The origins of the “controversy about Sophia”: E. N. Trubetskoy as a critic of sophiology

Abstract

The recent growth in research interest in sophology forces us to revisit the criticisms of this teaching that were voiced during the so-called "Paris controversy". The failure of the critique of Father Sergius Bulgakov's sophology by the latter is becoming more and more evident. The criticism of Bulgakov's theology by theologians is becoming increasingly obvious. In particular, the sources of the doctrine were incorrectly identified, and the accusations of heresy made on behalf of some hierarchs of the Russian Church made it impossible to continue the polemic. It now seems that sophology was the moment of a crisis of philosophy in Russian theology. In order to make the critique of sophology more substantive, a revision of the accusations that have been made against Bulgakov's teaching is necessary. The article proposes a return to the first stage of the critique of sophology, which has not been continued due to historical circumstances. As early as 1918 E.N. Trubetskoy wrote that Bulgakov's main mistake was the Gnostic understanding of Sofia. According to Trubetskoy, introducing the qualities of subjectivity and psychologism into Sofia leads to a similarity with the demiurge from Plato's dialogue "Timaeus". The analysis of Trubetskoy's criticism shows that the real reason for this accusation was his rejection of the version of the solution to the transcendental problem of religion which Bulgakov proposed in 'The Everlasting Light'. Here Bulgakov, based on his Philosophy of Economy, develops the concept of Sofia in connection with the concept of the transcendental subject in Kant's philosophy and points out the fundamental connection of the above problematics with Kant's third critique. From Trubetskoy's point of view, a Christian resolution of the "problem of Sofia" is possible only by identifying Sofia with Plato's world of divine ideas. By the Christian doctrine of Wisdom he understands his own interpretation of Platonic idealism. An analysis of Trubetskoy's sophiological ideas leads to the conclusion that they incorporate both the views and intuitions of V.S. Soloviev and many of Bulgakov's ideas and are not original.