Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

   Lunacharsky Articles and speeches on international politics

Interest in philosophy. Les fagots e les fagots. Compassionate criticism and our "heartlessness"

Published on Sat.: A. S. GLINKA (Volzhsky). Collected works in three books. Book I: 1900–1905 — M.: MODEST KOLEROV, 2005. — 928 p. (Series: "Studies in the history of Russian thought").

From all sides it is stated that our public is showing an ever greater interest in philosophy, in "damned questions", in "eternal problems". Most approve of this phenomenon as a result of the growth of consciousness. But there are also people shaking their heads. “Is it possible that the acute moment we are experiencing allows for various hyperphysical sophistications? Is it possible that we answer the call of life, piercingly screaming with millions of voices, only by pointing out the need to substantiate the “first principles” first? they are, "in a dark pit; and then a ray of light splashed, and a rescue rope fell to us from above. And what? Did we grab it? Are we climbing with all our strength to the sun? Not at all! Rope, what is it? A rope is a simple rope!" etc.

And here we, who have taken a modest part in the general debate on philosophical questions, incur a double charge.

Firstly, the notorious idealists are terribly happy that they have forced us, who pose as consistent realists and supporters of a certain sociological doctrine, hidden "materialists", to indulge in the lofty work of philosophizing. Finally, both these rough minds and these clumsy polemicists sans foi ni loi, though negatively, still debate about the Supreme Being, the goal of being, duty. Look at the place that questions of the most sublime character occupy among the realists! Didn't the idealists force their volens-nolens to put such questions on the queue and raise their eyes and hearts to grief?!

On the other hand, our friends sometimes begin to grumble a little. They are inclined to believe that we have indeed become a little too carried away in expounding our views on questions whose importance, perhaps, is undeniable, but by no means imperative.

First of all, I think that I will not be mistaken if I say on behalf of the whole group of "realists" what I am absolutely entitled to say about myself.

We have come to the formulation of some questions that seem to a superficial observer so close to the subject of reflections and rantings of the idealists, completely independently (hereinafter, italics by A. Lunacharsky. - comm.) There is no doubt that the thoughts that "realists" put as the basis of their work ", would have been expressed without the birth of "pious" philosophers sparkling with a halo of holiness. The appearance was a signal for us that "it's time!" It is time to express what each of us thought for ourselves, to outline the answers to those questions that, with elemental force, confronted each of us. The broadcast advertising of the idealists only urged us to hurry up, and even determined the polemical character of some of our works. (…)

Sociological theory, harmoniously fitting within the framework of the general scientific worldview, gave us the key to understanding all social phenomena. (...) and while our sociological reflections involuntarily turned to the tempting task of concretely depicting exactly how, in what ways , the spontaneous life of society is reflected (...); we wanted to understand what is an ideal?The ideal, we saw it, was the engine (…). But we knew at the same time that this ideal had purely earthly roots, we knew that the wonderful and bright vision that beckoned us into the distance with its divine smile was generated by the same physical causes as those that generate hunger and thirst. (...) We knew well that there was no abyss between the images of the distant future and the reality surrounding us, that our ideals are direct children of the same present, which next to them gave rise to feelings of indignation and contempt in us.

Approximately the same question and at the same time appeared before the "pious".

But the "pious", revisionist-minded, long weighed down by many unpleasant features of the direction in which they were swam, of course, did not solve it at all, and did not try to solve it in the spirit of the then development of the foundations of their then world outlook.

They preferred to tear their world in two, to oppose their ideal to reality, making it the offspring of another world, they preferred to entangle themselves in all the contradictions of dualism, which they try to hide with the tails of Kant's old frock coat or even more sacred robes; they demanded the most lofty sanctions for their ideal, they do not want to stand on their feet, they had to hang on something above the ground, and they are now trying to drive a hook into the sky. (…)

The collection Essays on a Realistic Worldview met with a sympathetic reception not only from such journals as Obrazovanie and Vestnik Evropy, but also from the idealists themselves. Not really, of course, oh no! They praised us for our good intentions. This did not prevent them from raising a whole cloud of big and small misunderstandings about our book, but these misunderstandings can hardly shake anyone's opinion. We can safely risk staying where we are and ignoring these failed attacks.

Moreover, Mr. Volzhsky directed a special attack against me personally in Obrazovanie, and my short answer appeared in the same journal.

However, I want to dwell once more on one feature of Mr. Volzhsky's criticism, which I have repeatedly noted and which I will note in order to pass on to some considerations that have long interested me.

A distinguishing feature of Mr. Volzhsky is his extreme compassion, his extraordinary compassion*.

* И далее в сноске: «Г. Волжский почему–то сердится на меня за это слово»— comm.

Human life, as we see it, is full of absurdities, sorrow, humiliation and all sorts of filth. This is our common opinion with Mr. Volzhsky.

We see the main reason for such a sad imperfection in our life in the still insufficient power of man over the elements of nature, and especially over the social elements. Both Mr. Volzhsky and my readers, I hope, know how we more closely define a social disease and what kind of operations we recommend for curing it.

It is possible to open a fruitful discussion regarding the correctness of our diagnosis or the treatment plan that we consider the only correct one, but is it not senseless to answer our bright hopes of curing our patient, raising him from his sad bed, destroying abscesses and sores on his body, illuminating the darkened delirious head, to clear eyes clouded with torment: to respond to our confidence that the patient will get up, healthy, radiantly beautiful, spring-joyful, will straighten up with accusations of that. That we don't pity him enough?

I will allow myself to resort to a small semi-fictional illustration of the disputes arising from this.

Hospital room. The exhausted patient in unconsciousness quietly groans on his bed. The doctor sterilizes his instruments. A compassionate someone drooped at the head of the patient. one

Someone. Doctor, I marvel at your cruelty; there is not a shadow of pity on your face! You are calm, as if you are not in the face of suffering.

Doctor. I need to be calm to see clearly what needs to be done.

N. Wait, doctor. First of all, have you realized what suffering is? I mean, where does it come from in the world? for what? what is this fatal flaw in nature? whose will created the world full of pain? why, what is all this for? These questions nail my mind, every groan of this sufferer seems to me a complaint asking "why? .." and it seems to me that, doctor, what exactly is my brain, this poor brain give an answer, report in it! Doctor! but stop, come to your senses, rise for once above crude practice, above a technical attitude towards illness. Where is the cause of all suffering?

E. The organism is a part of nature, far from being in harmony with the rest of it. There will be no suffering only when the union of human organisms succeeds either in reshaping nature according to its needs, or in being able to adapt itself perfectly to it. I think that harmony is likely to be achieved in both ways.

N. But why is the world not harmonious from the very beginning? Why is this mournful prologue necessary? not for the purification of the creature? Doctor, after all, one must find, invent a justification for suffering, do we need theodicy?

D. I don't want to. You just need to try to get settled, and I think that this is still possible.

N. And yet?

D. In the meantime, you need to get settled.

N. What about the victims of this timelessness? Who will give an account of them?

D. No one. A rock collapsed and crushed a person, microorganisms were bred in the lungs of another, undermining his life - you can’t put a rock or a bacterium in the dock. But you have to judge by all means. You want the world drama to have its own director behind the scenes, and you drag him to account. But why do you call him to the tribunal of your conscience, not devoid of cunning and thirsting for peace? To justify it with the help of all sorts of intricacies. After that, life is easier for you.

N. Without solving these issues, it is impossible to live.

D. I know one question: is there anywhere else to go? Is it still possible to move forward towards the hygienic ideal of a harmonious life? If yes, then you should go.

N. (grasping him by the hands and in a broken voice). And if not?

D. (shrugs). As long as I can see the way. (Approaches the patient).

N. (coming into indescribable excitement). Stop, doctor! Do you want to cut this living body? Shed this living blood? Don't you feel sorry?

D. Why, otherwise it is impossible to cure the patient.

N. It is necessary to treat each separate part of the body, supporting life in it. Treat with ointments, treat with compresses ...

D. The causes of the disease are common, such treatment will not lead to anything. The only thing that can be done is to amputate the infected part.

N. Oh, doctor, weep, weep at least over the life of those cells that you will destroy. Aren't you going to use a method similar to the disease itself, aren't you going to destroy highly-developed little organisms, muscle cells, nerve cells, bringing death with your knife!

D. Well, they would have died sooner or later anyway. In this decaying body they will have a rotten half-existence. Let some of them die, but the whole will live. After all, if the whole dies, then nothing can be saved. Here it will be possible to achieve health only through sacrifice. The matter is very simple: we have no choice!

N. Would you be ready to sacrifice individual people for the sake of the whole humanity in the same way?

D. Without hesitation. I would sacrifice unfortunate individuals whose life is condemned anyway to be a stagnation, if not a torment, the possibility of a luxurious flourishing of life.

N. But personality, personality?! After all, she only lives once?!

D. So much the worse for such a person. For example, I do not live here, not in this body, which is only an imperfect instrument of my big, real I; my real self embraces the life of the whole world and freezes from the mighty desire for development, stretching from hoary antiquity to a bright future. You like to repeat "it's all you!" But you deduce from this the commandment of compassion for individual transient bodies, while we derive the commandment of love for the entire flourishing stream of life and for those marvelously beautiful forms into which it will one day be cast. We love life in its striving and in its coming perfection.

N. But where are the guarantees, doctor? where are the guarantees?

D. They are not.

N. But how then? ..

D. You have to be brave.

N. But, doctor! ..

D. Enough! I need to do business.

A. Lunacharsky was not the inventor of this rhetorical trope. D. I. Pisarev:

“The characteristic mark of philanthropy is that, when faced with some kind of suffering, it tries to tame the pain as soon as possible, instead of acting against the cause of the disease. A mother hears, for example, the crying of her child, whose stomach hurts. “Come on, father, come on,” she says to him, suck on a candy. “The pleasant sensation in the mouth really outweighs for a moment the pain in the stomach, which has not yet grown too great. The child calms down, but the disease, not stopped in time, intensifies, and then no amount of sucking candy helps. Such a loving but short-sighted mother is the purest type of sincere philanthropist" ("Realists").