Софиология полностью

Характерно, что эпоха модерна предоставила всем, кто хотел бы попробовать свои силы на метафизическом поприще, самые широкие возможности, вплоть до права на демонстрацию крайних проявлений интеллектуального произвола. Основания для этого предоставила эпохальная динамика секуляризации, заключавшаяся в неуклонном расширении дискурсивного пространства за счет стирания тех семантических, аксиологических и нормативных границ, которыми классические библейско-христианские тексты некогда были ограждены от всего чужеродного. В этом отношении правомерно предположить, что «серебряно-вековое» учение о Софии – это в некотором роде дитя процесса секуляризма-модернизма. Жажда свободы от библейско-богословско-церковных догматов и их семантических «оков», некогда заявившая о себе в виде многочисленных апокрифов и ересей, в конце концов приняла вид главенствующего принципа и стала доминантой в философском дискурсе новейшего времени.

Secular sociology and religious sophiology both developed in the slipstream of the rise of the social question in the 19^th century. This paper compares the basic features of these two alternative rationalizations of the social in the cases of Max Weber, one of the founding fathers of modern secular sociology, and of Sergei Bulgakov who continued Vladimir Solov’ëv′s social philosophy and sophiology.[503] The first paragraph demonstrates that both sociology and sophiology were reflections on ′modernity′ or on life in the modern world and addressed similar questions.[504] Sociology, however, only gave a description of the factual state of society, whereas sophiology intended to give a picture of the good state of society as well.

The second paragraph explores the meaning of Sophia, the Wisdom of God (Premudrost′ Bozhiia), in the sophiologies of Solov’ëv and Bulgakov. Solov’ëv′s interpretation of love in Smysl′ liubvi,[505] is contrasted to the alternative Orthodox view of Lev Tolstoi.[506] This part analyzes Solov’ëv′s interpretation of the love that is and ought to be the cement of Christian society and will demonstrate that sobornost′ [507]for Solov’ëv is the main characteristic of the type of organization of this Christian society as Orthodox Church community. Tolstoi′s contrasting view and ethics, according to Max Weber, was typical of Christianity as a salvation religion with its attitude of world denial. Weber identified the Christian ethic proceeding from this acosmic standpoint with the Ideal type of the ethic of brotherliness.[508]

The third paragraph addresses the tasks of Bulgakov′s sophiology, Bulgakov developed Solov’ëv′s sophiology as a Christian sociology, in continuous reference to the contemporary secular sociology in Germany, and in particular with the sociology of Max Weber. Sophiology, according to Bulgakov, is not secular, but Christian sociology and it is an essential part of bogoslovle or theology. In the concluding part, the agreement or disagreement of the contemporary official social conception of the Russian Orthodox Church[509] with both Tolstoi′s social teaching and the sophiological views of Solov’ëv and Bulgakov is evaluated. The Osnovy do not mention Sophia or the names of the Russian sophiologists[510] and in some respects seem to side more with Tolstoi′s conception of the Christian attitude to the world as world denial, but in other and more important respects seem to express positions compatible with sophiology

′

The social question was raised because of the increase of human need and suffering in the lowest social classes, but it enhanced also the recognition of the differentiation of polity or state and society or b rgerllche Gesellschaft (civic or civil society).[511] The social question in fact was already the articulation of a relatively autonomous or self-conscious social sphere that could oppose itself to the state sphere,