Ph.D. in Philosophy, Ass. Pr. Tsepeleva N.V.
Novosibirsk
State Medical University, Russia
Immanuel Kant
and N.O. Lossky
about the problems of morality
N.O. Lossky acquainted
with the teachings of Kant,
through his teacher A.A. Vvedensky, famous
Kantian. Lossky himself
specifically undertook translation of Kant's writings
to their own understanding
of Kant's terminology, and
in the teachings of German philosopher.
Russian thinker, unlike his German colleague believed in principle impossible to consider epistemological issues outside
the scope of the metaphysical. Nevertheless, Lossky far from foggy mysticism and
developed a "scientific"
metaphysics, brought him to the philosophy and modern achievements of science. Lossky states that the most powerful
enemy of metaphysics, it has created in the XIX century, the negative attitude
of broad sections of society - is Immanuel Kant, who believed that metaphysics
as a science is impossible. Metaphysics in Kant has a right to exist only as a
belief system based on faith. N.O. Lossky's never been interested in
epistemological problems by itself. He was not a pure epistemologist. Rightly
remark N.G. Baranets "Epistemology Russian philosophical renaissance was
applied nature, as through it was proved the possibility and necessity of metaphysics"
[1. P. 21]. The fundamental
rejection of metaphysics in Western philosophy, which has criticized Lossky,
making it impossible to justify the reality, drove to the existence of pure
thought. Therefore, Lossky is taken for justification of metaphysics, but as
the negation of metaphysics Kant was based on "scientific"
epistemology, then Lossky refers to the problems of knowledge.
However, a
not only epistemological issue has attracted Lossky in the teaching of Kant.
Russian thinker interested in the autonomy of morality and the relationship of
good and duty, the relationship of religion and morality.
First of all,
it should be noted that Lossky, like Kant, rejects the relativity of morality
and ethical absolutism argues, that is, the presence of a single absolute moral
ideal. However, the construction of an adequate ethical theory philosopher
considers possible on the basis of religious experience.
In Lossky,
like his predecessor V. Solovyov, faith is an essential element of knowledge.
She brings integrity to the structure of knowledge, confirms the existence of
an absolute outside of discourse and acts as a mystical experience. In Kant's faith leads to the
absolute beginning, based on the moral necessity. For Kant, the mystical content
of faith - a personal experience, which must remain outside the scope of
scientific methodology? However, if Vladimir Solovyov believed that the
credibility of faith can not be based on the necessity of moral standards,
there is no Lossky criticizes the moral belief of Kant. Probably due to the
proximity of its position of moral theology of Kant.
Lossky,
like Kant, rationalizes religion, sees Christianity only as a doctrine of
morality. Speaking for the union autonomous and heteronymous good in contrast to
Kant, Lossky actually stands for heteronymous ethics. Perceiving Christian
moral principles in the relations of "subject-object", raising morale
in the rank of universal law, associating morality and spirituality, Lossky rationalize
Christianity, reducing it to the teachings of morality. Russian thinker
considers categories of moral all existence, the cosmos, creating metaphysical
moralism. It is noteworthy that Lossky does not create a per se doctrine of
man, so the ethical teachings of the thinker does not contain an anthropological
dimension. In the ideal-realism Lossky's moral standards imposed by the Creator from the
outside, for the violation of which That rewards or punishes. Hence, it is
legal (fair) relating m to morality and religion, and finally to the person
that quite contradicts the idea theonomous ethics of love Lossky's.
Itself
Lossky writes that his ethics is not heteronymous because its rules are binding,
not because of external events, such as pleasure, threats, rewards, fear of
God, etc., but because the content of this ethics is valuable in itself a. But
the principle teonomizma includes securities of autonomous ethics as stated
here the idea that moral rules are not happening the will of man, and contain
the proper discretion of the objective value. This ethic is unconditional.
In our
opinion, the ethics of heteronomy due to the fact that the rules of natural
morality of natural man. This is its essence of man. In addition, Christian values are outside of God. The
autonomy of morality - it is not «self legislation», self-realization of moral standards based on human freedom. Do not follow the moral laws imposed from outside, and creative
implementation of moral norms on the basis of love. N.O. Lossky formulates his categorical imperative. He
writes: "Love God more than himself, love thy neighbor as thyself; attains
an absolute fullness of life for themselves and all other creatures, etc."
[3. P. 278].
Through a
combination of the principles of autonomy and teonomy by Lossky, lost the
temptation of pride inherent in the concept of autonomy. Autonomy Kant's is
based on «self legislation». Kant understands by the idea of
autonomy obedience to the law, a person who formulates for himself.
In theonomous ethics Lossky's there is not «self legislation» because
moral norms are not created voluntarily man but contain the proper discretion
of the objective value. In this man's freedom is remains. In theonomous ethics
developed an entirely different concept of duty than that of Kant.
As part of the judgment of the moral consciousness of right and duty interrelated. Lossky notes this relationship and says that the due caused by as a good value, and conversely, a real good is possible as a virtue, that is, as a practical and active person pursuant to the debt. In this vein, Lossky observes that theonomous ethics is not only a means must be such, and not otherwise specifically provided the goal, but also its ultimate goals are established for granted. Itself ought explained by reference to the fact that the content of this ultimate goal is something valuable in itself, worthy, sublime. "It is not because of external orders coming from some authority ... the content of the ultimate goal is recognized properly, ought here arises as a natural complement to the discretion of the objective dignity of purpose. Therefore, it is unconditional, it is a categorical imperative: love God more than himself, love thy neighbor as thyself; attains an absolute fullness of life for themselves and all others ... "[5. P.68].