty, He had a fiery word of reproof.” Because Christ preached not personal righteousness, not sentimental pleasure in one’s own pity, but an active struggle against spreading evil.

So, the fight against evil is the lot of a person who lives according to the word of God. But in the physical world, this fight against evil may require the use of physical force to localize, suppress, and suppress evil manifestations. Is this “violence”, is this a new portion of evil that a struggling person puts into the general content of the world? Is it possible to condemn prohibiting a child from riding a boat in stormy weather if it would mean locking him up? Is there “violence” if they tie up a person who, in a fit of insane rage, attempts to kill? No. “Physical coercion would be a manifestation of evil if, by its very essence, it were anti-spiritual and anti-love.” Of course, this is the last resort that can work, and primitive and rude natures can abuse it. But, says the author, “isn’t it naive to think that a mediocre and incompetent surgeon compromises surgery? Without extremes one should not amputate; does this mean that amputation in itself is evil and that the amputee does his job out of revenge, envy, lust for power and anger ?" Physical coercion is, according to I. A. Ilyin, an extreme measure, applicable when “internal self-government betrays a person and there are no mental and spiritual means to restrain and stop his anti-spiritual acts.” Physical force is permissible when necessary; but it is necessary when “the mental and spiritual influence is insufficient, invalid and impracticable.” Already from this we see that I. A. Ilyin considers the sword, fighting evil, to be an imperfect measure, requiring deep caution and limited use. And therefore the question of the righteousness or unrighteousness of the sword is of paramount importance for I. A. Ilyin. With his characteristic certainty, the author categorically protests against attempts to present the work of the sword as God's work. Based on the position that secular power is instituted by God, Martin Luther argues that “war is a work of love,” for the sword “protects the godly ... and thereby prevents much greater disasters.” The hand that acts with such a sword “is no longer a human hand, but God’s hand, and it is not man, but God who hangs, cuts on the wheel, beheads, kills and fights.” The Jesuits did not go as far as identifying the Divine and human hand , but they allowed it - God’s permission for bad deeds, for, according to the Jesuit Busenbaum, “God is the Lord of all life.” Jesuit Alagona develops this idea even more clearly: “By the command of God you can: kill an innocent, steal, commit debauchery, for He is the Lord of life and death, and of everything, and therefore one must fulfill His command.” Against all these attempts to involve God in imperfect earthly affairs, I. A. Ilyin puts forward his position that the “sword” can never be either an instrument of God or His connivance; such an explanation follows from the Jewish traditions of the Old Testament, when His absolute power is perceived, but His perfection is forgotten. With a truly Christian and evangelical outlook, a person must remember that “he has no right to lay aside the burden of responsibility and shift it to the Divine.” He must remember that “these means of struggle are not divine, but human; they are necessary precisely because of the imperfection of human nature.” Man turns to these means because “he himself is not God,” but a limited and devoted “servant of God.” And therefore these means are not “allowed” (Jesuits), not “sanctified” (M. Luther), but “obligatory in all their unrighteousness.” So, the path of the sword is an unrighteous path, but necessary due to the lack of a righteous outcome. The ruler and warrior should not forget this, but consciously, without shifting it to anyone else, should carry out the feat of renouncing personal righteousness, which requires, first of all, a heroic soul. For you cannot evade your fate - and there are only two outcomes: either unworthily turning away from the struggle in your cowardice, or accepting it with dignity and meaning. “This is how one of the tragic paradoxes of human earthly life develops: it is the best people who are called to fight the evildoers... and, moreover, to fight this fight not with the best means...” For “if only all people had a stronger fear of sin love for good, then life on earth would be completely impossible." But the ruler and warrior must maintain a sensitive conscience so that the path of unrighteousness does not turn into the path of sin. In certain, strictly defined cases, a man of power and the sword must be able to perform actions that are clearly at odds with his own ideal of holiness and perfection: he must have the strength to put aside his internal “disagreement,” hold back his personal “protest,” and defeat the possible within himself. disgust" and do what is necessary; and not only from discipline and by order, for he himself can always find himself in the position of initiator and orderer; he must be capable of this out of religious feeling and spiritual conviction: to accept responsibility and the decision of the order, to arrest, sentence, shoot. .. But outside of action, he must illuminate himself with the “ray of God” so that all the noblest forces of the human spirit come into motion in him: attitude towards God, conscientious judgment, the will to unconditional righteousness. It is necessary to cleanse the soul not in order to repent and condemn one’s actions, but in order to acquire new spiritual strength for new feats of the fight against evil. The problem posed by I. A. Ilyin and its solution will undoubtedly find a lively response in the souls of many “fighters against evil” who are now scattered in foreign lands. During the Gallipoli sitting, and especially immediately after it, in Bulgaria, quite independently of each other, many came to the idea of ​​​​the need to create a semi-spiritual order (gener<ералу>A.P. Kutepov is aware of such attempts, and he can always confirm this). This mood was clearly expressed in one article written in 1922 in the second issue of the Kornilovets magazine published in Sofia. The article was written by an ordinary Kornilov officer 1. With particular convincing simplicity, they spoke there about the idea “which has been tormenting us, the Gallipolians, for a long time.” “It is impossible to live the way we have lived until now. We need to change something in the army, in society, and in ourselves. We need to return to the search for Truth. Maybe the spiritual sword is more important to us than the material sword,” - - says the author and proposes to establish an Order of Warrior Knights. Isn’t this the need for “purification” that I. A. Ilyin formulated? It was not repentance that guided the Kornilovite who wrote this article, but the need to cleanse himself of the evil that stuck to those who fought him like lumps of dirt. There was a need to infuse new spiritual content into the old forms of secular organization, or at least update it. Therefore, for the writer of these lines, the thesis of I. A. Ilyin is completely understandable: “And so, if we combine the entire state principle of coercion and suppression in the image of a warrior, and the beginning of religious purification, prayer and righteousness in the image of a monk, then the solution to the problem will be expressed in the discretion of their mutual necessary for each other." That's why it gets special meaning and the dedication that the author prefaced to his book: “With thought and love I turn to you, white warriors, bearers of the Orthodox sword, volunteers of the Russian state tax! The Orthodox knightly tradition lives in you; you have established yourself by life and death in the ancient and right spirit of service; you preserved the banners of the Russian Christ-loving Army. I dedicate these pages to you and to your Leaders. Let your sword be a prayer and let your prayer be a sword!”

NOTES

The article was published in two issues of the Belgrade newspaper “Novoe Vremya”: No. 1263 of July 17, 1925 and No. 1264 of July 18, 1925. Repeatedly: Ilyin I. A. Collection cit.: In 10 volumes. M., 1995. T. 5. P. 312--319. Published according to the latest edition. Davatz Vladimir Christianovich-- see note. 5 to the article by N. Rybinsky “Spiritual Sword”. 1 This refers to the article by A. Dissky “The Utopian Idea and Its Realization”, published in the monthly military emigrant magazine “Kornilovets” (1922. No. 2), which was published in the field camp of the Russian military in the area of ​​the Bulgarian station Tulovo.

Structure

The epigraph is taken from the Gospel of John (II:15): “And having made a scourge of ropes, he drove everyone out of the temple, also the sheep and the oxen; I scattered money from the money changers and overturned their tables.”

1. Introduction
2. About self-devotion to evil
3. About good and evil
4. About coercion and violence
5. About mental compulsion
6. On physical coercion and suppression
7. About power and evil
8. Statement of the problem
9. On the morality of flight
10. About sentimentality and pleasure
11. About nihilism and pity
12. About world-denying religion
13. General Basics
14. About the object of love
15. About the boundaries of love
16. About the modifications of love
17. About the connection of people in good and evil
18. Rationale for resisting force
19. About the sword and righteousness
20. About false solutions to the problem
21. About spiritual compromise
22. About cleansing the soul

Since the book was written to criticize the teachings of L.N. Tolstoy, it contains many references to his works, especially to “The Reading Circle”.

Encyclopedia "Russian Philosophy" about the book

The first significant work that marked Ilyin’s turn to social philosophy was the book “On Resistance to Evil by Force.” In this book, Ilyin sharply criticized Tolstoy’s idea of ​​non-resistance to evil and tried to substantiate the idea: despite the fact that from a Christian point of view, evil is always defeated by love (moral, spiritual education, etc.), in certain cases, when all other methods resistance to evil has been exhausted and has not brought success, it is legitimate to use means of external coercion, incl. death penalty and military force. At the same time, Ilyin does not sanctify the forced resort to force, does not elevate it to the rank of virtue - the use of violence always remains an unrighteous act (although not always sinful). How to behave when encountering social and moral evil, and by what means to counteract it is a matter of moral choice: right choice can only be done by a spiritually and morally healthy person. For Ilyin, a positive solution to the problem of overcoming evil develops into a broader problem of the formation and education of a highly moral person, which became central to subsequent creativity (“The Path of Spiritual Renewal”, etc.).

Issues

The main problem of the book is defined by Ilyin as follows: “Can a person striving for moral perfection resist evil by force and sword? Can a person who believes in God, accepts His universe and his place in the world, not resist evil with sword and force? This is a twofold question that now requires a new formulation and a new solution.” Noting that this question is deep, subtle and complex, Ilyin writes that simplifying it is fraught with false conclusions and theories.

About non-resistance to evil in general

Before starting to study the main problem of labor, Ilyin first determines that “none of the honest people” literally thinks about complete non-resistance to evil, that is, submission to it, which entails “self-devotion to evil,” since a person who does not resist evil will sooner or it comes late to the need to convince oneself that evil is not evil.

The thesis “he who does not resist evil is absorbed by it and becomes possessed” is elevated to the rank of a spiritual law. A soul that has submitted to evil begins to believe that black is white, adapts to evil and, as a result, becomes like it. He who does not resist evil is already evil.

Definition of good and evil

External condition human body, no external act of a person can be considered as evil or good in itself, taken separately from the human mental and spiritual world, which is “the true location of good and evil.”

Evil is, first of all, a person’s mental inclination, inherent in each of us; as if some passionate gravitation living in us, always striving to expand its power and to complete its capture. Evil is anti-spiritual enmity. However, “hostility toward evil is not evil.”

Goodness is not an external rite of kindness; it must necessarily include spirituality and love. A person is spiritual when he is turned to objective perfection. Good and evil are determined through the presence or absence of love and spirituality in them. Moreover, real goodness must combine both characteristics. So love, devoid of spirituality, is blind, self-interested, and subject to vulgarization.

The relationship between coercion and violence

Ilyin determines that volitional actions can be free and compelling.

The concept of “coercion” is defined as generic and is understood as “such an imposition of will on the internal or external composition of a person, which does not address the spiritual vision and loving acceptance of the forced soul directly, but tries to force it or stop its activity.” It is necessary to distinguish between mental and physical coercion, and self-coercion and coercion of others can be both mental and physical in nature. Mental self-forcing - itself compulsion, physical coercion - itself compulsion(self-violence).

It is not given to a person to force others to genuine deeds, that is, to spiritually and mentally whole actions. Ilyin believes that it would be more reasonable to talk about physical coercion, rather than physical coercion, since coercion itself will fade away at the moment of a person’s personal, spiritual uprising. Among other things, physical suppression aimed at stopping certain activities is possible.

According to Ivan Alexandrovich, it is necessary to separate coercion and violence. Violence is something gratuitous, outrageous, and the rapist is the oppressor, the villain. Therefore, it is impossible to prove “the permissibility of the unacceptable” or “the legality of the unlawful.” Therefore, the term “violence” should be used to refer to cases of reprehensible coercion. Ilyin criticizes L.N. Tolstoy, saying that he and his followers identify any coercion with violence.

Thus, the concept of external coercion is subordinated, on the one hand, to the concepts of mental coercion, physical coercion and suppression, and, on the other hand, corresponding types of violence against others.

Self-coercion and self-coercion are of decisive importance in civilization and in the internal culture of man. The deepest basis of spiritual education is self-education. All people, consciously or unconsciously, continuously educate each other.

Notes

Literature

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

• About official
• About the Strangeness of Love (film, 1936)

See what “On resistance to evil by force” is in other dictionaries:

About resisting evil by force Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia

ABOUT RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE- one of the most significant productions. I. A. Ilyina. Published in 1925 in Berlin. The central theme of the book is the theme of evil and the means of eliminating it, as well as the related problem of moral assessment of ways to resist evil. Considering these... ... Russian philosophy: dictionary

Bibliography of works about I. A. Ilyin- Contents 1 1900 e 1.1 1909 2 1910 e 2.1 1912 2.2 ... Wikipedia

Bibliography of works about I.A. Ilyina- Contents 1 1900 1.1 1909 2 1910 2.1 1912 2.2 1916 2.3 1917 2.4 ... Wikipedia

ILYIN Ivan Alexandrovich- (1883 1954) philosopher, lawyer, publicist. Genus. in Moscow in a noble family. Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University (1906). He was left at the faculty to prepare for the professorship. In 1910 I. was sent on a scientific trip to... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Bibliography of Ivan Ilyin- Contents 1 1900 e 1.1 1903 1.2 1904 1.3 1905 1.4 ... Wikipedia

ILYIN- Ivan Alexandrovich (1883 1954) religious. philosopher, jurist, occupying a prominent place in Russian. cultural renaissance first floor. 20th century Graduated from law in 1909. ft Moscow University, having received fundamental training under the guidance of an outstanding philosopher... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Ilyin Ivan Alexandrovich- (1882 1954) outstanding Russian philosopher, political thinker, theorist and historian of culture and religion. Born in Moscow, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, where he taught after completing his studies in Germany. His… … Great philosophers: educational dictionary-reference book

Ilyin, Ivan Alexandrovich- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the same surname, see Ilyin. Wikipedia has articles about other people named Ivan Ilyin. Ilyin Ivan Alexandrovich ... Wikipedia

Ilyin, Ivan Alexandrovich- philosopher, theorist of religion and culture, political scientist. thinker. Genus. in Moscow. Studied law. f those Mosk. un ta. Since 1909 he read at the Higher Women's Law. basic courses course "History of Philosophy of Law" and... Large biographical encyclopedia