“...what is beauty and why do people deify it? Is she a vessel in which there is emptiness, or a fire flickering in the vessel? This is what the poet N. Zabolotsky wrote in his poem “Beauty will save the world.” A catchphrase, included in the title, is known to almost every person. She probably touched her ears more than once beautiful women and girls, flying from the lips of men enchanted by their beauty.

This wonderful expression belongs to the famous Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky. In his novel “The Idiot,” the writer gives thoughts and thoughts about beauty and its essence to his hero, Prince Myshkin. The work does not indicate how Myshkin himself says that beauty will save the world. These words belong to him, but they sound indirectly: “Is it true, prince,” Ippolit asks Myshkin, “that the world will be saved by “beauty”? “Gentlemen,” he shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince says that the world will be saved by beauty!” Elsewhere in the novel, during the prince’s meeting with Aglaya, she tells him, as if warning: “Listen, once and for all, if you talk about anything like the death penalty, or about the economic state of Russia, or that “the world will be saved by beauty ", then... I, of course, will be happy and laugh very much, but... I warn you in advance: don’t show yourself to me later! Listen: I'm serious! This time I’m really serious!”

How to understand the famous saying about beauty?

"Beauty will save the world." How's the statement? This question can be asked by a student of any age, regardless of the class in which he studies. And each parent will answer this question in a completely different way, absolutely individually. Because beauty is perceived and seen differently for everyone.

Everyone probably knows the saying that you can look at objects together, but see them completely differently. After reading Dostoevsky's novel, a feeling of some uncertainty about what beauty is is formed inside. “Beauty will save the world,” Dostoevsky pronounced these words on behalf of the hero as his own understanding of the way to save the fussy and mortal world. However, the author gives each reader the opportunity to answer this question independently. “Beauty” in the novel is presented as an unsolved mystery created by nature, and as a force that can drive you crazy. Prince Myshkin also sees the simplicity of beauty and its refined splendor; he says that in the world there are many things at every step so beautiful that even the most lost person can see their splendor. He asks to look at the child, at the dawn, at the grass, into the loving eyes looking at you.... Indeed, it is difficult to imagine our modern world without mysterious and sudden natural phenomena, without the magnet-attracting gaze of a loved one, without the love of parents for children and children for parents.

What then is worth living and where to draw your strength?

How to imagine a world without this enchanting beauty of every moment of life? This is simply impossible. The existence of humanity is unthinkable without this. Almost every person, engaged in daily work or any other burdensome task, has thought more than once that in the usual bustle of life, as if carelessly, almost without noticing, he missed something very important, did not have time to notice the beauty of the moments. Yet beauty has a certain divine origin; it expresses the true essence of the Creator, giving everyone the opportunity to join Him and be like Him.

Believers comprehend beauty through communication through prayer with the Lord, through contemplation of the world He created and through the improvement of their human essence. Of course, a Christian’s understanding and vision of beauty will differ from the usual ideas of people professing another religion. But somewhere between these ideological contradictions there is still that thin thread that connects everyone into one whole. In such divine unity there also lies the silent beauty of harmony.

Tolstoy about beauty

Beauty will save the world... Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed his opinion on this matter in his work “War and Peace”. The writer mentally divides all phenomena and objects present in the world around us into two main categories: content or form. The division occurs depending on the greater predominance of these elements in the nature of objects and phenomena.

The writer does not give preference to phenomena and people with the presence of the main thing in them in the form of form. That is why in his novel he so clearly demonstrates his dislike for high society with his forever established life norms and rules and lack of sympathy for Helen Bezukhova, whom, according to the text of the work, everyone considered unusually beautiful.

Society and public opinion do not have any influence on his personal attitude towards people and life. The writer looks at the content. This is important to his perception, and this is what awakens interest in his heart. He does not recognize the lack of movement and life in a shell of luxury, but he endlessly admires the imperfection of Natasha Rostova and the ugliness of Maria Bolkonskaya. Based on the opinion of the great writer, is it possible to say that the world will be saved by beauty?

Lord Byron on the splendor of beauty

For another famous, however, Lord Byron, beauty is seen as a pernicious gift. He views her as capable of seducing, intoxicating and committing atrocities with a person. But this is not entirely true; beauty has a dual nature. And it is better for us, people, to notice not its destructiveness and deceit, but the life-giving force that can heal our heart, mind and body. Indeed, in many ways, our health and correct perception of the picture of the world develops as a result of our direct mental attitude to things.

And yet, will beauty save the world?

Our modern world, in which there are so many social contradictions and heterogeneity... A world in which there are rich and poor, healthy and sick, happy and unhappy, free and dependent... And that, despite all adversity, beauty will save the world? Perhaps so. But beauty must be understood not literally, not as an external expression of bright natural individuality or grooming, but as an opportunity to make beautiful noble deeds, helping these other people, and how to look not at the person, but at his beautiful and rich in content inner world. Very often in our lives we pronounce the familiar words “beauty”, “beautiful”, or simply “beautiful”.

Beauty as an evaluative material for the surrounding world. How to understand: “Beauty will save the world” - what is the meaning of the statement?

All interpretations of the word “beauty,” which is the original source for other words derived from it, endow the speaker with an unusual ability to evaluate the phenomena of the world around us in an almost simple way, the ability to admire works of literature, art, and music; desire to compliment another person. So many pleasant moments hidden in just one seven-letter word!

Everyone has their own concept of beauty

Of course, beauty is understood by each individual in its own way, and each generation has its own criteria for beauty. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has long known that thanks to contradictions and disputes between people, generations and nations, only truth can be born. People by their nature are completely different in terms of their worldview and worldview. For one person it is good and beautiful when he is simply neatly and fashionably dressed, for another it is bad to focus only on appearance, he prefers to develop his own and increase his intellectual level. Everything that somehow relates to the understanding of beauty comes from the lips of everyone, based on his personal perception of the surrounding reality. Romantic and sensual natures most often admire phenomena and objects created by nature. Fresh air after rain, autumn leaf, fallen from the branches, the fire of a fire and a clear mountain stream - all this is a beauty that should be constantly enjoyed. For more practical natures, based on objects and phenomena material world, beauty can be the result, for example, of an important deal being concluded or a certain series of construction works being completed. A child will be incredibly pleased with beautiful and bright toys, a woman will be delighted with a beautiful piece of jewelry, and a man will see beauty in the new alloy wheels on his car. It seems like one word, but how many concepts, how many different perceptions!

The depth of the simple word “beauty”

Beauty can also be viewed from a deeper point of view. “Beauty will save the world” - an essay on this topic can be written by everyone in completely different ways. And there will be a lot of opinions about the beauty of life.

Some people really believe that the world rests on beauty, while others will say: “Beauty will save the world? Who told you such nonsense? You will answer: “Like who? Russian great writer Dostoevsky in his famous literary work"Idiot"!" And the answer to you: “So what, maybe then beauty saved the world, but now the main thing is different!” And perhaps they will even name what is most important to them. And that’s all - there is no point in proving your idea of ​​beauty. Because you can, you see it, and your interlocutor, due to his education, social status, age, gender or other race I never noticed or thought about the presence of beauty in this or that object or phenomenon.

In conclusion

Beauty will save the world, and we, in turn, must be able to save it. The main thing is not to destroy, but to preserve the beauty of the world, its objects and phenomena given by the Creator. Enjoy every moment and the opportunity to see and feel beauty as if it were your last moment in life. And then you won’t even have a question: “Why beauty will save world?" The answer will be clear as a matter of course.

“Beauty will save the world” (according to F. Dostoevsky)

Many great people claimed that beauty would save the world. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky was also sure of this. Beauty, first of all, is expressed in two senses: the beauty of the human face and the beautiful inner world. This great phrase is used quite often today and is even the slogan of a beauty contest. But I am sure that Fyodor Mikhailovich put a completely different meaning into it.

Today, beauty plays a huge role in life for many people. IN lately, people are completely uninterested in the inner world. When meeting a person, everyone pays attention only to appearance, but, as we know, appearances can often be deceiving. Dostoevsky urged us to devote special attention to depth human soul. This is shown in many of his works. A striking example is the novel Crime and Punishment, where one of the heroines with her deep inner world completely changes the main character. Sonechka Marmeladova is the name of this very girl who changes the callous soul of Raskolnikov, the main character. Sonya Marmeladova, a girl who steps over herself for the sake of the lives of her loved ones. The heroine was forced to earn money in a dysfunctional way. She tried to change the fortunes of her family, while practically not leaving a penny for herself. Rodion Raskolnikov sees Sonya as a loved one and loved one. It is to her that he confesses to committing the murder. Rodion trusts her from the first minutes of their acquaintance, and all because Sonya is also an outcast in society. Sonya Marmeladova changes the worldview of Rodion Raskolnikov. She went with him to hard labor only to support Rodion in difficult moment. Raskolnikova needed her glance to feel better. Listening to Sonechka's stories, Rodion begins to change. He takes the Gospel and begins to believe in the existence of God. His soul is cleansed of all actions, he begins to look at the world differently. Rodion becomes truly happy.

In the work “The Idiot” Dostoevsky wanted to depict “positive wonderful person“, that is why he created the image of Myshkin, calling him “Prince Christ”. Myshkin acts as “Prince Christ” because he lives completely and entirely for other people. His motto:“Love your neighbor!”, this very phrase was the main commandment of Jesus Christ. Prince Myshkin himself is overwhelmed by a passion for the sympathy of people, for supporting a depressed person. In the novel “The Idiot,” no one understood Myshkin. Everyone considered him “out of this world.” And the fault was his kindness and simplicity. Problems in love bring great suffering to Myshkin, but he suffers not because his desires are not satisfied, but because he becomes the cause of unhappiness for the women he loves. I believe that Dostoevsky created the same image of a “positively beautiful person.” In my opinion, Prince Myshkin is such. His soul is truly beautiful, he is capable of doing human actions, despite the difficult end of this work, where Myshkin’s spiritual beauty perishes, because he destroyed Nastasya Filippovna with his love. But this is precisely what gives rise to Dostoevsky’s entire plan in people; we understand that spiritual beauty cannot live in such a harsh world. dostoevsky beauty hero

The beauty of a person is expressed in the depths of his soul, Fyodor Mikhailovich wanted to convey this in his famous works. He said that beauty will save the world. I completely agree with him, because only deeply soulful people can change our world for the better.

I would like to draw your attention to the era when the twentieth century was still in full swing, only its first third lasted, and Max Scheler in 1927, on the initiative of Otto Keyserling, in the city of Darmstadt in Germany, read a four-hour report on the place of man in space. This is what it was called: about the place of man, about the position of man, the monopoly of man in the integrity of the living world. Then this report became the book “The Position of Man in Space.” And so I would like to compare two sides of the matter: economic morality, economics, and philosophy.

These lines continue, of course, through human studies. This is what we have with Scheler - and Scheler is very worth mentioning today, if only because he made us think seriously about what there is a personality in the cosmos: he identified personality with spirit, that is, he called the personality Person, which is spirit, Person is Geist.

I remember that Japan also once had a course towards Europeanization, but at the same time, the Shinto principles of renewal and purity - there are two such principles: renewal and purity - played a decisive role in ensuring that Japan remained, first of all, Japan, who never built the Eiffel Tower because she didn't need it. Because it is absolutely clear that in order for Japan to remain Japan, a functional, functioning mentality of Japan and its traditions were needed. This means that Max Scheler, whom I am exploiting today, calls it Geist. Gelst - spirit. Spirit is the identity of Person, that is, personality. The theory that I presented already on the pages of our respected collection is called the hyperpersonal theory. It is very close in some ways - in this aspect - to the approach that Max Scheler proclaimed in 1927.

That is, if we are today dealing with our people, our economy, then, naturally, the economy, if we are logical, can never be like the economy near the Eiffel Tower or near some Shinto shrine. It should be our economy. This does not exist, has not happened and will never happen in another place and in another spiritual space.

What should philosophy do? She should be something like a director, she should be a director. (Sometimes women say about themselves that they are poets, not poetesses.) So, philosophy should be the director of spiritual space, and there is no need to squat and say again that this is not science and so on. For some reason, philosophy brings together the most experienced people in thinking. Let's admit it. Look what there are interesting people: Biant - several dozen centuries ago, Plato, a little later - also a smart man, or Aristotle - influenced people for thousands of years... So, let's not...

But the fact is that, indeed, it is very difficult to build a spiritual space without people who know how to create an alternative, and not a conflict. Our spiritual space is being built in the literal sense of the word - journalists will forgive me - by semi-knowledgeable journalists who have absolutely nothing to do with what is called our true mentality, which is buried under the rubble of the first thoughts that come across, which right there, unable to bear no tests of time, they perish, because these are not even thoughts, this is diabolical, this is some kind of real system of obsessions, when the priority of physicality, organismism, economic and human superiority over me of a certain “new Russian” is manifested... Yes, he is not Russian , and not new" This is nonsense.

That is, we obviously recognize the priority of the economy in the form of the existence of its, so to speak, “sausage hypostasis” in everyday life. How will you live, they will tell me, if you don’t have sausage? I don't want sausage. I hardly eat it. Unless for free, when you are completely hungry. All. I don’t want the Eiffel Tower, but I want Russianness, which is dying at every step. Who will do it? A person who understands this, who has delved into this spirituality, who is ready to give his life for it. And therefore, cultural people are entirely responsible for the system of constructing an alternative.

Once the wonderful poet Mandelstam said: “...beauty is not the whim of a demigod, but the predatory eye of a simple carpenter.” A? What a power! This is not the whim of a demigod, this is not the whim of a philosopher. Beauty saves the world in its daily manifestation, and not somewhere in Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky, forgive me, he sucked it out of the mentality of the people.

As a great man, he formulated this, because the people feel how they need the beauty of actions, the people need to work for something, and not for the sake of accumulation, not even for the sake of money, not for the sake of the rich “new Russians”. We have accumulated instead of the good - the fortune of the Good - the fortune of the “new Russians”. And this will always continue if there is no priority for high experiences, if there is no priority for passion for beauty.

The French say: whoever is absent is wrong. And today the alternative on the part of smart people, the so-called intelligentsia, is so dilapidated, weak, so lifeless, so gloomy, so sluggish is our intelligentsia today that you are simply amazed how we do not understand that we own fault We are absent from the feast - how is Ostap Bender doing? - at the feast of life we ​​are strangers.

So why do we make ourselves strangers? After all, it is precisely because of our absence that the space that we do not fill - a holy place is never empty - is filled by those people who give us semi-finished thoughts and do not generalize the experience of the 20th century, which, according to the system outlined by Plato and called, as we know, , the phenomenon of “return”, should only take root now. We lived the nineteenth century in the twentieth, we built communism according to Marx and others. Therefore, now in the 20th century it is precisely philosophers who must help our entire people settle down; they are the ones who are able to enter into some new positions of spirituality, to understand the conditions of the very existence of spirituality first - after all, such conditions cannot arise on their own, without, as it were, a hint from the people’s brain, that is, its best, most intelligent representatives.

And then, if we speak from the point of view of the theory of hyperpersonality, or the country-hyperpersonality, then we can remember one more smart person, which for some reason we always remember when apologizing (as often about kind, good, smart people), - we're talking about about Pindar. He once wrote in a Pythian ode, in my opinion, in verse 11, in verse 72, that, having understood yourself, follow this, be as you understand yourself, that is - let's return to our examples - do not build Shinto shrines, do not build the Eiffel Tower here. This is the most natural, the most correct. And then there is no need to make revolutions, then reforms can be carried out.

A philosopher must create a convenient, I would say, beneficial system of conventions, because all views are always a system of conventions, but based on the data of positive science. Ordinary consciousness today is successfully confused with common sense - these are completely different things.

Common sense is from God. Perhaps, according to Marx, Scheler, and Karl Mannheim, who, by the way, was a student of Max Weber. Common sense is beyond the power of man. Life is less than being, being is vast. The priority of physicality, which dominates today, is the priority of the lumpen, it is the primacy of the most terrible thing that happened in Bolshevism, which also had excellent intentions. Why didn't they come true? I am firmly convinced that the reason lies in the dehumanization of Man, in the godlessness (read: unnaturalness) of his activities, in the victory of the subcultural ordinary consciousness over true common sense.

Height, natural for development human existence, transferred to the category of grandiloquence, pathos, etc. I have experienced this the hard way all my life, because for some reason, where one should apologize for the baseness of expressions, they paradoxically apologize for the loftiness. By the way, I would suggest that our television apologize in the morning precisely for the low style, and not ask for forgiveness when someone speaks in a high style.

In short, in order to come to the conclusion that the intelligent does not rot, does not become dust, it turns out that a lot of effort is needed on the part of philosophers, or, more simply, people who love goodness. Why do I say this? Plotinus has a “second divine level of existence”, and so - this “second divine level” corresponds approximately to what I would call the zone of optimal mental and intellectual stress and which, by the way, is consistent with the statement of Stanislav Graf, doctors, and extra-class experimenters. And this means that people who do not exert themselves sufficiently, are in the lowlands of the Spirit, where their strength, as if eternally underspent, is not restored. They do not have the energy for economic success, for personal success; in the end, they have nothing.

But today an ordinary person may find it difficult to come to the conclusion that you will be tired much less if you work more. Once he had the opportunity to think of this thanks to his religious consciousness. Today we most often have a phantom of religious consciousness, that is, quasi-religious consciousness.

Before our eyes, the essence of our mentality is truly disappearing; the most interesting thing we had was the poetry of our society.

When you hear the word “poetry,” note that many people immediately experience intuitive resistance. Especially when it comes to the economy. The fact is that time... I came up with another theory: time is energy. A fly, by the way, when I want to kill it, has a completely different idea of ​​how my hand moves than I do; For her, she moves very slowly, the fly scratches her paw behind her ear at this time and says to herself - if she speaks: how slowly he lowers his hand. That is, the active moment of a fly is many times greater than mine. And in Russian year- 6-7 months...

We need to learn from the fly the experience of time, learn through poetry, through the tension of the soul, through entering into the highest spirituality of the hyperpersonality of the entire country, the entire society. Here it is also necessary to explain to the philosopher that society and the state are antipodes, just as the spirit and soul are opponents. Ludwig Klages has a whole book about this.

Culture is joy and a source of energy. If today is a professional conversation, why haven’t we heard all this yet? I hope that after what I said, everyone will talk about love. (Noise in the hall.) There is a very serious phrase from the philosopher Dante. He spoke, finishing his Divine Comedy": "L"amor che muove"l sole e gl"altri stelle" "Love that moves the sun and other stars...". Here's the thing.

So, this love, which is a love not generally for the economy or for money, or even for some kind of money for which I can buy what I need. Socrates said: here they are carrying what I don’t need. Yes, the specificity that our mentality has can be decoded today only with the help of cultural forces, very cultural ones, which can really descend along a transporal channel down into the history of this people, to understand what Russianness is, which is dying. After all, we have surprisingly dispersed it now, squandered it.

We hid under the hood of the so-called Russianness, we forgot very, very many things that, without naming them out loud, lose their value at an unimaginable speed. What turns into dust is what is perhaps the most valuable, unique for our entire Egregor, as mystics and visionaries say, for everything all-earthly, all-human.

But the most important thing I would like to emphasize: in order to build an economy, it is necessary to give people the opportunity to feel that the being that they have, that is, make it present, authentic, exists completely independently of politics and economics. Both under Cleon and under Pericles, people wrote poetry, and if we have not forgotten Pericles, then no one remembers Cleon. In any era, thought, beauty, and so on have always existed. So beauty - what I would like to make the epigraph of my speech, I will repeat once again at the end - is “not the whim of a demigod”, it is daily bread, this is a “predatory eye”. The eye, which combines, with the help of some kind of total dialectics, and not philosophy, precisely dialectics, firstly, some kind of intuitive, so to speak, calculation of the unconscious mind - and Jung used such a couple of words - and, secondly secondly, what we call great poetry. This is the kind of beauty that will save us.

Beauty will save the world

From the novel “The Idiot” (1868) by F. M. Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881).

As a rule, it is taken literally: contrary to the author’s interpretation of the concept of “beauty.”

In the novel (Part 3, Chapter V), these words are spoken by the 18-year-old youth Ippolit Terentyev, referring to the words of Prince Myshkin conveyed to him by Nikolai Ivolgin and ironizing the latter: “It’s true, Prince, that you once said that the world will be saved by “beauty "? “Gentlemen,” he shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince claims that the world will be saved by beauty!” And I claim that the reason he has such playful thoughts is that he is now in love.

Gentlemen, the prince is in love; Just now, as soon as he came in, I was convinced of this. Don’t blush, prince, I’ll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world. Kolya told this to me... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says that you call yourself a Christian.

The prince looked at him carefully and did not answer him.” F. M. Dostoevsky was far from strictly aesthetic judgments - he wrote about spiritual beauty, about the beauty of the soul. This corresponds to the main idea of ​​the novel - to create an image of a “positively beautiful person.” Therefore, in his drafts, the author calls Myshkin “Prince Christ,” thereby reminding himself that Prince Myshkin should be as similar as possible to Christ - kindness, philanthropy, meekness, a complete lack of selfishness, the ability to sympathize with human troubles and misfortunes. Therefore, the “beauty” that the prince (and F. M. Dostoevsky himself) speaks of is the sum moral qualities"a positively wonderful person."

This purely personal interpretation of beauty is typical for the writer. He believed that “people can be beautiful and happy” not only in afterlife. They can be like this “without losing the ability to live on earth.” To do this, they must agree with the idea that Evil “cannot be the normal state of people,” that everyone has the power to get rid of it. And then, when people are guided by the best that is in their soul, memory and intentions (Good), then they will be truly beautiful. And the world will be saved, and it will be precisely this “beauty” (that is, the best that is in people) that will save it.

Of course, this will not happen overnight - spiritual work, trials and even suffering are needed, after which a person renounces Evil and turns to Good, begins to appreciate it. The writer talks about this in many of his works, including the novel “The Idiot.” For example (part 1, chapter VII):

“For some time, the general’s wife, silently and with a certain shade of disdain, examined the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna, which she held in front of her in her outstretched hand, extremely and effectively moving away from her eyes.

Yes, she’s good,” she said finally, “very much so.” I saw her twice, only from afar. So do you appreciate such and such beauty? - she suddenly turned to the prince.

Yes... like that... - the prince answered with some effort.

So that's exactly what it is?

Exactly this

In this face... there is a lot of suffering... - the prince said, as if involuntarily, as if speaking to himself, and not answering the question.

“You may be delirious, however,” the general’s wife decided and with an arrogant gesture she threw the portrait back onto the table.”

The writer is a like-minded person in his interpretation of beauty German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who spoke about the “moral law within us”, that “beauty is a symbol of moral goodness.” F. M. Dostoevsky develops the same idea in his other works. So, if in the novel “The Idiot” he writes that beauty will save the world, then in the novel “Demons” (1872) he logically concludes that “ugliness (anger, indifference, selfishness. - Comp.) will kill...”

The Idiot (film, 1958).

The pseudo-Christianity of this statement lies on the surface: this world, together with the spirits “world rulers” and the “prince of this world” will not be saved, but condemned, while only the Church, a new creation in Christ, will be saved. All about this New Testament, all Sacred Tradition.

“Renunciation of the world precedes following Christ. The second does not take place in the soul unless the first is accomplished in it first... Many read the Gospel, enjoy, admire the height and holiness of its teaching, few decide to direct their behavior according to the rules that the Gospel lays down. The Lord declares to all who come to Him and wish to become assimilated to Him: If anyone comes to Me and does not renounce the world and himself, he cannot be My disciple. This word is cruel, even people who outwardly were His followers and were considered His disciples spoke about the Savior’s teaching: who can listen to Him? This is how carnal wisdom judges the word of God out of its disastrous mood" (St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Ascetic experiences. On following our Lord Jesus Christ / Complete collection of works. M.: Pilgrim, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 78 -79).

We see an example of such “carnal wisdom” in the philosophy put by Dostoevsky into the mouth of Prince Myshkin as one of his first “Christs”. “Is it true, Prince, that you once said that the world would be saved by “beauty”? - Gentlemen... the prince claims that beauty will save the world! And I claim that the reason he has such playful thoughts is that he is now in love... Don’t blush, prince, I’ll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world?... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says, you call yourself a Christian” (D., VIII.317). So, what beauty will save the world?

At first glance, of course, it is Christian, “for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47). But, as it was said, “to come to save the world” and “the world will be saved” are completely different provisions, for “he who rejects Me and does not accept My words has a judge for himself: the word that I have spoken will judge him at the last day.” (John 12:48). Then the question is: does Dostoevsky’s hero, who considers himself a Christian, reject or accept the Savior? What is Myshkin in general (as a concept by Dostoevsky, because Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin is not a person, but an artistic mythologem, an ideological construct) in the context of Christianity and the Gospel? - This is a Pharisee, an unrepentant sinner, namely, a fornicator, cohabiting with another unrepentant harlot Nastasya Filippovna (prototype - Apollinaria Suslova) out of lust, but assuring everyone and himself that for missionary purposes (“I love her not with love, but with pity” (D., VIII, 173)). In this sense, Myshkin is almost no different from Totsky, who also at one time “took pity on Nastasya” and even did a good deed (sheltered an orphan). But at the same time, Dostoevsky’s Totsky is the embodiment of debauchery and hypocrisy, and Myshkin is at first directly referred to in the handwritten materials of the novel as “PRINCE CHRIST” (D., IX, 246; 249; 253). In the context of this sublimation (romanticization) of sinful passion (lust) and mortal sin (fornication) into “virtue” (“pity”, “compassion”), it is necessary to consider Myshkin’s famous aphorism “beauty will save the world”, the essence of which lies in a similar romanticization ( idealization) of sin in general, sin as such, or the sin of the world. That is, the formula “beauty will save the world” is an expression of the attachment to sin of a carnal (worldly) person who wants to live forever and, loving sin, sin forever. Therefore, the “world” (sin) for its “beauty” (and “beauty” is value judgment, meaning the sympathy and predilection of the person making this judgment for this object) will be “saved” as he is, because he is good (otherwise such an All-Man like Prince Myshkin would not have loved him).

“So you value such and such beauty? “Yes... like that... In this face... there is a lot of suffering...” (D., VIII, 69). Yes, Nastasya suffered. But is suffering in itself (without repentance, without changing one’s life according to God’s commandments) a Christian category? Again a substitution of the concept. “Beauty is difficult to judge... Beauty is a mystery” (D., VIII, 66). Just as Adam, who sinned, hid from God behind a bush, so romantic thought, loving sin, hastens to hide in the fog of irrationalism and agnosticism, to wrap its ontological shame and decay in the veils of inexpressibility and mystery (or, as the soilists and Slavophiles liked to say, “living life”). , naively believing that then no one would solve its riddles.

“He seemed to want to unravel something hidden in that face [of Nastasya Filippovna] that had struck him just now. The previous impression almost never left him, and now he was in a hurry to check something again. This face, extraordinary in its beauty and something else, struck him even more powerfully now. It was as if there was immense pride and contempt, almost hatred, in this face, and at the same time something trusting, something surprisingly simple-minded; these two contrasts even seemed to arouse some kind of compassion when looking at these features. This blinding beauty was even unbearable, beauty pale face, almost sunken cheeks and burning eyes; strange beauty! The prince looked for a minute, then suddenly came to his senses, looked around, hastily brought the portrait to his lips and kissed it” (D., VIII, 68).

Everyone who sins by sin leading to death is convinced that his case is special, that he is “not like other men” (Luke 18:11), that the strength of his feelings (passion for sin) is irrefutable proof of their ontological truth (according to the principle “What is natural is not ugly”). So it is here: “I already explained to you before that I “love her not with love, but with pity.” I think that I define this precisely” (D., VIII, 173). That is, I love the gospel harlot like Christ. And this gives Myshkin a spiritual privilege, a legal right to fornicate with her. “His heart is pure; Is he really a rival to Rogozhin? (D., VIII, 191). Great man has the right to small weaknesses, it is “difficult to judge” him, because he himself is an even greater “mystery”, that is, the highest (moral) “beauty” that will “save the world”. “Such beauty is strength, with such beauty you can turn the world upside down!” (D.,VIII,69). This is what Dostoevsky does, with his “paradoxical” moral aesthetics, turning the opposition of Christianity and the world upside down, so that the sinful becomes holy and the lost of this world - saving it, as always in this humanistic (neo-Gnostic) religion, supposedly saving itself, amusing itself with such an illusion. Therefore, if “beauty will save,” then “ugliness will kill” (D, XI, 27), for “the measure of all things” is the person himself. “If you believe that you can forgive yourself and achieve this forgiveness for yourself in this world, then you believe in everything! - Tikhon exclaimed enthusiastically. “How did you say that you don’t believe in God?... You honor the Holy Spirit without knowing it yourself” (D, XI, 27-28). Therefore, “it always ended with the most shameful cross becoming great glory and great power, if the humility of the feat was sincere” (D, XI, 27).

Although formally the relationship between Myshkin and Nastasya Filippovna in the novel is the most platonic, or chivalrous on his part (Don Quixote), they cannot be called chaste (that is, Christian virtue as such). Yes, they simply “live” together for some time before the wedding, which, of course, may exclude carnal relations (as in whirlwind romance with Suslova of Dostoevsky himself, who also proposed that she marry him after the death of his first wife). But, as was said, it is not the plot that is considered, but the ideology of the novel. And the point here is that even marrying a harlot (as well as a divorced woman) is, canonically, adultery. In Dostoevsky, Myshkin, through marriage to himself, must “restore” Nastasya, make her “clean” from sin. In Christianity, on the contrary: he himself would become a fornicator. Consequently, this is the hidden goal setting here, the true intention. “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). “Or do you not know that whoever has sex with a harlot becomes one body [with her]? for it is said, “The two will become one flesh” (1 Cor 6:16). That is, the marriage of a harlot with the Prince-Christ has, according to Dostoevsky’s plan (in the Gnostic religion of self-salvation), the “alchemical” power of a church sacrament, being ordinary adultery in Christianity. Hence the duality of beauty (“the ideal of Sodom” and the “ideal of Madonna”), that is, their dialectical unity, when sin itself is internally experienced by the Gnostic (“ supreme man") as holiness. The concept of Sonya Marmeladova has the same content, where her prostitution itself is presented as the highest Christian virtue (sacrifice).

Since this aestheticization of Christianity, typical of romanticism, is nothing more than solipsism (an extreme form of subjective idealism, or “carnal wisdom” in Christian terms), or simply because there is only one step from exaltation to depression of a passionate person, there are poles in both this aesthetics and in this morality, and in this religion, they are placed so widely, and one thing (beauty, holiness, deity) turns into the opposite (ugliness, sin, devil) so rapidly (or “suddenly” - favorite words Dostoevsky). "Beauty is terrible and terrible thing! Terrible, because it is indefinable... Here the shores converge, here all the contradictions live together... another person, even higher in heart and with a lofty mind, begins with the ideal of the Madonna, and ends with the ideal of Sodom... Even more terrible is who, with the ideal of Sodom in his soul, does not deny and the ideal of the Madonna, and his heart burns from it... What seems shameful to the mind, is entirely beauty to the heart. Is there beauty in sodom? Believe that it is in Sodom that she sits for the vast majority of people... Here the devil fights with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people” (D, XIV, 100).

In other words, in all this “holy dialectic” of sinful passions there is also an element of doubt (the voice of conscience), but very weak, according to at least, in comparison with the all-conquering feeling of “hellish beauty”: “He often said to himself: that after all, all these lightning and glimpses of higher self-awareness and self-awareness, and therefore “higher being”, are nothing more than a disease, a violation normal condition, and if so, then this is not the highest being at all, but, on the contrary, should be ranked among the lowest. And yet, he finally came to an extremely paradoxical conclusion: “What’s wrong with the fact that this is a disease? - he finally decided. - What does it matter that this tension is abnormal, if the very result, if the minute of sensation, recalled and considered already in healthy condition, turns out to be in highest degree harmony, beauty, gives an unheard of and hitherto unknown feeling of completeness, proportion, reconciliation and enthusiastic prayerful merging with the highest synthesis of life?” These vague expressions seemed very clear to him, although still too weak. That this is really “beauty and prayer”, that this is really the “highest synthesis of life”, he could no longer doubt this, and he could not allow doubts” (D., VIII, 188). That is, with Myshkin’s (Dostoevsky’s) epilepsy it’s the same story: while others have illness (sin, ugliness), he has the stamp of being chosen from above (virtue, beauty). Here, of course, a bridge is also built to Christ as the highest ideal of beauty: “He could reasonably judge this after the end of his painful condition. These moments were just an extraordinary intensification of self-awareness - if it were necessary to express this state in one word - self-awareness and at the same time a sense of self in the highest degree immediate. If at that second, that is, at the very last conscious moment before the attack, he happened to have time to clearly and consciously say to himself: “Yes, for this moment you can give your whole life!” - then, of course, this moment in itself was worth everything life" (D., VIII, 188). This “strengthening of self-awareness” to an ontological maximum, to “enthusiastic prayerful merging with the highest synthesis of life,” as a type of spiritual practice, is very reminiscent of the “transformation into Christ” of Francis of Assisi, or the same “Christ” of Blavatsky as “the Divine principle in every human being.” chest." “And according to Christ you will receive... something much higher... This is to be the ruler and master of even yourself, your self, to sacrifice this self, to give it to everyone. There is something irresistibly beautiful, sweet, inevitable and even inexplicable in this idea. The inexplicable." “HE [Christ] is the ideal of humanity... What is the law of this ideal? A return to spontaneity, to the masses, but freely and not even by will, not by reason, not by consciousness, but by an immediate, terribly strong, invincible feeling that this is terribly good. And it's a strange thing. Man returns to the masses, to immediate life, a trace<овательно>, to a natural state, but how? Not authoritatively, but, on the contrary, extremely arbitrarily and consciously. It is clear that this highest self-will is at the same time the highest renunciation of one’s will. It is my will not to have a will, for the ideal is beautiful. What is the ideal? To achieve the full power of consciousness and development, to be fully aware of one’s self - and to give it all freely for everyone. Indeed: what will he do? best man, who has received everything, realized everything and is omnipotent?” (D.,XX,192-193). “What to do” (the eternal Russian question) - of course, save the world, what else and who else if not you, who has achieved the “ideal of beauty”.

Why then did Myshkin end so ingloriously with Dostoevsky and not save anyone? – Because for now, in this century, this achievement of the “ideal of beauty” is given only to the best representatives of humanity and only for moments or partly, but in the next century this “heavenly splendor” will become “natural and possible” for everyone. “Man... moves from diversity to Synthesis... But the nature of God is different. It is a complete synthesis of all being, examining itself in diversity, in Analysis. But if a person [in future life] not a man - what will his nature be? It is impossible to understand on earth, but its law can be anticipated by all humanity in direct emanations [the origin of God] and by every individual” (D., XX, 174). This is the “deepest and fatal secret of man and humanity”, that “the greatest beauty of a person, his greatest purity, chastity, simplicity, gentleness, courage and, finally, the greatest intelligence - all this is often (alas, so often even ) turns into nothing, passes without benefit for humanity and even turns into the ridicule of humanity solely because all these noblest and richest gifts, with which even a person is often awarded, lacked only one last gift - namely, a genius to manage all the wealth of these gifts and all their power - to manage and direct all this power towards a truthful, and not a fantastic and crazy path of activity, for the benefit of humanity!” (D.,XXVI,25).

Thus, the “ideal beauty” of God and the “greatest beauty” of Man, the “nature” of God and the “nature” of Man are, in Dostoevsky’s world, different modes of the same beauty of a single “being”. That’s why “beauty” will “save the world,” because the world (humanity) is God in “many diversity.”

It is also impossible not to mention the numerous paraphrases of this aphorism of Dostoevsky and the implantation of the very spirit of this “soteriological aesthetics” in “Agni Yoga” (“Living Ethics”) by E. Roerich, among other theosophies condemned at the Council of Bishops in 1994. Cf.: “ The miracle of the ray of beauty in decorating life will elevate humanity” (1.045); “we pray with sounds and images of beauty” (1.181); “the character of the Russian people will be enlightened by the beauty of the spirit” (1.193); “whoever says “beauty” will be saved” (1.199); “repeal: “beauty,” even with tears, until you reach your destination” (1.252); “manage to reveal the expanse of Beauty” (1.260); “you will approach through beauty” (1.333); “happy are the ways of beauty, the need of the world must be satisfied” (1.350); “with love you will kindle the light of beauty and with action show the world the salvation of the spirit” (1.354); “the consciousness of beauty will save the world” (3.027).

Alexander Buzdalov