Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- The problem of personality in the philosophy of Russian symbolism of the beginning of the XX century

S. V. Pogorelaya Candidate of philosophy, assistant professor,

Vladimir State University named after A. G. and N. G. Stoletovs,

Vladimir, Russia

The problem of personality has always attracted the attention of Russian philosophers. The philosophy of Russian symbolism at the beginning of the XX century was no exception, following the Romantics and F. Nietzsche, which raised the question of human uniqueness, of the freedom of the original development of talent, and of the great mission of the artist. Even among the Romantics, the human essence in its ideal form (a comprehensively gifted person-a creator, an artist, a genius) is endowed with the attributes of divinity. In Nietzsche, the place of the «old God» is taken by the Superman. Russian symbolism borrows from the Nietzschean doctrine of personality the thesis of the all-round development of individuals, of «self-creativity» in which the divine nature of man most clearly manifests itself. At the same time, Nietzsche's «preaching of brutal individualism» (S. Averintsev) was never taken seriously by symbolists. In many ways, Nietzsche's symbolist interpretation is explained by the fact that he influenced Russian culture «along with Solovyov» (Berdyaev) and even partly «through Solovyov». It was V. S. Solovyov who first drew a parallel between the Nietzschean image of the Superman and the Christ ideal [3, p. 180], marking the beginning of the symbolist discussion about the superhuman path that many follow for the benefit of all. In the context of symbolism, individualism does not contradict conciliarity, but «assimilates the features of conciliarity: a sign that in the laboratory of life a certain synthesis of the personal principle and the conciliatory is being developed» [2, p. 839].

A. Bely sees Nietzsche's purpose (Superman) as close to Solovyov's (God-manhood). It is interesting that, in general, identifying Nietzsche with his work, A. Bely fundamentally separates «Nietzsche's individualism» from «Nietzsche's personality»: «If he were among his own kind, perhaps he would replace the doctrine of the Superman with the doctrine of the norm of the development of individuals: I would be a universalist, not an individualist». Or: « it is necessary to dissect Nietzsche's individualism in his teaching from Nietzsche himself, …individual in our epoch, universal in the future» [1, p. 63].

The solipsism of the late Scriabin is also quite comparable to Nietzsche's: «For me, how would anything exist outside of me? There is nothing outside of us» [5, p. 158]. Scriabin's artistic metaphysics reflects the idea of the artist-creator as the «author» of this world: «the world is the result of my creative imagination» [6, p. 160], «the material from which the world is built is creative thought, creative imagination» [6, p. 168]. The composer considers himself to be «the true center of the universe, the consciousness that has created it» [6, p. 174].

Closely related to individualism are the extreme subjectivism of creativity, irrationalism, and intuitionism (the belief that life experience in its entirety can only be grasped intuitively). On this point, the symbolists also agree with Nietzsche, who considered psychology to be the path to all other sciences. A. Bely wrote to A. Blok: «What is logically indeterminate will be determined psychologically» [4]. Scriabin said that he «will always have the primacy of intuition», and the reference to his «inner experience» was a favorite argument proving the validity of the composer's theoretical reasoning.

Finally, like Nietzsche, who considered the main task of his philosophy to be the preparation and justification of a new society of «noble people», the Russian symbolists see the task of art in the development of a new, higher human type, and ultimately in the improvement of life itself. They understand the function of art as «intermediary», which helps the necessary reconstruction of the consciousness of each individual and society as a whole and the transition from the present to the future.

Bibliography

1. Bely A. Friedrich Nietzsche // Friedrich Nietzsche and Russian Religious Philosophy. In 2 volumes, vol. 1. – Minsk – Moscow: Alcyone-Priscels, 1990. – P. 59-86.
2. Ivanov Vyach. The crisis of individualism // Collected works in 4 volumes. Volume 1. – Brussels, 1971. – 872 p.
3. Kondakov I. V., Korzh Yu. V. Friedrich Nietzsche in the Russian Culture of the Silver Age // Social sciences and modernity. – 2000, № 6. – P. 176-186.
4. Letter from A. Bely to A. Blok, Moscow. June 10. 1903. – URL: http://blok.lit-info.ru/blok/pisma/pismo-42.htm
5. Nietzsche F. So Zarathustra spoke // Nietzsche F. Op. in 2 volumes, vol. 2. – Moscow: Mysl, 1996. – P. 5-237.
6. Scriabin A. N. Notes // Russian propylaea. Materials on the history of Russian music and literature, vol. 6, part 2. – Moscow, 1919. – P. 120-247.