基督教与N.А中的“社会问题”。别尔佳耶夫和S.L.弗兰克的哲学著作

I. Demin
{"title":"基督教与N.А中的“社会问题”。别尔佳耶夫和S.L.弗兰克的哲学著作","authors":"I. Demin","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Christianity and the “Social Question” in N.А. Berdyaev’s and S.L. Frank’s Philosophical Works\",\"authors\":\"I. Demin\",\"doi\":\"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Solov’evskie issledovaniya\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Solov’evskie issledovaniya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析比较了别尔佳耶夫和弗兰克对“社会问题”的两种解释及其解决方法。特别注意“社会问题”与“基督教社会主义”问题之间的联系。虽然承认社会问题对基督教思维的普遍重要性,但两位哲学家都将社会不公正的根源追溯到人性而不是社会结构。事实上,在这两种解释中,社会正义的价值在等级地位上都低于基督教的爱的价值。然而,虽然他们都拒绝“人间天堂”的社会主义乌托邦和“基督教社会主义”的想法,但别尔嘉耶夫和弗兰克在对社会主义作为一种社会制度的解释和评价上存在根本分歧。本文强调,别尔嘉耶夫将对无神论和唯物主义社会主义的意识形态主张的批评与对许多社会主义意识形态(例如“阶级斗争”和“剥削”)和假设的不加批判的接受结合起来。与别尔嘉耶夫不同,在解释“社会问题”时,弗兰克倾向于将自己与古典自由主义(其私有财产、自由和国家的概念)和社会主义(他认为这是另一种意识形态的极端)保持距离。弗兰克的社会哲学将社会主义制度在解决“社会问题”方面比其他制度更一致、更成功的论点视为一个经验上可疑的假设。相反,别尔佳耶夫认为这个论点是理所当然的,并把它作为他推理的起点。这种分歧,再加上两位哲学家经常以不同的(意识形态的)含义使用相同的关键术语,在一定程度上解释了他们对“社会问题”的解释和对社会主义的评价的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Christianity and the “Social Question” in N.А. Berdyaev’s and S.L. Frank’s Philosophical Works
The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信