Philosophy ol conomy

T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
o
f
3
5
8
Russian Litcraturc and Thought
Gary Saul Morson, Series Editor
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
o
f
3
5
8
Pniiosovnv ov coxo:v
Thc Vorld as Houschold
Svvcvi 8iic~xov
Translatcd, ditcd, and with an !ntroduction by Cathcrinc vtuhov
Yalc Univcrsity Prcss Ncw Havcn and London
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
o
f
3
5
8
Copyright :ccc by Yalc Univcrsity.
All rights rcscrvcd.
This book may not bc rcproduccd, in wholc
or in part, including illustrations, in any lorm
(bcyond that copying pcrmittcd by Scctions .cy and .c8
ol thc U.S. Copyright Law and cxccpt by rcvicwcrs
lor thc public prcss), without writtcn pcrmission
lrom thc publishcrs.
Printcd in thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica.
Library ol Congrcss Cataloging-in-Publication ata
8ulgakov, Scrgci Nikolacvich, .8y...
|Filosoia khoziaistva. nglish|
Philosophy ol cconomy : thc world as houschold [ Scrgci 8ulgakov ;
translatcd, cditcd, and with an introduction by Cathcrinc vtuhov.
p. cm. (Russian litcraturc and thought)
!ncludcs bibliographical rclcrcnccs and indcx.
isnx c-cc-cyc-y
.. conomicsPhilosophy. !. vtuhov, Cathcrinc.
!!. Titlc. !!!. Scrics.
n:8.n8 v. :ccc
c'.c.dc:. c
A cataloguc rccord lor this book is
availablc lrom thc 8ritish Library.
Thc papcr in this book mccts thc guidclincs
lor pcrmancncc and durability ol thc Committcc
on Production Guidclincs lor 8ook Longcvity ol
thc Council on Library Rcsourccs.
.c 8 y 6 : .
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
o
f
3
5
8
Cox:vx:s
!ntroduction by Cathcrinc vtuhov [ .
Philosophy of Economy: The !orld as Household
Prclacc [
cn~v :vv .
Thc Problcm ol thc Philosophy ol conomy
! Contcmporary conomism [
!! Philosophy and Lilc [
!!! Philosophy and Scicncc [ 8
!\ Criticism and ogmatism [ 6
\ A Prcliminary cnition ol conomy [ 68
cn~v :vv :
Thc Natural-Philosophical 8ascs ol thc Thcory ol conomy
! !dcalism and Natural Philosophy [ yy
!! Schcllings Philosophy [ 8
cn~v :vv
Thc Signicancc ol thc 8asic conomic Functions
! Consumption [
!! Production [ .c8
.
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
o
f
3
5
8
cn~v :vv
n thc Transccndcntal Subjcct ol conomy
! Man and Humanity [ .:
!! Thc Sophic conomy [ .:
cn~v :vv
Thc Naturc ol Scicncc
! Thc Multiplicity ol Scicntic Knowlcdgc [ .y
!! Thc conomic Naturc ol Scicncc [ .66
!!! Thc Sophic Naturc ol Scicncc [ .y
!\ pistcmology and Praxcology [ .yy
\ Scicncc and Lilc [ .8.
\! n thc Scicntic Vorldvicw [ .86
\!! Scicnccs Scll-Consciousncss [ .:
cn~v :vv 6
conomy as a Synthcsis ol Frccdom and Ncccssity
! Frccdom and Causality [ .6
!! Frccdom and Ncccssity [ :c
!!! Thc Spirit ol conomy [ :.
!\ Frccdom as Powcr, Ncccssity as !mpotcncc [ :.8
cn~v :vv y
Thc Limits ol Social ctcrminism
! Thc Stylc ol Social Scicncc [ ::
!! Sociologism and Historicism [ :
!!! Thc Problcm ol Social Politics [ :
.i Contents
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
o
f
3
5
8
cn~v :vv 8
Thc Phcnomcnology ol conomy
! Thc Task ol Political conomy [ :
!! Political conomys Scicntic Stylc [ :c
cn~v :vv
conomic Matcrialism as a Philosophy ol conomy
! conomic Matcrialism as Philosophy and as Scicncc [ :6:
!! Thc Contradictions ol conomic Matcrialism [ :y
Notcs [ :8y
Glossary ol Grcck Tcrms [ :8
Glossary ol Namcs [ :
!ndcx [
Contents .ii
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
o
f
3
5
8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
o
f
3
5
8
!ntroduction
C~:nvvi xv v:inov
Thc cnd ol a ccntury and thc bcginning ol a ncw onc can bc a
momcnt ol scll-consciousncss, whcn pcoplc pausc in thcir usual
activitics to rccct on thc dircction ol thcir civilization and to
wondcr what thc luturc might hold. Thc citics ol uropc
lrom Paris to St. Pctcrsburg, lrom 8crlin and \icnna to Mos-
cow and Kicvbccamc consumcd, in thc nal ycars ol thc
ninctccnth ccntury, by a passion lor introspcction and cxpcri-
mcntation, by a rcjcction ol old moral norms and a tastc lor thc
good lilc, by a joylul crcativc cncrgy and a worldly dccadcncc.
!n Russia thc twcnticth ccntury was ushcrcd in by a whirlwind
ol crcativc activity, a vcritablc cxplosion in all sphcrcs ol cultural
and artistic lilc lrom litcraturc, painting, and music to thc-
atcr and ballct. This movcmcntthc Silvcr Agc ol Russian
culturcwas accompanicd by an cqually intcnsc philosophical
scarch.
1
!t was a momcnt whcn thinkcrs and writcrs rccctcd
on, qucstioncd, and tricd to lormulatc thc bascs on which thcir
socicty rcstcd.
Scrgci 8ulgakov (.8y..) was onc ol thc major gurcs ol
thc Silvcr Agc. His complicatcd and brokcn intcllcctual path is
symptomatic ol thc turbulcnt and widc-ranging spiritual qucst
ol thc carly twcnticth ccntury. A promincnt Marxist intcllcc-
tual in thc .8cs (among thosc known as lcgal Marxists), hc
was at thc lorclront ol thc intclligcntsias rcjcction ol Marxism
and turn to Christianity in thc .ccs and ..cs. Author ol thc
lcading articlcs in thc scminal publications Problemy ideali.ma
z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
o
f
3
5
8
|Problcms ol idcalism| (.c:) and thc lamous !ekhi |Land-
marks| (.c), 8ulgakov also playcd an important rolc in thc
Union ol Libcration and in thc rcvolution ol .c. As ccono-
mist, philosophcr, publicist, politician (dclcgatc to thc Sccond
uma), cditor, loundcr ol a Christian Socialist party, mcmbcr
ol thc Moscow Rcligious-Philosophical Socicty, and cvcntu-
ally dclcgatc to thc ..y All-Russian Council ol thc rtho-
dox Church, 8ulgakov combincd a dccply scrious acadcmic lilc
with cqually scrious political activity. Hc was also a closc lricnd
and collaborator ol such gurcs as Nikolai 8crdiacv and Pavcl
Florcnsky, who havc sincc bccomc morc lamiliar in thc Vcst.
8ulgakov was among thc promincnt intcllcctuals cxilcd lrom
thc Sovict Union at thc cnd ol .::; during his sccond lilc
in Paris hc bccamc, arguably, thc twcnticth ccnturys lorcmost
rthodox thcologian.
Philosophy of Economy (..:) is a work ol social thcory. n
thc simplcst lcvcl it is 8ulgakovs rcjcction ol Marxism. !n his
youth 8ulgakov had rcvclcd in thc iron laws ol historical ma-
tcrialism, nding plcasurc and indccd cxaltation in thc scnsc ol
his own insignicancc vis-a-vis thc lorward march ol history,
but by .cc, Marxisms subjugation ol individual wcll-bcing
in thc prcscnt lor thc sakc ol a shining luturc sccmcd to him
bothcrsomc. Thus Philosophy of Economy was also an attcmpt to
lormulatc an altcrnativc philosophy that prcscrvcd what 8ul-
gakov considcrcd Marxisms main insights yct climinatcd its
disrcgard lor individual human dignity. !n thc politics ol thc
.c rcvolution, 8ulgakovs position was casily idcntiablc as
classic libcralism: hc advocatcd lrccdom ol conscicncc, lrcc-
dom ol spccch (glasnost), national scll-dctcrmination, thc rulc
ol law, a constitution, and thc abolition ol autocracy. Yct thc
dicultics ol implcmcnting thcsc conditions on Russian soil
lcd 8ulgakov, as wcll as contcmporarics such as Scmn Frank,
8ogdan Kistiakovsky, Mikhail Gcrshcnzon, Scrgci Trubctskoy,
: Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
o
f
3
5
8
and othcrs, to a dccpcr articulation ol thc philosophical and
spiritual principlcs that undcrlay his qucst lor a socicty ordcrcd
according to just and lcgal norms.
2
Philosophy of Economy was
thc lruit ol thcsc scarchings.
Svvcvi 8iic~xov: A 8vivv 8iocv~vnic~i Sxv:cn
Scrgci 8ulgakov was born in thc small town ol Livny in rcl
provincc, to a mothcr ol noblc background and a lathcr whosc
lamily had bccn provincial pricsts lor six gcncrations. Likc
many mcmbcrs ol his gcncration, hc was to rctain a scnsc ol
his original social idcntity in thc provincial middlc intclligcn-
tsia cvcn altcr hc bccamc a promincnt rcprcscntativc ol thc
rarccd urban clitc. An intcnscly rcligious and church-oricntcd
childhood was lollowcd by a loss ol laith at thc agc ol lourtccn
or ltccn, partly undcr thc inucncc ol Gcrman philosophy. !n
this rcspcct, 8ulgakovs biography rcitcratcs thc trajcctory ol
thc prcccding gcncration ol radical intclligcntsiaobroliu-
bov, Chcrnyshcvsky, Shchapov wcrc all scminarians lrom clcri-
cal lamilics who rcjcctcd thcir childhood laith in lavor ol radi-
cal politics. 8ulgakov lclt thc scminary and cntcrcd thc sccular
gimna.iia in ncarby lcts.
uring his ycars at Moscow Univcrsity in thc .8cs, 8ulga-
kov cstablishcd his rcputation as onc ol Russias lcading Marx-
ist intcllcctuals. A studcnt ol thc lamous cconomist, statisti-
cian, and tcachcr Alcxandcr Chuprov, 8ulgakov was graduatcd
in .8 and immcdiatcly bcgan tcaching statistics and politi-
cal cconomy at thc Moscow Tcchnical !nstitutc; hc also bcgan
a publicistic carccr with rcvicws and articlcs in lclt-lcaning
thick journalsMir Bo.hii |Thc world ol God|, No.oe slo.o
|Thc ncw word|, and othcrs. O rynkakh pri kapitalisticheskom
proi..odst.e |n markcts in capitalist conditions ol produc-
tion|, publishcd in .8y, thrust him into thc lorclront ol politi-
Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
o
f
3
5
8
cal dcbatc with its argumcnt that capitalism could bc achicvcd
in Russia without rccoursc to thc cxtcrnal markcts that had
lormcd an csscntial clcmcnt ol capitalist dcvclopmcnt in wcst-
crn uropc. Likc his lcllow adhcrcnts to thc philosophy ol so-
callcd lcgal Marxism (a rathcr awkward labcl, invcntcd by its
critics, that rclcrrcd to bclicvcrs in Marxism who did noth-
ing illcgal and hcncc wcrc not subjcct to policc pcrsccution),
8ulgakov bclicvcd that capitalism was a ncccssary stagc ol dc-
vclopmcnt lor all nations and thcrclorc dcnicd thc possibility ol
a spccial path lor Russia.
n thc crcst ol his succcss, 8ulgakov travclcd to 8crlin (as
wcll as London and Paris) lor two ycars in ordcr to pursuc his
studics and to makc thc acquaintancc ol lcadcrs ol thc Gcrman
and Austrian Social cmocratic movcmcntsKautsky, 8cbcl,
8raun, Adlcr; hc plungcd, with cnthusiasm, into Gcrman radi-
cal politics and also bcgan a doctoral disscrtation, Kapitali.m i
.emledelie |Capitalism and agriculturc|. Thcsc two ycars, how-
cvcr, provcd to bc an uncxpcctcd turning point. Likc many
Russian intcllcctuals who travclcd to thc Vcst lor thc rst timc
(Hcrzcn in Paris in .88 is thc archctypal cxamplc), 8ulgakov
lound thc practicc ol rcvolutionary politics in uropc disillu-
sioning; thc problcms, lurthcrmorc, ol working-class organiza-
tion in turn-ol-thc-ccntury Gcrmany wcrc vcry dicrcnt lrom
thc most prcssing political issucs in Russia, whcrc, altcr all,
thc industrial prolctariat was small and wcak, and rcvolution-
ary dcbatcs ccntcrcd on thc translormation ol a complctcly in-
adcquatc organization ol agriculturc rcsulting, cvcn as latc as
thc .8cs, in lrcqucnt laminc. uropcan culturc, too, had its
surpriscs: 8ulgakov dcscribcd his cncountcr with thc Sistinc
Madonna in thc Zwingcr Gallcry in rcsdcn as a spiritual cx-
pcricncc that madc him, thc convinccd Marxist, brcak down
in pious tcars. Vhcthcr as a rcsult ol spiritual doubts or ol in-
consistcncics in his scicntic rcsults, by .cc 8ulgakov lound
, Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
o
f
3
5
8
it dicult to concludc his disscrtation, which hc had originally
conccivcd in a Marxist vcin. Thc massivc work, which invcs-
tigatcd agricultural structurcs in ngland, Gcrmany, Francc,
!rcland, and thc Unitcd Statcs, cndcd by asscrting thc inappli-
cability ol Marxist thcory to agriculturc and, hcncc, thc im-
possibility ol any gcncralizcd dcscription ol capitalist socicty.
Vhcn hc rcturncd to Russia in .cc, 8ulgakov was in a statc
ol spiritual crisis.
This crisis was to cstablish thc ncw paramctcrs ol 8ulgakovs
intcllcctual lilc lor thc cnsuing two dccadcs; lrom this mo-
mcnt bcgan an intcnsivc scarch lor a worldvicw to rcplacc thc
Marxism that had provcd inadcquatc. Thc cxtcrnal aspccts ol
8ulgakovs lilc rcmaincd constant: bctwccn .cc and thc ..y
rcvolution hc taught political cconomy, rst in Kicv, at thc uni-
vcrsity and also at thc Polytcchnical !nstitutc, and thcn (bcgin-
ning in .c6) in Moscow. Hc rcsigncd lrom Moscow Univcrsity
with a group ol .:c ol thc most promincnt prolcssors in ..., in
protcst at govcrnmcnt policy toward thc univcrsity; but hc con-
tinucd to tcach at thc Moscow Commcrcial !nstitutc, which
had bccn loundcd by Muscovitc mcrchants in .cy. 8ut, morc
signicant, 8ulgakov thc oncc-promincnt Marxist now bccamc
an cqually promincnt participant in thc rcncwal in art, litcra-
turc, and philosophy known as thc Silvcr Agc. !n this capacity
hc bccamc thc invcntor ol thc slogan From Marxism to !dcal-
ism, which dcscribcd thc intcllcctual trajcctory ol an cntirc
gcncration ol Russian intcllcctuals. 8ulgakov cxpcricnccd and
gavc voicc to thc pcriods discovcry ol idcalism and cvcntu-
ally ol Christianity. Hc cxpcrimcntcd with nco-Kantianism in
thc carly .ccs, but hc ultimatcly lound in rthodoxy a systcm
ol bclicls that could rcplacc his Marxist crccd ol thc .8cs. Phi-
losophy of Economy was a rcsult ol thc prcccding dccadcs scarch
and 8ulgakovs most important contribution to thc philosophy
ol this immcnscly lruitlul crcativc pcriod.
Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
o
f
3
5
8
At thc samc timc, up to Stolypins dismissal ol thc Scc-
ond uma in .cy, 8ulgakov was an activc mcmbcr ol thc
libcration movcmcnt. nc ol thc lounding mcmbcrs ol thc
Union ol Libcration (to bccomc thc corc ol thc Constitutional
cmocratic (Kadct) Party) in .c:, hc contributcd to its
radical ncwspapcr, Os.obo.hdenie |Libcration|, and wrotc thc
agrarian program cvcntually to bc adoptcd by thc Kadcts. Un-
satiscd with Vcstcrn-stylc political partics, hc tricd to lound
an altcrnativc Christian Socialist party as a uma dclcgatc,
but with limitcd succcss. 8ulgakov bccamc disillusioncd with
politics altcr thc lailurc ol thc radical Sccond uma, whosc
insistcncc on thc cxpropriation ol gcntry lands mct with abso-
lutc rcjcction lrom thc govcrnmcnt. 8ulgakov also bccamc a
major gurc in a widcsprcad movcmcnt lor a rcligious rclor-
mation ol socicty among thc intclligcntsia. This movcmcnt
(similar to contcmporary dcvclopmcnts in Gcrmany) sought to
bring about social rclorm by instituting changcs in thc church
and by bringing thc church and thc sccular intclligcntsia closcr
togcthcr. !n this capacity, 8ulgakov was a loundcr ol thc Mos-
cow Rcligious-Philosophical Socicty and cditor ol a rcligious
publishing housc; hc also bricy publishcd a rcligious ncws-
papcr, put out thc thick journal !oprosy .hi.ni |Qucstions ol
lilc|, and bccamc a dclcgatc to thc ..y All-Russian Council ol
thc rthodox Church.
8ulgakovs cvolution away lromMarxismand toward rtho-
dox Christianity culminatcd in ..8 whcn, lollowing thc 8ol-
shcvik victory, hc took holy ordcrs and thus, lollowing a long
and circuitous journcy, rcturncd to thc laith ol his childhood.
Soon altcrward hc lclt Moscow lor thc Crimca; at thc cnd
ol .:: hc bccamc onc ol thc boatload ol promincnt intcllcc-
tuals to bc litcrally shippcd out ol Russia by thc ncw Sovict
rcgimc. Altcr a short whilc in Praguc and 8crlin, 8ulgakov
wcnt to Paris and bcgan his ncw lilc as an rthodox thcologian
o Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
o
f
3
5
8
and rcctor ol thc Paris !nstitutc ol rthodox Thcology. This
nal pcriod ol 8ulgakovs activity continucd cntircly within thc
church; it is intcrcsting to notc, howcvcr, that thc ccntral doc-
trinc ol his thcology, thc thcory ol Sophia, thc ivinc Visdom,
or sophiology, was rst lormulatcd in Philosophy of Economy
(scc chaptcr ), that is, in a sccular contcxt. 8ulgakovs sophi-
ology was condcmncd as hcrcsy in . by thc Moscow patri-
archatc. uring thc ycars bctwccn his cmigration and his dcath
in ., 8ulgakov wrotc a numbcr ol signicant thcological
works as wcll as popularizations ol rthodox doctrinc; hc also
bccamc an important gurc in thc ccumcnical movcmcnt ol thc
Christian churchcs.
3
!xxvv Svivi: \vvsis x:vvx~i Fov:s:
Pniiosovnv ov coxo:v ix :nv
Cox:vx: ov Tivx-ov-:nv-Cvx:ivv ivovv
8ulgakovs scarch lor a ncw social philosophy was part ol
a broadcr uropcan movcmcnt that historians, lollowing
H. Stuart Hughcs, havc comc to summarizc as thc rcvolt
against positivism.
4
At thc turn ol thc twcnticth ccntury,
thinkcrs throughout uropc qucstioncd thc loundations ol
ninctccnth-ccntury attitudcs toward scicncc, litcraturc, and so-
cicty. This intcllcctual rcvolution, whosc magnitudc and intcn-
sity surpasscd thosc ol any such movcmcnt sincc thc Romantic
rcvolt against thc nlightcnmcnt, rcjcctcd a numbcr ol sci-
cntic and philosophical attitudcs associatcd, lor thcsc think-
crs, with positivisms laith in thc capacity ol scicncc to rc-
solvc human problcms: positivisms critics rcvoltcd with cqual
lorcc against matcrialism, mcchanism, and naturalism. !n social
thought, thc qucstioning ol dominant ninctccnth-ccntury bc-
licls lrcqucntly involvcd a rccvaluation ol Marxism (as wcll
as Fcucrbach, who was sccn as a primary proponcnt ol ma-
Introduction ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
o
f
3
5
8
tcrialism) and a dissatislaction with thc application ol ar-
winian thcorics to social lilc. Thc rcvolt against positivism took
a varicty ol lorms: Gcrman nco-Kantianism and nco-idcalism,
Sorcls rcthinking ol Marxism as social poctry, Frcuds dis-
covcry ol thc unconscious, and Saussurcs approach to lan-
guagc as structurc (as opposcd to thc historical rcscarchcs ol
ninctccnth-ccntury linguists) arc a lcw ol thc morc important
cxamplcs.
8ulgakovs dramatic transition lrom Marxism to idcalism
and, cvcntually, Christianity, coincidcd with, and lormcd a part
ol, thc rcvolt against positivism that cngagcd many ol his Rus-
sian and uropcan contcmporarics; 8ulgakov might bc consid-
crcd thc Russian countcrpart ol Sorcl in Francc and Crocc in
!taly. Vhcn 8ulgakov announccd thc primacy ol cthical valucs
in .c..c:, hc did so bccausc Marxism, with its dialcctical
world-historical vision ol modcs ol production rcplacing onc
anothcr until thc ultimatc Socialist Goldcn Agc, sccmcd to
him mcrcly a variant or manilcstation ol a grcatcr cvil: posi-
tivism. 8ulgakov had bcgun to qucstion thc worldvicw that
undcrlay Marxist cconomic thcory. Hc did not mcrcly rcjcct
onc scicntic thcory to rcplacc it with anothcr; rathcr, hc quitc
consciously lormulatcd his Marxism as a !eltanschauung and
saw it as subsumcd in a concrctc mctaphysical systcm callcd
positivism, simultancously submitting thc cntirc systcm to
rccvaluation and criticism.
Vhat did 8ulgakov mcan by positivism, and why did hc
considcr it an inadcquatc basis lor a vision ol socicty. To a largc
cxtcnt, 8ulgakov cquatcd positivism with what hc callcd thc
thcory ol progrcss. 8ulgakov spokc lor an cntirc gcncration
ol Russian intcllcctualsgurcs such as mitri Mcrczhkov-
sky, Nikolai 8crdiacv, Pctr Struvc, and Scmn Frankwhcn
hc claimcd that positivism, as a codc ol social morality, pro-
vidcd a vision ol history as progrcss toward a pcrlcct carthly
8 Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
o
f
3
5
8
socicty, sacricing thc good ol prcscnt gcncrations lor that ol
thc luturc. 8clicl in scicncc, lurthcrmorc, had attaincd thc lcvcl
ol a rcligion, had bccomc its own moral codc; yct, prcciscly bc-
causc scicncc did not and could not addrcss thc problcms ol
mctaphysics and ol rcligion dircctly, il its csscntial suppositions
wcrc clcvatcd to thc lcvcl ol a rcligion it would providc lalsc
dircction lor human bchavior. 8ulgakov argucd that at no timc
could man livc by scicncc alonc; pcoplc nccdcd mctaphysics and
rcligion. Givcn this condition, positivism had bccomc much
morc than a scicntic thcorythc thcory ol progrcss had bc-
comc a thcodicy; scicnticity had swallowcd up rcligion and
mctaphysics, claiming lor itscll thc rights ol both. 8ut, again
according to 8ulgakov, thc attcmpt ol positivism to cstablish a
scicntic rcligion had lailcd; instcad, scicncc had ccascd to bc
scicncc and bccomc a rcligion. Thc subjcct ol this rcligion was
humanity, which itscll bccamc dcicd; thc goal ol thc rcligion
ol progrcss was thc good ol luturc gcncrations, and thcrclorc it
dcmandcd thc sacricc ol thc prcscnt onc. Positivism in gcn-
cral and Marxism in particular, in othcr words, subjugatcd thc
nccds ol individual human bcings hcrc and now lor thc sakc ol
thc vagucly dcncd luturc wcll-bcing ol collcctivc humanity.
Although his initial qucstioning ol Marxism and positiv-
ism had takcn placc in thc nal ycars ol thc ninctccnth ccn-
tury, 8ulgakov nally lormulatcd his own solutionhis original
thcory ol socictyonly in thc ..cs. Thc turn-ol-thc-ccntury
uropcan critics ol Marx, dcpcnding on thc spccic rcasons lor
thcir rcjcction ol Marxism, wcnt about rcluting him in various
ways, ranging lrom rcvisionism to Vcbcrs powcrlul countcr-
argumcnt ol rcligious and cthical valucs as a driving lorcc in
history. 8ulgakovs particular answcr to Marxism and positiv-
ism took thc lorm ol a philosophy ol cconomy. !n his book
ol this titlc, 8ulgakov rcplaccd Marxs vision ol socicty as a
class strugglc bascd on matcrial intcrcsts, in which thc modc
Introduction ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
o
f
3
5
8
ol production dctcrmincd social lorms and idcologics, with a
vicw at whosc crux stood thc rclation bctwccn man and naturc.
Likc many uropcan social thcorists, 8ulgakov turncd to a
way ol thinking about socicty lamiliar to all cightccnth- and
ninctccnth-ccntury Christians: hc took as his point ol dcpar-
turc an imagincd original statc in which man and naturc livcd
in pcrlcct harmony. To this initial statc, analogous to thc Statc
ol Naturc postulatcd by Lockc or Rousscau, 8ulgakov gavc thc
namc dcnic cconomy thc world as it cxistcd in Paradisc,
bclorc original sin. Yct, again lollowing thc lamiliar pattcrn, thc
world in which wc currcntly livc is latally scparatcd lrom this
harmonious cxistcncc by thc Fall ol manwhich 8ulgakov saw
as a mctaphysical catastrophc that draggcd all ol crcation into
a sinlul, cmpirical statc in which man must strugglc lor sur-
vival, cking out a painlul cxistcncc lrom an unlricndly, mccha-
nizcd naturc. This is thc world in which wc livc now, prisoncrs
to our matcrial nccds; and this is thc world, said 8ulgakov,
that Marx took to bc thc only rcal onc, basing his doctrinc ol
cconomic matcrialism on thc lallcn statc ol humanity. 8ut
whcrcas thc cightccnth-ccntury thcorists proposcd thc idca ol
a social contract as a way ol rcgulating rclations among pcoplc,
as wcll as bctwccn thcm and thc govcrnmcnt, in this impcrlcct
world 8ulgakov turncd to a biblical notionSophiaas a way
out ol thc mcrc labor in thc swcat ol our lacc that charac-
tcrizcs our cxistcncc in thc lallcn world. Thc ivinc Visdom,
Sophia, which according to thc ld Tcstamcnt was prcscnt
with God at thc Crcation (Prov. 8::::) and shincs in thc
world as thc primordial purity and bcauty ol thc univcrsc, in
thc lovclincss ol a child and in thc gorgcous cnchantmcnt ol a
swaying owcr, in thc bcauty ol a starry sky and a aming sun-
risc,
5
was an clusivc conccpt that 8ulgakov took carc ncvcr to
dcnc prcciscly: Sophia consistcd ol thc totality ol ctcrnal idcas
that conlrontcd God at thc crcation; yct thc notion ol Sophia
zc Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
o
f
3
5
8
is in constant ux, it is joyousncss, it is play, it is wisdom, it
is lovc.
6
8ulgakovs cntcrprisc was to introducc thc notion ol
Sophia into social and cconomic lilc. Sophia potcntially sul-
luscs thc grim world ol work and thc strugglc lor survival: in
rarc momcnts ol rcvclation, wc catch a glimpsc ol what lilc was
oncc likc in thc Gardcn ol dcn. Thc cconomy, cvcn il dcn
had bccn irrctricvably lost, could oncc again bccomc sophic:
what wc must do is nd within oursclvcs this hiddcn potcntial
lor pcrlcction and work to resurrect naturc, to cndow it oncc
again with thc lilc and mcaning that it had in Paradisc, and
thus to complctc thc cosmic cyclc ol Fall and Rcsurrcction. !t
was in our powcr to translorm thc world, to bring it to lilc,
to rcturn it to that pcrlcct harmonious cxistcncc in lovc and
labor lrom which Adam and vc wrcnchcd it with thcir sin.
!n 8ulgakovs vision pcoplcs rclations to cach othcr, lurthcr-
morc, wcrc dcncd not by conscnt or contract but implicitly,
by virtuc ol thcir common inspiration and participation in thc
sharcd task ol naturcs rcsurrcction.
Vhat gavc this vision its powcr was not simply its itcra-
tion ol a cohcrcnt argumcnt against Marxism but thc lact that
it rcstcd on a widcly acccssiblc cultural and rcligious lounda-
tion. For 8ulgakov, this loundation was clcarly and unambigu-
ously Christian. Thc sccond part ol his answcr to Marx was
lormulatcd in a book originally intcndcd as thc sccond vol-
umc ol Philosophy of Economy, S.et ne.echernii |Thc unlading
light| (..y): whcrcas Philosophy of Economy stands alonc as an
ontology ol cconomy, or a study ol thc gcncral loundations
ol thc cconomic proccss, it was S.et ne.echernii that providcd
thc argumcnt advanccd in thc lormcr with a particular undcr-
standing ol thc naturc ol thc world and ol man, i.c. a particular
cosmology and anthropology: Vhat is thc csscncc ol thc
world. Vhat is thc csscncc ol man. Howdo wc undcrstand thc
world, thc transccndcntal objcct ol cconomy, and what is man,
Introduction zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
o
f
3
5
8
its transccndcntal subjcct. A particular systcm ol cosmology
and anthropology is implicit in cvcry philosophy ol cconomy,
and this is why wc must bclorc all clsc distinguish and cstab-
lish thc corrcsponding cosmological tcachings as wc study thc
world-vicws which intcrcst us.
7
S.et ne.echernii sct out a rcligious and spccically rtho-
dox Christian vision ol thc world that inspircd and supportcd
thc philosophical and political-cconomic cntcrprisc undcrtakcn
in Philosophy of Economy. Yct il 8ulgakovs own roots wcrc in
rthodox Christianity, his social philosophy potcntially had a
morc univcrsal appcal. Thc idca ol thc ivinc Visdom was par-
ticularly closc to 8ulgakov bccausc ol its important rolc in thc
rthodox (both Grcck and Russian) liturgy and in rthodox
iconography; yct its valuc as a social-philosophical conccpt dc-
rivcs, at thc samc timc, lrom its univcrsality. Sophia was much
broadcr than Christianity; it had roots in Gnosticism and Juda-
ism and parallcls in Platonism (thc Vorld Soul); indccd, thc
scnsc ol clusivc and bcautilul divinity would not bc alicn to a
Muslim or cvcn a 8uddhist.
8ulgakovs sophic cconomy wcnt lurthcr than thc insis-
tcncc on individual rights ol his days in libcral politics: thc
ncw social philosophy armcd human dignity by attributing
mcaning and crcativity to thc most prosaic ol tasks in our daily
lilc and work. ach lurrow plowcd, cach pagc writtcn, could
potcntially bring thc individual closcr to Sophia. Thc worth
and lulllmcnt ol cach individual, morcovcr, was augmcntcd by
thc vcry rcassurancc that onc was not alonc but was a partici-
pant, along with oncs lcllow human bcings, in a largcr, cosmic,
and bcautilul proccss.
8
A numbcr ol striking lcaturcs in this vision ol lilc in socicty
mark Philosophy of Economy as onc ol thc varicty ol original
conccptions that constitutc thc modcrnist cntcrprisc. Among
thcm is 8ulgakovs substitution ol a rcsurrcctivc modcl ol
z: Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
o
f
3
5
8
historythc Christian cyclc ol Fall and Rcsurrcctionlor thc
lincar thcory ol progrcss that hc had so condcmncd in posi-
tivism. For positivism, at lcast in its unadultcratcd vcrsion,
thc goal ol history lay at thc cnd ol a long proccss in which
mankind gradually approachcd, and nally achicvcd, a pcrlcct
world. This basic modcl might includc a Hcgclian clcmcnt ol
rcvolutionary translormation at kcy momcnts ol historical dc-
vclopmcnt. 8ulgakov, instcad, saw human history as a contin-
gcnt proccss, dcvcloping in thc conditions ol a lallcn world.
Although wc must constantly work to rccct thc modcl pro-
vidcd by Sophia in our daily cxistcncc, wc havc no guarantcc
that this labor will bring us any closcr to a pcrlcct cxistcncc.
Thc cnd ol thc world will comc, as wc know lrom Scripturc; but
thc rcalization ol thc lilc ol thc luturc agc rcmains ultimatcly
indcpcndcnt ol thc carthly goals ol mankind. Christianity pro-
vidcd 8ulgakov with a mcans lor avoiding thc construction ol
but anothcr utopia: a sophic cconomy was not a paradisc to
bc achicvcd on carth but a constantly prcscnt vision inspiring
us to work lor thc rcstoration ol thc harmony ol naturc and
culturc that humanity had lost in thc Fall. This Christian, cs-
chatological philosophy ol history anticipatcs thc usc ol this
samc rcsurrcctivc modcl by thc cxistcntialist philosophcrs, and
particularly Hcidcggcr, whosc notion ol thc thrownncss ol
Dasein corrcsponds to 8ulgakovs dcscription ol history as thc
rcsult ol thc Fall.
Anothcr, rclatcd, csscntial charactcristic ol thc sophic ccon-
omy was its cmphasis on proccss rathcr than on cnds. 8ulgakov,
dcspitc his rcjcction ol cconomic matcrialism as a comprchcn-
sivc vicw ol thc world, bclicvcd that it had discovcrcd an csscn-
tial insight in its cmphasis on labor. !n othcr words, apart lrom
bcing a vision ol socicty, 8ulgakovs sophic cconomy was also
an cthicbut onc that prcscribcd joylul labor in Sophia as an
antidotc to thc grim cking out ol cxistcncc that was so prcva-
Introduction z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
o
f
3
5
8
lcnt in lilc and acccptcd as ncccssary by Marxism and othcr
cconomic doctrincs. Sophias constant radiant prcscncc could
cndow work with mcaning and bcauty, and thc constant, joy-
lul crcation ol oncs own lilc gavc mcaning to cxistcncc. Hcrc,
as wcll, 8ulgakovs thcory rcminds us ol contcmporary wcstcrn
uropcan idcas. Spccically, 8ulgakovs man, poiscd lor action,
holding a tool in onc hand and thc aming torch ol knowl-
cdgc in thc othcr (chaptcr ), rccalls nothing so much as Hcnri
8crgsons activc and intclligcnt subjcct: Harncsscd, likc yokcd
oxcn, to a hcavy task, wc lccl thc play ol our musclcs and joints,
thc wcight ol thc plow and thc rcsistancc ol thc soil. To act
and to know that wc arc acting, to comc into touch with rcality
and cvcn to livc it, but only in thc mcasurc in which it con-
ccrns thc work that is bcing accomplishcd and thc lurrow that
is bcing plowcd, such is thc lunction ol human intclligcncc.
Yct a bcncccnt uid bathcs us, whcncc wc draw thc vcry lorcc
to labor and to livc. From this occan ol lilc, in which wc arc
immcrscd, wc arc continually drawing somcthing, and wc lccl
that our bcing, or at lcast thc intcllcct that guidcs it, has bccn
lormcd thcrcin by a kind ol local conccntration.
9
Thc 8crg-
sonian vision ol a thcory ol knowlcdgc cntircly luscd with a
thcory ol lilc bctrays a nco-Romantic rclutation ol positivism
sharcd with 8ulgakov. Furthcrmorc, Creati.e E.olution (.cy),
likc Philosophy of Economy, builds on thc pcrccption ol a world
constantly in ux, in which not only thc crcation ol an artis-
tic or intcllcctual gcnius but also thc lilc and labor ol ordinary
pcoplc acquircs crcativc mcaning. Thc 8crgsonian elan .ital,
thc prolound conviction ol a dccpcr mcaning in lilc than pcr-
mittcd by thc mcchanism ol positivist, arwinian cvolution-
ary thcory, coincidcs with a similar lcap in 8ulgakovs thought
lrom strictly philosophical argumcntation to an armation ol
thc mcaning and joyousncss ol lilc that hc calls Sophia.
8ut most important, 8ulgakovs sophic cconomy includcs
z, Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
o
f
3
5
8
what is pcrhaps thc singlc charactcristic that thc many variants
ol thc modcrnist rcjcction ol positivism had in common: a ncw
attcntion to things bcyond thc matcrial world, an cort to look
bcyond physical rcality to csscnccs invisiblc to thc nakcd cyc.
!n kccping with this ncw rccognition ol thc disparity bctwccn
cxtcrnal rcality and thc intcrnal apprcciation ol that rcality,
10
thc ccntral lcaturc ol 8ulgakovs sophic cconomy, and onc that
complcmcnts its rcjcction ol a lincar conccption ol history and
cmphasis on proccss rathcr than cnds, is its rcplaccmcnt ol a
social thcoryMarxsthat, likc most social thcorics ol thc
cightccnth and ninctccnth ccnturics, dcscribcd socicty in tcrms
ol cxtcrnal lorms (institutions, classcs, lorms ol govcrnmcnt)
by a vision that instcad strcsscd thc intcrnal contcnt, or spirit,
ol socicty. 8ulgakov, partly as a rcsult ol disappointmcnt in
thc libcration movcmcnts unsucccsslul strugglc to throw o
autocracy and sct up a constitutional lorm ol govcrnmcnt in
.c.cy, was by ... no longcr intcrcstcd in institutions:
Philosophy of Economy asscrtcd thc socially crcativc and trans-
lormativc powcr ol thc attitudc with which cconomic lilc was
conductcd, rathcr than thc govcrnmcntal lorms it took; Sophia
was potcntially compatiblc with dicrcnt typcs ol institutions.
Vhat wcnt on in thc mind and soul ol thc individual social and
cconomic actorthc kho.iain, or proprictorwas as csscntial
a part ol thc cconomic proccss as its ultimatc goals or organi-
zational structurc. !n this scnsc, 8ulgakovs thcory conlormcd
to thc shilt ol locus ol social thought, charactcristic ol his agc,
lrom objcctivc and clcarly visiblc lorms to thc morc ncbu-
lous arca ol subjcctivc motivation. Thc originality ol his work,
howcvcr, lay in his cxplicit idcntication ol this only partially
conscious arca as Sophia. Not contcnt to dwcll in a twilight
zonc ol suspcndcd judgmcntopcn to mctaphysical possibili-
tics, yct wary ol dogmatic asscrtion
11
likc his Vcstcrn countcr-
parts, 8ulgakov took thc rcvolt against positivism all thc way
Introduction z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
o
f
3
5
8
and cndcd up with a modcrnist philosophy that was also dccply
rcligious.
Philosophy of Economy was also a contribution to thc con-
tcmporary uropc-widc dcbatc on thc tasks and limitations ol
social scicncc. !n his discussion ol lrccdom and ncccssity, thc
status ol thc social scicnccs, and thc position ol cconomic ma-
tcrialism as a doctrinc, 8ulgakov madc a casc lor thc bchavior
ol social collcctivitics as distinct lrom, and govcrncd by dicr-
cnt rulcs than, individual bchavior, whcn urkhcim, Lc8on,
Sorcl, and Parcto wcrc discovcring thc collcctivc as a rcsult ol
thcir particular sociological rcscarch. cspitc its mctaphysical
tonc, Philosophy of Economy, likc thc writings ol thc uropcan
sociologists, was rmly rootcd in concrctc social-scicntic in-
vcstigation: thc rclcvant disciplinc, in thc Russian casc, was
statistics, which, lrom its inccption soon altcr thc cmancipa-
tion ol thc pcasantry in .86., had acquircd a high dcgrcc ol
sophistication and cxtrcmcly broad application in thc Russian
countrysidc. 8ulgakov argucd against his lcllow political ccono-
mists and statisticians, who dcrivcd prcscriptions lor individual
social actionusually rcvolutionary or at lcast radicallrom
thc rcsults ol statistical studics: Philosophy of Economy was an
cort to prcscrvc individual lrcc will whilc acccpting thc pic-
turc ol socicty yicldcd by statistical avcragcs and mathcmatical
calculations.
A Pniiosovnv ov Livv: 8iic~xov ~xb
:nv Nixv:vvx:n-Cvx:ivv
Rissi~x Pniiosovnic~i Tv~bi:iox
8ulgakov was particularly wcll placcd lor thc rcvolution in
social thought at thc turn ol thc twcnticth ccntury. Vhcn
uropcan thinkcrs rcvoltcd against positivism, thcy wcrc in
lact rcjccting ccrtain attitudcsrationalism, mcchanism, and
zo Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
o
f
3
5
8
so onthat had bccn targcts lor attack by a powcrlul tradition
in Russian thought ovcr thc coursc ol thc ninctccnth ccntury.
Positivism had, indccd, bccomc an almost rcligious crcdo lor
thc Russian intclligcntsia in thc .8ycs (ol which Turgcncvs
8azarov scrvcs as thc classic cmblcm), but it was challcngcd
as carly as .8y by \ladimir Solovicv, who pcrccivcd a crisis
in Vcstcrn philosophy, and spccically a crisis ol positivism,
twcnty ycars bclorc it actually cruptcd on thc uropcan sccnc.
Following his Romantic prcdcccssors, thc Slavophilcs, Solo-
vicv argucd against thc rationalism ol Vcstcrn philosophy
and proposcd that philosophy as abstract, purcly thcorctical
cognition had nothing morc to ocr. Modcrnisms challcngc
to positivism coincidcd with thc issucs raiscd carlicr by Solo-
vicv and othcr Russian thinkcrs, many ol whom wcrc prcoccu-
picd throughout thc ninctccnth ccntury with thc inadcquacy ol
abstract spcculation and conccrncd with thc problcm ol con-
structing a philosophy that would addrcss lilc instcad ol cn-
closing itscll hcrmctically in an articial intcllcctual univcrsc
incapablc ol communication with thc outsidc world. Vhcn
8ulgakov challcngcd thc positivist thcory ol progrcss and its
cxccssivc rationalism and intcllcctualism, hc had a rich tradi-
tion on which to draw; thc tcrms in which hc lormulatcd his
notion ol thc sophic cconomy dcpcndcd hcavily on thc corts
ol his Russian prcdcccssors.
vcry thinkcr or philosophcr lunctions within a particular
cultural and intcllcctual tradition whosc boundarics arc dc-
ncd both subconsciouslyby languagc, carly cducation, cul-
tural atmosphcrcand consciouslyby tcachcrs, rcading, and
so lorth. Thc Russian intcllcctual tradition ol thc ninctccnth
ccntury, although dcscribablc in tcrms lamiliar lrom thc history
ol Vcstcrn thoughtnlightcnmcnt, Romanticism, positiv-
ism, modcrnismrcmaincd original and indcpcndcnt in thc
manncr in which it assimilatcd and combincd idcas, in thc
Introduction z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
o
f
3
5
8
qucstions that it singlcd out as important, thc clcmcnts it in-
scrtcd lrom morc ancicnt Russian or 8yzantinc sourccs, and
its approachcs to thc busincss ol philosophizing itscll. 8y .cc
Russian thought had dcvclopcd a comprchcnsivc vocabulary ol
approachcs and conccpts as csscntially and incxtricably intcr-
wovcn with thc idcas thcy cxprcsscd as, lor cxamplc, acccptancc
and undcrstanding ol thc tcrms sign, signier, and signied arc
csscntial to a rcading ol contcmporary structuralist philosophy.
Scrgci 8ulgakov was a Russian thinkcr in thc scnsc that his
idcas inscribcd thcmsclvcs in thc intcllcctual tradition that had
takcn shapc in Russia ovcr thc coursc ol thc ninctccnth ccn-
tury; his work can bc mcaninglully intcrprctcd only il clcmcnts
ol this inhcritancc arc takcn into account.
Filosoia kho.iaist.a, or Philosophy of Economy, was prcmiscd
on an intcraction ol two disciplincs: 8ulgakov bclicvcd that
philosophy and political cconomy cxistcd in articial isolation
and that insights lrom cach disciplinc could productivcly bc
brought to bcar on thc othcr. 8ulgakov sought simultancously
to construct a thcory ol socicty, or political cconomy, that
placcd thc inncr rclation and intcraction ol man and naturc,
subjcct and objcct (a conccrn ol idcalist philosophy) at its ccn-
tcr, and to introducc a ncw cpistcmological principlc, borrowcd
lrom political cconomynamcly, laborinto thc disciplinc ol
philosophy propcr. This dual dcnition ol losoia kho.iaist.a
dcpcndcd in part on languagc. Kho.iaist.o in Russian mcans
both cconomy and houschold. Kho.iaist.o as cconomy
rclcrs not mcrcly to attributcs ol cconomic lilc propcrGNP,
budgct, intcrcst ratcs, taxcsbut to lilc in socicty morc gcncr-
ally; a nations cconomy has connotations ol thc lilc ol a giant
houschold. Kho.iaist.o, lurthcrmorc, is not a static tcrm, lor
it rclcrs cqually to thc process ol cconomic activity or ol lilc
in socicty. Thc notion ol losoia kho.iaist.a, playing on thcsc
various possibilitics, cvokcs an cntirc cld ol shilting mcan-
z8 Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
o
f
3
5
8
ings that 8ulgakov articulatcs in accordancc with various spc-
cic contcxts and that, takcn as a wholc, comprisc a compositc
conccptual imagc. Vc rcconstruct thc contcnt ol Philosophy of
Economy lrom 8ulgakovs various uscs ol thc tcrm: losoia kho-
.iaist.a sccks to undcrstand thc world as thc objcct ol labor,
12
it addrcsscs thc problcm ol man and naturc,
13
it is oricntcd on
thc lact ol cconomy,
14
it is an cpistcmological basis ol political
cconomy,
15
it is a continuation ol Schcllings Naturphilosophie,
16
and in a conscious play on thc Kantian inquiry into knowlcdgc,
it poscs thc qucstion, How is cconomy possiblc.
17
Thc rcsult ol thcsc shilting scmantic uscs is morc than a
mcrc rhctorical imagc. !nstcad, it is a lully indcpcndcnt conccpt
that rcccts a dominant conccrn ol Russian ninctccnth-ccntury
philosophy: 8ulgakov, likc many ol his prcdcccssors, was con-
ccrncd abovc all with constructing a worldvicw that addrcsscd
thc rcal conccrns ol our lilc in thc world, that trcatcd human
bcings as activc crcaturcs, intcracting with thc world around
thcm. Vhat 8ulgakov tcrmcd an intcraction ol thc disciplincs
ol philosophy and political cconomy was a rcstatcmcnt ol Rus-
sian philosophys prcoccupation with lilc, a lcar ol thcorics con-
structcd in thc comlort ol thc philosophcrs study and having
no rcal application: bringing thc conccrns ol political cconomy
to philosophy was a mcans ol introducing thc rcalitics ol labor,
wcalth, and povcrty into an othcrwisc mcaninglcssly abstract
intcllcctual cxcrcisc. 8oth 8ulgakovs cmphasis on thc inncr rc-
lation, or spirit, ol thc intcraction ol man and naturcwhich,
as wc havc sccn, rclutcs Vcstcrn political cconomys (including
Marxs) cmphasis on cxtcrnal lorms ol social structurcand
his conccrn with intcgrating philosophy and political cconomy
in a singlc thcory ol socicty rccctcd a rcjcction ol rational-
ism and abstract intcllcctual activity with dccp roots in Russian
intcllcctual history. Spccically, in placing thc problcm ol man
and naturc at thc ccntcr ol his vicw ol socicty, 8ulgakov gavc
Introduction z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
o
f
3
5
8
voicc to a major but somctimcs implicit conccrn ol Russian
philosophy, which had absorbcd a prcoccupation with mans rc-
lation to thc world around him lrom Gcrman Romanticism. At
thc samc timc, 8ulgakovs locus on thc inncr spirit lollowcd a
Russian tradition ol conccrn with organicism and wholcncss.
Finally, in sccking to makc labor, or activity, into an cpistc-
mological principlc, 8ulgakov continucd Russian philosophys
disdain lor armchair philosophcrs passivcly cnsconccd in thc
salcty ol thcir study: philosophy must cngagc with lilc and is
ol intcrcst only insolar as it hclps us undcrstand and cvcntually
translorm thc world.
Vhcn 8ulgakov lormulatcd his vicw ol socicty in tcrms ol a
rclation bctwccn man and naturc, hc was cxplicitly rcitcrating
and posing ancw a ccntral qucstion ol Gcrman Romantic phi-
losophy; at thc samc timc hc was also lollowing a pattcrn ol
Russian thought, cstablishcd by thc Slavophilcs, that distrustcd
cxccssivc rationalism and idcnticd with thc Romantic pocts
and philosophcrs who had rcbcllcd against thc nlightcnmcnts
prcoccupation with rcason and conccntration on thc workings
ol thc human mind at thc cxpcnsc ol thc lorccs ol naturc.
8ulgakov was bothcrcd by thc problcm ol accounting lor thc
cxistcncc ol a world outsidc thc thinking scll, a problcm hc cx-
prcsscd somctimcs as that ol thc rclation ol man and naturc and
somctimcs as that ol thc rclation ol subjcct and objcct.
8ulgakovs nco-Romanticism, that is, his conscious rcpcti-
tion ol thc Romantic problcm ol subjcct and objcct, man and
naturc, appcalcd abovc all to thc writings ol Schclling, spc-
cically to his System of Transcendental Idealism couplcd with
thc Naturphilosophie. Likc his lcllow Romantics, Schclling was
conccrncd with thc lundamcntal problcm ol thc rclation ol thc
scll to thc cxtcrnal world. Schclling objcctcd to thc narrow
limits Kant had imposcd on his invcstigation ol knowlcdgc and
:c Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
o
f
3
5
8
sought to cxpand transccndcntal idcalism until it bccamc what
it ought to bca gcncral systcm ol knowlcdgc. Schclling, un-
likc his prcdcccssor and tcachcr Fichtc, trcatcd thc scll and thc
cxtcrnal world with cqual scriousncss. Vhcrcas Fichtc had rc-
solvcd thc problcm ol subjcct and objcct by making thc non-!
a projcction ol thc !, Schclling approachcd thc samc qucstion
by constructing two simultancous and complcmcntary systcms.
Thc rst, thc Naturphilosophie, took thc objcctnaturcas a
givcn and sought to cxplain its rclation to thc subjcct. Through
rccction, naturc ultimatcly bccamc its own objcct, as mans
study ol it cndowcd naturc with rcason. Convcrscly, transccn-
dcntal idcalismthc sccond part ol Schcllings philosophical
systcmbcgan with thc subjcct and sought to cxplain how it
was conncctcd with thc objcct. !n othcr words, transccndcn-
tal idcalism was an cort to justily our basic pcrccption that
thcrc arc things which cxist outsidc oursclvcs. Thc problcm ol
thc rclation bctwccn subjcct and objcct pcrmcatcs Schcllings
writings, lor hc considcrcd thc cxplanation ol thc coincidcncc
ol subjcctivc and objcctivc as thc basic task ol philosophy.
Thc Romantic attitudc pcrmcatcd much ol ninctccnth-
ccntury Russian poctry, prosc, and philosophy, and cvcn thc
way ol lilc ol many intcllcctuals, particularly in thc sccond
quartcr ol thc ccnturyduring thc rcign ol Nicholas !. Russian
thinkcrs did not participatc in thc initial cmcrgcncc ol Roman-
ticism: Romantic thought and litcraturc owcrcd latc on Rus-
sian soil, but intcnscly and ovcr a vcry long pcriod. !n a lamous
passagc in My Past and Thoughts, Alcxandcr Hcrzcn dcscribcs
an cxaltcd atmosphcrc in which pcoplc who adorcd cach othcr
bccamc cstrangcd lor cntirc wccks bccausc thcy could not agrcc
on a dcnition ol transccndcntal spirit, wcrc pcrsonally ol-
lcndcd by opinions about absolutc pcrsonality and bcing in
itscll, and thc most worthlcss tracts ol Gcrman philosophy
that camc out ol 8crlin and othcr provincial towns and vil-
Introduction :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
o
f
3
5
8
lagcs, in which thcrc was any mcntion ol Hcgcl, wcrc writtcn
lor and rcad to shrcdstill thcy camc out in ycllow stains, till
pagcs droppcd out altcr a lcw days.
18
Attitudcs lrom worship
ol crcativc gcnius to lovc ol naturc to blisslul immcrsion in mo-
mcnts ol insight or sharpcncd pcrccption had thcir origin in a
Romanticism thoroughly assimilatcd and bccomc a way ol lilc.
Russian thinkcrs ol thc mid-ninctccnth ccntury did not,
in contrast to 8ulgakov, addrcss thc subjcct-objcct problcm
cxplicitly; instcad, thcy absorbcd Romanticisms basic anti-
nlightcnmcnt spirit so that, in thc tcachings ol thc Slavo-
philcs, it turncd into a distrust and antipathy lor rationalism
in gcncral. For thcm, thc qucstion ol thc cxtcrnal world was
lcss a philosophical problcm than a lundamcntal attitudc: thcy
had no paticncc lor abstract spcculation and turncd abovc all
to mattcrs with social or practical implications. Thc critiquc ol
rationalism bccamc a dominant thcmc ol Slavophilc thought.
!nstcad ol sccing thc nlightcnmcnts cmphasis on thc
thinking subjcct as a problcm philosophy was ablc to solvc, thc
Slavophilcs pcrccivcd unduc conccntration on thc subjcct as a
symptom ol a broadcr crisis ol rationalism that had struck
all ol Vcstcrn thought, including Romanticism. Vcstcrn phi-
losophy, argucd Kirccvsky, had cxhaustcd thc rational principlc.
For, whcn a man dcnics any authority cxccpt his own abstract
rcasoning, thcn can hc go bcyond a world vicw in which thc
cntirc cxistcncc ol thc world appcars to him as a transparcnt
dialcctic ol his own rcason, and his own rcason as thc scll-
consciousncss ol univcrsal bcing.
19
Vcstcrn philosophy was
at a dcad cnd, lor its cxccssivc rationalism prcvcntcd it lrom
addrcssing thc problcm ol thc world outsidc thc thinking scll.
This antirationalist lramc ol mind to a largc dcgrcc cxplains
thc appcal ol Schclling, ol all Romantic philosophcrs, to cdu-
catcd Russian socicty. Schclling could at thc vcry lcast bc crcd-
itcd with having pcrccivcd thc bankruptcy ol Vcstcrn ratio-
:: Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
o
f
3
5
8
nalism, and il Hcgcl rcprcscntcd thc apogcc ol rationalism or
intcllcctualism, Schclling was thc solc Vcstcrn thinkcr to havc
crcatcd a loundation on which Russian thought could build.
Schcllings acsthcticism and rcligious scnsc, and abovc all his
uncomlortablcncss with a philosophy conncd to thc rcalm ol
rcason and purcly abstract spcculation, madc him arguably thc
most signicant Romantic thinkcr lor Russian idcas in thc
ninctccnth ccntury.
20
This was a tradition that 8ulgakov lol-
lowcd in constructing his indictmcnt ol unduc intcllcctualism
in Vcstcrn philosophy and in locusing his inquiry on thc rc-
lation ol man and naturcor ol man and thc world around
him.
8ulgakov cmphasizcd thc inner rclation ol man and naturc,
thc spirit ol a particular cconomic systcm, in contrast to thc
cxtcrnal lorms ol social organization that gcncrally lorm thc
substancc ol Vcstcrn social thcory. !n doing so, hc adoptcd a
no lcss dccply rootcd attitudc ol Russian thought. ncc again
it was thc Slavophilcs who, in a lusion ol thc Romantic pcn-
chant lor organicity with principlcs ol rthodox Christian thc-
ology, statcd that inncr lorm and spirit wcrc morc csscntial
catcgorics than thc abstract, logical, cxtcrnal lactors ol institu-
tions or typcs ol govcrnmcntand that it had lallcn to Russia,
as opposcd to thc corrupt and rationalizcd Vcst, to dcvclop this
principlc and to cxprcss it lor thc bcnct ol humanity.
For thc Slavophilcs, cxtcrnal social lorms, most particularly
thc dominant autocratic lorm ol govcrnmcnt in thc Russia ol
thcir timc, wcrc ol mcrcly sccondary importancc. Thc lorcign
travclcr in Russia, lor cxamplc, would bc likcly to pcrccivc thc
burcaucratic and administrativc structurcs that wcrc actually
quitc supcrcial and ol littlc import to thc manncr in which
lilc was actually cxpcricnccd.
21
Vhat was important about Rus-
sian socicty, lor thc Slavophilcs, was not its cxtcrnal lorms
Introduction :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
o
f
3
5
8
most particularly autocracy. Vcstcrn uropcan socictics, thcy
suggcstcd, wcrc bascd on violcncc and on a lormality ol pcr-
sonal rclations, and social lilc was limitcd to a battlc ol partics
and intcrcsts; thc csscncc ol Russian lilc, in contrast, could bc
lound in a dccpcr community bascd on truc Christianity. Thc
crucial lcaturcs ol Russian socicty wcrc thc organicity and com-
munal agrccmcnt that did not ncccssarily strikc a bcholdcr who
ncvcr lookcd bcyond cxtcrnal structurcs.
Thus Slavophilc thought turncd to such mattcrs as lamily
rclations, thc pcasant communc, and thc church instcad ol thc
qucstions ol administrativc organization, typcs ol govcrnmcnt,
and distribution ol powcr lamiliar to Vcstcrn social thcory.
Thc distinctioncntircly takcn lor grantcd, cspccially in social
thought ol thc \ictorian crabctwccn thc privatc and thc
public sphcrcs did not cxist lor thc Slavophilcs: instcad thcy
articulatcd in thcir writings thc axiom that how onc conductcd
oncscll in daily lilc was an cxprcssion ol a social and political
attitudc.
This cmphasis on intcrnal social structurcs took its cuc si-
multancously lrom thc antihicrarchical thcological principlcs ol
Russian rthodoxy and lrom an organicism charactcristic ol
Romanticism. Spccically, it lound powcrlul cxprcssion in thc
conccpt ol sobornostarticulatcd most inucntially by Alcxci
Khomiakov and adoptcd by subscqucnt thinkcrs including 8ul-
gakov. Sobornostlitcrally, thc conciliar principlcstood lor
an association in lovc, lrccdom, and truth ol Christian bclicv-
crs, which Khomiakov considcrcd thc csscncc ol rthodoxy.
22
Sobornost mcant, on onc hand, community and wholcncss; as
8ulgakov rcmarkcd, cmphasis on thc collcctivity, on humanity
as a wholc, had bccomc a distinguishing charactcristic ol
Russian thought.
23
As summarizcd conciscly in a quotation
lrom Kirccvsky that Khomiakov placcd in Kirccvskys obituary,
thc Slavophilcs argucd that rationality and division constitutc
:, Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
o
f
3
5
8
thc basic charactcr ol all ol Vcstcrn civilization. Vholcncss
and wisdom constitutc thc charactcr ol that civilizing principlc
which, by Gods gracc, was laid at thc loundation ol our |Rus-
sian| intcllcctual lilc.
24
Rcmarkably, on thc othcr hand, thc
valuc ol sobornost was that this vcry scnsc ol community and
wholcncss actually pcrmittcd thc lull dcvclopmcnt ol an indi-
.idual s intcgral pcrsonality as opposcd to thc onc-sidcd cm-
phasis cncouragcd by a rationalistic socicty prcoccupicd with
cxtcrnal lorms, partics, and intcrcsts. Thc rthodox Church,
and conscqucntly a socicty in which it playcd a major rolc, con-
sistcd ol a community ol individual bclicvcrs, cach ol whom
had a part both in thc organizational lilc ol thc church and in
thc lormulation ol dogma. Sobornost, in othcr words, implicd
a participatory vision ol church and socicty, in contrast to onc
in which an ccclcsiastical hicrarchy had a monopoly ovcr thc
populations bclicl and daily lilc.
25
Thc lusion and mutual rcinlorccmcnt ol thc individual and
thc community in thc notion ol sobornost struck a dclicatc bal-
ancc. nc ol thc most colorlul, and prccarious, cxprcssions ol
thc principlc bclongs to anothcr Slavophilc, Konstantin Aksa-
kov, in a dcscription ol thc villagc communc that was to cap-
tivatc and inucncc many Russian thinkcrs cvcn altcr Stolypin
abolishcd thc institution in .c:
A communc is a union ol thc pcoplc who havc rc-
nounccd thcir cgoism, thcir individuality, and who
cxprcss thcir common accord; this is an act ol lovc,
a noblc Christian act, which cxprcsscs itscll morc
or lcss clcarly in its various othcr manilcstations. A
communc thus rcprcscnts a moral choir, and just as
in a choir a voicc is not lost, but lollows thc gcncral
pattcrn and is hcard in thc harmony ol all voiccs:
so in thc communc thc individual is not lost, but
Introduction :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
o
f
3
5
8
rcnounccs his cxclusivcncss in lavor ol a gcncral ac-
cordand thcrc ariscs thc noblc phcnomcnon ol a
harmonious, joint cxistcncc ol rational bcings (con-
sciousncsscs); thcrc ariscs a brothcrhood, a com-
munca triumph ol thc human spirit.
26
Thc lack ol tcnsion bctwccn thc individual and thc collcc-
tivc in thc notion ol sobornost, thc scnsc that thc individual
pcrsonality could nd lull cxprcssion only in intcraction with
a largcr community, marks 8ulgakovs philosophy as wcll: thc
Slavophilc stylc ol thought lics at thc basis ol his lormulations.
!n 8ulgakovs Christian cconomy, thc transccndcntal subjcct
ol thc cconomic proccss is humanity as a wholc, rathcr than
individual pcrsons: what is rcmarkablc in 8ulgakovs vision is
that hc sccks to arm and prcscrvc human dignity prcciscly
by inscribing thc daily activity ol individual human bcings in
a proccss that unitcs thcm with thcir lcllows. This cocxistcncc
ol individual and community is surprising lrom thc pcrspcc-
tivc ol Vcstcrn social philosophy, in which thc opposition ol
individual rights and thc claims ol thc collcctivity arc virtually
axiomatic. 8ulgakovs solution to thc dcication ol collcc-
tivc humanity and sacricc ol thc individual hc had pcrccivcd
in Marxism was morc intcrcsting than a mcrc proclamation
ol thc primacy ol individual valucs: his Christian cconomy
locuscd attcntion on thc individuals motivation, yct prcscrvcd
human bcings bclonging and participation in a largcr human
community.
Yct a third aspcct ol 8ulgakovs philosophynamcly, his
cort to introducc labor as an cpistcmological principlc lor phi-
losophygivcs cxprcssion to a charactcristic attitudc ol Rus-
sian thought. 8ulgakov argucd that, in thc labor thcory ol
valuc, Marxism had discovcrcd a principlc that, il applicd to
:o Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
o
f
3
5
8
philosophy, could potcntially ovcrcomc thc stcrility and un-
duc conccntration on thc thinking subjcct that hc pcrccivcd in
contcmporary nco-Kantianism. 8y proposing labor as a philo-
sophical principlc, 8ulgakov mcant that wc, as philosophcrs,
must look at thc process ol mans lilc in the .orld as thc starting
point ol philosophy, and hc proposcd a lundamcntal pcrccp-
tion ol man as an activc, working crcaturc.
27
At rst glancc,
this approach sccms to originatc in thc Christian tcndcncy to
cmphasizc lilc as thc most lundamcntal catcgory ol thought
or cxpcricncc, and indccd 8ulgakovs vcry lormulation ol his
insistcncc that thought is born ol lilc dcpcnds hcavily on
Christian philosophy and imagcry.
28
Yct thc insistcncc on thc
primacy ol lilc also coincidcs with thc attitudc ol a strong and
cntircly un-Christian currcnt in Russian thought, lormulatcd
most powcrlully by Nikolai Chcrnyshcvsky and cxprcsscd by
numcrous lollowcrs, that constitutcd an csscntial componcnt ol
thc psychc ol a thinkcr who, altcr all, had bcgun his carccr as a
mcmbcr ol thc radical intclligcntsia.
!n thc .86cs mitri Pisarcv scandalizcd public opinion by
maintaining that a pair ol boots was supcrior in valuc to thc
works ol Shakcspcarc. Chcrnyshcvsky lormalizcd this statc-
mcnt and madc it into a crccd ol thc radical intclligcntsia. 8or-
rowing lrom thc utilitarianism ol Mill and 8cntham, as wcll
as lrom Comtcan positivism, thc mcn ol thc sixtics postu-
latcd thc ultimatc scicntic cxplicability ol man and human
socicty and thc possibility, bascd on this knowlcdgc, ol a ratio-
nal rcordcring ol socicty to thc mutual bcnct ol its mcm-
bcrs. !ncxtricablc lrom this basic approach was thc bclicl that
both natural scicncc and art wcrc ultimatcly subordinatc to lilc.
Chcrnyshcvskys thcory ol rational cgoism bcgan by claim-
ing thc possibility ol undcrstanding man as a wholc through
undcrstanding him as a physical organism and cndcd by main-
taining that thc standard by which human actions must bc
Introduction :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
o
f
3
5
8
judgcd was thc bcnct thcy brought. His complcmcntary acs-
thctic philosophy positcd that art is lilc, in othcr words, that
bcauty was that which rccctcd lilc most pcrlcctly. His argu-
mcnt concludcd with an asscrtion ol thc complctc dcpcndcncc
ol acsthctics on social rcality and his complcmcntary cvaluation
ol art solcly in tcrms ol its utility. Chcrnyshcvskys cxtrcmcly
inucntial novcl !hat Is to Be Done, which bccamc thc hand-
book ol Russian radicals, was a litcrary modcl lor thc total
structuring ol lilc according to rational principlcs ol womcns
cquality and thc socialist organization ol labor: thc translor-
mation ol socicty would takc placc through thc translormation
ol pcrsonal, scxual, and working lilc, and thc cmcrging ncw
pcoplc would bc its instrumcnt.
29
8ulgakov sharcd with his prcdcccssors among thc radical in-
tclligcntsia thcir oricntation towards lilc rathcr than abstract
acsthctic or philosophical contcmplation. Thc positioning ol
lilc ovcr art implicd a prcscriptivc stancc, lully assimilatcd by
8ulgakov. Likc Chcrnyshcvskys novcl, Philosophy of Economy is
an answcr to thc qucstion, Vhat is to bc donc., and though
8ulgakovs rcsponsc dicrs dramatically lrom Chcrnyshcvskys,
and cvcn morc lrom that givcn by Lcnin in his composition ol
thc samc titlc, his thought sharcs with thcsc two countrymcns
thc prcscriptivc clcmcnt implicit in any philosophy that placcs
action (or labor) at thc vcry loundation ol thought.
Russian philosophy oltcn strikcs thc Vcstcrn rcadcr as
awcd or at lcast pcculiar: as ! havc tricd to show in 8ulga-
kovs casc, this imprcssion rcsults lrom Russian thinkcrs usc ol
idcas and conccpts lamiliar in Vcstcrn thought but discusscd
in unlamiliar combinations and contcxts. Russian intcllcctual
history docs notlikc, lor cxamplc, Chincsc philosophypro-
cccd lrom cntircly dicrcnt assumptions and cntircly dicrcnt
sourccs than Vcstcrn thought; instcad, it is prcmiscd on an
:8 Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
6
o
f
3
5
8
intcrplay ol clcmcnts lrom Vcstcrn philosophy with pcculiarly
Russian conccrns and idcas, with thc rcsult that intcllcctual
currcnts that might bc mutually contradictory in somc Vcst-
crn countricslor cxamplc, Marxism and nco-Kantianism, or
ccadcncc and Christianityoltcn cocxist in a happy symbio-
sis. Philosophy of Economy is constructcd, lollowing this pattcrn,
on a lruitlul intcraction ol thc conccrns ol thc uropcan rcvolt
against positivism with antirationalist, lilc-oricntcd clcmcnts
ol a spccically Russian intcllcctual tradition. Thc rcsult is an
original, Christian. and modcrnist vision ol socicty that locuscs
on thc inncr spirit ol lilc in socicty rathcr than on institutions
or cxtcrnal lorms and that prcscribcs an cthic ol activc and joy-
lul labor in Sophia as a substitutc lor thc Goldcn Agc, thc
paradisc on carth that was thc pathos ol thc Marxist vision.
8ulgakovs social philosophy grcw out ol thc samc con-
ccrns that animatcd Vcstcrn libcrals: thc cort to implcmcnt
Vcstcrn-stylc libcralism and parliamcntarism in Russia bc-
twccn .c and .cy. For a varicty ol rcasons, howcvcr, 8ul-
gakov loundcd thc rcspcct lor thc individual that hc sharcd
with thcsc thinkcrs on a dicrcnt basisrcligion. Thcrclorc
thc notion ol human dignity bccamc thc ccntcr ol 8ulgakovs
philosophya conccpt that might bc considcrcd dccpcr or at
lcast dicrcnt lrom classic libcralisms locus on thc rights ol thc
individual. Thc rcsult is potcntially productivc lor thc thcory
ol libcralism itscll. 8ulgakovs philosophy capturcs clcmcnts
missing or lost lrom Vcstcrn libcralism: it rc-Christianizcs a
tradition that oncc had roots in cvangclical Christianity; it cap-
turcs a scnsc ol inspiration and crcativity as an csscntial aspcct
ol social and cconomic lilc; by appcaling to thc Russian philo-
sophical tradition, it achicvcs a comlortablc synthcsis ol thc
individual and thc collcctivity (onc ol thc grcatcst dicultics
lor Vcstcrn thought). 8ulgakovs philosophy was lormulatcd
within thc contcxt ol Vcstcrn thought and rthodox Chris-
Introduction :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
7
o
f
3
5
8
tianity: it nccds to bc intcgratcd back into thcsc two traditions.
Somc ol thc problcms with 8ulgakovs vision arc obvious: a
social thcory, altcr all, that docs not addrcss social and govcrn-
mcntal structurcs must, takcn in isolation, provc inadcquatc to
thc task ol proposing a viablc social systcm. Yct in thc Vcst,
whcrc institutions arc rmly in placc, a cohcrcnt philosophical
articulation ol thc rolc that dignity, crcativity, inncr spirit,
and community play as lactors in cconomic lilc can usclully
complcmcnt libcral social and cconomic thcory.
Thc history ol Philosophy of Economy as a tcxt rcccts thc
largcr story ol Russian rcligious philosophy. Thc book was
widcly rcad and discusscd among cducatcd Russians in thc rst
ycars altcr its publication, but it was crascd lrom thc public
consciousncss as thc acsthctic and social utopias ol thc 8ol-
shcvik Rcvolution crowdcd out such non-Marxist and anti-
Marxist philosophics, to bc rcborn in a wavc ol popularity that
grcctcd Silvcr Agc philosophy and litcraturc as thc Sovict sys-
tcm collapscd. 8ulgakovs work has acquircd a ncw immcdiacy
in rcccnt ycars: thc rccvaluation and ultimatcly thc complctc
rcjcction ol Marxism by a signicant part ol thc Russian in-
tclligcntsia adumbratcd, in microcosm, thc similar cvolution ol
Sovict socicty as a wholc that is taking placc today. 8ulgakovs
rcligious philosophy is rcprcscntativc ol a school ol thought
onc including 8crdiacv, Frank, Florcnsky, Shcstov, Gcrshcn-
zon, and othcrsthat sought to articulatc thc philosophical
bascs on which Russian socicty rcstcd and that has bccomc
a crucial point ol oricntation as Russia rcdcncs its idcntity.
Thc particular lorcc ol 8ulgakovs social philosophy, so lar as
Russia is conccrncd, is that it brings togcthcr rcligionin thc
lorm ol an cthic arming human dignityand a thcory ol kho-
.iaist.o, or cconomic lilc. His vision ol history as a cyclc ol
Fall and Rcsurrcction, dcath and rcbirth, rcccts a vcry dccp
c Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
8
o
f
3
5
8
thcmc ol thc Russian cultural consciousncss. vcn thc spccic
lorm takcn by this thcmc in his worknamcly, thc rcsurrcction
ol naturc through thc labor ol man as proprictor (kho.iain)
was an important conccrn in Russian thought and art not only
in his own timc
30
but wcll into thc .:cs (pcrhaps thc most
intcrcsting cxamplc is thc work ol Andrci Platonov). At thc
samc timc, his dcscription ol cconomic lilc as kho.iaist.o, as
thc lilc ol a largc houschold, amounts to thc clcarcst philo-
sophical articulation ol a modc ol cconomic cxistcncc that in
thc .cs bccamc charactcristic ol thc managcmcnt ol Rus-
sias citics, larms, and cntcrpriscs. 8ulgakovs sophic cconomy
is among thc idcas that can providc matcrial lor discussion in
thc prcscnt rccvaluation ol idcologics and institutions, a rc-
cvaluation that involvcs philosophical rcoricntation as wcll as
a rcstructuring ol markcts, propcrty rights, lcgal norms, and
political and administrativc institutions.
!n gcncral, ! havc bccn guidcd by my dcsirc to makc this book
a tcxt that is useful lor thc contcmporary rcadcr. 8ulgakovs
points ol rclcrcncc includc works that havc bccomc standard
ovcr thc past ccntury and thosc that havc rcccdcd into obliv-
ion. Thc lormcr includc various tcxts ol Aristotlc, cscartcs,
Lcibniz, Kant, Fichtc, Hcgcl, Schclling, Marx, and 8crgson.
!n cach ol thcsc cascs ! havc tricd to updatc 8ulgakovs notcs
by citing casily availablc modcrn cditions, rathcr than thc origi-
nals or obscurc Russian translations uscd by 8ulgakov. thcr
widcly rcad thinkcrs ol thc ninctccnth ccntury such as rncst
Hckcl, Thomas 8ucklc, duard von Hartmann, or Adolphc
Qutclctcqually a part ol 8ulgakovs worldvicwnow nccd
to bc cxplaincd; ! havc donc so in thc glossary ol namcs at thc
cnd ol thc tcxt, whilc citing, usually, thc samc cditions that
wcrc availablc to 8ulgakov.
Introduction z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
9
o
f
3
5
8
! would likc to thank Gary Saul Morson lor his cnthusiasm
lor this projcct. ! am also gratclul to Hubcrtus Jahn lor chcck-
ing my translations lrom thc Gcrman; to Chris Monika lor his
hclp with thc glossary; and to Janc Zanichkowsky lor cditing
thc manuscript.
!ashington, D.C.
: Introduction
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
0
o
f
3
5
8
Pniiosovnv ov coxo:v
Thc Vorld as Houschold
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
1
o
f
3
5
8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
2
o
f
3
5
8
Pvvv~cv
! do not intcnd to justily thc topic ol thc prcscnt invcstigation
in thcsc lincs, lor ! bclicvc that it spcaks lor itscll and rcquircs
no particular justication. !t is not, ol coursc, lor thc author
to judgc how wcll hc has comc to tcrms with his task, and thc
impcrlcctions ol its cxccution arc cvidcnt cnough to mc. ! havc
no doubt only ol onc thingol thc immcnsc signicancc ol thc
problcm itscll, to which, ! am convinccd, thc tomorrow il not
thc today ol philosophy must bclong. To comprchcnd thc world
as thc objcct ol labor and cconomic action is a task to which
cconomism, criticism, pragmatism, and mysticism cqually lcad
us. And ! attributc immcasurably morc signicancc to posing
this qucstion than to any givcn cort to rcsolvc it. !n thc dcvcl-
opmcnt ol philosophical thought thc posing ol problcms and
thcir rccognition gcncrally plays a primary rolc; this is what
providcs thc impulsc lor philosophical crcativity and dcncs its
thcmcs.
For thc author, thc prcscnt study also has spccial signi-
cancc, lor it draws up thc balancc ol an cntirc pcriod ol lilc
inucnccd by cconomic matcrialism, and it is thc dcbt ol thc
authors philosophical conscicncc in rclation to his own past.
Thc lact ol cconomy always arouscd philosophical surprisc in
mc, and thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol cconomyol man in
naturc and naturc in manhas in lact ncvcr lclt my spiritual
horizon but only turncd about to show various aspccts.
1
Thc
initial cort to makc scnsc ol this lact was lor mc thc thcory ol
cconomic matcrialism with various critical amcndmcnts. And
although this thcory quickly ccascd satislying my conscious-

T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
3
o
f
3
5
8
ncss, as thc pcrccptions ol childhood ccasc to satisly it, yct thc
qucstions that it answcrs in its own way havc rctaincd all thcir
lorcc. Vc cannot simply turn away lrom thc problcm ol cco-
nomic matcrialism in thc namc ol abstract idcalism (as do
thosc who turn back to Kant, or thosc who combinc Kant
with Marx), lor such idcalism docs not contain any answcr to
this problcm but mcrcly lcavcs it outsidc its attcntion.
Thc problcm ol cconomy is takcn in thc prcscnt invcstiga-
tion in a triplc dimcnsion simultancously: scicntic-cmpirical,
transccndcntal-critical, and mctaphysical. And such a mcans
ol invcstigation is not dctcrmincd by thc whim ol thc author
but suggcstcd by thc vcry csscncc ol thc mattcr. For thc samc
thing that, in thc cmpirical sphcrc, constitutcs thc objcct ol
cxpcricncc and poscs problcms lor scicncc, constitutcs thc
construction ol a transccndcntal subjcct whcn rcgardcd lrom
thc standpoint ol cognitivc lorms, and, nally, dcsccnds dccp
into thc mctaphysical soil with its ontological roots. This hicr-
archy ol problcms opcncd bclorc mc ol itscll in thc coursc
ol invcstigation, as it grcw dccpcr. !nitially, in thc cort to
makc scnsc ol thc lact ol cconomy, it was most natural to turn
to thc science about cconomy (political cconomy), which con-
structs a particular branch ol scicntic cxpcricncc lrom thc
phcnomcna ol cconomic rcality. Yct in doing so it rcmains dcal
and blind to cvcrything that transccnds thc boundarics ol this
cxpcricncc. !t isolatcs but onc particular sidc ol thc problcm ol
cconomy. !t is, ol coursc, corrcct within thc limits ol its par-
ticular tasks, but it would bc tcrribly myopic, having cquatcd
thc wholc with its part, to limit thc thcory ol cconomy to its
phcnomcnology. 8cyond thcsc boundarics thc invcstigation ol
our qucstion incvitably lalls into thc sphcrc ol gcncral philoso-
phy. To scnsc thc boundarics ol phcnomcnology by rcvcaling
scicnccs logical schcmatism is thc task ol critical philosophy,
ol critical idcalism, which hcrc plays an irrcplaccablc rolc,
o Preface
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
4
o
f
3
5
8
lrccing us lrom thc hypnosis ol scicntic cmpiricism; and who-
cvcr has oncc cxpcricnccd its libcrating action will always rc-
main gratclul to critical idcalism, cvcn il hc docs not acccpt
thc critical 8catricc lor thc bcautilul lady ol philosophy. 8ut
critical idcalism rcmains powcrlcss bclorc thc problcm ol ccon-
omy in its csscncc: hcrc thc purcly thcorctical, schcmatizing
naturc ol critical philosophy, with its incapacity lor rcalism,
shows itscll most clcarly. Hcncc critical idcalism dccisivcly ap-
pcals to mctaphysicsto ontology and to natural philosophy,
whcrc thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol cconomy ultimatcly
cnds up. Thus, this vcry action rcalizcs thc conncction ol phi-
losophy and scicncc that is postulatcd in thcory, and it sccms
to mc that this can bc mutually bcnccial. Social scicncc is un-
doubtcdly in nccd ol a productivc tic with philosophy, in ordcr
to copc, with its hclp, with thc inncr disintcgration that thrcat-
cns it, lor thc gcncral crisis ol scicntic consciousncss that has
impcrccptibly crcpt up on us must hcrc bc particularly draining.
Philosophy, mcanwhilc, in conlronting such a lilc problcm, is in
this mcasurc libcratcd lrom that scholastic lormalism in which
criticism incrcasingly cntanglcs it.
Thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol cconomy also acquircs a
pcculiar pointcdncss lor thc contcmporary rcligious conscious-
ncss. !n a timc ol dccaying dogmatic scll-consciousncss, whcn
rcligion is most lrcqucntly rcduccd to cthics, mcrcly tingcd
with pictistic sucrings, it is particularly important to sct
out thc ontological and cosmological sidc ol Christianity, which
is partly rcvcalcd in thc philosophy ol cconomy. 8ut this is cn-
tircly impossiblc using thc mcans ol contcmporary Kantianizcd
and mctaphysically cmpticd thcology; instcad, wc must turn to
thc rcligious ontology, cosmology, and anthropology ol Saints
Athanasius ol Alcxandria and Grcgory ol Nyssus and othcr
lathcrs ol thc church. Thcsc tcachings arc at prcscnt philo-
sophically dcad capital in thc cld ol dogmatics, and, most
Preface ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
5
o
f
3
5
8
lrcqucntly, arc simply dcnicd, and philosophical and cconomic
matcrialism on onc hand, and idcalistic phcnomcnalism on thc
othcr, arisc on thc ruins ol Christian matcrialism.
2
Among thc
tasks ol thc prcscnt invcstigation is thc cort to translatc somc
ol thcsc tcachings into thc languagc ol contcmporary philo-
sophical thought and thus to rcvcal how thc truths ol rcligious
matcrialism arc distortcd and obscurcd both in matcrialism and
in idcalism.
nly a part ol this wholc projcct is rcalizcd in thc prcscnt
volumc: namcly, wc hcrc cxaminc thc gcncral bascs ol thc cco-
nomic proccss, or its ontology. To thc sccond part will lall thc
problcm ol thc justication of economyits axiology and cscha-
tology; in part, thc problcm ol thc rclation ol csh and spirit
(thc cthics ol cconomy) and ol thc mcaning ol history and
culturc will bc invcstigatcd hcrc. 8ut thc loundation lor thcsc
thcorics is partially containcd in thc prcscnt scction, which can,
within thc limits ol its task, bc sccn as a complctc, indcpcndcnt
wholc.
As a parting word to this book, as thc cxprcssion ol its pathos
and aspirations, lct us rcmcmbcr Fcdor ostocvskys prophctic
words: Lovc all Gods crcation, thc wholc and cach grain ol
sand in it. Lovc cvcry lcal, cvcry ray ol Gods light! Lovc thc
animals, lovc thc plants, lovc cvcrything. !l you lovc cvcrything,
you will pcrccivc thc divinc mystcry in things (lrom Fathcr
Zosimas lcssons in The Brothers Karama.o.).
Vhat is thc mothcr ol God. Vhat do you think. Thc
grcat mothcr, ! answcr, thc hopc ol thc human racc. Ycs, shc
answcrcd, thc mothcr ol God is thc grcat mothcrthc damp
carth, and thcrcin lics grcat joy lor mcn (thc words ol thc old
woman in thc Cripplcs story, in The Possessed).
Mosco., z8 January z,z:
8 Preface
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
6
o
f
3
5
8
.
Thc Problcm ol thc
Philosophy ol conomy
!. Cox:v:vov~vv coxo:is:
nc ol thc most outstanding traits ol contcmporary humanitys
outlook is somcthing wc might call thc economism ol our cpoch.
So-callcd cconomic matcrialism constitutcs mcrcly thc most
radical and pcrlcct lormulation ol this gcncral attitudc and,
howcvcr qucstionablc this doctrinc may sccm to us, howcvcr
shaky its philosophical, scicntic, mctaphysical, and cmpirical
loundations, this dccpcr signicancc makcs it somcthing morc
than just a scicntic doctrinc that crumblcs whcn it is shown
to bc inadcquatc. !n a ccrtain scnsc, cconomic matcrialism is
actually indcstructiblc, insolar as it dcscribcs thc immcdiatc
rcality ol a particular cxpcricncc or appcrccption ol thc world
that sccks thcorctical cxprcssion in a scicntic or philosophical
doctrinc. Thc doctrinc may bc quitc unsucccsslul in its cxccu-
tion, but this docs not invalidatc thc mood that crcatcd it. That
particular, undcniablc lilc truth that our contcmporary socicty
has glimpscd and intimatcly lclt with grcat scriousncss and bit-
tcr sinccrity makcs cconomic matcrialism in a scnsc irrclutablc.
!t cannot bc simply dcnicd or rcjcctcd likc any othcr scicn-
tic thcory. !t must bc undcrstood and intcrprctcd, not only in
its obvious mistakcs and wcakncsscs, but also in that prolound
contcnt which shimmcrs through it. !t must bc, not dcnicd,
but o.ercome from .ithin, cxplaincd in its limitations as a philo-
sophical abstract principlc, in which onc sidc ol thc truth is
sold as thc wholc truth. !n a word, thc problcm ol cconomic
,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
7
o
f
3
5
8
matcrialism must bc invcstigatcd, but not only in its contcmpo-
rary lormulation, in which it bcars too clcarly thc traits ol thc
accidcntal circumstanccs ol its historical origins and thc spiri-
tual individuality ol its crcators. For thc unprcjudiccd thinkcr
it is clcar that, apart lrom its rudc and unlortunatc currcnt cx-
prcssion, thc thcory ol cconomic matcrialism could bc workcd
out much morc lully, clcarly, rclcvantly; in gcncral, it lcavcs
much room lor improvcmcnt. !l wc abstract oursclvcs lrom any
possiblc lormal cxprcssion ol this doctrinc, it bccomcs clcar
that thc csscncc ol cconomic matcrialism rcmains as a prob-
lem standing incvitably bclorc thc philosophizing mind ol our
timc with its strong cconomism. ur timc undcrstands, lccls,
cxpcricnccs the .orld as a household, and human powcr is mca-
surcd in tcrms ol wcalth. !n contrast to thc voluntary or invol-
untary asccticism ol Franciscan or 8uddhist cpochs ol history,
which dcspisc wcalth and dcny its powcr ovcr man, our cpoch
lovcs wcalthnot moncy, but spccically wcalthand bclicvcs
in wcalth cvcn morc than it bclicvcs in thc individual. This
is not mcrcly mammonism, low and sclsh (which cxists now
as it has cxistcd in all timcs); nothis is cconomism. Life is,
abo.e all, an economic process: such is thc axiom ol this contcm-
porary cconomism, cxprcsscd in most cxtrcmc and cvcn pro-
vocativc lorm in cconomic matcrialism. This is why cconomic
matcrialism has such survival powcr, combincd with thc ap-
pcal ol idcological radicalism, its sharpncss actually incrcascd
by its naivct and immcdiacy. And this is thc sccrct ol thc pccu-
liar cnchantmcnt ol cconomic matcrialism, thanks to which it
so hypnotizcs contcmporary minds. ! will say cvcn morc: not
to cxpcricncc this cnchantmcnt at all, not to lccl its hypnosis
(cvcn il onc docs not abandon oncscll complctcly), mcans to
havc somc dclcct ol historical scll-consciousncss, to bc intcr-
nally alicn to contcmporary rcality, rcmaining cithcr abovc it
(which is acccssiblc but to a lcw individuals) or articially to
,c The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
8
o
f
3
5
8
lcncc oncscll o lrom lilc (which is why ! am so littlc imprcsscd
and, lrankly, havc so littlc sympathy lor armchair idcalism,
ignorant ol lilc).
1
conomic matcrialism or, lct us say morc bricy, economism,
is in lact thc rcigning worldvicwamong political cconomists, al-
though, thcorctically, many ol thcm do not subscribc to it, pcr-
haps bccausc it has bccomc thc party dogma ol social dcmoc-
racy and scandalizcs many with its idcological radicalism. !n
practicc, lor lack ol anything bcttcr, cconomism suuscs politi-
cal cconomy, in which, in gcncral, thc cxpansion ol spccial
invcstigations, or scicntic practicc, bcars no corrclation what-
socvcr to thc dcvclopmcnt ol philosophical scll-consciousncss
or rccction. !n its scicntic practicc, political cconomy cithcr
procccds on thc basis ol cmpirical gcncralizations and obscr-
vations ol a limitcd and spccializcd naturc, or, insolar as it
appcals to morc gcncral points ol vicw, it consciously or uncon-
sciously lalls into thc lramcwork ol cconomism, usually in its
most naivcly dogmatic lorm. Thcrc is a closc, unbrcakablc tic
bctwccn political cconomy and cconomism as a worldvicw. !n
lact, cconomic matcrialism is thc rcigning philosophy ol politi-
cal cconomy. !n practicc, cconomists arc Marxists, cvcn il thcy
hatc Marxism.
Thc limitations ol thc horizons ol cconomic thought, thus
rcvcalcd, nd cxprcssion not so much in thc prcvalcncc ol thc
philosophy ol cconomism (though this, too, is symptomatic)
but in its naivc dogmatism. !t is as though thc dogma ol ccono-
mism wcrc thc only possiblc, and morcovcr thc scll-cvidcnt,
philosophy ol cconomy gcncrally. For this rcason, thc primary
task ol philosophical criticism is to shattcr this naivc dogma-
tism and, by qucstioning it, to makc it thc objcct ol a spccial
philosophical invcstigation.
Vc cannot rcproach political cconomy lor dcpcnding on par-
ticular philosophical prcsuppositions that it takcs as apodictic
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
4
9
o
f
3
5
8
truths or axioms. All scicntic knowlcdgc is partial and lrag-
mcntary and thcrclorc is ncvcr constructcd without such axi-
omatic prcsuppositions. !t adhcrcs to thcm as to an anchor
thrown into thc shorclcss sca ol discursivc knowlcdgc, into thc
innity ol possiblc problcms and objccts ol scicncc. No spc-
cializcd invcstigation is conductcd ab o.o, rathcr it bcgins, so
to spcak, in thc middlc, lor it always dcpcnds on an cntirc
scrics ol contingcnt or ccrtain axiomatic principlcs, that is, it
is always dogmatically conditioncd. Such is thc incvitablc dog-
matism ol our scicntic thought, and no criticism can lrcc
us ol it, although thcrc is a tcndcncy to lorgct about this dog-
matism too casily and to prcscnt thc rcsults ol such contingcnt
knowlcdgc as knowlcdgc quand mme, as absolutc truth. nly
that scicntic inquiry can bc acknowlcdgcd as critical that
is conscious ol its dogmatic contingcncy and takcs it into ac-
count in dctcrmining thc critical mass or thcorctical valuc ol
its propositions.
Thus thc scicncc ol cconomy, or political cconomy, is also
a dogmatically conditioncd branch ol human knowlcdgc. !t is
contingcnt both in its cmpirical dimcnsion (hcrc, too, thcrc is
grcatcr awarcncss ol this contingcncy, lor cxamplc, thc con-
ncction ol political cconomy with tcchnology) and in its gcn-
cral philosophical undcrpinnings. nc or anothcr philosophy
ol cconomy, cstablishing thc prcsuppositions ol political ccon-
omy, is dccidcdly not crcatcd within itscll, is not thc rcsult
ol scicntic invcstigation, as is somctimcs thought, but is in-
corporatcd in scicncc a priori, although it prcdctcrmincs thc
charactcr ol its conclusions. conomic matcrialism (in statis-
tics, radical Qutclctism) had thc couragc to cxtract thcsc prc-
suppositions and mold thcm into an indcpcndcnt philosophical
systcm; in so doing, it rcvcalcd thc sccrct ol political cconomy,
which had uscd its principlcs silcntly and undcr covcr, naivcly
considcring thcm to bc thc lruit ol its own scicntic work. At
,: The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
0
o
f
3
5
8
thc samc timc cconomic matcrialism, by cxtracting and dog-
matizing what had mcrcly bccn assumcd by scicntic practicc,
madc thcsc prcsuppositions into an indcpcndcnt problcm, thus
ultimatcly aiding in thc awakcning ol critical thought in this
cld. Thc disciplinc ol cconomics currcntly nds itscll in a
scvcrc philosophical crisis: thc rcjcction ol a conscious adhcr-
cncc to cconomic matcrialism has lclt cconomics complctcly
dcvoid ol any philosophical basis and turncd it into an abstract
manipulation ol cmpirical lacts and obscrvations, so that it can
barcly bc takcn scriously as a scicncc. For this rcason thc prob-
lcm ol thc philosophy of economy or, bcttcr, thc totality ol thcsc
problcms is now ol intcrcst not just to philosophy but also to
spccializcd cconomic invcstigations.
Vhat sccms scll-cvidcnt in practicc oltcn poscs thc grcatcst
problcms lor thc philosophical mind. Such, lor cxamplc, is thc
cntirc thcory ol knowlcdgc that, csscntially, invcstigatcs scll-
cvidcnt lorms ol cognition and pcrccivcs in thcm thc most dil-
cult and complicatcd philosophical problcms. This dcccptivc
obviousncss rcsults in thc common acccptancc ol such proposi-
tions as immutablc and apodictic, so that to dcny thcm sccms
absurd; or, as is lrcqucnt in spccializcd scicnccs, thcy arc takcn
as provcn within thc rcalm ol that particular scicncc; thc out-
comc, in our timc ol scicntic spccialization, is a pcculiar but
charactcristic dogmatism ol spccializcd scicnccs. Vc rcquirc
thc cort ol philosophical analysis to lrcc oursclvcs ol this. Vc
must bcgin to doubt that which it is unusual or impropcr to
qucstion, wc must look with thc naivc cycs ol a lorcigncr or a
savagc, lor whom starchcd collars and whitc cus, scll-cvidcnt
lor us, sccm pcculiar, and who asks about thcir truc purposc.
Mattcrs arc just about thus with political cconomy. !t, too,
takcs lor grantcd too much that it rcccivcd at its birth and has
thcrclorc bccomc accustomcd to trcat as its organic attributc,
its constant baggagc. !l wc grant lrcc rcign to philosophical
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
1
o
f
3
5
8
doubt whilc rcading a currcnt political-cconomic tract, wc im-
mcdiatcly scc how dccply this dogmatism ol prcsuppositions
pcnctratcs its construction and how divincly innoccnt ol this it
rcmains.
Thc scicncc ol cconomics bclongs to thc most contingcnt
and philosophically lcast indcpcndcnt ol disciplincs; yct it has
acccptcd thc dominant rolc assigncd to it by our wcalth-
conscious cpoch, striving to bccomc thc rcgal lcgislator ol
thought and cxpanding its inucncc lar bcyond its own hori-
zons. !nsolar as it succccds, it docs dctcrminc thc gcncral
cconomism ol our cpochthc distinguishing charactcristic ol
its historical scll-consciousncss. Political cconomy with its
cconomism is particularly in nccd ol a rccvaluation and dccp-
cning ol its principlcs, ol rcncwal through philosophical doubt.
Thc philosophical cxamination ol thc basic principlcs ol cco-
nomic action and cconomic thought has bccomc impcrativc;
such is thc task ol thc philosophy ol cconomy, which cvalu-
atcs not only thc philosophical a priori ol political cconomy but
ol thc cconomic worldvicw gcncrally. Naturally, howcvcr, its
own problcmatic lics dccpcr than thc simplc scrvicc to political
cconomy would rcquirc. Thc philosophy ol cconomy bclongs to
philosophy gcncrally, constitutcs a signicant part ol it, and is
not mcrcly thc illcgitimatc child ol political cconomy. Vhat,
thcn, is thc philosophy ol cconomy as a philosophical tcaching.
!!. Pniiosovnv ~xb Livv
Thc dcnition ol thc task ol thc philosophy ol cconomy is,
to a signicant cxtcnt, conncctcd with oncs undcrstanding ol
thc tasks ol philosophy gcncrally; yct what thcsc should bc is
at prcscnt thc subjcct ol much disagrccmcnt. nc might say,
howcvcr, that thc answcr to this basic, apparcntly prcliminary
qucstionwhat is philosophy.gcncrally contains thc csscncc
,, The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
2
o
f
3
5
8
ol a particular philosophical systcm and rcvcals its ccntral as-
sumptions. !l wc look at any onc ol thc philosophical oricnta-
tions ol thc past and prcscnt, wc can scc that thcy dicr rst ol
all in thcir undcrstanding ol this initial qucstion. Apparcntly,
thcrc is no gcncrally valid solution to this qucstion; morcovcr, it
cannot bc rcsolvcd by spccializcd argumcntation within a givcn
philosophical systcm. n thc contrary, this qucstion poscs itscll
outsidc any singlc philosophical systcm, which indccd is thcn
constructcd around this alrcady cxisting qucstion. Vhat docs
philosophy .ant to bc, what is thc topic ol intcrcst toward
which it is oricntcd, what is thc ultimatc immcdiatc givcn
standing bclorc it. This is what prcdctcrmincs a philosophi-
cal systcm. This manncr ol posing thc problcm intcntionally
uncovcrs this ccntral ncrvc ol thc philosophical systcm. For
many contcmporary philosophcrs, cvcn thc combination ol thc
conccptsthc philosophy ol economysccms unacccptablc or
shocking, not so much bccausc thc combination ol thcsc two
words in a singlc titlc sounds odd but bccausc philosophy is hcrc
dcnitcly and opcnly givcn a particular prcdicatc; lor philoso-
phy likcs to think ol itscll as purc and indcpcndcnt contcm-
plation and balks at thc idca ol a philosophy of anything. !t is
truc, thc contcmporary car has bcgun to accustom itscll to such
cxprcssions as, lor cxamplc, thc philosophy ol culturc, or ol art,
ol law, and so on (cvcn philosophy ol moncy, circulatcd by thc
skcptical philosophical imprcssionist Simmcl), yct thcsc phrascs
arc rarcly uscd with any dcgrcc ol scll-consciousncss and criti-
cal scll-cvaluation and, in any casc, still await philosophical
cxplication. n thc othcr hand, it is truc that thc grcatcst rcp-
rcscntativcs ol absolutc, indcpcndcnt philosophy such as Fichtc
or Hcgcl dcvclopcd systcms ol thc philosophy ol law, culturc,
history, but lor thcm thcsc wcrc mcrcly particular parts ol a
gcncral systcm, with no indcpcndcnt valuc. For thcm as wcll,
a philosophy of cconomy or ol somcthing clsc, that is, procccd-
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
3
o
f
3
5
8
ing lrom this givcn rcality, would havc bccn a dcbascmcnt and
bctrayal ol philosophy. Thc dogma ol thc indcpcndcncc ol phi-
losophy, in thc scnsc ol its closcdncss and scll-sucicncy and
thus its absolutcncss, was lor thcm not subjcct to doubt; such
is Hcgcls grand systcm in its Lucilcrian pridc, such is Fichtcs
rst systcm (thc .y Theory of Science).
! dcny this indcpcndcncc and scll-sucicncy ol thc philoso-
phy ol thc scll-stylcd absolutc spirit, which gcncratcs both purc
nothingncss and purc cvcrythingncss and thus cquatcs itscll
with thc Crcator. Philosophizing is always about somcthing
that stands bclorc us as an immcdiatc and uncontingcnt givcn,
or, to usc a currcnt phrasc, philosophy is always oriented to.ard
something outsidc itscll. And this also dctcrmincs thc morc gcn-
cral and lundamcntal qucstion ol thc relation of philosophy to
life, which ncvcr lcavcs thc cld ol philosophical conscious-
ncss and bccomcs particularly acutc in pcriods ol cxaggcratcd,
onc-sidcd intcllcctualism such as post-Kantian absolutc idcal-
ism or rcccntly in nco-Kantian rationalism.
2
Lilc is morc im-
mcdiatc than, and prior to, any philosophical rccction or scll-
rccction. Lilc is ultimatcly undcnablc, though constantly in
thc proccss ol dcnition; it lls our judgmcnts with contcnt but
is ncvcr cxhaustcd by thcm. !t lls all thc twists and turns ol our
cxistcncc and, morc particularly, ol our thought; it is thc matcr-
nal womb, thc incxhaustiblc sourcc, thc immcasurablc dcpth.
Lilc is simultancously cvcrything and nothing, lor it cannot bc
attributcd to any particular something and thus bc catcgorizcd
and dcncd. !t is outsidc timc and spacc, lor, although it is
cxprcsscd in spatial and tcmporal phcnomcna, it is ncvcr lully
cxhaustcd by thcm and rcmains prior to thcm. !t is not lilc
that cxists in spacc and timc, but spatiality and tcmporality that
arc manilcstations ol lilc. Lilc cannot bc rcduccd to anything
simplcr than itscll, although it procccds lrom thc Sourcc ol lilc,
thc God ol thc living but not ol thc dcad. Philosophical scll-
,o The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
4
o
f
3
5
8
consciousncss incvitably runs up against lilc as its primordial
principlc. Lilc cannot bc dcduccd lrom any rcasons and is in
this scnsc miraculous, it is lrccdom, rcigning ovcr ncccssity. !n
rclation to lilc, all aspccts ol bcing arc but partial dcnitions:
will, thought, instinct, consciousncss, thc subconscious sphcrcs,
cvcn bcing itscll, thc copula is and thc prcdicatc ol cxistcncc
havc mcaning only in rclation to thc csscntial, which is lilc,
supposing its particular manilcstations or statcs as particular
dcnitions. Thcrc is no bcing in abstracto, thcrc is only con-
crctc bcing lor itscll, scll-dctcrmining lilc. And this miraculous
sourcc ol lilc is rccctcd in a myriad ol individual conscious-
ncsscs whilc rctaining its idcntity and unity. Lilc is thc mystcry
ol world bcing, acccssiblc to cxpcricncc but unlathomablc to
thc mind; it is that primordial light in which both conscious-
ncss and dicrcncc arc born. !t is into this shorclcss occan
that philosophy throws its anchor, sccking that point whcrc thc
Archimcdcs triggcr ol a philosophical systcm can bc applicd,
wcighing thc cntirc univcrsc on its scalcs; philosophy incvitably
rcquircs a point ol rclcrcncc outside itscll that is immcdiatcly
givcn and inalicnablc, in ordcr lor thc possibility itscll ol phi-
losophizing not to bc dcstroycd. Crcation lrom nothing is givcn
to man ncithcr in thc cld ol philosophy nor in othcr things.
Thc contcnt ol philosophy dcpcnds to a signicant cxtcnt on
whcrc and how this anchor is thrown, on what imprcsscs or
surpriscs (yaumzei) thc thinkcr, or on thc orientation ol phi-
losophy; so wc could writc thc history ol philosophical systcms
as thc history ol various philosophical oricntations.
Lilc is thc matcrnal womb that givcs birth to all ol its mani-
lcstations: both drcamy nighttimc consciousncss lull ol cndlcss
possibilitics and hopcs, and thc daytimc, waking conscious-
ncss that gcncratcs philosophical and scicntic thoughtboth
Apollo and ionysus. !t is ol lorcmost importancc to kccp in
mind that thought is born ol lilc and that in this scnsc philo-
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
5
o
f
3
5
8
sophical rccction is lilcs own scll-rccction; in othcr words,
thc logical principlc, thc logos ol lilc, originatcs in that con-
crctc and indivisiblc wholc in which what is logically impcnc-
trablc and transccndcnt to thought unitcs indivisibly and yct
discrctcly with thc logical principlc. Lilc, as thc concrctc unity
ol thc logical and thc alogical, rcmains ol coursc supralogi-
cal, cannot by accountcd lor by any logical dcnition, which
would ncccssarily bc conccrncd only with schcmas and bound-
arics rathcr than with its living tcxturc; yct this docs not makc
lilc alogical or logically indicrcnt. Lilc givcs birth to thought,
it thinks and has its own scll-consciousncss, it rcccts on itscll.
Thc logical principlc has boundarics that it cannot cross, but
within thcm it rcigns unchallcngcd. Thc alogical is impcnc-
trablc to thc logical; yct it is itscll constraincd by thc logical.
Thc logical and thc alogical arc conncctcd and intcrdcpcndcnt.
Thus light prcsumcs an cvcr-prcscnt darkncss (ka t fw n t
skot faneiAnd thc light shincth in darkncss, John .:)
and joy cvcr-conqucrcd sadncss (Schclling), whilc thc warmth
ol lovc is gcncratcd by a mutcd amc that has ccascd to scorch
(Jakob 8hmc). nly such a vicw makcs thc possibility ol ap-
prchcnding and knowing bcing intclligiblc, cxplains thc possi-
bility ol philosophy, ol scicncc, cvcn ol simplc common scnsc
and gcncrally ol any kind ol thought that riscs abovc simplc
automatic instinct. Thought is born in lilc and ol lilc; it is a
ncccssary hypostasis ol lilc. For this rcason it is not outsidc
lilc; it is not transccndcnt but immancnt, although not in thc
scnsc ol contcmporary immancntism, which cquatcs bcing with
(logical) consciousncss and thcrclorc puts an cquality sign bc-
twccn thc logical and thc csscntial and which, conscqucntly,
dcnics thc alogical root ol bcing.
8ut thc history ol philosophy has produccd two intcrprcta-
tions ol this dual naturc ol lilc, logical and alogical. nc ol
thcm considcrs thc logical principlc as thc lundamcntal prin-
,8 The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
6
o
f
3
5
8
ciplc ol bcing, pcrcciving bcing as scll-dcvcloping thought,
thinking itscll, gcncrating itscll and turning in on itscll in
a closcd philosophical systcm; this is intellectualism. Thc scc-
ond intcrprctation cmphasizcs thc rcvcrsc sidc ol thc dilcmma
and pronounccs thc priority ol thc alogical ovcr thc logical, ol
instinct ovcr rcason, unconscious ovcr conscious; this is anti-
intellectualism, a-logism takcn to thc cxtrcmc ol anti-logism.
3
!ntcllcctualism rcprcscnts an cxtraordinarily powcrlul cur-
rcnt in contcmporary uropcan philosophy and might cvcn bc
callcd a hcrcditary illncss that rst appcarcd in its lorclathcr
cscartcs with his ultra-intcllcctualist Cogito ergo sum. cspitc
all thc ambiguity and lack ol clarity ol this statcmcnt as it
was dcvclopcd by cscartcs,
4
history has intcrprctcd it in thc
most intcllcctualist scnsc possiblc, that is, that bcing and ulti-
matcly lilc, as wcll as thc individual pcrsonality (sum), rcquirc
a rational basis and can rcccivc it lrom philosophy. Philosophy
is thcn torn lrom its roots and incvitably lalls into a dclusion
ol grandcur, immcrsing itscll in a world ol drcams and shad-
ows, somctimcs grand and lascinating, but ultimatcly lilclcss.
!n othcr words, an cpoch ol drcamy idcalism opcns, lor which
cogitare - essere - .i.erethc Copcrnican prctcnsions ol thc
armchair know-it-all. uropcan philosophy is still in thc throcs
ol this illncss. !n thc coursc ol lurthcr dcvclopmcnt, intcllcc-
tualism has takcn two courscs: absolute idealism, which with
its incvitablc panlogism proclaims thc boundlcss univcrsality
ol thc logical principlc, scll-conscious thought, which achicvcs
its ultimatc cxprcssion in philosophy (according to which phi-
losophy is highcr than lilc, is its goal and product); and critical
rationalism, in which mctaphysical panlogism givcs way to sci-
cntic idcalism, and thc rolc ol world wisdom is assumcd by
lormal schcmas ol scicntic cognition. Thc boldcst rcprcscn-
tativcs ol intcllcctualism in contcmporary mctaphysics arc, ol
coursc, Fichtc in his rst systcm
5
ol Ich-philosophie (dcvclopcd
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
7
o
f
3
5
8
in thc Grundlage der gesammten !issenschaftslehre |Foundations
ol a gcncral thcory ol scicncc| and thc Grundriss der gesammten
!issenschaftslehre |8asics ol thc gcncral thcory ol scicncc|, .y,
and also in two Einleitungen in die !issenschaftslehre |!ntroduc-
tions to thc thcory ol scicncc|, .yy), and particularly Hcgcl,
who rcachcs thc ultimatc cxtrcmc ol intcllcctualism. Hcgcls
gcncral signicancc in this contcxt is wcll known; a spccic cx-
plication ol his systcm lrom this point ol vicw lics outsidc thc
scopc ol thc prcscnt work.
6
Scicntic rationalism, thc othcr lorm ol contcmporary intcl-
lcctualism, is rcprcscntcd by scicntic positivism but also nds
conscious and critical cxprcssion in nco-Kantian idcalism,
with its pancatcgorialism and panmcthodism, and in contcm-
porary mcthodologics ol scicncc or so-callcd scicntic phi-
losophy. This trait is morc or lcss charactcristic ol all nco-
Kantianism in its most inucntial branchcs, but it nds its
most complctc and radical cxprcssion in thc tcachings ol thc
so-callcd Marburg school hcadcd by Cohcn, that Hcgcl ol sci-
cntic rationalism.
7
Hcrc philosophy is opcnly and clcarly ori-
cntcd toward scicncc, and abovc all towards mathcmatics, and
thc conccpts ol spccializcd scicnccs with thcir abstract catc-
gorics arc intcrprctcd as thc singlc, highcr, thoroughly rational
rcality, gcncratcd lrom mconic nothingncss by scicntic rca-
son. Scicncc is thc ntvw n ol rcality, whcrcas philosophy, as a
systcm ol catcgorics, as thc scll-consciousncss ol scicntic rca-
son, is thc ntvw n ol scicncc. Thc alogical is ignorcd, whcrcas
thc irrational is acknowlcdgcd only as a possiblc problcm, as an
e.ige ufgabe |ctcrnal task|, that is, it is mcrcly inscrtcd into
thc systcm ol catcgorics and thus rationalizcd.
Thc truc loundcr ol thc contcmporary philosophy ol intcl-
lcctualism is, ol coursc, Kant. 8oth ol its branchcspan-
logism and pancatcgorialism, Hcgclianism and Cohcnismarc
bound to Kant by inhcritancc. Schopcnhaucr, and Schclling,
c The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
8
o
f
3
5
8
and Fichtc ol thc sccond pcriod havc in onc or anothcr manncr
also bccn conncctcd with him, howcvcr; this shows that Kants
works conccal in thcmsclvcs various possibilitics but in thcm-
sclvcs arc dcvoid ol sucicnt dcnition (thanks to thc lack ol
clarity in thc thcory ol thc rolc ol mpndung |scnsation| in
thc thcory ol knowlcdgc and thc ambiguity ol thc mctaphysical
thcory ol thc Ding an sich |thing in itscll |).
n thc oppositc polc to intcllcctualism is contcmporary anti-
intcllcctualism, which is howcvcr simultancously gcncratcd by
intcllcctualism as a rcaction to it and is thcrclorc incapablc
ol ovcrcoming it. Thc distinguishing charactcristic ol anti-
intcllcctualism is skcpticism conccrning thc indcpcndcncc ol
thc logical principlc. This skcpticism originatcs in thc tcndcncy
to vicw rcason as nothing but a tool ol lilc, guidcd by blind,
alogical, almost antilogical instinct. Rcason acquircs thc status
ol an instrumcnt, valuablc only insolar as it is usclul. Thus
rcason is not only dcprivcd ol thc autonomous sovcrcignty ol
scll-gcncrating thought attributcd to it by intcllcctualism but
is actually sccn as a product, or as a mcans. Fichtc, Schclling,
and Hcgcl all sought to undcrstand thc history ol rcason in its
scll-consciousncss and dcvclopmcnt, but thcir task was lim-
itcd to an analysis only ol thc dcvclopmcnt, not ol thc gcncsis
ol rcason, and thcrclorc has nothing in common with anti-
intcllcctualisms contcmporary cort to cxplain thc vcry ori-
gin ol rcason, lor it acknowlcdgcd thc rights ol rcason and
assumcd it to bc primordially givcn. Anti-intcllcctualism, in
contrast, procccds on thc silcnt, or cvcn hall-consciously ar-
ticulatcd, prcsupposition that reason originated in time, that is,
that thcrc could havc bccn a timc whcn thcrc was no rcason. !n
this casc wc must go larthcr and admit that rcason could havc
not bccn at all, and lilc might havc rcmaincd blind and instinc-
tivc. Vc do not nd this cvcn in Schopcnhaucr, thc philosophcr
ol blind will who comcs closcst to anti-intcllcctualism; cvcn
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
5
9
o
f
3
5
8
lor him, rcason ncccssarily originatcs togcthcr with thc bcgin-
ning ol thc world-historical proccss: thc world as will is ncc-
cssarily also rcprcscntation. Thc irrationalism combincd with
instrumcntalism ol thc cort to rcducc rcason to cvolution-
ary accidcnt (not, ol coursc, in thc scnsc ol lack ol cmpirical
rcasons, but in that ol thc abscncc ol idcal incvitability) un-
qucstionably dcgradcs rcason and qucstions thc vcry possibility
ol cognition, that is, by thc samc tokcn, thc possibility ol its
own scll. This irrationalism sucrs lrom scll-dcstructivc skcp-
ticismthc lot ol cvcry radical skcpticism that advanccs any
sort ol positivc statcmcnt. At prcscnt, thc most dicrcnt think-
crs, with varying dcgrccs ol philosophical consciousncss and lor
dicrcnt philosophical motivcs, rally around thc ag ol anti-
intcllcctualism: arwinists in cpistcmologyincluding, on onc
hand, Fcucrbach, Nictzschc, and Simmcl, and on thc othcr
thc cconomic matcrialists and somc philosophical matcrialists
(hylozoists such as Hckcl); thcn 8crgson and his lollowcrs,
moving thc signicancc ol instinct to thc lorclront; and, nally,
contcmporary pragmatists. For somc this is thc ag ol rcbcllion
against Kant and nco-Kantianism and thc discovcry ol mcta-
physics and rcligion (8crgson and somc ol thc pragmatists);
lor othcrs, prc-Kantians altcr Kant, on thc contrary, this is a
mcans ol shiclding thcmsclvcs lrom any mctaphysics or rcligion
and dccisivcly arming thcmsclvcs in thc zoological calling ol
human apcs, whilc simultancously appropriating thc thronc ol
thc supcrman. Rcason cannot bc dcsccratcd by rcason itscll,
howcvcr, and la raison toujours nira par la raison. Thc lunda-
mcntal and inalicnablc aw ol anti-intcllcctualism striving to
bc philosophy, that is, a logical systcm, is thc impossibility ol
justilying its own cxistcncc and goals by its own principlcs.
8
Hcrc thc classic cxamplc ol a scll-contradictory judgmcnt, lall-
ing into a vicious circlc, incvitably rcpcats itscll: onc Crctan
said that all Crctans wcrc liars, thcrclorc, as a Crctan, hc must
: The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
0
o
f
3
5
8
havc licd, and his own statcmcnt contradicts thc truth; how-
cvcr, in this particular casc it turns out that hc said thc truth and
Crctans arc rcally liars, but thcn hc, too, licd, and so on. Anti-
intcllcctualism justly and powcrlully cmphasizcs thc boundarics
ol intcllcctualist rationalism. Lilc is broadcr and dccpcr than
rational consciousncss, and this consciousncss has its own his-
tory, lor bclow and bchind it lic subliminal, subconscious, or
prc-conscious sphcrcs. Although thc rational-discursivc day-
timc ! is thc sharpcst cxprcssion or symptom ol lilc, it gro.s
out of thc dcpths and has roots in thc darkncss ol thc night-
timc, drcaming !; thc pcrsonality is immcasurably dccpcr and
broadcr than its consciousncss at any givcn momcnt. Lilc in
naturc acquircs consciousncss by a long and roundabout path,
not immcdiatcly. This truth was lclt with grcat immcdiacy by
thc historian ol rcason, Schclling, bclorc any arwinism or
cvolutionism. !l wc limit oursclvcs mcrcly to corrccting thc pcr-
vcrsitics ol prcsumptuous scholastic rationalism, thcn wc still
dont havc anti-intcllcctualism, which consists prcciscly in thc
dcstruction ol thc ncccssary, primordial, and idcal conncction
ol logical and alogical and immcrscs thc light ol rcason in thc
dark clcmcnts ol thc alogical. 8y doing so, it in lact carrics out
a scntcncc on itscll as a philosophical tcaching. nly thc basic
mood ol anti-intcllcctualism, thc rcbcllion against dcadcning
rationalism, is valuablc; but wc cannot livc by rcbcllion alonc
(ostocvsky) cvcn in philosophy, lor hcrc too rcbcllion is that
samc slavcry, but in rcvcrsc, making us thc spiritual prisoncrs ol
rationalism instcad ol ovcrcoming it.
Thus lilc is thc concrctc and indissolublc unity ol thc logi-
cal and thc alogical, and only this proposition makcs thc lact
ol knowlcdgc comprchcnsiblc; in philosophy, in scicncc, and
cvcn in our scll-consciousncss wc nd this samc living synthc-
sis ol logical and alogical. Lilc is not antilogical, is not alicn to
thc logos; logos is thc conncction ol things, ncccssarily having
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
1
o
f
3
5
8
transsubjcctivc
9
or objcctivc mcaningthis axiom is constantly
prcsupposcd by thought and lics at thc loundation ol our logical
scll-consciousncss. 8ut at thc samc timc thought is ncccssarily
ticd to thc alogical principlc and is constantly rccctcd lrom
it (as thc ! in Fichtcs systcm dcpcnds on continuous points
ol non-! lor its cxprcssion); thought has a substratum outsidc
itscll, or, in othcr words, lilc is not cxhaustcd by thought, and
thought is not yct bcing, although all that which cxists can
bc thought. Thc gcncral rclation bctwccn thought (both sci-
cntic and philosophical) and its objcct is charactcrizcd by thc
possibility ol thinking all that cxists, but also by its alogical
naturc. All ol living rcality is idcal-rcal in all ol its dimcnsions;
it is alogical-logical. 8y itscll this synthcsis cvidcntly rcprcscnts
somcthing supralogical, not quitc acccssiblc to thoughta wall
that logical thought cncountcrs as its ultimatc limit. And this
living and mystcrious synthcsis ol two dicrcnt yct not contra-
dictory principlcsthc logical and thc alogicaltakcs placc in
cvcry act ol thought.
Logical thought, abstracted lrom thc concrctc unity ol logical
and alogical, is bascd on thc possibility ol rccction, which rc-
crcatcs rcality as an idcal scrics (or, rathcr, many idcal scrics)
ol logical conccpts, symbols, or schcmas ol living, concrctc
unitics. This construction ol idcal scrics ol rcality, bascd on thc
abstraction ol thc logical principlc and thc symbolic cxprcs-
sion ol concrctc, supralogical rcality through conccptsthis
symbolism ol logic or algcbra ol thought (Couturcs cxprcs-
sion)docs not, in itscll, transccnd thc boundarics ol lilc and
in this scnsc is also a concrctc living act, lrom which thc odor
ol lilc, thc altcrtastc ol psychologism, cannot bc rcmovcd
by any cpistcmological disinlcctant. (!n gcncral thc clcanncss
that attracts contcmporary cpistcmologists, thc distancc lrom
any kind ol psychologism, that is, lrom lilc that is supra-
logical and incxhaustiblc by logical thought, is ol coursc un-
, The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
2
o
f
3
5
8
attainablc, and cvcn thc cort to achicvc it is thc product ol thc
malady ol intcllcctualism, which cquatcs thought and bcing.)
8ut this idcal, purcly logical rccction ol concrctc idcal-rcal
rcality is actually a sort ol cxtraction ol thc logical principlc;
and il wc cxaminc lilc only in thc light ol this principlc, wc
arc convinccd by thc illusion that wc rcally havc undcrstood
lilc in all its dcpth, and, lor this limitcd and contingcnt point
ol vicw, thought rcally is cquivalcnt to bcing. Thc intcllcct is
capablc ol constructing an abstract world, wholly rational and
transparcnt, or intclligiblc, alongsidc thc concrctc world, and
a luminous cdicc is crcctcd on a dark and impcnctrablc loun-
dation. Thc idcal powcr and light ol thc logos is rcvcalcd in its
pcrccption ol itscll as thc bcginning ol bcing.
!dcal rcalitythc construct ol logical thoughtis thor-
oughly logical and rational; it can contain no dark, hiddcn
nooks and crannics; it is cntircly acccssiblc to logical criticism
and subjcct to critical scll-accountability. !n it cvcrything
is conncctcd and continuous (Kontinuitat is thc basic law ol
thought, as Cohcn so vchcmcntly insists), and thcrc is no room
lor hiatuscs or omissions. Such is thc naturc ol thought as it is
rcvcalcd through analysis ol its activity in its idcal cxprcssion,
in thc scicncc ol logic, and in thc analysis ol cognition, that
is, cpistcmology. Thought is scll-sucicnt in its dcvclopmcnt,
in its dialcctics, in its tasks and problcms; it is hcld togcthcr
by a systcm ol catcgorics that, in turn, arc incxtricably bound
to cach othcr, and to this cxtcnt cvcn pancatcgorialism holds
(lor its monstrous lics bcgin only whcrc it imparts ontological
signicancc to its cpistcmological propositions and cxplicatcs
thcm as intcllcctualistic mctaphysics). 8ut wc must ncvcr lor-
gct that thought, bascd on abstraction lrom lilc, is thc product
ol thc rccctivc activity ol rcason, thc scll-rccction ol lilc.
Thought opcratcs through judgmcnts and conccpts that arc
somcthing likc agglutinations ol thought, crystallic lormations
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
3
o
f
3
5
8
that arc thcn substitutcd lor wholc, supralogical lilc. Thcsc
logical symbols and symbols ol symbols, conccpts and catc-
gorics, arc in lact thc columns that support thc suspcndcd, lacy
bridgcs ol scicntic and philosophical thought and on which
thc idcalistic fata morgana stumblcs. vcn so thcy cannot bc
considcrcd to bc hanging in thc air, lor thcir mass grows into
thc ground. Conccpts rcmain symbols or schcmcs ol living
rcality. Thcy arc gi.en by lilc, and thcy in turn set up prob-
lcms lor thought. Contcmporary intcllcctualism has bccomc
too accustomcd to play with postulatcs, obscuring thc givcns
on whosc basis thcy havc bccn sct up. 8ut onc cannot solvc
a problcm without data; this would bc likc trying to solvc an
cquation consisting only ol unknowns.
!t is thc givcns that scrvc as thc point ol dcparturc lor onc
or anothcr mcntal construction and admit ol no prool; thcy
posscss apodictic ccrtainty and arc obligatory lor thought, and
thcy must bc acccptcd as a scll-cvidcnt axiom ccrticd in thc
proccss ol lilc. 8ut, ol coursc, thc act ol rccction itscll, thc
conccntration on onc or anothcr manilcstation ol lilc, is a lrcc
act (as dccply lclt in Fichtcs systcm), an act ol crcation ol lilc.
This arbitrary conccntration on onc or anothcr point or lact
ol lilc is prcciscly what ! call orientation on this lact. For cx-
amplc, so-callcd scicntic philosophy is actually thc philosophy
ol scicncc, oricntcd on thc lact ol scicntic cognition (as is
madc clcar in Cohcns systcm), whcrcas cpistcmology is in thc
samc scnsc thc philosophy ol thought and cognition. Gcncral
philosophy (thc mctaphysics ol bcing) rcccts on bcing (lilc)
as a unity in its most gcncral and abstract dcnition, in its
total continuity and contingcncy (Plotinus, Hcgcl). l coursc,
wc could rcscrvc thc titlc ol philosophy lor only this last typc
ol philosophizing, thus rcmoving all thc othcr, morc particular
thcmcs or motils ol philosophical systcms lrom thc cld. 8ut
this would bc mcrcly a tcrminological distinction. !n its csscncc,
o The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
4
o
f
3
5
8
philosophy rcmains pluralistic, and it has dicrcnt thcmcs and
oricntations. Thought can covcr a morc or lcss widc circlc ol
problcms as it bcgins at a particular point ol dcparturc and
cvcntually rcturns to it. !n thc cnd, thcsc tcstimonics ol lilc arc
thc Empndung |scnsation| that lics as a dcad wcight at thc
bottom ol Kants Erfahrung |cxpcricncc|, thcy arc thc cxtcr-
nal impulsc (auerer nsto) that rcmaincd impcnctrablc lor
Fichtcs idcalistic systcm. This is thc othcrncss ol spirit that
cvcn Hcgcl was compcllcd to introducc into his systcm. Finally,
this is thc m| n (and not ok n) that is by no mcans noth-
ing, but only unccrtainty in Mr. Cohcns tcaching ol reiner Ur-
sprung |purc origins|. Lilc incvitably intrudcs into thc rcalm ol
thc logical, bccomcs immancnt to thc knowing consciousncss,
whilc rcmaining simultancously transccndcnt to it in its con-
crctc, supralogical unity. This is thc Ding an sich that, though
transccndcnt with rcspcct to rational systcms, incvitably pcnc-
tratcs cvcn thc most scll-containcd idcalistic philosophical con-
struction. Lilc is not transccndcnt lor thc living bcing with its
wholc living cxpcricncc, but it is transccndcnt lor its lacultics
ol cognition, rccction, and thought. Lilc is thc Ding an sich in
its immcdiatc mystical dcpths ol phcnomcnal cxpcricncc; this
is how it comcs to thc surlacc ol thought and knowlcdgc, as
loam or rccctions appcar on thc surlacc ol a bottomlcss body
ol watcr.
Thc idca ol thc concrctc synthcsis ol thc alogical and thc
logical in thc supralogical unity ol lilc lics dccp in thc Chris-
tian tcachings ol Gods thrcc hypostascs and ol thc crcation
ol thc world lrom thc carth without lorm, and void through
thc word. !n contcmporary philosophy, this idca is dcvclopcd
with onc or anothcr variation in a scrics ol philosophical sys-
tcms; hcrc wc can includc Schclling, particularly in thc last
pcriod, Schopcnhaucr, Hartmann (who dclcnds this idca with
particular cncrgy both against Hcgclianism and against matcri-
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
5
o
f
3
5
8
alism), \ladimir Solovicv, and Princc S. N. Trubctskoy.
10
il-
lcrcnt thinkcrs havc arrivcd at similar solutions ol thc qucstion
ol thc naturc ol thought, though approaching it lrom various
anglcs.
!!!. Pniiosovnv ~xb Scivxcv
Thought is intrinsically oricntcd rathcr than indcpcndcnt, it
is thought about something, and this somcthing is dctcrmincd
somcwhat arbitrarily, lor rccction is an act ol lrccdom. 8ut,
similarly to thc way in which paths covcring an cntirc sphcrc
may bc drawn through any point on its surlacc, or to thc way in
which an innitc multiplicity ol curvcs or lincs may intcrscct in
a singlc point, so, in principlc, any onc spccic oricntation may
hold thc kcy to a wholc scrics ol philosophical problcms and,
conscqucntly, holds thc possibility lor thcir rcsolution. bvi-
ously, not all oricntations arc in practicc convcnicnt and ac-
ccssiblc lor thc thinking bcing, who in this scnsc is subjcct to
spatial and tcmporal, pcrsonal and historical limitations; hcncc,
practically, wc must spcak not ol all possiblc oricntations but
only ol thc lcw that arc thc most practical and thcrclorc natu-
ral (just as gcomctcrs dcal not with all thcorctically possiblc
gcomctrics but only with thosc that contributc to thc undcr-
standing ol our thrcc-dimcnsional spacc, that is, mostly with
uclidcan gcomctry). Thcrc arc not sct boundarics hcrc, how-
cvcr, owing to thc unity and conncctcdncss ol lilc and thc law
ol continuity ol thought: cvcrything is in cvcrything clsc and
cvcrything can bc lound in cvcrything clsc. 8ut, prcciscly lor
this rcason, thcrc can bc no singlc, royal path lor thought;
rathcr, givcn a multiplicity ol initial oricntations, wc must also
acknowlcdgc a multiplicity ol paths lor thought and thcrclorc
thc objcctivc signicancc ol various constructions. !n othcr
words, thcrc can bc no singlc total philosophical systcm likc that
8 The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
6
o
f
3
5
8
in which Hcgcl and thc idcalists bclicvcd, conlusing abstract-
ncss with gcncral applicability and taking thc most abstract
systcm lor thc most univcrsal.
11
To pcrccivc a rcality in which
e.erything is rational and incvitablc and thcrc arc no accidcnts,
to nd cvcrything in cvcrything clsc in a singlc unicd wholc,
immcdiatcly to apprchcnd thc cntirc dialcctic ol world bcing
this mcans to look on thc world with Gods cyc, to transccnd
discursivc thought, to stcp outsidc ol timc. This would rcally
bc that concrctc idcalism, that thinking ol rcality, to which
Hcgcl prctcndcd, whcrcas discursivc thought is capablc ol nd-
ing cvcrything in cvcrything clsc only by moving lrom onc
thing to anothcr, procccding lrom thc particular to thc par-
ticular and nding thc gcncral only in thc proccss ol transi-
tion. For this rcason, discursivc thought, that is, philosophy,
and to an cvcn grcatcr cxtcnt scicncc, is pluralistic by nature,
thc singlc truth is thc Ding an sich, transccndcnt lor cognition
as a givcn but immancnt as a goal, as thc idcal ol cognition
(Kants idca). Thcrclorc philosophical systcms can justiably
dicr among thcmsclvcs dcpcnding on thcir initial oricntation
or, in othcr words, onc can construct dicrcnt scicntic and
philosophical systcms by procccding lrom dicrcnt points ol
oricntation to arrivc at cqually valid asscssmcnts ol a particu-
lar objcct; this is analogous to mcasuring thc samc mountain
lrom dicrcnt sidcs and standpoints in dicrcnt light and still
arriving at uncontradictory projcctions ol thc samc objcct. il-
lcrcnt points ol vicw can, to a point, cocxist pcacclully, whilc
thc mutually contradictory oncs climinatc cach othcr. (This
thought lorms thc basis ol thc history ol philosophy lor Hcgcl
and his succcssors, including S. N. Trubctskoy.)
!t is dicult to rclrain lrom comparing philosophical crc-
ativity to art, lor a philosophical systcm is also a typc ol artistic
crcation, a poctry ol conccpts; it contains inncr ncccssity and
logical ordcr, as a work ol art contains a ncccssary consistcncy
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
7
o
f
3
5
8
and harmony in thc rclation ol parts to thc wholc, scll-cvidcnt
to artistic rcason il logically unprovablc. Yct thc planning ol
thc composition givcs lrcc rcin to crcativc lrccdom, and thc ini-
tial oricntation rcquircs artistic tact: hcrc philosophical-artistic
talcnt dcmonstratcs itscll most.
Thc point ol vicw advanccd hcrc, lollowing ncccssarily lrom
our gcncral undcrstanding ol thc rclation ol philosophy and lilc,
has nothing in common with skcpticism, which undcrmincs
any possibility ol objcctivc cognition; it is, rathcr, acsthctic rcla-
tivism in philosophy, acknowlcdging in principlc thc possibility
ol a plurality ol philosophical paths and translorming philoso-
phy into philosophics, as wcll as scicncc into scicnccs. Thc
progrcss ol philosophy and scicncc, thcn, dcpcnds not on unity
ol dircction (which wc dccidcdly do not obscrvc in thc his-
tory ol idcas) but on thc unity ol thc lunctions ol thought and
cognition, as thc scll-rccction ol lilc, singlc and continuous.
! prcsumc that laith in absolutc systcms has bccn undcrmincd
lorcvcrby thc crazy prctcnsions ol Hcgcls absolutc idcalism,
by thc corts ol rcccnt criticism with its rcncd and corrupting
rclativism, and, nally, by thc progrcss ol scicntic knowlcdgc
in its multiplicity and complcxity. Thc nccd lor a systcm, lor
architcctonics lics too dccp in rcason lor us to lrcc oursclvcs ol
it; not only cvcry philosophical doctrinc but also scicncc strivcs
to build itscll into a closcd systcm ol conccpts and to conncct
cnds with bcginnings. !n constructing such a systcm, howcvcr,
thc contcmporary thinkcr (il hc docs not lall into dclusions
ol grandcur or naivc dogmatism) docs not claim to prcscnt a
singlc, absolutc philosophy. !n this lact thc wcll-bcing ol con-
tcmporary individualism nds satislaction, as it sccks to cxprcss
itscll in thc individualization ol philosophical crcativity. Thc
mcaning ol thc history ol philosophy, too, is dctcrmincd ac-
cording to this undcrstanding ol thc naturc ol philosophy. Thc
history ol philosophy bccomcs not only thc history ol thc dis-
oc The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
8
o
f
3
5
8
covcry ol idcas ol thc absolutc, as Hcgcl justly saw it,
12
but
also a survcy ol thc various moti.es ol philosophical crcativity
or, what is thc samc, its various initial oricntations. !n any casc
! supposc that thcsc dcnitions, in practicc, coincidc, lor thc
discovcry ol ncw idcas ol thc absolutc comcs about thanks to
thc discovcry ol ncw ways ol thinking about it. Thc absolutc
is ol coursc uniquc, although it appcars many-lacctcd lor thosc
who approach it by dicrcnt paths. Thc abovc, in principlc,
also justics thc task ol thc prcscnt invcstigation. Thc proposcd
undcrstanding ol philosophy rcmovcs thc objcctions to an cort
to construct a philosophical systcm oricntcd on cconomy as a
lact ol lilc. This task, ol coursc, cannot bc undcrstood in thc
absolutistic spirit ol thc claims, inhcritcd lrom thc nlightcn-
mcnt and Hcgcl, ol absolutc idcalism or cconomic matcrialism;
thc philosophy ol cconomy docs not aspirc to bc an absolutc
systcm, containing in itscll all philosophical truth in purc lorm,
posscssing thc kcy to opcn all locks. My positcd problcm prc-
tcnds to lcss: ! wish to say only that wc can approach a gcncral
philosophy ol lilc by procccding also lrom this aspcct ol lilc,
and thcrclorc pcrccivc somc hithcrto uncxplorcd aspccts, that
is, that a philosophical systcm can also bc constructcd as a phi-
losophy ol cconomy. Thcrc can bc as littlc objcction to a phi-
losophy ol cconomy as to a scicncc ol cconomy, at lcast unlcss
wc lall into skcpticism with rcgard to knowlcdgc gcncrally.
8ut whcrc, thcn, docs thc dividing linc bctwccn philosophy
and scicncc lic. Vhat distinguishcs onc lrom thc othcr. First
ol all, it is clcar that it cannot bc thc objcct ol invcstigation,
lor both havc a singlc objcct, which is lilc in its scll-rccction
and, morcovcr, only thc aspccts ol lilc that can bc studicd both
by scicntic invcstigation and philosophical analysis. Thc dis-
tinction bctwccn philosophy and scicncc lics not in thcir objcct
but in thcir cognitivc oricntation, thc mcthods by which thcy,
rcspcctivcly, approach thc objcct. Thcy also pcrccivc thc objcct
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy oz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
6
9
o
f
3
5
8
dicrcntly and ask dicrcnt qucstions about it. Scicncc is spc-
cializcd by naturc. Scicntic study procccds by isolating its ob-
jcct; it is intcntionally onc-sidcd. Scicncc cuts littlc picccs out
ol rcality and studics thcm as il thcy wcrc, in lact, all ol rcality.
Scicncc lragmcnts lilc, dividcs up rcality into scparatc parts that
it thcn procccds to put togcthcr again in a ncw mcchanism;
in its thcorics, scicncc givcs us thc schcma ol this constructcd
mcchanism. Vhat is adjaccnt to or outsidc thc boundarics ol
thc givcn scicncc is cithcr a mattcr ol absolutc indicrcncc to
it or cxists only insolar as it intrudcs into its spccic invcstiga-
tions.
13
!n contrast, philosophy is littlc inclincd toward thc dc-
tail that distinguishcs scicncc. Philosophy is intcrcstcd in that
which is ol lcast conccrn to scicnccthc conncction ol givcn
phcnomcna with thc gcncral, thc placc thcy occupy with rc-
spcct to lilc as a wholc. !t cxamincs thc world and its various
aspccts as a wholc and in thc light ol thc construction ol this
wholc. Vc might, pcrhaps, say that philosophy sccks thc cxpla-
nation ol thc living mcaning ol phcnomcna studicd by scicncc
in thcir individuality. This is why adjaccnt clds ol inquiry arc
outsidc thc rcach ol scicncc: its tacit assumptions arc prcciscly
thc propcr task ol philosophy. Thus political cconomy and thc
philosophy ol cconomy, lor cxamplc, both study thc cconomic
proccss, but onc cngagcs in dctailcd analysis, whcrcas thc othcr
looks lor its gcncral mcaning. Thc rst asks, .hat, thc sccond
asks, ho.
Philosophical rccction is always dircctcd toward thc wholc
ol lilc, whcrcas scicntic rccction looks at scparatc parts ol
it. For this rcason, it turns out that philosophical conccpts, al-
though largcr in scopc than scicntic conccpts, arc incvitably
poorcr in contcnt; thcy arc morc gcncral and abstract, lor thcy
scrvc as cognitivc instrumcnts in thc rcsolution ol problcms
broadcr than scicntic oncs. Vc can thcrclorc dcnc philoso-
phy as a thcory ol lilc as a wholc in its most gcncral dcnition
o: The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
0
o
f
3
5
8
(actually, S. N. Trubctskoys dcnition ol mctaphysics as a sci-
cncc ol bcing approachcs this undcrstanding).
14
!n lact, thc
tcrminological qucstion ol whcthcr wc must call philosophy sci-
cncc, or whcthcr this titlc should bclong to spccializcd scicnccs
alonc, is rcally ol sccondary importancc. l coursc, lormally
spcaking, wc could call philosophy scicncc, insolar as it is, likc
scicncc, a mcthodically constructcd systcm ol conccpts, but thc
dicrcncc bctwccn thc cognitivc intcrcsts ol philosophy and
scicncc would rcmain unmarkcd il wc wcrc to adopt this tcr-
minological idcntity ol thc two. Thcrclorc ! lccl that, instcad
ol cquating philosophy and scicncc, wc should scc thcm as two
dicrcnt dircctions ol our thought and cognition.
!\. Cvi:icis: ~xb oc:~:is:
At thc prcscnt timc it is impossiblc to spcak about philosophi-
cal qucstions without paying at lcast minimal tributc to thc
thcory ol cognition and without kowtowing bclorc thc Chi-
ncsc dragon ol criticism that currcntly cmbcllishcs thc portals
ol thc philosophical acadcmy. Criticism or dogmatism. That
is thc qucstion. !n my opinionncithcr onc nor thc othcr.
First ol all, truc philosophical criticism and criticism arc not
only not idcntical but dicr lrom cach othcr in varying dcgrccs.
Criticism can, and docs, in contcmporary scholasticism, sul-
lcr lrom dogmatism no lcss than thc dogmatics ol timcs past,
and among thc criticists who considcr thcmsclvcs critical phi-
losophcrs thcrc arc, as always, lcw who rcally dcscrvc thc titlc.
Thc most ambitious and inucntial criticistic constructions ol
our timc (thosc ol thc so-callcd Frciburg and Marburg schools:
Vindclbands and Rickcrts tclcological idcalism and Cohcns
and Natorps logic ol purc cognition) sucr lrom thc unabashcd
dogmatism ol thcir lundamcntal propositions: in onc, thc lrag-
ilc and unstablc apparatus ol contcmporary scicntic thought
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
1
o
f
3
5
8
is automatically acccptcd as thc absolutc loundation ol philoso-
phy; in thc othcr, ccrtain pattcrns ol cognition arc mistakcnly
thought to bc absolutc, and translormcd by a scrics ol sophis-
tical rcasoning into an cthcrcal objcct ol cognition. And yct
cach ol thcsc schools considcrs itscll to bc thc truc hcir ol
Kantian criticism. l coursc, cohcrcncc and scll-accountability,
strict logic and conccptual clarity, in othcr words, critical scll-
control arc dcsirablc lor all, and who would rclusc to bc a criti-
cal philosophcr in this scnsc!in lact wc all likc to considcr
oursclvcs as such.
15
All crcativc philosophical minds havc un-
doubtcdly bccn truly critical philosophcrs, lor thcy claricd onc
or anothcr qucstion and introduccd ncw problcms; it would bc
naivc to think that thcrc was no philosophical criticism bclorc
Kant. Actually, this assumption bcars no rclation to historical
lact. At thc samc timc, thcrc is no particular invcntors sccrct
that holds thc kcy to all philosophical criticism. Contcmporary
criticism is mcrcly a scholastic oricntation bascd on a tcrribly
cxaggcratcd cvaluation ol Kant and his (supposcd) Copcrni-
can philosophical achicvcmcnt. Vc can scc thc philosophical
illncss ol modcrnity in nco-Kantian criticism, that alchcmy ol
cognition
16
ol our day; pcrhaps it rcprcscnts thc twilight ol
philosophy.
Thc contcmporary argumcnt bctwccn dogmatism and criti-
cism can bc rcduccd to thc qucstion ol cstablishing normal
rclations bctwccn thc practicc ol lilc in its immediacy, its im-
mcrsion in thc objcct ol knowlcdgc,
17
with its concomitant in-
distinguishability ol subjcct and objcct, or lorm and contcnt,
a priori and a postcriori, on onc hand, and, on thc othcr, criti-
cism, which cxprcsscs reection with rcspcct to thc givcn act ol
knowlcdgc and is alrcady a sccondary potcntial, to usc Fichtcs
cxprcssion.
18
Thc critical invcstigation ol knowlcdgc is always a
sccond story crcctcd on a givcn loundation; it is rccction with
rcspcct to a lact ol knowlcdgc that has alrcady takcn placc.
o, The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
2
o
f
3
5
8
As Fichtc says about his !issenschaftslehre |Thcory ol scicncc|,
and as can bc applicd to all Erkenntnisslehre |thcorics ol cog-
nition|, not onc ol its thoughts, statcmcnts, or dcclarations is
takcn lrom rcal lilc, nor docs it corrcspond to rcal lilc. Thcsc
arc propcrly thoughts about thoughts which onc has or ought
to havc, statcmcnts about statcmcnts . . . , dcclarations about
dcclarations.
19
vcry act ol knowlcdgc, as an act ol lilc, is in
this scnsc ncccssarily dogmatic, that is, distinguishcd by its im-
mcdiacy, scll-absorption, and unrccctivc scll-sucicncy. Such
also was, ol coursc, thc Critique of Pure Feason as it was con-
ccivcd in thc mind ol its author, bclorc, as a rcady product, it
bccamc a touchstonc on which thc critical micc could sharpcn
thcir tccth. Thought and knowlcdgc arc crcativc acts, and crc-
ativity is immcdiatc: crcativc notions and idcas arc conccivcd
in thc consciousncss, not labricatcd in a critical laboratory likc
a homunculc. So thcrc can bc no critical guidclincs that would
rcally tcach us how to wicld thc instrumcnts ol knowlcdgc,
lor criticism arrivcs only post lactum and is a rccction on an
alrcady complctcd act ol cognition. For this rcason it is im-
possiblc to lcarn criticism, and prolcssional criticism is an
cmpty prctcnsion. Thought and knowlcdgc cannot bc bascd on
or justicd by criticism, lor thcy thcmsclvcs arc lacts, cxisting
bclorc any criticism and indcpcndcnt ol it. Criticism cngagcs
in thc analysis and dcscription ol givcns ol knowlcdgc, but it
is not its lcgislator. Hcrc it is appropriatc to rcmcmbcr Hcgcls
words, born ol thc immcdiacy ol philosophical powcr, ol thc
vcry dcpth ol thoughts scll-consciousncss.
Critical philosophys main point is that, bclorc
procccding to knowlcdgc ol God, thc csscncc ol
things and so on, wc must rst invcstigatc thc pos-
sibility of cognition and whcthcr it is applicablc to
such tasks; rst wc must study thc instrument wc
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
3
o
f
3
5
8
intcnd to usc to accomplish our task; il it is no
good, all ol our labor will havc bccn in vain. This
thought sccmcd so plausiblc that it provokcd much
surprisc and sympathy, and divcrtcd thc attcntion
ol cognition lrom objccts to its own scll, i.c., to
lormal principlcs. !l, howcvcr, wc arc not dcccivcd
by words, wc can scc that othcr instrumcnts can bc
invcstigatcd and cvaluatcd only upon thcir pcrlor-
mancc ol thc task lor which thcy arc intcndcd. 8ut
thc invcstigation ol knowlcdgc cannot bc undcr-
takcn othcrwisc that through cognition itscll; to in-
vcstigatc such a tool mcans nothing othcr than
to cngagc in cognition. 8ut to wish to know bc-
lorc knowlcdgc is just as ridiculous [ungereimtJ as
thc scholastics wisc rulcto lcarn to swim bclorc
jumping in thc watcr.
20
Thcrc is no movcmcnt, said thc bcardcd cldcr,
Thc othcr was silcnt and bcgan to walk bclorc him . . .
lexander Pushkin
Criticism, which would likc to bc logical and to lcavc noth-
ing without critical rccction, movcs in a circlc and rcscmblcs a
snakc trying to catch its own tail. For as it critically invcstigatcs
immcdiatc, dogmatic, unrccctivc knowlcdgcknowlcdgc,
so to spcak, ol thc rst potcntialit promotcs this knowlcdgc
to thc sccond potcntial and rccrcatcs thc samc rst potcntial
in a ncw cognitivc actthat is, it knows immcdiatcly, unrc-
cctivcly, immcrsing itscll in thc objcct ol its knowlcdgc. To
put it in contcmporary languagc, it commits thc mortal sin ol
psychologism, and thcrclorc a criticism ol criticism bccomcs
ncccssary, that is, knowlcdgc ol a third potcntial, which in turn
rcquircs knowlcdgc ol a lourth, lth, . . . n, n . . . . potcn-
tial. !n othcr words, wc havc hcrc a regressus in innitum
21
cvil
oo The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
4
o
f
3
5
8
innity prcciscly whcrc wc nccd a nitc quantity, all ol which
shows thc lalscncss ol thc problcm itscll.
Knowlcdgc is rational by naturc; it is, or at lcast strivcs to
bccomc, an organism ol conccpts and judgmcnts. !n rclation
to thc alogical-logical lullncss ol lilc it is abstract and mcdi-
atcd, but, at thc samc timc, as living action, it is immcdiatc and
dogmatic, and this living dogmatism ol knowlcdgc cannot bc
dissolvcd by any criticism. n thc contrary, wc must admit that
it is this dogmatism that makcs criticism possiblc and is tac-
itly acknowlcdgcd by criticism. Conscqucntly, dogmatism and
criticism arc conncctcd and intcrrclatcd, not opposcd and hos-
tilc to cach othcr. Thc practicc ol knowlcdgc, which originatcs
in thc dcpths ol lilc, is immcdiatc, naivc, dogmatic; knowlcdgc
rcccting on itscll, chccking itscll, tcsting itscll, is critical.
This is how ! pcrccivc thc problcm ol thc critiquc ol knowl-
cdgc.
Thc abovc in no way dcnics thc problcms ol thc thcory ol
knowlcdgc, nor docs it diminish its importancc as a scicntic
or philosophical disciplinc; rathcr, ! wish only to rclutc its sig-
nicancc as a lcgislator ol knowlcdgc and thc assumption that a
thcory ol knowlcdgc must prcccdc knowlcdgc itscll. Two typcs
ol problcm rcmain lor thc thcory ol cognition: thc scicntic
and thc philosophical or, il you will, thc mctaphysical. Thc sci-
cntic task rcduccs to an analysis ol knowlcdgc lrom thc stand-
point ol its gcncral lorms, or a critiquc ol knowlcdgc in thc
propcr scnsc. Thc philosophical task consists in thc cxplanation
ol thc lact ol knowlcdgc, thc cxplication ol its lilc mcaning.
!n thc Critique of Pure Feason, as in thc contcmporary thcory
ol cognition, thcsc two tasks arc lrcqucntly conluscd or insul-
cicntly distinguishcd dcspitc thcir dicrcnccs, and this conlu-
sion is intcntional, lor it is in kccping with thc spirit ol Kants
cntirc systcm. Thc philosophy ol knowlcdgc gcncrally and thc
philosophy ol scicncc in particular arc ncccssary and important
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy o,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
5
o
f
3
5
8
divisions ol philosophy, although thcy may havc a vcry dicr-
cnt signicancc lrom that now attributcd to thcm by scicntic
philosophy.
\. A Pvvii:ix~vv vvixi:iox ov coxo:v
!n thc currcnt cmpirical world, lilc livcs only in a constant
strugglc with dcath. Thc organic world, thc kingdom ol lilc
in its various lorms, is surroundcd by a hostilc atmosphcrc ol
dcath, ol thc dcadcncd and mcchanistic, ol stiing ncccssity.
Undcr thc hcavy shroud ol graying skics, undcr this lcadcn
sky, on a poisoncd, plaguc-riddcn carth, lilc sccms a sort ol
accidcnt, an ovcrsight or indulgcncc ol thc part ol dcath. n-
circlcd by a ring ol dcath, constantly thrcatcncd by thc yawning
abyss ol nonbcing, lilc timidly and stingily huddlcs in thc cor-
ncrs ol thc univcrsc, saving itscll lrom nal cxtcrmination only
through a tcrriblc strugglc. For il it cannot bc complctcly cx-
tcrminatcd, lilc is constantly in thc proccss ol bcing dcstroycd
as it bccomcs thc prcy ol nonbcing, waiting to strikc lrom all
sidcs and in all guiscs. Lilc is not scparatcd lrom nonbcing by
an impcnctrablc wall that would makc thcsc attcmpts lutilc. !t
is impcrlcct in itscll, lor it is lragilc, tcmporary, mortal.
Thc cocxistcncc ol lilc with dcath, thc living with thc non-
living, thc matcrial, is onc ol rcalitys grcatcst paradoxcs and an
ctcrnal riddlc lor thc mind. Thcrc is only lilc, and all that cxists,
cxists only in thc light ol lilc. Things, so-callcd dcad naturc,
that is, cvcrything in which thc signs ol lilc arc apparcntly
abscnt, arc only a minus ol lilc, its ncgativc coccicnt, but out-
sidc ol this dcnition, which, though ncgativc, is cxprcsscd in
tcrms ol lilc, things turn into phantoms and disappcar. Thcy
arc visiblc only in thc light ol lilc, as objccts cmcrgc lrom thc
mconic darkncss ol nonbcing (potcntial bcing) whcn thc sun
riscs and disappcar again into nonbcing in thc dark ol night.
o8 The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
6
o
f
3
5
8
vcn dcath cxists only thanks to lilc and in its light; dcath is
nonlife, lor it is dcncd only as thc ncgation ol lilc; it is but
thc shadow ol lilc, and outsidc ol lilc it is nothing, it docs
not cxistGod madc not dcath (Visd. ol Sol. .:.), it docs
not havc an indcpcndcnt strcngth ol bcing. Vc cannot say that
thc absolutc nothing (ok n, in contrast to thc positivc il in-
dcnitc m| n) is; it drags along its contingcnt cxistcncc as a
shadow ol bcing, or its mirror imagc, rcquiring somc kind ol
truc bcing lor its phantom cxistcncc. Still, thc strugglc bctwccn
lilc and dcath, light and darkncss, thc living and thc thing-
likc, pcnctratcs our cntirc lilc, rcndcring it impcrlcct, limitcd,
nonabsolutc.
!l thc strugglc ol lilc and dcath is so irrcsolvablc on thc sur-
lacc ol world bcing, thcn this is only bccausc this strugglc takcs
placc also insidc bcing, in thc vcry hcart ol thc world, which is
capablc ol supporting only mortal life, that is, lilc that, although
absolutc and cxtratcmporal in its mctaphysical charactcr, yct,
in lull contradiction to its csscncc, is not absolutc in its lac-
tual cxistcncc. Mctaphysically, thc dcath ol thc living is not
only unnatural but scll-contradictory, and hcncc logically in-
conccivablc; wc cannot think through this conccpt bccausc ol
its inncr inconsistcncy, and yct cmpirically this has bccomc thc
most gcncral and prolound lawol cxistcncc. This paradox holds
a riddlc lor thought. Vc havc bccomc so accustomcd to dcath,
to thc vcry idca ol mortal lilc, that wc arc no longcr amazcd
by this contradiction, which is howcvcr much dccpcr and morc
radical than in such juxtapositions as, lor cxamplc, hot icc, cold
hcat, black whitcncss.
Noncthclcss, howcvcr wc may cxplain it, at prcscnt only mor-
tal lilc cxists in thc world, and this is so widcsprcad that dcath
has bccomc an attributc and sign ol lilclor only thc living can
dic. Conscqucntly, lilc is armcd in thc kingdom ol dcath that
surrounds it on all sidcs and pcnctratcs into all ol its porcs. Lilc
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy o,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
7
o
f
3
5
8
can thcrclorc bc only an unccasing strugglc with dcath; it is
achicvcd not passivcly but in thc constant tcnsion ol battlc. Thc
strugglc lor lilc against thc powcrs ol dcathin an ontologi-
cal as wcll as a biological scnscis thc most gcncral dcnition
ol cxistcncc. cath constrains lilc to thc point ol mutual scll-
dcstruction: thc arwinian strugglc lor survival! cath uscs
thc lilc ol somc as a tool lor thc dcath ol othcrs; thc victory
ol lilc in onc point actually bccomcs thc victory ol dcath in
anothcr.
Vc cxpcricncc thc strugglc lor lilc as imprisonmcnt by nc-
ccssity, by thc dcadcncd mcchanism ol naturc, by thc cmpty
and bustling clcmcnts ol thc world, all ol which thrcatcn onc
thing: dcath. Cold and hcat, log, rain, drought, a hurricanc,
a rivcr, an occanall arc hostilc, and all thrcatcn lilc. 8lind
ncccssity, unintclligiblc raging clcmcnts, dcadcncd mcchanism,
iron latcthcsc arc all guiscs in which thc spirit ol nonbcing,
thc princc ol this world, cath, appcars.
Thc dcad mask ol thingncss, alicnation, impcnctrability lor
man lics upon naturc, and only thc choscn sccrs know that, in
rcality,
Naturc is not what you think,
Not an cmpty, soullcss lacc,
!t has a soul, it has lrccdom,
!t has lovc, it has a languagc.
Fedor Tiutche.
8ut cvcn thcy rcccivc this rcvclation only in momcnts ol
poctic inspiration; cvcn lor thcm, thc samc world ol things,
a dcad dcscrt undcr a lcadcn sky, whcrc dcath and dcstruc-
tion wait on cvcry stcp, cxists in cvcryday rcality. Thc living
bcing lccls itscll thc slavc ol ncccssity and mcchanism. Lilc,
in contrast to thc iron ncccssity ol mcchanism, is thc prin-
ciplc ol lrccdom and organicism, that is, lrcc intcntionality.
,c The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
8
o
f
3
5
8
Thc strugglc ol thc tclcological with thc mcchanical principlc,
ol thc organism with thc mcchanism, is thc strugglc ol lilc
and dcath. Thc organism conqucrs thc mcchanism, although
without climinating it as causality. Thc law ol thc organism
is Schcllings causality through lrccdom (Kausalitat durch die
Freiheit), or ascism. Vc can say that thc cntirc world-historical
proccss procccds lrom thc contradiction bctwccn mcchanism,
or thingncss, and organism, or lilc, and lrom naturcs cort
to transccnd mcchanismthc principlc ol ncccssitywithin
itscll in ordcr to translorm itscll into an organismthc prin-
ciplc ol cosmic lrccdom, thc victory ol lilc, or pan.oism.
Thc immcdiatc cxprcssion ol this subjugation ol bcing to
thc princc ol darkncss, to thc spirit ol dcath and nonbcing, is
mans latclul dcpcndcncc on thc satislaction ol his lowcr, ani-
mal, so-callcd matcrial nccds, without which lilc cannot cxist.
Thc strugglc lor lilc is thcrclorc rst ol all thc strugglc lor lood,
and in this man rcscmblcs all thc rcst ol thc animal world. !nso-
lar as this rcscmblancc cxists, thc cntirc human cconomy can bc
sccn as a particular casc ol thc biological strugglc lor cxistcncc.
Thus cvcry living bcing, including man, must dclcnd its
cxistcncc, protcct lilc lrom dcath. 8ut this dclcnsivc rclation
docs not cxhaust thc strugglc lor lilc, lor it scizcs thc rst
possiblc opportunity to bccomc an ocnsivc battlc, striving to
conrm and broadcn lilc, to tamc thc antagonistic clcmcnts ol
naturc and to subjugatc naturcs lorccs to its aims. Thc tcrrito-
rics ol lrccdom and ncccssity arc in constant ux with rcspcct
to cach othcr; lilclrccdomsccks to cxpand its acquisitions
and to surround itscll with a sphcrc ol cvcr-incrcasing radius.
This strugglc to broadcn thc sphcrc ol lilc and lrccdom at thc
cxpcnsc ol ncccssity, in which lilc translorms thc conqucrcd
picccs ol mcchanism into parts ol its organism and mclts thc
cold mctal ol thingncss in thc rc ol lilc, can takc various lorms;
it can procccd with primitivc instrumcnts or with all thc tools
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
7
9
o
f
3
5
8
ol knowlcdgc, but its contcnt rcmains thc samc: thc dclcnsc ol
lilc and thc broadcning ol its sphcrc, thc transccnsion ol thc
dcad mcchanism through thc lorccs ol lilc, in othcr words
thc crcation ol lilc. Thc two aspccts ol this activitythc dc-
lcnsivc and thc ocnsivc, thc protcction and thc broadcning ol
lilcarc incxtricably conncctcd, arc but dicrcnt sidcs ol thc
samc proccss. Howcvcr succcsslul this strugglc may bc, it still
cannot bc stoppcd at will; it is lorccd rathcr than voluntary.
Thc strugglc against thc antagonistic lorccs ol naturc lor
thc purposc ol dclcnding, arming, and broadcning lilc, with
thc aim ol conqucring and taming thcsc lorccs, bccoming thcir
master, or proprietor, is in lact whatin thc broadcst and most
prcliminary lashionwc call economy. conomy in this scnsc is
charactcristic ol all living things, ol thc animal as wcll as thc
human world: Vhy cant wc spcak ol thc cconomy ol bccs or
ants, or ol thc cconomic mcaning and contcnt ol thc animal
strugglc lor cxistcncc. Yct in thc prccisc scnsc ol thc word, cco-
nomic activity is charactcristic only ol man, and it includcs, as
particular and subordinatc clcmcnts, aspccts ol thc cconomy ol
thc animal world. Thc traits distinguishing human lrom animal
cconomy will bc claricd at a latcr point.
Thus cconomy is thc strugglc ol humanity with thc clcmcn-
tal lorccs ol naturc with thc aim ol protccting and widcning
lilc, conqucring and humanizing naturc, translorming it into a
potcntial human organism. Thc cconomic proccss can thcrclorc
bc dcscribcd also as lollows: it cxprcsscs thc striving to trans-
lorm dcad matcrial, acting in accordancc with mcchanical nc-
ccssity, into a living body with its organic cohcrcncc; in thc cnd,
thc aim ol this proccss can bc dcncd as thc translormation ol
thc cntirc cosmic mcchanism into a potcntial or actual organ-
ism, thc transccnsion ol ncccssity through lrccdom, mcchanism
through organism, causality through intcntionalitythat is, as
thc humani.ation of nature. Thc task ol cconomy is dctcrmincd
,: The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
0
o
f
3
5
8
prcciscly by this disintcgration ol bcing, thc contradiction and
mutual limitation ol lrccdom and ncccssity, lilc and dcath: il
absolutc, immortal lilc rcigncd in thc world (and, conscqucntly,
thc univcrsc wcrc a univcrsal organism), il thcrc wcrc no room
in thc world lor mcchanism with thc thrcat ol dcath, thcn thc
only lorm ol causality would bc causality through lrccdom or
tclcology; likcwisc, il lilc wcrc complctcly dcstroycd, and thc
kingdom ol dcad mcchanism kncw no bounds, thc world would
nd itscll in thc dark night ol nonbcing, lacking thc illumi-
nation ol lilc and lrccdom. Thc actual statc ol bcing is an
unnishcd, transitional stagc, a prccarious balancc, which sccks
to acquirc stability in thc vcry proccss ol strugglc. conomy is
thc cxprcssion ol thc strugglc ol thcsc two mctaphysical prin-
ciplcslilc and dcath, lrccdom and ncccssity, mcchanism and
organism. Thc progrcss ol cconomy is thc victory ol thc orga-
nizing lorccs ol lilc ovcr thc disintcgrating lorccs and dccds ol
dcath, but is it rcally a victory ovcr its mctaphysical csscncc.
conomy is thc strugglc with thc mortal lorccs ol thc princc ol
darkncss, but is it capablc ol standing up to thc princc himscll.
!s cconomy capablc ol chasing dcath lrom thc world and, by
conqucring dcath, to transccnd its own condition. r, instcad,
is it impossiblc to curc thc illncss ol thc hcart ol thc world, poi-
soncd by dcath, through cconomic activity. !s a ncw crcativc
act ol thc ivinity, through thc lorcc ol Him who conqucrcd
dcath rcquircd to dcstroy thc nal cncmydcath. This nal
qucstion wc posc hcrc simply as a logical boundary; its discus-
sion bclongs to thc cschatology ol cconomy (in thc sccond part
ol this work).
8ut il cconomy is a lorm ol thc strugglc ol lilc and dcath,
and is a tool ol lilcs scll-armation, thcn wc say with as much
ccrtainty that economy is a function of death, induccd by thc nc-
ccssity to dclcnd lilc. !n its most basic motivation it is unlrcc
activity, lor this motivation is thc lcar ol dcath, charactcris-
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
1
o
f
3
5
8
tic ol all living things. Howcvcr lar man gocs in his cconomic
progrcss, hc rcmains a slavc, subjcct to dcath, cvcn as hc bc-
comcs a mastcr.
!n dcning cconomy as thc actual dclcnsivc-ocnsivc rcla-
tion ol man to naturc, wc cxpand its boundarics, apparcntly
larthcr than acccptcd in political cconomy, which is limitcd by
thc aims and possibilitics ol spccializcd invcstigation.
22
Thc charactcristic distinguishing cconomic activity is thc
prcscncc ol eort, labor, dircctcd toward a particular goal. Econ-
omy is the acti.ity of labor. Labor, and particularly involuntary
labor, dcncs cconomy. !n this scnsc cconomy can bc dcncd
as thc strugglc, through labor, lor lilc and its cxpansion; labor
is thc basis ol lilc lrom an cconomic point ol vicw. Lilc ariscs
naturally through birth, that is, without thc conscious appli-
cation ol labor, but maintaining it through cconomy alrcady
rcquircs work. Labor is that valuc that brings lilc-supporting
goods. This truth lics likc a dark anticipation at thc basis ol thc
so-callcd labor thcory ol valuc in political cconomy.
All cconomic goods arc thc product ol labor.
23
Rodbcr-
tuss lormula, which rcccts pcrlcctly thc gcncral worldvicw
ol political cconomy, rctains its accuracy and mcaning outsidc
thc limits ol thc disciplinc. Vithin political cconomy, particu-
larly in thc thcory ol valuc, it rcccivcs an cxccssivcly narrow,
matcrialistic, and mcrcantilc dcnition; it bcars thc stamp ol
cconomic matcrialism, as wcll as ol thc conscious onc-sidcdncss
ol our cld ol spccialization. Alrcady lrom its conccptionin
mcrcantilism, in thc writings ol thc Physiocrats as wcll as ol
Adam Smith and othcr rcprcscntativc ol thc classical school,
and, nally, in socialismpolitical cconomy strivcs to dcnc
morc cxactly thc conccpt ol productivc, that is, cconomic
labor, in ordcr to dclimit thc cld ol spccic invcstigation,
which would othcrwisc cxpand innitcly to includc all cultural
scicnccs. !n political cconomy this intcntional narrowncss lcads
,, The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
2
o
f
3
5
8
to a onc-sidcdncss and vulgarity in its conclusions; lor thc phi-
losophy ol cconomy this intcntional narrowing ol pcrspcctivc
would bc not only unncccssary but cvcn harmlul. conomy in
its csscncc includcs human labor in all its applications, lrom thc
workcr to Kant, lrom thc sowcr to thc astronomcr. Thc dis-
tinguishing trait ol cconomy is thc rc-crcation or acquisition
ol goods, matcrial or spiritual, through labor, as opposcd to rc-
cciving thcm as a gilt. This human activity is thc lulllmcnt ol
Gods wordIn the s.eat of thy face shalt thou eat breadand
this includcs all brcad, that is, spiritual as wcll as matcrial lood:
it is through cconomic labor, in thc swcat ol our lacc, that wc
must not only producc matcrial goods but crcatc all ol culturc.
Thc world as houschold is thc world as thc objcct ol labor,
and to this dcgrcc also thc product ol labor. Labor is thc tradc-
mark ol cconomy; in this thc labor thcory ol valuc is corrcct, as
is political cconomy, which accuratcly lccls thc univcrsal, cos-
mic signicancc ol labor, although it is incapablc ol cxprcssing
it propcrly.
!s labor dcnablc. Thcrc arc corts to dcnc labor in politi-
cal cconomy, but thcy pursuc spccic goals in conjunction with
thc thcory ol valuc and arc unsucccsslul cvcn in thcir limitcd
aims; lurthcrmorc, thcy arc too matcrialistic to satisly us. Labor
is thc cxpcnditurc ol ncrvous-muscular cncrgysuch, lor cx-
amplc, is Marxs widcsprcad and inucntial dcnition. 8ut, thc
insucicncy ol such a dcnition lor mcntal labor asidc, it is
not dicult to scc that this cxpcnditurc ol cncrgy is only thc
cxprcssion ol labor. Labor in its inncr basis, as a lccling ol
outwardly dircctcd cort, is not subjcct to any dcnition, al-
though cxpcricncc and obscrvation rcvcal its manilcstation to
bc activc will, an activc cort to comc out ol oncscll. Thc ca-
pacity lor labor is onc ol thc charactcristics ol a living bcing;
it cxprcsscs thc amc and sharpncss ol lilc. nly hc livcs lully
who is capablc ol labor and who actually cngagcs in labor.
The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
3
o
f
3
5
8
Thc principlc ol labor is rclatcd, and, in a scnsc contra-
dictory, to thc natural or givcn principlc. Economy, as thc
rc-crcation and cxpansion ol lilc through labor, is oppositc to
nature, as thc totality ol what is givcn (to man), thc natural
lorccs ol lilc and its growth. Man is born not through an cco-
nomic act; hc dcvclops in his mothcrs womb and grows altcr
birth, gaining physical and spiritual strcngth, nding spiritual
lorccs within himscll. All sorts ol proccsscs in naturc takc placc
indcpcndcntly ol cconomic activity, and thc univcrsc, in thc
cnd, is not crcatcd through an cconomic act. Rathcr, only thc
univcrscs cxistcncc cstablishcs thc subjcctivc and objcctivc pos-
sibility ol cconomic activity, including both thc capacity and
possibility lor labor. conomic activity is in this scnsc but a
part ol thc lilc ol thc univcrsc, a momcnt in its growth. 8ut at
thc samc timc it is a ncccssary momcnt, includcd in thc plan
ol thc univcrsc as thc cmpirical manilcstation ol scll-conscious
lilc. Culturcthc cxpansion ol lilc through rcalizcd laborrc-
quircs naturc as a prccondition (in thc scnsc ol its prccultural
or cxtracultural, cxtra-cconomic statc). Naturc without labor,
without a working culturc, is incapablc ol rcvcaling all ol its
lorccs, at lcast in man; it cannot abandon its drcamy statc. n
thc othcr hand, culturc has no crcativc powcrs that arc not al-
rcady givcn in naturc. And cvcn through all ol our corts (that
is, through all thc powcrs ol culturc) wc cannot add so much
as an cxtra cubit to our hcight, in thc words ol thc Savior.
Naturc is thus thc natural basis ol culturc; it is thc matcrial lor
cconomic activity; outsidc ol naturc, cconomic activity is as in-
conccivablc and impossiblc as concrctc cxpcricncc is impossiblc
outsidc ol lilc.
,o The Problem of the Philosophy of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
4
o
f
3
5
8
:
Thc Natural-Philosophical 8ascs
ol thc Thcory ol conomy
!. !bv~iis: ~xb N~:iv~i Pniiosovnv
vcry cconomic act consists in a ccrtain objcctivc action and
rcquircs a mans coming out ol himscll to act in thc cxtcrnal
world. !t is a ccrtain cxcrtion in thc world ol things and an
action on things: whcthcr this is thc labor ol an agriculturist,
an industrial workcr, a mcchanic, an cnginccr, or a scicntic
rcscarchcr, or whcthcr this is work to organizc a lactory with
mcchanical division ol labor or tradc and spcculation, ccon-
omy in all thcsc cascs is an action on things, that is, objcctivc
action. Im nfang .ar die Tat, says cconomic practicc; and it
is not lor nothing that Marx put Praxiswhich is what wc
hcrc call objcctivc actionat thc ccntcr ol thc doctrinc ol cco-
nomic matcrialism.
1
All ol cconomy is prcciscly such objcctivc
action and prcsupposcs, ol coursc, a ccrtain objcctivc rcality. !t
is thc constant action ol thc proprictor, thc subject of economy (at
this point it docsnt mattcr whcthcr thc subjcct is individual or
collcctivc) on things (naturc or mattcr, dcpcnding on thc par-
ticular philosophical construction), that is, on thc object of econ-
omy. vcry cconomic act rcalizcs a ccrtain lusion ol subjcct and
objcct, thc pcnctration ol thc subjcct into thc objcct, thc sub-
jcctication ol thc objcctor thc subjccts cxit lrom itscll into
thc world ol things, into thc objcct, that is, an objcctication
ol thc subjcct. !n this scnsc cconomy, abstractcd lrom any givcn
lorm or contcnt, howcvcr thcy may vary, is subjcctivc-objcctivc
action, thc rcal unity ol subjcct and objcct. Thc subjcct acts in
,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
5
o
f
3
5
8
accordancc with particular goals, whcrcas thc objcctnaturc,
or thc world ol thingsis dctcrmincd by a mcchanical rcgu-
larity, thc iron logic ol causcs and conscqucnccs. And in cvcry
cconomic act, tclcology and mcchanism lusc in a total mutual
pcnctration: without ccasing to bc a mcchanism, naturc, within
thc lramcwork ol thc cconomic act, bccomcs anthropomorphic,
just as in thc organs ol our body mcchanism is complcmcntary
rathcr than contradictory to lunctional adcquacy.
Thus wc can dcnc thc contcnt ol thc cconomic act as thc
lusion, or partial idcntication, ol naturcs mcchanism with
human tclcology, thc translormation ol thc mcchanism ol cau-
sality into thc mcchanism ol goals, into cnds-mcans all in onc,
and this is what wc gcncrally call conqucring naturc.
2
conomic acts ol all sorts arc so prosaic and lamiliar that
thcy sccm to us natural and hcncc in nccd ol no cxplanation.
This is why wc nccd a ccrtain cort ol philosophical abstraction
to scc that what sccms to us scll-cvidcnt is actually a mystcri-
ous riddlc and poscs a scrious and dicult philosophical prob-
lcm. Many agcs ol scicntic cxpcricncc wcnt by bclorc Kant
poscd his Copcrnican qucstion: How is this cxpcricncc pos-
siblc, what arc thc conditions and prcsuppositions, thc a priori
ol knowlcdgc. And thc samc agcs ol cconomic lilc havc passcd
by until philosophy has bcgun consciously to posc thc qucstion:
Ho. is economy possible, what arc thc conditions and prcsuppo-
sitions, thc a priori ol objcctivc action. l coursc, cconomy
is a rcal lact, just as cxpcricncc in thc Kantian scnsc is a rcal
lact. 8ut hcrc wc arc asking not about thc lact itscll but about
its principlc, about its ncccssary prcmiscs, both positivc and
ncgativc. Thc task ol philosophical analysis is, having isolatcd
thcsc prcmiscs, to cxaminc thc bascs on which thcy rcst. This
task, thcn, is rst ol all critical and analytical, and in this scnsc
is complctcly analogous to thc task ol Kants Critique of Pure
Feason. Sccond, thc task is mctaphysical, insolar as wc hcrc in-
,8 Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
6
o
f
3
5
8
vcstigatc thc prcmiscs ol cconomy not just lormally but also
lrom thc standpoint ol thcir positivc contcnt.
8ut thc truc loundcr ol thc philosophy ol cconomy is not
Kant, thc philosophcr ol subjcctivc idcalism and passivc rc-
cction, but Schclling, thc philosophcr ol naturc and objcctivc
rcality. Kants philosophy was, by virtuc ol its vcry topic, in-
capablc ol bcing a philosophy ol action as thc philosophy ol
cconomy must bc; it was cxclusivcly a philosophy ol quictistic
contcmplation, thc calm thcorctical isolation ol subjcct lrom
objcct, in which thc objcct is mcrcly rccctcd in thc subjcct
and thc issuc is only thc conditions ol this mirrorlikc rccc-
tion. Kants subjcct docs not act, it only bcholds, and this is
why his thcory is armchair philosophy.
3
And cvcn in Kants
practical philosophy, in thc Critique of Practical Feason, whosc
postulatcs occupy such a ccntral position in Kants thcory and
which is so important in rcvcaling thc truc motivcs ol his sys-
tcmthc rcligious-mctaphysical and thc rcligious-cthical (so
cmphatically shuntcd asidc by contcmporary nco-Kantians)
thc discussion is not about action itscll but about thc norms
ol objcctivc or corrcct action on thc part ol thc subjcct, about
thc cthics ol action but not its practicc. This is why practi-
cal rcason, too, actually rcmains no lcss thcorctical, abstract,
and subjcctivc than thcorctical rcason. Hcrc, too, thc glass wall
dividing thc Kantian subjcct lrom thc objcct, that is, lrom
naturc and thc world, rcmains intact, and thc subjcct rctains
its contcmplativc-mirroring quality. 8ccausc Kants philosophy
is onc ol contcmplation and not action, subjcct and objcct arc
hcrc mcrcly countcrposcd onc to anothcr, and thc activity ol
rcason is limitcd to lling in transccndcntal schcmas ol cogni-
tion. Hcncc thcrc is no objcctivc rcality, nor is thcrc naturc as
rcality, cxisting as a loundation lor its intcllcctual construction
by an cpistcmological subjcct. Kantian mattcr, whosc a priori
dcnition hc laborcd so hard to dctcrminc, can bc only con-
Natural-Philosophical Bases ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
7
o
f
3
5
8
structcd and thcorctically bchcld but not lclt. !t is a mirror
imagc ol thc subjcct; it stands in thc samc rclation to rcal naturc
as thc applcs drawn by Apcllcs, which attractcd only stupid
birds, to rcal applcs, or as idcal talcrs to rcal oncs (to usc Kants
lamous cxamplc). !t is only a priori and not a postcriori, bc-
causc, in ordcr to cstablish thc a postcriori scnsc ol naturc, to
cxpcricncc thc cognitivc a priori in action, thc subjcct must dc-
sccnd lrom thc thronc ol contcmplation and mix in thc crowd,
likc Faust whcn hc lclt his study to immcrsc himscll in thc
pcoplc and in action. thcrwisc, in his isolation, hc will ncvcr
know whcthcr thc citics and gardcns hc sccs bclorc him arc
rcality or a fata morgana. Hc cannot dispcrsc thc illusions ol
solipsism. Hc must makc a jump into rcality, to commit an
action that will rcvcal to him somcthing ncw both about him-
scll and about thc objcct hc contcmplatcs. For, in Schcllings
splcndid comparison, thc spirit is cvcrlastingly an island, ncvcr
to bc rcachcd lrom mattcr without a lcap;
4
and such a lcap
lor thc Kantian subjcct in thc proccss ol cognition (- spirit)
to thc objcct (- mattcr) can only bc action. So Kants philoso-
phy, dcspitc its primacy ol practical ovcr thcorctical rcason, is in
thc dccpcst scnsc ol thc word antipragmatic.
5
!ts rcality is illu-
sory and subjcctivc; thc world and naturc arc projcctcd as thcy
appcar to thc transccndcntalbut not transccndcntsubjcct,
who rcmains outsidc ol lilc, outsidc thc world, outsidc naturc
though not supcrnatural. Thc acknowlcdgmcnt ol thc primacy
ol subjcctivc will ovcr subjcctivc rcason, or practical ovcr thco-
rctical rcason, docs not signily lor Kant an cxit into objcctivc
activity, lor this has no placc in his philosophy; only thc cogni-
tivc conditions ol this objcctivity, which, howcvcr, may bc and
may not bc, arc in cvidcncc. Kant himscll rccognizcd this im-
possibility ol arming thc objcctivity ol scicntic cxpcricncc
in thc subjcct alonc, and this lcd to his nccd to scck support
outsidc thc vicious circlc ol subjcctivism. Hc was ablc to gain
8c Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
8
o
f
3
5
8
this loothold in thc subjcct only outsidc ol rcason, that is, in
will, calling it mctaphorically practical rcason, although this
guilclcss tcrminological masqucradc can hardly lool anyonc.
Thc radical rationalism ol subjcctivism lcd to a no lcss radi-
cal voluntarism, that is, irrationalism. Thc lundamcntal prcm-
iscs lorming thc linchpin ol thc cntirc systcmthc thcory ol
rcal cxistcncc or thc Ding an sich, ol lrccdom and ncccssity,
ol thc human spirit, arc hiddcn hcrc in a philosophical closct.
Kants systcm disintcgratcs lrom within, and this is its intrinsic
pathos. Thc philosophical tragcdy ol Kant is that, although hc
was inspircd by thc pathos ol objcctivity and rcality, and strovc
to lrcc himscll lrom subjcctivism and solipsism, in which hc
rightly scnscd thc loul spirit ol nonbcing, hc ncvcrthclcss ap-
proachcd this goal by a purcly spcculativc, contcmplativc path.
!n ordcr to do this hc killcd living rcality, translormcd it into an
imagc, a schcma, bclorc bcginning to study it in its concrctc-
ncss. Hc sought lilc in dcath and thc swcct smcll ol thc clds
in thc pcnt-up air ol his study.
8ut il subjcctivc idcalism wcaring thc mask ol philosophical
rcality was a rcsult largcly outsidc Kants intcntion, in Fichtc
it bccamc a battlc cry, as hc took Kant to his logical conclu-
sion and rcvcalcd his sccrct. Hcrc ! mcan, ol coursc, Fichtcs
rst systcm, his Ich-philosophie.
6
And what Kant statcs in thc
indicativc mood, Fichtc cxprcsscs in thc impcrativc. Subjcctivc
idcalism is translormcd into an absolutc, cpistcmology into un-
disguiscd, combativc mctaphysics, and Fichtc no longcr lcars
solipsism, illusionism, or a-cosmism, to which his tcaching on
thc world as non-I incvitably lcads. !n his systcm, thc world
bccomcs mcrcly thc boundary ol thc !, is positcd as non-I, and
in this scnsc is thc crcation ol thc !. !l thc Kantian transccn-
dcntal subjcct calmly drcams and passivcly rcccts thc shadows
ol bcing, thcn thc Fichtcan !truc, obcying a ccrtain un-
conscious cxtcrnal impulsc (auerer nsto)projccts various
Natural-Philosophical Bases 8z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
8
9
o
f
3
5
8
conditions ol bcing onto thc scrccn ol consciousncss togcthcr
with a ray ol light, crcatcs thc world by itscll. 8ut sincc man
cannot actually crcatc, this prctcnsion lcads him only to trans-
lorm all that cxists into an illusion, a drcam, and sprinklcs thc
living with thc watcr ol dcath.
Vch! Vch! u hast sic zcrstrt
ic schnc Vclt
Mit mchtigcr Faust;
Sic strzt, zcrlllt!
in Halbgott hat sic zcrschlagcn.
(Alas!
You havc shattcrcd
Thc bcautilul world
Vith brazcn st;
!t lalls, it is scattcrcd
8y a dcmigod dcstroycd.)
Faust, pt. ., .6cy.:
Radical subjcctivism and illusionism arc what Fichtcs phi-
losophy ol action comcs to in thc cnd, lor it is loundcd not
on thc mutual rclations ol subjcct and objcct but mcrcly on
thc scll-asscrtion ol thc subjcct, thc primacy ol practical ovcr
thcorctical rcason, which is, howcvcr, rcalizcd only in thc
sphcrc ol thc subjcct.
Absolutc doing (absolute Tathandlung), as thc asscrtion ol thc
non-! as a boundary ol thc !, cquatcs thc human ! with thc
divinc !, lor which thcrc is no dicrcncc bctwccn wishing and
doing, thought and bcing, which rcally can posit thc non-! as
its othcr, not limitcd by it but posscssing it. Fichtcs philosophy
cquatcs Gods imagc in manthc lormal limitlcssncss and uni-
vcrsality ol our scllto its primordial imagca pathctic dclu-
sion ol grandcur, a rcductio ad absurdum ol subjcctivc idcalism,
8: Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
0
o
f
3
5
8
which is nowadays rcpcatcd, but without Fichtcs own pathos
and inspiration, by contcmporary immancntists.
Fichtcs systcm, cvcn morc than Kants, claims to bc a phi-
losophy ol actionthc scll-gcncration ol thc cpistcmological
! dcpcnds on thc activity ol thc activc !. 8ut thc !s activity
rcmains purcly idcalistic; it has no transsubjcctivc mcaning; it
cannot comc out ol itscll to touch thc rcal non-! or supcr-!.
Thc subjcct rcmains cvcn morc rmly scalcd than Kants undcr
a glass hood with thc air pumpcd out, and in this airlcss spacc
it drcams objcctivc bcingalas! ol zcro dimcnsion.
Apparcntly, an invisiblc yct impcnctrablc glass wall, a wholc
systcm ol mirrors had bccn crcctcd bctwccn thc subjcct and thc
objcct. nly a powcrlul blow could shattcr this wall and brcak
through to objcctivc rcality. This grcat philosophical act was
committcd by Schclling in his rst systcm, particularly in thc
Naturphilosophie. Schclling brokc through to thc lrcc and opcn
cld ol objcctivc scicncc lrom stiing Kantian-Fichtcan idcal-
ism, whcrc thc world and naturc bccamc mcrc rational imagcs,
and conqucrcd lrccdom and animation ol thought,
7
accord-
ing to his own cxprcssion. !n Schcllings pcrson, lilc oncc morc
conqucrs dcath in thc philosophical consciousncss. Hc achicvcs
this victory with thc aid ol two prolound and mcaninglul idcas:
thc idcntity ol subjcct and objcct and thc undcrstanding ol
naturc as a living, growing organism. Thcrc arc lcw idcas in
thc history ol philosophy to which postcrity has rcspondcd so
ungratclully as to Schcllings Naturphilosophie, which incidcn-
tally rcsts on thc mystical natural philosophy ol Jakob 8hmc
and Franz 8aadcr. ! mcan, ol coursc, not thc dctails ol its cxc-
cution, which wcrc conncctcd with thc natural scicncc ol his
timc (although thcy wcrc productivc lor thc lattcr) and which
now must bc abandoncd and workcd through ancw, but thc
basic idca, thc lundamcntal problcm or task ol his philosophy.
Natural-Philosophical Bases 8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
1
o
f
3
5
8
Although thc philosophical idca ol naturc and thc problcm ol
natural philosophy arc not absolutcly ncwlct us rcmcmbcr
thc thcory ol thc world soul in antiquity: in Plato and Plotinus,
thcn in thc church lathcrs: Saint Grcgory ol Nyssus and thc
Pscudodionysius, Saint Maxim thc Conlcssor, thcn J. Scotus
rigcnait has bccn so lar lost in modcrn Vcstcrn philoso-
phy,
8
bcginning with cscartcs (also Spinoza, whosc mccha-
nistic panthcism, Natura si.e Deus, is a particularly important
momcnt), as to bc virtually noncxistcnt at prcscnt. !t lcads a
dark and obscurc cxistcncc only in various matcrialistic tcach-
ings ol a hylozoistic huc (Hckcl!), which arc rcally thc ncmcsis
ol contcmporary philosophy: il, in thc namc ol thc rights ol thc
spiritand not only ol thc spirit, but ol thc cpistcmological
subjcctit kills naturc, thcn hcrc thc spirit is killcd in thc namc
ol dcad naturc and is proclaimcd an cpiphcnomcnon ol a com-
bination ol atoms. Thc division and hostilc opposition ol naturc
and spirit turns out to bc latal to both sidcs. Schclling rclutcd
this opposition and wcnt about studying naturc as unconscious
spirit and spirit as naturc rcalizing itscll.
Naturc, lor thc intcllcct, is but thc objcct ol contcmplation,
an objcct cxisting in thc subjcct and lor thc subjcct. 8ut is thcrc
a naturc outsidc thc subjcct and, so to spcak, prior to thc sub-
jcct. And docsnt thc subjcct itscll cxist in naturc. How docs
naturc cntcr into thc subjcct, or how docs it nd it not only
within, but also outsidc itscll. r, to gcncralizc all ol thcsc
qucstions, lct us ask oursclvcs: Ho. is nature possible Givcn thc
division ol subjcct and objcct, in which bcing is cquatcd with
consciousncss, that is, dctcrmincd only in thc subjcct, thcsc
qucstions arc cntircly unanswcrablc. Thc conccpt ol cxpcricncc
must bc dccpcncd, and thc conccpt ol bcing broadcncd, includ-
ing not only thc givcns ol consciousncss but also what is outsidc
its boundaricsthc unconscious or cxtraconscious, or what wc
may, togcthcr with Schclling, call dcpotcntializcd conscious-
8, Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
2
o
f
3
5
8
ncss. This broadcning ol bcing bcyond thc boundarics ol im-
mancnt consciousncss, its inclusion in thc composition ol bcing
as its product, thc acknowlcdgmcnt ol thc cxistcncc ol an cn-
tirc world bcyond thc boundarics ol consciousncss signicd a
philosophical rcvolution, and it was Schclling who brought it
about. Fichtc had alrcady approachcd this rcvolution whcn hc
was lorccd to admit that thcrc is a such a thing as goal-oricntcd
action, an unconscious or prcconscious intcllcct: lor thc scll s
conscious action is prcccdcd by a scrics ol ncccssary and un-
conscious asscrtions that makc up part ol thc conditions ol
consciousncss and knowlcdgc. This thcory markcd thc path ol
luturc dcvclopmcnt, but it was Schclling and not Fichtc who
lollowcd it.
9
(Schopcnhaucr, and latcr Hartmann, also dcvclop
this thcmc, but thcy stand apart in thc world philosophical
tradition.)
!!. Scnviiixcs Pniiosovnv
Schcllings lundamcntal philosophical thcory ol identity, ol thc
idcntity ol subjcct and objcct, spirit and naturc, was prcciscly
such an answcr to thc qucstion ol thc intcrrclation ol subjcct
and objcct or, what is in a ccrtain scnsc thc samc, ol thc pos-
sibility ol naturc cxisting outsidc oursclvcs, ol us in naturc and
naturc in us. Naturc must bc thc visiblc spirit, and thc spirit
must bc invisiblc naturc. Thus thc problcm ol how naturc is
possiblc outsidc oursclvcs is rcsolvcd hcrc, in thc absolutc idcn-
tity ol thc spirit within us and naturc outsidc ol us.
10
!n thc
light ol thc philosophy ol idcntity, thc univcrsc looks likc a
laddcr with rungs or potcntials, likc an cvolutionary dcvclop-
mcnt whosc gcncral contcnt is thc cxprcssion ol thc spirit. Thc
dcad and unconscious products ol naturc arc mcrcly abortivc
attcmpts that shc makcs to rccct hcrscll; inanimatc naturc so-
callcd is actually as such an immaturc intclligcncc, so that in hcr
Natural-Philosophical Bases 8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
3
o
f
3
5
8
phcnomcna thc still unwitting charactcr ol intclligcncc is al-
rcady pccping through. Naturcs highcst goal, to bccomc wholly
an objcct to hcrscll, is achicvcd only through thc last and high-
cst ordcr ol rccction, which is nonc othcr than man; or, morc
gcncrally, it is what wc call rcason, whcrcby naturc rst com-
plctcly rcturns into hcrscll, and by which it bccomcs apparcnt
that naturc is idcntical lrom thc rst with what wc rccognizc in
oursclvcs as thc intclligcnt and thc conscious.
11
For this rcason
naturc appcars as a scrics ol stagcs ol dcvclopmcnt or, to usc
thc languagc ol contcmporary biology, cvolutionary translorm-
ism. Long bclorc arwin, wc nd that hcalthy kcrncl which
cxists in arwinism and in cvolutionism gcncrally in Schclling,
but in thc lorm not ol a controvcrsial biological hypothcsis but
a ncccssary mctaphysical postulatc.
12
Philosophy must acccpt
(annehmen) that thcrc cxists a gradation ol thc stagcs ol lilc in
naturc.
13
Thc univcrsal world proccss rcsts on a progrcssivc
although constantly contcstcd victory ol thc subjcctivc ovcr thc
objcctivc.
14
Thc philosophy ol idcntity thus lls in thc un-
bridgcablc chasm that has lormcd bctwccn thc subjcct and thc
objcct in critical philosophy, acknowlcdging thcir primordial
unity as stagcs in thc dcvclopmcnt ol thc samc lilc principlc,
thc subjcct-objcct, which has mcrcly split into two polcs in thc
coursc ol this dcvclopmcntthc subjcct and thc objcct. This
distinction bctwccn subjcct and objcct, idcal and rcal, is rcla-
tivc; it comcs about in thc proccss ol naturcs scll-dcvclopmcnt
and scll-dcnition. Thcrc is no such distinction in thc Abso-
lutc (howcvcr onc may dcnc it); lor it, acts ol consciousncss
arc simultancously objccts, thc opposition ol subjcctivc and ob-
jcctivc is cxtinguishcd in thcir initial idcntity, and thc univcrsc
is thc rcvclation ol thc Absolutc, in which naturc and spirit,
objcct and subjcct, arc ctcrnally idcntical. Thc scll-rccction ol
thc Absolutc is rcvcalcd to us as thc dcvclopmcnt ol thc world.
Thc rst, as an initial imagc and sourcc, is thc natura naturans,
8o Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
4
o
f
3
5
8
thc sccond, thc natura naturata, as thc incvitablc product ol thc
rst. Hcrc wc can alrcady disccrn thc bcginnings ol thc lurthcr
dcvclopmcnt ol thc philosophy ol idcntity, which, in Schcllings
sccond pcriod, grows into a grandiosc rcligious-philosophical
systcm. 8ut hcrc wc havc only to conccntratc on this csscntial
Schcllingian idca as it is cstablishcd in his gcncral philosophy
ol idcntity in thc natural-philosophical writings and thc System
of Transcendental Idealism.
xtcrnally, thc idca ol thc philosophy ol idcntity rcscmblcs
what is at thc prcscnt timc callcd monism, usually, this namc
implics matcrialism ol a morc or lcss hylozoistic huc (lor cx-
amplc, Hckcl). Vithout having to subjcct dogmatic matcri-
alism oncc morc to criticism in ordcr to dcmonstratc all ol
its impotcncc bclorc problcms ol consciousncss, cognition, and
will, lct us say only that thc pcculiar gcnius ol Schcllings phi-
losophy is prcciscly that it ovcrcomcs matcrialism through a
positivc philosophical thcory. Matcrialism rcsts on thc lact ol a
mcchanism ol naturc indcpcndcnt ol oursclvcs and capablc ol
cocrcing us; in contrast, idcalism dcnics naturc by rcducing it to
a mcrc imagc.
15
Thus matcrialism is a sort ol incvitablc shadow
ol idcalism, its complcmcnt: just as thc lattcr is a philosophy ol
thc subjcct, so thc lormcr is a philosophy ol thc objcct. Ncithcr
lorm ol monistic philosophyncithcr thc immancnt-idcalistic,
crossing out thc objcct lor thc sakc ol thc subjcct, nor thc ma-
tcrialistic, dcstroying thc subjcct in thc namc ol thc objcct
is capablc ol cxplaining thc living unity ol subjcct and objcct.
Matcrialism and idcalism arc rcconcilcd in thc highcst unity,
in thc unity ol dcvcloping lilc. Vhy do you scck thc living
among thc dcad. Schclling sccms to say to matcrialism. Fccl
Mc, lor spirit has no csh and boncs, it has bccn said to skcp-
tical idcalism. Schclling cxprcsscd onc ol thc most lundamcntal
truths ol Christianity in thc philosophical languagc ol his timc.
For Christianity is cqually lar lrom matcrialism and subjcctivc
Natural-Philosophical Bases 8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
5
o
f
3
5
8
idcalism; it rcmovcs thc contradiction bctwccn csh and spirit
in its tcaching ol man as spirit incarnate, thc living unity ol
both. !n this scnsc Christianity is also a philosophy ol idcntity
(although it is dualistic in its cthics). Ncithcr Platonism nor
Ncoplatonism, vicwing thc body as an cnvclopc lor thc soul or
as a dungcon lor it, nor thc ncw idcalism, which turns csh
into a subjcctivc imagc, can know thc unity ol spirit and csh
that Christianity tcachcs. This is thc basis lor thc doctrinc that
thc human incarnation ol God brought about a divinization
ol thc csh. And thc incarnation took placc not just lor show
or cxtcrnally but in rcality and with nality. Christ rctains thc
csh that hc took upon himscll lorcvcr; hc was rcsurrcctcd with
this csh and will rctain it at thc Sccond Comingsuch is thc
tcaching ol thc church. This is why dcath, which brcaks and
tcmporarily rcnds thc union ol spirit and csh, is somcthing
mctaphysically unnatural, damaging mans substancc as spirit
incarnatc.
Somctimcs Schclling lollows thc cxamplc ol thc ancicnts in
calling this highcr unityposscssing thc qualitics ol a univcrsal
(transccndcntal) subjcct, thc univcrsal spirit, and thc univcrsal
objcct, thc womb ol all crcation,
16
thc natura naturansby thc
namc ol thc world soul. l coursc, Schclling hcrc dcpcnds
on 8hmcs mystical tcaching and 8aadcrs thcosophy.
Thus thc rcal conncction ol subjcct and objcct, cstablishcd
in cvcry act ol consciousncss and will, nds its cxplanation in
thc unity ol thc world soul, thc univcrsal subjcct-objcct. Par-
ticular individuals takc part in this unity. !t providcs thc kcy to
undcrstanding thc aspccts and rcgularitics ol naturc that arc ac-
ccssiblc to cognition. Kant cxplaincd thc rcgularitics ol naturc
by thc cognitivc a priori; according to his philosophy, it is rca-
son that imparts rcgularity to naturc. Latcr Hcgcl, cxpanding
Kants idca into a mctaphysical systcm, attcmptcd to construct
laws ol naturc a priori, as thc activity ol a univcrsal, supcrnatu-
88 Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
6
o
f
3
5
8
ral rcason, having no nccd ol thc cmpirical but positing it as
a momcnt in its dcvclopmcnt. 8ut this idcalistic intcrprctation
ol natural scicncc, which conccntratcs on thc lormal-logical,
transccndcntal sidc ol thc laws ol naturc, is powcrlcss to givc
propcr attcntion to its concrctc contcnt, to thc rcal multiplicity
ol natural phcnomcna that makc up thcsc rcgularitics. Thcy
cxist lor idcalism not as such, in thcir living, concrctc rcality,
but only as raw matcrial lor logical proccssing, just as, lor thc
gcomctcr, thcrc cxists no multiplicity ol rcal bodics but only
thcir gurcs. Schclling poscd this problcm dicrcntly. From thc
standpoint ol thc philosophy ol idcntity thc vcry opposition
ol a priori and a postcriori, subjcct and objcct, disappcars and
loscs its sharpncss. ur knowlcdgc is thoroughly a priori prc-
ciscly bccausc it is originally cntircly cmpirical. . . . !n lact,
insolar as thc scll produccs cvcrything lrom itscll, knowlcdgc
is a priori. 8ut insolar as wc arc not conscious ol this activity
ol thc scll, thcrc is nothing a priori in us, and cvcrything cxists
only a postcriori. !n thc samc scnsc naturc is a priori, i.c.,
cach part ol it is prcdctcrmincd by thc wholc, or by thc idca ol
naturc gcncrally.
17
This a priori-ncss is conrmcd by cxpcri-
mcnt. vcry cxpcrimcnt is a qucstion to naturc, which it must
answcr. 8ut cvcry qucstion contains a hiddcn a priori judgmcnt;
cach cxpcrimcnt, insolar as it is a rcal cxpcrimcnt, contains a
hypothcsis.
18
Thc history ol naturc is thc history ol conscious-
ncss, and thc initial stcps ol its dcvclopmcnt arc prcscrvcd in
it, this transccndcntal mcmory ol rcason, in which rcason
rccrcatcs its stagcs, that is, comcs to know naturc. Platos idca
that all ol philosophy is rcmcmbrancc is in this scnsc accuratc;
all philosophizing is thc rcmcmbrancc ol that statc whcn wc
wcrc idcntical with naturc.
19
Latcr Schclling calls naturc thc
rst or old tcstamcnt and says that wc havc a morc ancicnt
rcvclation than any that is writtcn: this is naturc, which con-
tains within itscll primordial imagcs as yct uncxplaincd by any
Natural-Philosophical Bases 8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
7
o
f
3
5
8
man.
20
Vith rcspcct to this univcrsal conncctcdncss and a
priori-ncss ol naturc, Schclling rcmarks that naturc is in-
nitc in cach product, and cach product contains thc sccd ol thc
univcrsc.
21
Thus naturc and intcllcct arc two polcs ol a singlc csscncc.
Naturc is unconscious rcason, it cmbodics blind cxpcdicncy,
22
and it amazcs us prcciscly bccausc it acts as a mcchanism yct
simultancously as a clcar tclcology.
23
Procccding lrom thc gcncral postulatcs ol thc philosophy ol
idcntity, Schclling (most systcmatically in thc System of Tran-
scendental Idealism) rcsolvcs a qucstion that had no placc in thc
systcm ol subjcctivc idcalism: Ho. is objecti.e action possible
How docs dcsirc translorm objccts. Thc task ol transccndcn-
tal philosophy (in thc Schcllingian scnsc ol thc word) is to
show how thc intcllcct achicvcs objcctivc bcing, corrcsponding
to its csscncc (whcrcas thc task ol Naturphilosophie was to show
thc rcvcrschow naturc comcs to thc intcllcct and bccomcs
conscious). Thc corrcspondcncc ol imagcs and objccts can bc
ol two typcs: imagcs can bc rclatcd to objccts as thcir copics
(idcal duplication) or as thcir cxamplcs (projcctions, modcls);
thc lormcr arisc ol ncccssity, thc lattcr arbitrarily and lrccly.
Thc possibility ol thc lormcr constitutcs thc loundation ol all
thcorctical knowlcdgc; thc possibility ol thc lattcrpractical
activity. This poscs a gcncral qucstion lor transccndcntal phi-
losophy, connccting thcorctical and practical philosophy: How
can thc intcllcct bc simultancously a copy and a modcl. How
docs thc objcctivc changc by mcans ol thc idcally imagincd
(blo Gedachtes), in a manncr that corrcsponds with thc imagc.
This qucstion, uttcrly irrcsolvablc lor purcly subjcctivc philoso-
phy (idcalism) or purcly objcctivc philosophy (dogmatic matcri-
alism), is casily solvcd according to thc idca ol thc original idcn-
tity ol subjcct and objcct, intcllcct and naturc. How anything
could pass lrom lrccdom to thc objcctivc world would bc com-
,c Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
8
o
f
3
5
8
plctcly incomprchcnsiblc, il this world wcrc somcthing cxisting
in and lor itscll |an sich Bestehendes|, and would also bc in-
comprchcnsiblc cvcn assuming a prc-cxisting harmony which,
in turn, would bc possiblc only with thc mcdiation ol a third,
ol which thc intcllcct and thc objcctivc world both wcrc vari-
ants. . . . Thc qucstion, conscqucntly, is prcciscly thc lollowing:
how can anything dcnc itscll in mc through lrcc activity, to
what dcgrcc am ! unlrcc, to what dcgrcc am ! contcmplativc.
Thc postulatc that my lrcc activity is bascd on causality mcans:
! bchold it as bcing bascd on causality. Thc scll that acts is dis-
tinguishcd lrom thc scll that bcholds, yct at thc samc timc thcy
must bc idcntical with rcspcct to thc objcct; what is positcd as
activc in thc objcct must also bc positcd in thc contcmplativc,
thc activc ! must dctcrminc thc rccctivc !. For ! lcarn that
thc scll is activc only lrom its idcntity with that scll which bc-
holds and is conscious ol action. Thc activc (apparcntly) docs
not know, it only acts, is only an objcct; only thc contcmpla-
tivc knows and is thcrclorc a subjcct; how thcn can wc avoid
idcntity, lor what is in thc subjcct is positcd in thc objcct, and
what is in thc objcct is positcd in thc subjcct.
24
!t would bc
cqually hard to undcrstand how a rcalization ol our purposcs in
thc cxtcrnal world could cvcr bc possiblc through conscious and
lrcc activity, unlcss a susccptibility to such action wcrc alrcady
cstablishcd in thc world, cvcn bclorc it bccomcs thc objcct ol
a conscious act, by virtuc ol that original idcntity ol thc un-
conscious with thc conscious activity. 8ut now il all conscious
activity is purposivc, this coincidcncc ol conscious and uncon-
scious activity can cvidcncc itscll only in a product that is pur-
posi.e, without being purposi.ely brought about. Naturc must bc
a product ol this sort . . .
25
8lind intcllcct, unconscious will, acting with inlalliblc cx-
pcdicncy in naturc, attains consciousncss in aesthetic activity,
whosc distinguishing trait is thc conncction ol thc unconscious
Natural-Philosophical Bases ,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
9
9
o
f
3
5
8
crcativity ol gcnius with consciousncss. All ol naturc is such an
unconscious but living work ol art, thc objcctivc world is but
an incipicnt, as yct unconscious poctry ol thc spirit, which bc-
comcs conscious in art. Thc mystcry ol thc world, thc idcntity
ol thc idcal and thc rcal, is rcvcalcd in art. This is why Schclling
calls art thc univcrsal organ ol philosophy. Acsthctic activity
is crcativc, it is lrcc, but simultancously is subjugatcd to ncccs-
sity (pati cum, hc rcmcmbcrs thc ancicnts tcrm lor inspi-
ration). nly genius is such a conscious-unconscious crcator in
art, and it has thc samc mcaning lor acsthctics as thc scll lor
philosophy.
26
!n gcnius, thc basic contradiction (ol conscious-
ncss and unconsciousncss), although it is othcrwisc complctcly
irrcsolvablc, bccomcs rcsolvcd. !t is scll-cvidcnt that art is
at oncc thc only truc and ctcrnal organ and documcnt ol phi-
losophy, which cvcr and again continucs to spcak to us ol what
philosophy cannot dcpict in cxtcrnal lorm, namcly thc uncon-
scious clcmcnt in acting and producing, and its original idcntity
with thc conscious.
27
Thcsc lruitlul idcas, which havc only bccn skctchcd hcrc and
which arc dcvclopcd in his works (incidcntally, with varying
dcgrccs ol complctcncss), havc turncd out to bc lorgottcn and
unuscd in thc history ol philosophy and still rcmain dcad capi-
tal, although thcy captivatcd and amazcd Schcllings contcm-
porarics. Thc rcigning nco-Kantianism, whosc lormal idcalism
has ruincd our tastc lor Schcllingian ontologism and which
is oncc again lar rcmovcd lrom objcctivc rcality, to which hc
brokc through with such an cort, is lcast ol all inclincd to
undcrstand thc signicancc ol thcsc idcas. Thcy wcrc noticcd
and prcliminarily cvaluatcd in contcmporary philosophy (with
thc cxccption ol Kuno Fischcr, who studicd Schclling with his
usual sinccrity and dcdicatcd thc sixth volumc ol his history ol
philosophy to him) only by thc philosophcr ol thc unconscious:
not, ol coursc, Schopcnhaucr with his blinding scll-inlatuation,
,: Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
0
o
f
3
5
8
which prcvcntcd him lrom sccing thc proximity ol somc ol his
basic mctaphysical idcas to Schcllings, but duard von Hart-
mannindisputably thc grcatcst ol Gcrman thinkcrs ol thc
sccond hall ol thc ninctccnth ccntury,
28
and his lollowcrs.
29
8ut
thcy addrcss only onc aspcct ol Schcllings tcaching, and this
is his thcory ol unconscious goal-oricntcdncss, ol thc blind
intcllcct. nly thc Russian philosophical litcraturc can point
to a productivc and cvcn crcativc dcvclopmcnt ol Schcllings
natural-philosophical idcas: this is in \ladimir Solovicvs philo-
sophical systcm, so congcnial to Schclling. Solovicv, cspccially
in his so-callcd sccond pcriod,
30
is rcmarkably closc to Schcll-
ing, morc so than has bccn acknowlcdgcd so lar (although hc
docs not borrow dircctly lrom Schclling, thc lattcrs powcrlul
inucncc lcrtilizcs his crcativc work). Thc thcory ol thc world
soul and ol naturc, which in gcncral plays such a major rolc
in Solovicvs philosophy, is in thc Lccturcs on Godmanhood
immcdiatcly contiguous to Schclling (ol both thc rst and thc
sccond pcriods). ! do not makc an cxposition hcrc ol Solovicvs
corrcsponding tcachings bccausc thcy arc casily acccssiblc to
thosc who dcsirc to acquaint thcmsclvcs with thcm.
31
Thc philosophy ol cconomy, as a philosophy ol objcctivc
action, must ncccssarily bc a conscious continuation ol Schcll-
ings cntcrprisc. Naturally, it must bc lrcc ol any Schcllingian
dogmatism; it mcrcly takcs Schcllings basic idca as a thcmc
or task lor contcmporary philosophy. Vc cannot, howcvcr, nc-
glcct thc lact that it was Schclling who, with his philosophy
ol idcntity, laid thc loundation lor thc philosophy ol cconomy,
although wc must add that hc himscll not only did not invcs-
tigatc this aspcct ol his own problcm but apparcntly was not
cvcn conscious ol it. Thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol ccon-
omy has ariscn with trcmcndous lorcc in thc lilc and conscious-
ncss ol thc last dccadcs, so brightly colorcd with cconomic
matcrialism. !ncidcntally, on thc basis ol what has bccn said
Natural-Philosophical Bases ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
1
o
f
3
5
8
so lar, it should bc clcar that thc problcm ol cconomic ma-
tcrialism, too, or thc action ol thc cconomy and in it naturc
on man and, in turn, man on thc cconomy and in it naturc,
is rst and lorcmost a natural-philosophical problcm, and only
through philosophical misundcrstanding docs Marxs school
takc thc idcalistic intcllcctual Hcgcl as its godlathcr, not notic-
ing that Schclling would bc much morc usclul. 8ut morc about
this latcr. !n thc mcantimc, altcr this bricl and prcliminary
oricntation in thc history ol rcccnt philosophy, lct us turn to
thc invcstigation ol our own problcm. How is cconomy pos-
siblc. Vhat arc its a priori prcmiscs or prcconditions. Vhat is
thc philosophical signicancc ol thc csscntial lunctions ol thc
cconomic proccss.
,, Natural-Philosophical Bases
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
2
o
f
3
5
8

Thc Signicancc ol thc 8asic

conomic Functions
!. Coxsi:v:iox
conomic lilc can ultimatcly bc rcduccd to a mctabolic pro-
ccss, to somcthing likc circulation or an altcrnation ol inhaling
and cxhaling. !n thc languagc ol political cconomy, produc-
tion corrcsponds to inhalation, consumption to cxhalation. Thc
cconomic cyclc consists in thcsc two acts, production and con-
sumption; thcsc arc thc csscntial cconomic lunctions. For this
rcason thc gcncral qucstion Ho. is economy possible rcduccs
to two morc particular qucstions, namcly: How is production
possiblc, and how is consumption possiblc.
Lct us bcgin with consumption.
vcry living organism, as a body, as organizcd matcrial, is
incxtricably conncctcd with thc univcrsc as a wholc, lor thc
univcrsc is a systcm ol mutually conncctcd and mutually pcnc-
trating lorccs, and onc cannot disturb so much as a grain ol
sand, dcstroy so much as an atom, without, to onc or anothcr
dcgrcc, disturbing thc cntirc univcrsc. Rcgardlcss ol whcthcr
wc conccivc thc univcrsc dynamically, as a systcm ol lorccs or
cncrgics, or statically, as in a statc ol prccarious cquilibrium, it
rcmains lor us a unicd cntity by virtuc ol this continuous con-
ncction ol all ol its parts. To prcsupposc scvcral univcrscs would
ncccssarily includc thcir intcraction, that is, would mcrcly cx-
pand thc notion ol univcrsc, translorming it into a systcm ol
scvcral worlds lorming thc unity ol thc cosmos; or it would
introducc thc contradictory conccpt ol two (or morc) cocxisting
,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
3
o
f
3
5
8
systcms ol lorccs, lor somc rcason isolatcd and impcnctrablc
to cach othcr. Such impcnctrability, such cosmological plural-
ism would bc conccivablc only lor qualitativcly distinct worlds
rcprcscnting dicrcnt mctaphysical stagcs ol bcing such as, lor
cxamplc, thc spiritual world and our world, hcavcn and carth,
or thc altcrworld and this world. Thc unity ol thc univcrsc is
axiomatic lor any undcrstanding ol thc world; it arms thc
continuity ol causality that pcnctratcs thc univcrsc and cstab-
lishcs thc physical communism ol bcing. My moving my pcn
on a piccc ol papcr, thus rcdistributing thc atoms ol ink, papcr,
thc stccl ol thc pcn, and so on, is in principlc just such a cosmic
cvcnt as astronomical or gcological catastrophcs, though pcr-
haps ol lcsscr lorcc (and cvcn this is not ccrtain, lor wc cannot
mcasurc thcsc two cvcnts against cach othcr). Now, as ! sit at
this dcsk, ! cxpcricncc on myscll thc innitc complcxity ol thc
positivc and ncgativc inucnccs ol cosmic lorccs, and not only
ol thc sun rcmovcd lrom us by millions ol kilomctcrs but ol all
visiblc and invisiblc suns ol thc world. A cosmic changc, in-
comprchcnsiblc to mc in its origins, may bring about an atmo-
sphcric statc, a hcat wavc, sucicnt to cnd a lilc that is dcar to
mc or to makc my own cxistcncc impossiblc.
Thcrc is a ccrtain cosmological karma ol csscnccs. Thc unity
ol thc univcrsc, thc physical communism ol bcing, mcans that,
physically, cvcrything nds itscll in cvcrything clsc, cvcry atom
is conncctcd with thc cntirc univcrsc; or, il wc comparc thc
univcrsc to an organism, wc can say that cvcrything cntcrs into
thc makcup ol thc world body.
1
Vc cannot stop at acknowlcdging this physical communism
ol bcing, lor thc univcrsc is charactcrizcd not only by a gcncral
corrcspondcncc, a continuity and conncctcdncss ol thc world
ol physical mattcr, but also by a ccrtain rclation bctwccn living,
or organizcd, mattcr and nonliving, or dcad, mattcr or, in othcr
words, bctwccn organic bodics and inanimatc mattcr. A bound-
,o Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
4
o
f
3
5
8
ary runs through thc cntirc univcrsc, dividing it into two king-
doms: thc living and thc nonliving. Lct scicncc wcar itscll out
in thc cort somchow to stcp ovcr or crasc this boundary and,
lailing to nd it, bcgin cvcn to dcny its cxistcncc. Altcr all,
it cxists in lact il not in thcory, as thcrc is thc living and thc
nonliving. And thc gcncral rclation bctwccn thc two clds is
that thc kingdom ol lilc constantly intrudcs on thc kingdom
ol nonlilc, scizcs and carrics away cold, lilclcss mattcr with its
warm tcntaclcs, and translorms it into living matcrial, orga-
nizcs dcad mattcr into a living body. 8ut, convcrscly, it docs
not havc thc strcngth to maintain this translormation lorcvcr;
lilc is not capablc ol pcnctrating dcad mattcr with its warmth
so thoroughly that it will ncvcr cool again. Thcrc comcs a timc
whcn bodicswholc or in partsturn oncc again into dcad
mattcr, into thc primordial mctaphysical carth about which
man, and with him all living things, wcrc told: dust thou art,
and into dust shalt thou rcturn (Gcn. :.). Thc dam dividing
thc watcrs ol lilc and dcath turns out not to bc impcnctrablc:
thcy constantly ltcr through and mix with cach othcr. This
communism ol lilc and dcath, this mystcrious idcntity ol thc
living and thc dcad, thc mortality ol all lilc but also, appar-
cntly, thc lilc-capacity ol thc nonliving, arc among thc most
lundamcntal pillars ol our carthly bcing, on which thc possi-
bility ol an cconomic rclation to thc world also dcpcnds. Lilc
is dcath, and dcath is lilc, such is thc lormula ol this idcntity.
!n morc complctc and dcvclopcd lorm it would bc cxprcsscd
thus: lilc passcs into a statc ol lilclcssncss, or dcath, that is
ncw or transccndcnt to it, whilc thc lilclcss, or dcad, is raiscd
into a dicrcnt, highcr statc ol lilc that is also transccndcnt
to it. This idcntity, constantly standing bclorc us in an in-
numcrablc quantity ol acts and potcntials, is an cxpcricntial
lact, scll-cvidcnt to all. Yct thc philosophical cxplication ol this
lact conlronts thc consciousncss with thc irrcsolvablc riddlc ol
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
5
o
f
3
5
8
lilc and dcath: How is it possiblc to think this idcntity and this
transccndcncc. And what is morc rcal, morc primordial, morc
substantial: lilc or dcath, thc living or thc dcad principlc. !s
lilc mcrcly an cpiphcnomcnon ol dcath, dcaths lovcly dccora-
tion, a miragc callcd up by thc play ol physical lorccs. 8ut thcn
thc scnsc ol lilc, its scll-consciousncss (which by lar prcccdcs
thc scll-consciousncss ol thc individual) bccomcs an unattain-
ablc miraclc toward which thcrc is no scicntic or logical path,
and nothing rcmains but to jump across thc abyss, as thc dog-
matic matcrialists actually do. r is thc oppositc corrcct: Thcrc
is no dcath, thcrc is only lilc, which occasionally lrcczcs and
practically disappcars but always rcmains in potcntial, cxists as
il in a laint, and thc univcrsc is only thc dcvclopmcnt ol thc
innitc potcntials ol lilc, a laddcr madc up ol its rungs. Fol-
lowing thc ancicnts (Plato and particularly Plotinus), 8hmc
and 8aadcr, Schclling and \ladimir Solovicv, ! considcr this
monism ol lilc, panzoism, in contrast to thc monism ol dcath,
or thc panlanatism ol thc matcrialists, to bc thc singlc mcta-
physical hypothcsis capablc ol rcsolving this diculty; and cvcn
matcrialists, by lalling into panthcistic hylozoism, anthropo-
morphizing naturc, attributing tclcology and cvcn acsthctics to
it, divinizing it (likc Hckcl), csscntially dcny panlanatism and
approach panzoism.
Mattcr that has bccn organizcd by lilc is alrcady a body, and a
body is thc totality ol organs by mcans ol which lilc ovcrcomcs
dcad mattcr. Through thc body, thanks to thc conncctcdncss
ol thc univcrsc, lilc in its various manilcstations pcnctratcs into
thc cntirc cosmos. Thc cosmos is in this scnsc thc potcntial
body ol a living bcing, an organism in potentia. This potcntial,
ol coursc, may ncvcr bc rcalizcd, or may bc rcalizcd only in part.
!t cxists in a dual scnsc.
First, cvcry living body organizcs mattcr, and not just a givcn
quantity ol mattcr, as it may appcar whcn wc considcr it stati-
,8 Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
6
o
f
3
5
8
cally, but mattcr in gcncral, lor dynamically thcrc cxists but a
singlc mattcr, prima materia, and this mattcr (thc mothcr ol
lilc, M~thr zvw, thc Platonic mcon), as a systcm ol lorccs, is
onc and continuous. Thc lilc-giving principlc, as it takcs pos-
scssion ol this mattcr, lorms, so to spcak, knots ol lilc in it
that arc not isolatcd but dynamically conncctcd as a systcm ol
intcrrclatcd lorccs; thcsc arc not scparatc and discrctc sphcrcs
ol lilc but lilc itscll in its various manilcstations. Lilc organizcs
mattcr in an innity ol points and ccntcrs, lcrtilizcs thc rcccp-
tivc lcmininc principlc, thc lilclcss Mcon, with its activc malc
principlc. Thc ros ol lilc is born ol Poros and Pcna, wcalth
and povcrty, activity and passivity. !dcaslorms, cntclcchics
bccomc cmbodicd in lormlcss passivc mattcr and lorm monads.
utsidc ol this organization mattcr cxists on thc vcry bordcr
ol nonbcing (ok n), undcrstood in thc scnsc ol mctaphysi-
cal noncxistcncc, dwclling in a statc ol scmi-bcing, unrcalizcd
bcing, as purc potcntial (m| n).
Sccond, apart lrom this gcncral and abstract unity ol lilc and
mattcr, thc activc and thc passivc principlc, lilc is also univcrsal
in an cntircly concrctc scnsc. Lilc is givcn not only in thc logical
consciousncss, which contains thc univcrsc as an idcal, but also
in thc potcntial cxpansion ol thc living bcings scnsuality, which
in principlc has no boundarics or, morc prcciscly, whosc bound-
arics corrcspond with thosc ol thc univcrsc. ur bodily organs
arc likc doors and windows into thc univcrsc, and all that cntcrs
us through thcsc doors and windows bccomcs thc objcct ol our
scnsual pcnctration and, in thc proccss, bccomcs in a scnsc part
ol our body. All that cmcrgcs lrom thc mconically dark rcalm
ol scmi-bcing and is illumincd by lilc bccomcs somcthing likc
thc pcriphcry ol our body: all that wc scc undcr thc micro-
scopc or through thc tclcscopcthc microscopic world, distant
lrom us in thc dcpths ol spacc, and thc hcavcnly bodics, dis-
tant in its brcadthall that is acccssiblc to our cognition and
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
7
o
f
3
5
8
that somchow accts our scnsuality and thus cntcrs thc illumi-
natcd sphcrc ol lilc, all ol this, that is, potcntially thc cntirc
univcrsc, can bccomc our body, its cxtcrnal, pcriphcral cxtcn-
sion. This is why ultimatcly, thc cntirc univcrsc, which now,
as a world ol lilclcss mconic bcing, in itscll but not lor itscll,
appcars to us undcr a shroud ol mcchanism and a mask ol lilc-
lcss thingncss, is, or rathcr can bccomc, an organism as soon as
thc shroud is liltcd and thc mask takcn away. This is how wc
should undcrstand Schcllings prolound idca that thc univcrsc
is lor thc intcllcct |or, lollowing our dcduction, lor lilc| but
a scparatc and crudcr organ ol scll-consciousncss, just as thc
individual organism is its morc immcdiatc and rcncd organ,
and that thc organism is actually nothing othcr than a rc-
duccd |.usammenge.ogenes| imagc ol thc univcrsc.
2
This givcs
ncw mcaning to thc olt-rcpcatcd idca that thc cntirc univcrsc is
born and dics with cvcry individual. This mcans, among othcr
things, that thc univcrsc in gcncral is lilcs cld ol opcration
as it illumincs thc mconic darkncss, thc potcntiality ol matcrial
bcing, with its light. So wc ought to intcrprct this cxprcssion a
good dcal morc litcrally than is usual. Vc should limit it only
in that, bccausc ol thc multiplicity ol lilcs manilcstations and
ccntcrs, lilc can ncvcr bc cntircly conqucrcd by dcath, which
dcstroys only ccrtain ol thcsc ccntcrs, and thcrclorc thc univcrsc
can ncvcr dic complctcly, that is, plungc into thc cmptincss and
lormlcssncss ol mconic scmi-bcing, in which nothing happcns
and no cvcnts takc placc. Thus Lilc and Mattcr (thc Mcon)
conlront cach othcr as two antipodal principlcs, attracting and
dcning cach othcr but at thc samc timc mutually rcpcllcnt.
Lilc rcquircs a loundation or substratum, an incrtia that is to
bc conqucrcd and activatcd through its sharpncss, as light prc-
supposcs darkncss, warmth cold, and joy sadncss to bc ovcr-
comc. Thc absolutc organism ol thc univcrsc, lilcs nal victory
ovcr thc mcon, lorcvcr cloaking it with lilc and cxiling dcath,
zcc Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
8
o
f
3
5
8
and thc mcons absolutc mcchanism, thc carth invisiblc and
cmpty bclorc thc crcativc word ol Gcncsis (.:.)thcsc arc thc
two mctaphysical limits, thc two polcs ol bcing in thc world.
Thc currcnt world cpoch has not stabilizcd on onc or thc othcr
sidcncithcr on thc sidc ol chaos, cmptincss and mcchanism
nor on that ol organism, immortal lilc, plcnitudc. A latal ducl
is raging bctwccn Lilc and cath . . .
Yct such a strugglc is possiblc only bctwccn principlcs that,
though dicrcnt and cvcn oppositc, still havc somcthing in
common. Morc prcciscly, wc can say that this is a strugglc not
so much ol two principlcs but ol t.o states ol thc samc uni-
vcrsc, and thc strugglc itscll is but a symptom ol thc unhcalthy
condition ol bcing, though this might bc callcd a casc ol grow-
ing pains: thc lorccs ol nonbcing, thc mconic clcmcnts, havc
riscn up and rcvoltcd against thc lorccs ol lilc but can still bc
conqucrcd by it. nly this makcs possiblc that constant, in-
ccssant partial rcsurrcction or rcsuscitation ol dcad mattcr, its
tcmporary rcvival, although altcr a ccrtain timc it lalls back
into its laint. Thc possibility ol a strugglc bctwccn thc animatc
and thc inanimatc is contingcnt on thcir substantial idcntity,
whcrc thcir statc or condition is, howcvcr, dicrcnt. This pri-
mordial idcntity ol thc living and thc nonliving is cxprcsscd
in nourishmcnt and in thc growth and cxpansion ol lilc that
arc associatcd with it. 8y nourishment in thc broadcst scnsc wc
mcan thc most gcncral mctabolic cxchangc bctwccn thc living
organism and its cnvironmcnt, including not just lood but rcs-
piration and thc cccts ol thc atmosphcrc, light, clcctricity,
chcmistry, and othcr lorccs on our organism, insolar as thcy
support lilc. Nourishmcnt undcrstood cvcn morc broadly can
includc not just mctabolism in thc indicatcd scnsc but our cn-
tirc scnsuality (in thc Kantian scnsc), that is, thc capacity
to bc acctcd by thc cxtcrnal world, to rcccivc imprcssions or
irritations ol thc scnscs lrom it. Vc cat thc world, wc partakc
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zcz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
0
9
o
f
3
5
8
ol thc csh ol thc world not only with our mouths or digcs-
tivc organs, not only with our lungs and skin in thc proccss ol
rcspiration, but also in thc coursc ol sccing, smclling, hcaring,
lccling, and gcncral muscular scnsation. Thc world cntcrs us
through all thc windows and doors ol our scnsc and, having
cntcrcd, is apprchcndcd and assimilatcd by us. !n its totality
this consumption ol thc world, this ontological communication
with it, this communism ol bcing, lics at thc loundation ol all
ol our lilc proccsscs. Lilc is in this scnsc thc capacity to con-
sumc thc world, whcrcas dcath is an cxodus out ol this world,
thc loss ol capacity to communicatc with it; nally, rcsurrcction
is a rcturn into thc world with a rcstoration ol this capacity,
though to an innitcly cxpandcd dcgrcc.
!n ordcr not to complicatc thc issuc by distinguishing among
various particular lorms ol nourishmcnt (! am awarc that ! am
using this tcrm in a scnsc unusual lor physiology, but it quitc
prcciscly convcys thc rcquircd shadc ol mcaning, namcly, con-
ccrning thc support ol a living organism by a nonliving cnviron-
mcnt), lct us locus our attcntion on nourishmcnt in thc narrow
scnsc, that is, on lood. Vhat is to cat. Vc arc not lrcc in thc
choicc ol our lood, lor through it wc can takc in not only lilc
but also dcath; thc strugglc lor lilc and dcath, or thc strugglc
lor survival, is in thc cntirc animal world conccntratcd in lood.
Lilc is impossiblc without lood, sincc wc cannot rcccivc nour-
ishmcnt through thc atmosphcrc; thc skclcton ol dcath stands
bchind us and spurs us on in our scarch lor lood. Vhat, thcn, is
lood. For thc natural scicntist thc qucstion ol lood is, ol coursc,
a complcx problcm ol our organisms physiological lunctions,
and thc study ol lood is a chaptcr ol physiology. Yct, whatcvcr
thc physiological organs ol nourishmcnt, biological scicncc by
no mcans climinatcs nor rcsolvcs thc morc gcncral mctaphysical
qucstion ol thc mcaning ol lood. How can mattcr that is alicn
to my organism bccomc my csh, cntcr into my body. r, to
zc: Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
0
o
f
3
5
8
put thc samc qucstion backwards: How docs my csh, a living
body, turn into dcad mattcr, cntircly altcr dcath but partially
ovcr thc coursc ol my cntirc lilc, in thc lorm ol cxcrcmcnt, lall-
ing hair, nails, cvaporations, and so on. Hcrc wc havc thc most
vivid cxprcssion ol thc cosmic communism ol which wc spokc
abovc. Thc boundary bctwccn living and nonliving is actually
rcmovcd in lood. Food is natural communionpartaking ol thc
csh ol thc world. Vhcn ! takc in lood, ! am cating world mat-
tcr in gcncral,
3
and, in so doing, ! truly and in rcality nd thc
world within mc and myscll in thc world, ! bccomc a part ol
it. !n thc immcdiatc scnsc, ! cat this brcad hcrc. 8ut dynami-
cally, as a rcsult ol thc unity and conncctcdncss ol thc univcrsc
ol which wc havc spokcn, ! takc in thc csh ol thc world in
gcncral in thc guisc ol this brcad. For thc history ol this brcad,
as ol cvcry particlc ol mattcr, contains thc history ol thc cntirc
univcrsc. !n ordcr lor it to growand rcccivc its currcnt lorm, thc
collcctivc action ol thc cntirc world mcchanism in its past and
prcscnt is rcquircd. And not only this brcad, but cvcry particlc
ol thc lood wc cat (and cvcry atom ol thc air wc brcathc) is in
principlc thc csh ol thc world. And wc arc ablc to partakc ol
thc worlds csh, to support our lilc, to cat, only as crcaturcs
or childrcn ol this samc world. Food in this scnsc uncovcrs our
csscntial mctaphysical unity with thc world. Crcaturcs tran-
sccndcnt to this world and outsidc ol it would bc incapablc ol
cating and by thc samc tokcn incapablc ol immcdiatc and di-
rcct action on this world; in ordcr to obtain this capacity, thcy
had rst to bccomc incarnatc (or to matcrializc, as spirits arc
supposcd to do at mystical sanccs). For thc world ol spirits,
light or dark, as lor souls that havc dcpartcd lrom our world
and cxist in thc altcrworld, our world rcmains transccndcnt,
and thcy lack a loothold lrom which to act in it. !t rcmains
lor thcm an abstract conccpt rathcr than a rcality, much as thc
altcrworld sccms to us. And God, too, having honorcd this
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zc
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
1
o
f
3
5
8
world with lrccdom and autonomy and thcrclorc crcatcd it as
cxtradivinc bcing, outsidc himscll, can act on it only through
cxtcrnal, transccndcnt cxcrtion, as a dcus cx machina, or clsc
through ncw crcation. vcn God had to bccomc incarnatc in
thc world in ordcr to act on it lrom within, as an inncr-worldly
rcsurrcctivc lorcc. And thc Vord was madc csh. God-thc
Vord brings about a transccndcncc; hc partakcs ol worldly
bcing (and livcd with mcn) lrom cxtraworldly bcing in ordcr,
having raiscd thc world to himscll, to savc it.
!l lood is a mcans ol communion with thc csh ol thc world,
rcgardlcss ol its shapc and quantity, thcn partaking ol Christs
csh and blood in thc lorm ol brcad and winc is communion
with thc csh ol thc Son ol God, thc divinizcd csh ol thc
world, which can also bc conccivcd only dynamically. And as
lood maintains mortal lilc, so thc cucharistic mcal mcans to
partakc ol immortal lilc, in which dcath is conqucrcd oncc and
lor all, and thc dcathlikc impcnctrability ol mattcr is ovcrcomc.
!t is immancnt to our world as its divinizcd csh, but it is simul-
tancously transccndcnt to its currcnt statc. Gods incarnation
crcatcd a ncw, spiritual cshthc csh ol thc world is raiscd
to a highcr, immortal potcntial, and wc anticipatc its immincnt
transguration in thc sacramcnt. !n this scnsc wc can say that
thc holy lood ol thc ucharist, thc mcdicinc ol immortality
(frmakn tw yanasaw), is lood, but potcntializcd lood; it
nourishcs immortal lilc, scparatcd lrom our lilc by thc thrcsh-
old ol dcath and rcsurrcction. Hc that catcth my csh, and
drinkcth my blood, dwcllcth in mc, and ! in him . . . so hc that
catcth mc, cvcn hc shall livc by mc (John 6:6y). As wc takc
thc world with its mortal lilc into oursclvcs by partaking ol thc
csh ol thc world, and thosc who takc this lood dic, so thosc
who tastc manna lrom hcavcn takc in its lilc-giving lorcc.
And ! will raisc him up at thc last day (John 6:), Christ
promiscs thcm. !n this scnsc wc can say that thc grcatcst Chris-
zc, Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
2
o
f
3
5
8
tian sacramcnt is anticipatcd by such a simplc act ol daily lilc as
cating; thc anticipation ol this sacramcnt, thc cort to rcccivc
gracc and hcaling communion through naturally partaking ol
thc csh ol thc world, also cxplains thc origins ol pagan natural
sacramcnts, lor cxamplc, thc Grcck mystcrics.
4
Thus thc possibility ol consumption is in principlc bascd on
thc mctaphysical communism ol thc univcrsc, on thc primordial
idcntity ol all that cxists, thanks to which mctabolic cxchangc
and circulation arc possiblc; it is prcmiscd, abovc all clsc, on thc
unity ol living and nonliving, on thc univcrsality ol lilc. Thc
appcarancc ol lilc, its nourishmcnt and cxpansion, arc possiblc
only bccausc thc cntirc univcrsc is a living body. l coursc wc
ought not to undcrstand this asscrtion as a natural-scicntic
statcmcnt, lor it contradicts its csscntial lacts and loundations.
Natural scicncc procccdscorrcctly lor its own purposcs
lrom a distinction rathcr than idcntication ol thc living and
thc nonliving. !t pcrccivcs thc boundary dividing thc organic
and thc inorganic, thc living and thc dcad, as immutablc, and
this constitutcs thc strcngth ol its position. 8ut thc asscrtion
madc hcrc in no way intrudcs into natural scicnccs sphcrc ol
compctcncc but opcratcs, so to spcak, abovc thcsc particular
truths ol natural scicncc. !t procccds lrom an undcrstanding ol
thc world that is pcrlcctly rcconcilablc with all ol natural sci-
cnccs divisions and lragmcntations ol naturc. Natural scicncc,
in all thc complcx makcup ol its componcnt disciplincs, dividcs
and lragmcnts naturc in thc intcrcst ol studying it, crcatcs an
cnormous numbcr ol scparatc cxpcrimcnts lrom a singlc wholc,
and poscs a multiplicity ol particular problcms. Thc natural clc-
mcnts dctcrmincd by natural scicncc posscss widcly dicring
charactcristics and arc virtually inconvcrtiblc into cach othcr.
Naturcs totality in its immcdiacy disappcars without a tracc;
naturc dics in thc proccss ol scicntic invcstigation. !t is likc a
corpsc whosc musclcs and ncrvcs arc studicd in an anatomical
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zc
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
3
o
f
3
5
8
lcsson. And, just as it is impossiblc to rcasscmblc all thc organs
ol a corpsc back into cvcn a dcad, not to spcak ol a living body,
altcr thcy havc bccn thus studicd, so natural scicncc, which
cxists only in its various branchcslor thcrc is no such thing
as thc study ol naturc as a wholcis incapablc ol synthctically
rcasscmbling thc world lrom its scattcrcd clcmcnts. !t rcmains
lragmcntcd and dcad. Thc idcal ol natural scicncc, ol coursc,
would bc to ovcrcomc this lragmcntation ol study, this thco-
rctical murdcr ol naturc that pcrmits thc study only ol naturcs
corpsc.
!l such a transccndcncc wcrc to takc placc, thcn thc divi-
sivc activity ol thc various natural-scicntic disciplcs would also
bc ovcrcomc, and thc rclativc naturc ol all thosc distinctions,
which actually docs not thrcatcn thc initial unity or idcntity
ol naturc, would bccomc clcar. 8ut what is mcrcly an idcal
lor thc study ol naturc, lor its currcnt statc not only docs not
corrcspond to this goal but actually contradicts it, rcmains ir-
rclutably as thc a priori mctaphysical prcmisc ol any scicntic
cxpcrimcnt. 8ut this samc primordial idcntity or unity ol naturc
rcccivcs clcar and wc might cvcn say apodictic conrmation in
thc lact ol consumption, in which thc boundary bctwccn thc
living and thc dcad, thc animatc and thc inanimatc, is liltcd. !n
it naturc rcccivcs assurancc ol thc possibility ol univcrsal rcani-
mation. Conscqucntly, dcspitc all thc dicrcnccs and pcculiari-
tics ol thc natural clcmcnts, ol thc lorms and statcs ol mattcr,
and cvcn il wc complctcly acknowlcdgc thc principium indi-
.iduationis et dierentiae, naturc is still onc, and this unity is
disccrniblc in that csscntial cconomic lunctionconsumption.
Apparcntly, all thc variations in thc natura naturatas products,
which lor natural scicncc appcar not to bc acccssiblc to any
lurthcr division or disscction, still do not rcach thc csscncc ol
bcing, arc not givcn in thc natura naturans, but arc mcrcly statcs
or products ol naturc; thcy do not thcmsclvcs composc thc crc-
zco Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
4
o
f
3
5
8
ativc lorccs ol thc natura naturans, which riscs abovc cach ol its
scparatc products yct at thc samc timc unics thcm.
Thus thc sphcrc ol compctcncc ol natural scicncc and its
thcorics rcmains untouchcd by thc proposcd asscrtion ol thc
unity or idcntity ol naturc, but, on thc othcr hand, no ob-
jcctions on thc part ol anatomizing natural scicncc can rclutc
this thcsis, which constitutcs but thc philosophical cxprcssion
ol clcmcntary lacts, immcdiatcly givcn and thcrclorc having a
claim to apodictic ccrtainty (lor both mathcmatics and cpistc-
mology arc constructcd on thc basis ol similar lacts or givcns).
Vc can say that consumption not only bcars witncss to naturcs
idcntity but that it is itscll this idcntity manilcstcd in action,
idcntity in actu. Thus ! adducc all thc changcs, normal and
pathological, in thc lilc ol my body to a singlc lorcc or cncrgy
that ol my bodily organism, in which all ol thcsc various, occa-
sionally mutually contradictory or cvcn apparcntly mutually cx-
clusivc phcnomcna dcvclop and disappcar, whilc thc unity and
scll-idcntity ol thc organisms lorccs, its cntclcchy, rcmains in
lull lorcc, likc thc natura naturans in rclation to thc natura
naturata. And what wc scc in thc organism as in a modcl, a
comprcsscd univcrsc, wc scc also in thc rclations bctwccn
living and nonliving in thc univcrsc, thc natura naturans, which
wc cannot dcny il only bccausc, as thc produccr ol cvcrything
and not itscll a product, it cannot bc opcncd and studicd cithcr
with thc aid ol an anatomical scalpcl or undcr a microscopc (as,
incidcntally, all that rcgards thc living lorccs ol organism, thc
natura naturans, thc dynamics ol lilc, also cannot bc studicd by
thcsc mcthods usclul only lor thc natura naturata, thc statics ol
thc univcrsc).
A rapprochcmcnt, a synthcsizing as wcll as an analytical ap-
proach, must takc placc bctwccn thc idcal ol knowlcdgc ol
living naturc, thc unicd natura naturans, and natural scicncc
thc study ol naturcs products, natura naturata. vcn cxpcri-
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zc,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
5
o
f
3
5
8
mcntal scicncc brings us to thc cstablishmcnt ol naturcs unity
in its spccializcd invcstigations. Natural philosophy constructs
a sccond story abovc it, although it takcs thc lorm ol a light
and unstablc structurc. Thc idcal hcrc is such a lusion ol natu-
ral philosophy and natural scicncc that thc lormcr would covcr
natural scicncc whilc thc lattcr lcd dircctly to philosophy.
5
!!. Pvobic:iox
Now lct us turn to thc sccond ol thc two particular qucstions
that togcthcr composc our gcncral qucry: How is cconomy pos-
siblc. Now wc lacc thc qucstion: Ho. is production possible
Production is thc cxcrtion ol thc subjcct on thc objcct, or man
on naturc, such that thc subjcct ol thc cconomic proccss im-
prints or rcalizcs his idca, objcctivizcs his goals, through thc
objcct ol his cconomic action. Production is, rst ol all, a sys-
tcm ol objecti.e actions, thc subjcctivc hcrc bccomcs objcctiv-
izcd: thc boundary bctwccn thc subjcct and objcct is rcmovcd,
and thc subjcct comcs out ol himscll into thc objcct.
Thc product ol thc cconomic proccss is a subjcct-objcct,
somcthing in which thc distinction bctwccn subjcct and ob-
jcct is cxtinguishcd; it is an itcm bclonging to naturc and to
thc world ol objccts, to thc non-!, yct it is at thc samc timc
complctcly saturatcd in human tclcology, thc cmbodimcnt ol a
subjcctivc goal, and it rcalizcs a modcl or idca projcctcd in ad-
vancc in thc subjcct. !n this aspcct thc product ol any nishcd
productivc act is likc a work ol art, which is charactcrizcd by thc
mutual pcnctration ol mattcr and lorm or idca. Thc distinction
bctwccn thc cconomic proccss and art bclongs to thcir tasks and
to thcir mctaphysical naturc, but thcy arc quitc similar in this
lormal momcnt, in thc subjcct-objcctncss ol thcir products. !n
both cascs thc shroud ol alicnation (objcctncss or thingncss)
lrom man or thc subjcct is partially rcmovcd lrom thc world,
zc8 Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
6
o
f
3
5
8
and idcas and goals bcgin to pcnctratc and shinc in things;
mcchanism givcs way to tclcology or, morc prcciscly, bccomcs
incxtricably and cvcn indistinguishably idcnticd with it.
Vhat, thcn, do wc mcan by production as an objcctivc
action. First ol all that thc subjcct comcs out into thc objcct,
and not mcrcly thc ghost ol an objcct but a rcal onc, compris-
ing a part ol objcctivc, univcrsal cxpcricncc.
6
Kant poscd thc
qucstion ol how objcctivc knowlcdgc, cxpcricncc, was possiblc,
but only in thc scnsc ol a passivc, mirrorlikc rccction ol rcality.
Schclling alrcady raiscd thc issuc ol how thc contcmplativc,
cognitivc, Kantian ! could contcmplatc its own scll in an activc,
Fichtcan capacity, or how thc idcntity ol thc cognitivc and
activc ! was possiblc. ur own problcm is a variation and spc-
cial casc ol Schcllings gcncral problcm, which hc himscll poscs
(in thc System of Transcendental Idealism) primarily cpistcmo-
logically, although hc docs grant thc possibility ol its natural-
philosophical, ontological lormulation. Thc problcm hcrc is,
how is transsubjcctivc action, action on an objcct, which wc
havc in production, possiblc. Vithout doubt, this problcm is
statcd and takcn into account in cpistcmology, but it incvitably
lcads us to ontology. nly pcrhaps thc most dcspcratc solipsism
or a-cosmismitscll a particular, skcptical ontologywill rc-
jcct this transition; yct cvcn lor it thc problcm rcmains ol how
to account lor thc appcarancc cvcn in a drcaming conscious-
ncss ol thc idca ol objcctivc action as opposcd to subjcctivc
conccpts. Vc should point out that production has no placc
in thc contcmplativc notion ol Kantian cxpcricncc: although
it is lormulatcd by thc cpistcmological subjcct or by catcgorics
ol rcason, a situation in which thc subjcct, lcaving his cpistc-
mological obscrvatory, would bccomc an agcnt in thc cosmic
currcnt is not only unanticipatcd but actually cxcludcd in ad-
vancc. Thc Kantian subjcct could only rcgistcr such an cvcnt,
obscrving it lrom outsidc; hc would cquatc human actions with
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zc,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
7
o
f
3
5
8
a turning spit (using Kants lamous comparison), placing thcm
in thc catcgory ol causality and inspccting thcm only as mc-
chanically propcr objccts ol cxpcricnccs, phcnomcna, but no
morc than that. This is why thc qucstion ol thc rcal cxistcncc
or noncxistcncc ol thc cxtcrnal world rcmains so inacccssiblc
to Kantian philosophy with its calm armchair solipsism, lor
purc rccction is indicrcnt to whcthcr this world is drawn on
papcr or constructcd lrom papicr-mch, so long as it yiclds a
consistcnt imagc ol cxpcricncc, whcthcr is has bclorc it Con-
dillacs talking statucs or living pcoplc. !t has no nccd to lccl
thcsc objccts or knock on this rcality. nly lor thc philosophy
ol objcctivc action, that is, thc philosophy ol cconomy, docs
thc qucstion ol thc living rcality ol thc cxtcrnal world acquirc
burning urgcncy and incvitability, lor it dcals with thc issuc
ol cntry into this objcctivc rcality. As Schclling so bcautilully
says, thc world bccomcs objcctivc lor us only through action.
Vc act lrccly, and thc world cxists indcpcndcntly ol usthcsc
two propositions must bc synthctically combincd.
7
Thc world
comcs into cxistcncc lor us only as thc objcct ol our action.
A cld that wc scc in a drcam and in rcality may bc indistin-
guishablc in thcir visual imprcssion, yct thc dicrcncc bctwccn
thcm is that thc rst can mcrcly bc contcmplatcd by a passivc,
drcaming consciousncss, whcrcas thc sccond can bccomc thc
objcct lor action by a waking, activc, living consciousncss.
Vc can pokc holcs in a ghost or spirit in cvcry possiblc dircc-
tion, likc thc shadc ol Hamlcts lathcr, lcaving only a scnsation
ol cmptincss, nonbcing, dcccption. 8ut wc rccognizc thc un-
ghostly world ol living rcality as thc objcct ol our action and, at
thc samc timc, as an opposing or countcractivc lorcc, that is, as
an objcct ol cconomic action. Thc rcal coming out ol our ! into
thc non-! and, convcrscly, this non-!s prcssurc on thc !, thc cn-
tirc practicc ol mutual intcraction ol ! and non-!, cstablish thc
rcality ol thc cxtcrnal world and ll thc cmpty and cold rcalm
zzc Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
8
o
f
3
5
8
ol thc non-! with strcngth, warmth, bodics, turning thc miragc
ol thc non-! into naturc and, at thc samc timc, placing thc
! in naturc, organically lusing thcm in a singlc univcrsc. This
activc, cconomic rclation to thc world constitutcs thc living
basis lor that naivc rcalism that compriscs humanitys uni-
vcrsal natural cpistcmology bclorc any philosophical rccction
and that is rctaincd in practicc dcspitc any dcstructivc, skcpti-
cal conclusions ol philosophical solipsism. l coursc, no criti-
cal philosophcr has bccn ablc, nor will cvcr bc ablc, to instill
in humanity a rcal doubt in thc cxistcncc ol naturc or ol its
own body as an organ ol thc ! in naturc; this is by dint ol
mans immcdiatc cconomic rclation to thc world, his constant
coming out ol thc ! into thc non-!. conomy, as a constant
modcling or projcction ol rcality, and also thc objcctication
ol thc !s idcas, is a rcal bridgc lrom thc ! to thc non-!, lrom
thc subjcct to thc objcct, thcir living and immcdiatc unity that
nccds no prool but, instcad, must itscll, as an immcdiatc givcn
ol our cconomic cxpcricncc, bccomc thc loundation ol lurthcr
constructions. Thc rclation bctwccn thc ! and thc non-! is a
rclation bctwccn two worlds or two cncrgics in constant intcr-
action. And only an cconomic rclation to thc world can prop-
crly illuminatc thc lunction ol cognition, thc naturc ol purc
rcason, and thc thcorctical !. That purc rcason, or that cpistc-
mological, that is, abstractly rcasoning subjcct, lor whom thc
vcry cxistcncc ol rcality bccomcs thc primary problcm and who
wcars himscll out in cndlcss doubts on this qucstion, simply
docs not cxist in rcality. Thc cntirc cpistcmological or thcorcti-
cal qucstion ol thc rclation ol subjcct and objcct was invcntcd
in thc philosophcrs study and is a gmcnt ol logical lantasy,
a sort ol pangcomctry; this cpistcmology dcals not with man
but with myth; it is utopian in thc worst scnsc ol this word, as
thc dcnial ol rcality. And il it docs cstablish important truths,
this is only insolar as it bctrays its own position and takcs up
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zzz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
1
9
o
f
3
5
8
that ol rcalism. This abstraction ol thcorctical rcason is lol-
lowcd by a similar abstraction ol practical rcason undcrstood,
incidcntally, only in an cthical and not in an cconomic scnsc.
!n rcality, ncithcr onc cxists indcpcndcntly, and thcrc is only
a living unity ol thcorctical-practical rcason. !n thc mcantimc
thcy havc somcthing likc two dcsks, and cach dcals with spc-
cic lcs: thc thcorctical rcason lc and thc practical rca-
son lc. Furthcr, what turns out to bc irrcsolvablc on thc dcsk
ol thcorctical rcason is simply convcycd to thc dcsk ol practical
rcason, and what could not bc vcricd at thc rst dcsk is vcricd
at thc sccond. This is thc crux ol contcmporary nco-Kantian
scholasticism, gcncratcd by Kant with his Copcrnican act,
which consistcd in thc murdcr ol thc living, activc ! and thc
disscction ol its corpsc into two partswith thc aim ol latcr
asscmbling a wholc body lrom thc two dcad halvcs. Kants purc
rcason bclongs not to thc living ! incarnatcd in thc body, and
conncctcd through thc body with thc cntirc univcrsc, but to an
anatomical concoction ol cognitivc lorms, a skclcton composcd
ol boncs and tcndons. Practical rcason knows nothing ol what
thcorctical rcason is doing; it is thcorctically dcal and blind,
but only bccausc ol this can it bc practical reason.
Thus, mans cconomic rclation to thc world, thcorctical-
practical, projcctivc-activc, idcal-rcal, subjcctivc-objcctivc, is
ol primary signicancc both lor cpistcmology and lor gcncral
philosophy. Philosophy must procccd not lrom a lalsc conccp-
tion ol an cntircly ctivc cpistcmological subjcct but lrom thc
only conccption ol an activc cconomic subjcct givcn to us by
cxpcricncc. ur cntirc philosophical oricntation, thc typc ol
problcm that thcn ariscs, will bc complctcly dicrcnt, and a
wholc scrics ol lalsc problcms and imaginary dicultics ol sub-
jcctivc idcalism will lall away automatically.
Thus it is not thc world or cxpcricncc that is givcn to us in
thc ! or that is a conccption ol thc !; it is not thc objcct that
zz: Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
0
o
f
3
5
8
is containcd in thc subjcct, as subjcctivc idcalism tcachcs;
8
nor
is thc subjcct gcncratcd by thc objcct, as dogmatic matcrialism
tcachcs, asscrting somcthing cntircly irrational, inconccivablc,
and miraculous in thc most absurd scnsc, but thc subjcct is
givcn to us only in intcraction with thc objcct, as a subjcct-
objcct: ! am in thc world or in naturc, and naturc is in mc.
Hcncc thc ! is not nishcd, immutablc, givcn abstract, as lor
subjcctivc idcalism, but inccssantly growing, dcvcloping, living.
This changing rclation bctwccn thc subjcct and objcct, thc un-
lolding ol thc ! in naturc, is life, that is, growth, movcmcnt,
and dynamics rathcr than statics. !t is this living, activc, cco-
nomic ! that ought to bc thc point ol dcparturc lor philosophy.
Contcmporary pragmatism, insolar as it docs not unitc with
skcptical rclativism, comcs rcmarkably closc to this idca, and
8crgson comcs cvcn closcr.
9
!n analyzing cconomy as production, wc havc oncc again rc-
turncd to thc samc philosophical idcathat ol thc incvitablc
idcntity ol subjcct and objcct, ! and non-!, consciousncss and
naturc, which in rcality bccomc idcntical in thc cconomic pro-
ccss. nly this proposition can bc thc basis lor thc possibility
ol production. !ndccd, thc possibility ol objcctivc action, thc
!s activc coming out into thc non-!, or thc cxpansion ol thc
sphcrc ol thc ! into thc non-!, bccomcs intclligiblc only il thcrc
is a ccrtain similarity bctwccn thcm, il thcy nd thcmsclvcs, so
to spcak, on thc samc mctaphysical planc. !t is impossiblc to
displacc so much as a singlc atom in thc world without bcing
oncscll in this samc world and having a loothold in it. Vc can-
not cxplain thc intcraction ol ! and non-! on thc prcmisc ol
thcir bcing alicn to cach othcr. Thus wc arrivc at thc conclu-
sion ol thc mctaphysical homogcncity ol thc ! and thc non-!,
or thc idcntity in thcm ol thc cconomic logos, cxprcsscd in
naturcs practical willingncss to yicld, its rcccptivity with rc-
spcct to thc !s tasks and projccts. Thc samc cconomic logos
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
1
o
f
3
5
8
that acts in naturc as a blind organizing lorcc, and that cx-
prcsscs itscll scmiconsciously in thc animal world as instinct,
bccomcs lully conscious only in man; as a rcsult, idca and mat-
tcr, luscd togcthcr in naturc, rcccivc indcpcndcnt cxistcncc as
subjcct and objcct. !n thc subjcct-objcct naturc sccs itscll, bc-
comcs conscious ol itscll, acts on itscll, crcatcs itscll. Thc blind,
clcmcntal, or instinctual labor ol naturc bccomcs thc conscious
labor ol man.
Thus thc living conncction bctwccn subjcct and objcct, thc
bridgc lcading thc ! into thc world ol rcalitics and irrcvocably
connccting him to this world, is laborhuman rcality, objcc-
tivizcd ancw and thus objcctivizing thc world lor us. Thanks
to labor thcrc can bc no subjcct alonc, as subjcctivc idcalism
would havc it, nor any objcct alonc, as matcrialism holds, but
only thcir living unity, thc subjcct-objcct, and only whcn wc
inspcct its onc or anothcr aspcct by mcans ol mcthodological
abstraction do a subjcct and objcct scparatc out lrom it. This
polarity or duality ol bcing is cxtinguishcd only in thc Absolutc,
which is simultancously subjcct and objcct lor itscll. This is
why thc subjccts coming out ol itscll into thc objcct is by dc-
nition cxcludcd lor it, and subjcct-objcctncss is postulatcd in a
singlc, idcntical, timclcss act: thc mystcry ol thc holy Trinity
and intratrinitarian lilc!
Labor, which occupics so much spacc in thcorics ol political
cconomy, thus acquircs primary importancc in cpistcmology as
wcll, although thc lattcr has ncvcr takcn it scriously into ac-
count, has not oricntcd itscll on thc lact ol labor, ol living
cncrgy soldcring subjcct and objcct inscparably togcthcr, al-
though this would mcan mcrcly oricnting itscll on what is most
immcdiatcly givcn. Political cconomy, in contrast, though it has
ncvcr lrom its inccption ncglcctcd thc principlc ol labor, has,
as a rcsult ol its lack ol philosophical sophistication and thc
limitations ol its spiritual horizons, lailcd to usc this principlc
zz, Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
2
o
f
3
5
8
propcrly, to nd an appropriatc placc lor it. And it rcccivcd
a placc cntircly inappropriatc to its philosophical signicancc.
First ol all, political cconomyin thcory in thc works ol Adam
Smith, in practicc in thosc ol most ol its cxponcntsnarrowcd
thc conccpt ol labor to that ol productivc labor, cxprcsscd
in matcrial goods. Conscqucntly, attcntion was locuscd on a
singlc aspcct ol labor, thc objcctivc onc, which is actually its
pcriphcry, whilc its signicancc as a bridgc bctwccn subjcct and
objcct, by mcans ol which thc subjcct comcs into thc objcct
and rcalizcs its idcas, projcct, and modcls, was cntircly nc-
glcctcd. Tcchnology (in thc broadcst scnsc), as thc capacity lor
projccting or modcling, is alrcady implicit hcrc, and political
cconomy, as a historical scicncc, conccntrating on thc concrctc
and changcablc, rcsts its attcntion morc willingly on thc history
ol tcchnology than on its gcncral thcorctical problcm, which
rcmains thc samc lor Vatts machinc or thc most complcx con-
tcmporary machinc, as lor a primitivc hammcr or stonc axc, and
this is: How is it possiblc lor thc subjcct to comc out ol itscll
into thc objcct through labor. How is modcling or projccting
possiblc. How is objcctivc action or an cntirc systcm ol such
actions, that is, tcchnology, possiblc. Scicntic tcchnology, too,
cvadcs this qucstion, in its complctc conccntration on working
out dctailcd practical problcms.
8ut il political cconomy with its cconomic matcrialism
knows labor only in its products or objccts, and misscs it in thc
subjcct, thcn an analogous crror rcpcats itscll at thc oppositc
polcin Kantian subjcctivc idcalism. Thc Kantian, and cvcn
morc thc nco-Kantian, subjcct is idlc; it is absolutcly passivc
and dcvoid ol any working cncrgy. This dcprivcs it cvcn ol a
hcalthy consciousncss ol its own subjcctncss, thc rcality ol thc !,
lor which rcason it can, togcthcr with Humc, qucstion thc
cxistcncc ol thc pcrsonality, rcducing it to a clustcr ol conccp-
tions or, togcthcr with Kant, rcducing it to a lormal unity ol
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
3
o
f
3
5
8
consciousncss (unity ol transccndcntal appcrccption). Hcncc
thc latal and hopclcss dctcrminism ol this philosophy as an cx-
prcssion ol thc subjccts uttcr passivity, thc abscncc in it ol any
scnsc ol actuality, scll-dctcrmination, ascism.
8clorc such a subjcct or, rathcr, insidc it, in its conscious-
ncss, a thcatrical prcscntation takcs placc, and a lilc unlolds ol
which hc is only thc audicncc, watching lrom his armchair but
not taking part. And cvcn this contcmplation happcns as il ol
itscll, without any cxpcnditurc ol cncrgy and labor. 8ut no such
idlcncss cxists in consciousncss; it is invcntcd or postulatcd.
10
Cognition, as an act ol will, also rcquircs cncrgy, cort, labor;
and labor, as an intcgral part ol thc cognitivc proccss, ought
to lrcc us lrom thc scnsc ol thc ! as a mirror and thc world
as a phantom no lcss than docs thc cconomic proccss. !n this
scnsc cognition, too, is cconomic activity and involvcs labor;
it also ovcrcomcs thc division ol subjcct and objcct and lcads
to thcir mutual pcnctration. Thc rcality ol thc ! is not opcn
to doubt whcn it rcvcals itscll as actual cncrgy, or il it, to usc
Lcibnizs cxprcssion, rcalizcs itscll as a monad. And as cvcry
projcct making up an cconomic act alrcady contains within
itscll thc modcl ol a luturc product, so thc cognitivc proccss al-
rcady contains a modcl ol luturc knowlcdgc or its projcction in
thc lorm ol a qucstion, an anxicty, a scarch: without qucstions
thcrc can bc no answcrs, and all ol our knowlcdgc is naturcs
answcr to thc nccds ol our spirit. All ol knowlcdgc is thc cco-
nomic projcction ol luturc answcrs through qucstions poscd.
Hcrc thc objcct ol cxcrtion through labor is thc cxtcrnal world,
but in an idcal rathcr than a spatial or topographical scnsc:
what is now cxtra- or subconscious, but can potcntially bc illu-
minatcd by consciousncss and addcd to its richcs, is an objcct
ol cognition lull ol possibilitics as innitc as thosc ocrcd by
thc cxtcrnal world as an objcct ol cconomic action. !n this scnsc
knowlcdgc is cconomic action, thc subjcct, or !, coming into
zzo Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
4
o
f
3
5
8
thc non-! (rathcr, into thc not-yct-!), and thc primordial unity
ol thc ! and thc non-!, thc subjcct and thc objcct, is rcalizcd
is cach cognitivc act. Vhat cxistcd in a drcamy, potcntial statc
as thc unconscious, or as thc possibility ol knowlcdgc, bccomcs
actualizcd in consciousncss. Thc ! is cnrichcd not lrom within
itscll as consciousncss, or subjcct, but lrom within itscll as un-
conscious, or objcct; othcrwisc wc could not apprchcnd thc
cognitivc proccss as a constant intcraction bctwccn subjcct and
objcct. Thc subjcct tcars o thc skin ol unconsciousncss, brcaks
through to its objcct by thc proccss ol labor, quitc analogously
to thc proccss wc havc in thc production ol matcrial goods. Vc
might say that cconomy is a cognitivc proccss turncd scnsual or
cxtcrnalizcd, whcrcas cognition is thc samc proccss but in idcal,
ascnsual lorm. !n both cascs thc opposition ol subjcct and ob-
jcct is ovcrcomc; in both proccsscs thc samc mctaphysical basis
rcvcals itscll, namcly, thc identity ol subjcct and objcct, and lilc
unlolds as thc constant cxprcssion, dccpcning, and discovcry ol
this idcntity, couplcd with thc ovcrcoming ol this polarity. Thc
path ol this rcsolution, which is also thc path ol lilc, is labor.
vcry conscious, intcntional ovcrcoming ol thc opposition ol
subjcct and objcct in thc idcal or thc scnsual sphcrc is an act
ol labor. All wc can gct lor lrcc is cithcr, on onc hand, instinc-
tivc, prcconscious, or unconsciously tclcological, lully objcctivc
action (lor cxamplc, thc working ol our hcart) or, on thc othcr,
highcr contcmplation or artistic or rcligious rcvclation, in which
thc ! givcs itscll to thc objcct, lusing with it, and loscs itscll,
immcrsing itscll in thc lullncss ol cxpcricncc. l coursc thcsc
two sphcrcs ol action through labor, thc idcal and thc scnsual,
manilcsting thcmsclvcs in thc world ol idcal imagcs or ma-
tcrializcd idcas, arc so sharply distinguishcd lrom cach othcr
only in thcir cxtrcmc manilcstations; rcality prcscnts a mildcr
mixturc ol thc two sphcrcs. !n any casc, ncithcr cognition, thc
production ol idcal products, nor cconomy, thc production ol
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zz,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
5
o
f
3
5
8
matcrial products, as proccsscs ol labor in which cncrgy is cx-
pcndcd, pcrmit ol scrious and sinccrc doubt ol thc cxistcncc
ol thc subjcct or thc objcct, or ol thcir intcraction and mutual
pcnctrability, that is, ol rcality and causal conncction. This is
thc loundation ol thc point ol vicw that is pompously labclcd
naivc rcalism by critical philosophy; actually, this is lilc
rcalism or, morc prcciscly, economic realism. Labor, as thc basis
ol cpistcmology, thus rcmovcs thc problcm ol thc cxistcncc ol
thc cxtcrnal world (and also thc othcr !), showing it to bc an
idcalistic invcntion, a phantom ol abstract thought.
Thc signicancc ol labor, so undcrcstimatcd by cpistcmol-
ogy, has lound a ccrtain apprcciation in political cconomy.
8ut, in kccping with thc spccializcd charactcr ol cconomic sci-
cncc, this asscssmcnt is contingcnt and limitcd: labor is usually
placcd among thc lactors ol production, along with land and
capital, in thc thcory ol thc production ol matcrial goods. Yct,
although this classication may havc somc spccializcd rclc-
vancc, it is cntircly dcvoid ol gcncral philosophical mcaning. !n
this rcspcct thc asscssmcnt ol labor cxprcsscd in so-callcd labor
thcorics ol valuc is much morc intcrcsting. Hcrc labor is not
placcd mcrcly among othcr lactors ol production; instcad, it is
assigncd uniquc importancc as thc basis ol thc valuc ol goods.
Yct in vain would wc look hcrc lor philosophical cxtcnsion or
cxplication ol this idca. !t is undcrstood in an cxtrcmcly nar-
row scnsc, mcrcly as applicd to cxplaining thc mcchanism ol
priccs and to thc thcory ol commodity cxchangc valuc. As a
rcsult thc conccpt ol labor contracts in political cconomy to a
Smithian dcnition ol productivc labor, that is, labor cxprcsscd
only in matcrial products. For cxamplc, Marx dcncs .alues
as accrctions or crystals ol labor and labor as thc cxpcnditurc
ol human cncrgy; cncrgy is, in turn, dcncd with crudc and
naivc matcrialism as thc cxpcnditurc ol ncrvcs, musclcs, boncs,
physiological cncrgy. 8utwc could objcct against such a nar-
zz8 Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
6
o
f
3
5
8
row undcrstanding ol laborthc labor thcory ol valuc is itscll
a product ol labor and hcncc ol cconomic activity, lor its dc-
vclopmcnt and assimilation, too, prcsupposcs an cxpcnditurc
ol intcllcctual cncrgy or, in Marxs languagc, thc cxpcnditurc ol
ncrvous and mcntal cncrgy. Morcovcr, likc thc labor thcory ol
valuc, thcorics constructcd to rclutc it, dcnying thc univcrsal
signicancc ol thc principlc ol labor, arc cqually products ol
labor, just as arc matcrial goods, and arc just as varicd in quality,
utility, and applicability as thcy arc. 8ut dcspitc all its narrow-
ncss wc cannot dcny to thc labor thcory ol valuc thc gcncral
philosophical achicvcmcnt that it unambiguously movcd to thc
lorclront thc importancc ol thc principlc ol labor, so unap-
prcciatcd by philosophy. !t rccctcd, albcit inadcquatcly, mans
scnsc ol rcality, thc csscntial importancc ol labor and ccon-
omy lor lilc. !n this scnsc thc grain ol truth containcd in labor
thcorics ol valuc rcmains viablc, although only il givcn a dicr-
cnt intcrprctation than that ol its crcators, who hid this grain
in an opaquc shcll. Vc can cxplicatc thc lundamcntal idcal ol
thc thcory ol cxchangc valuc as lollows. Primary prcmisc: labor
is thc highcst principlc ol cconomic lilc and its loundation;
sccondary prcmisc: this primary rolc ol labor must also bc cx-
prcsscd in thc phcnomcnology ol cconomic lilc, on thc surlacc
ol its manilcstations; conclusion: thus cxchangc ratios, or com-
modity valucs, arc dcncd by thc quantity ol labor cxpcndcd
on thcir production. Clcarly, howcvcr, its crcators, in thc cort
to glorily labor (partly lrom motivcs ol socialist mangodhood)
cntircly obscurc thcir own idca and givc it a pctty, ugly cxprcs-
sion that turns out to bc indclcnsiblc cvcn on narrowly scicn-
tic grounds. Commodity priccs, cvcn on thc admission ol thc
crcators ol thc labor thcory ol valuc (Ricardo, Rodbcrtus, and
Marx), do not corrcspond with labor valucs, to which thc hon-
orary rolc ol an idcal, thcorctical arbitcr ol valucs is ascribcd;
thcy did not, apparcntly, considcr it possiblc to dcprivc labor
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions zz,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
7
o
f
3
5
8
cntircly ol this signicancc. 8ut in rcality, dctcrmining thc rcla-
tion ol markct priccs to labor valucs is ol no importancc, or cvcn
intcrcst, in cvaluating thc signicancc ol labor as thc lounda-
tion ol cconomy. Priccs may ncvcr corrcspond to labor valucs
(which, morcovcr, cannot cvcn bc thcorctically calculatcd with-
out an abundancc ol lcaps ol logic and irrcsolvablc cquations
with many unknowns), and still thc signicancc ol labor as thc
loundation ol cconomy will rcmain in lull lorcc. !l thc primary
prcmisc ol thc labor thcory ol valuc is corrcct and, to somc dc-
grcc, thc sccondary is also corrcct, thcn thc conclusion bcars
absolutcly no rclation to cithcr prcmisc, bccausc it translcrs thc
qucstion lrom a thcorctical planc to commcrcial practicc, to thc
markct. !l thc labor thcory ol valuc, at lcast in purc lorm, has
long bccn indclcnsiblc cvcn within political cconomy, thcn its
philosophical idca, or rathcr its adumbration, is cxtrcmcly valu-
ablc and, oncc lrccd lrom its inappropriatc and ugly lorm, may
bc lurthcr dcvclopcd. And in this political cconomy has provcd
itscll ahcad ol philosophy.
!t has bccomc clcar lrom thc abovc that thc qucstion ol how
production is possiblc is cquivalcnt to that ol how cconomic
labor is possiblc. !l wc dcsignatcd thc totality ol various pos-
siblc mcans ol mans action on naturc with dcnitc aims dc-
tcrmincd in advancc as technology, thcn wc can rclormulatc our
qucstion as: How is tcchnology possiblc. How can wc charac-
tcrizc thc tcchnical rclation ol thc subjcct to thc objcct, ol man
to naturc. Thc possibility ol tcchnology, apparcntly, prcsup-
poscs thc acccssibility in principlc ol naturc to human action,
its rcccptivity to human aims. As a conscqucncc ol thc gcn-
cral conncctcdncss ol naturc, thc unity ol thc cosmos, wc must
spcak ol thc acccssibility or obcdicncc ol naturc gcncrally to
man. Although man rcmains immcasurably lar lrom posscssion
ol naturc, this path is opcn to him. Naturc is thc passivc, rc-
ccptivc, lcmininc principlc; man is thc activc, malc, conscious
z:c Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
8
o
f
3
5
8
principlc. Thus naturc, with its rcigning blind intcllcct ol in-
stinct, bccomcs conscious ol itscll and acquircs vision only in
man. Nature becomes humani.ed, it is capablc ol bccoming mans
pcriphcral body, submitting to his consciousncss and rcalizing
itscll in him. !n this scnsc man is thc ccntcr ol thc univcrsc;
hc namcs thc animals and, ol coursc, thc plants and mincrals;
thc logos ol thc world rcalizcs itscll in him, and this potcn-
tial mastcry ol thc world (oncc lost) is partially and gradually
rcalizcd through thc cconomic proccss. Thus wc oncc again rc-
turn to thc ccntral idcal ol Schcllings natural philosophy, that
ol thc idcntity ol subjcct and objcct or, what is thc samc, ol
thc idcntity ol naturc as thc unconscious crcativity ol thc spirit
and its conscious rcitcration. nly this idcntity, this prolound
and intimatc kinship ol naturc and spirit, makcs both con-
sumption and production, and cconomy itscll, possiblc, as a
subjcctivc-objcctivc proccss, as idcntity in actu. Schclling calls
thc history ol naturc thc history ol scll-consciousncss, and it
cnds with thc appcarancc ol consciousncss. 8ut, having rcachcd
this thrcshold through thc strugglc ol unconscious and blind, il
tclcological and hcncc rcasonablc, lorccs, naturc sccms to grow
out ol itscll. Unconscious growth is supplcmcntcd and partly
rcplaccd by conscious rccrcation; thc givcn and instinctivc bc-
comcs conscious and is achicvcd through labor; thc natural is
rcplaccd by thc articial, that is, by thc cconomic-conscious.
Naturc, having achicvcd scll-consciousncss and thc capacity lor
labor on itscll in man, cntcrs into a ncw cpoch in its cxistcncc.
conomic labor is as il a ncw lorcc ol naturc, a ncw world-
crcating, cosmogonic lactor, which howcvcr rcmains distinct
in principlc lrom all thc othcr lorccs ol naturc. Thc economic
epoch is such a dcnitc and charactcristic cpoch in thc history
ol thc carth, and hcncc ol thc cosmos, that wc can dividc all
cosmogony into two pcriods: thc instinctivc, prcconscious, or
prccconomicbclorc mans appcaranccand thc conscious, or
Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions z:z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
2
9
o
f
3
5
8
cconomicaltcr his appcarancc. l coursc, wc spcak hcrc not
in thc scnsc ol contcmporary cvolutionism but mcan, instcad,
thc cxprcssion ol thc living lorccs originally dcpositcd in thc
univcrsc by thc Crcator. Thc world in its collcctcd, nal lorm
with Adamhumanityat thc ccntcr is madc by thc Crcator,
and what unlolds in timc and constitutcs thc contcnt ol history
mcrcly rccrcatcs thc inncr conncction and intcrrclation ol thc
worlds clcmcnts that was dcstroycd by thc original sin.
Vc can also say that thc natura naturans, which lics at thc
loundation ol thc natura naturata but is hiddcn and supprcsscd
by it, rcalizcs itscll in man. Man, slowly and gradually lrccing
himscll lrom slavcry to things, thc products ol thc natura natu-
rata, rcmovcs thc dcathly shroud lrom naturc and apprchcnds
its crcativc lorccs. Hc undcrstands that naturc as a product is
but a crcation ol thc natura naturans, although distortcd by thc
cvil rcign ol thc princc ol this world, lor whom, howcvcr,
thc natura naturans, thc immaculatc soul ol thc world, rcmains
inacccssiblc. And thc natura naturata, our currcnt carth and
hcavcn, which arc an impcrlcct product ol thc natura natu-
rans, will comc with noisc, arc to bc rc-crcatcd, and a ncw
carth and hcavcn, a ncw csh, will appcar; but rst this hcavy,
lcadcn shroud ol thingncss and lilclcss pctrication must bc
liltcd away lrom this world. 8ut hcrc wc cntcr alrcady into thc
cschatology ol cconomy, which lor now is outsidc our scopc. !n
cconomy, in thc conscious rc-crcation ol naturc, wc can scc a
ccrtain adumbration and anticipation ol that libcration ol thc
natura naturans lrom thc lcttcrs ol thc natura naturata ol which
thc apostlc said that all ol crcation submittcd to thc bustlc ol
dccay not ol its own volition but by thc will ol him who sub-
jcctcd it, lallcn man, thc soul ol thc world, and that all crc-
ation sucrs and awaits its libcration lrom thc imprisonmcnt
ol thingncss, lrom that hcavy numbncss in whosc somnolcncc
it drcams ol its libcration.
z:: Signicance of the Basic Economic Functions
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
0
o
f
3
5
8

n thc Transccndcntal
Subjcct ol conomy
!. M~x ~xb Hi:~xi:v
Vhat wc call cconomy is cmpirically cxprcsscd as a plurality
ol disparatc cconomic acts pcrlormcd by scparatc pcoplc ovcr
thc coursc ol timc and spacc,
1
just as knowlcdgc (scicncc) cxists
only in thc lorm ol scparatc acts ol cognition, scicntic cxpcri-
mcnts, spccializcd invcstigations. 8ut whcn wc takc economy as
a gcncric tcrm (just as whcn wc think ol knowlcdgc as a con-
ccptual wholc), wc unqucstionably transccnd this division into
disparatc acts and rcgard thcm as thc manilcstation ol a singlc
unied and cohcrcnt lunction that is morc than mcrcly thc algc-
braic sum ol its parts. Vc thcn scc thcsc scparatc acts dynami-
cally, as partial manilcstations ol a unicd activity subjcct to
its own particular norms. Thcsc norms cannot bc cstablishcd
inductivcly, by invcstigating scparatcly cach concrctc cconomic
or cognitivc act. Thcy can bc cstablishcd only a priori, through
an analysis ol gcncrally applicablc or transccndcntal conditions
ol knowlcdgc or, in our casc, ol cconomy. Ultimatcly, ol coursc,
this transccndcntal analysis must chcck itscll against cconomic
cxpcricncc.
nc such a priori proposition ol cconomy (as, again, ol
knowlcdgc) is its hcrcditary or historical charactcr. Although
cmpirically it is truc that cconomic activity takcs thc lorm ol a
myriad ol disparatc acts, il wc look at it dynamically, ovcr timc,
wc scc that it is actually a unicd and conncctcd activity whosc
subjcct is not thc individual but thc gcnus. Vc would miss
z:
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
1
o
f
3
5
8
thc csscntial contcnt ol cconomy (or ol scicncc) il wc lailcd to
pcrccivc thc wholc that cxcccds thc limits ol thcsc particular
cconomic (cognitivc) acts. An atomistic approach, which pro-
cccds by division, would in this casc prcvcnt us lrom making
thc appropriatc analysis, lor economy as a wholc is not only logi-
cally but also cmpirically prior to scparatc cconomic acts. Thc
cconomic systcm must alrcady bc in cxistcncc in ordcr lor thcsc
scparatc acts to bc possiblc, and not thc othcr way around: thcy
arc not simply lractions but parts ol an organic wholc that is
largcr than thc simplc sum ol its parts and that alonc can cn-
dow thcm with mcaning. ach cconomic act acquircs mcaning
only whcn it is inscribcd in an cntirc cconomic systcm, in a
ccrtain organic mcdium, similarly to thc way in which onc or
anothcr substancc bchavcs dicrcntly whcn introduccd into a
living organism than in its original inorganic contcxt; it is dc-
ncd not only indcpcndcntly but also through thc organism
that rcacts in onc or anothcr way to its propcrtics. And just as
an organism is ol coursc not mcrcly thc sum ol all ol thc sub-
stanccs ol which it is madc up, so also cconomy (and, again,
knowlcdgc) is an organic, synthcsizing activity that cxists, so
to spcak, abovc thc individual manilcstations that attain dc-
nition only by rclcrcncc to this largcr wholc. Although at any
givcn momcnt cconomy (or scicncc) cxists through thosc who
participatc in its proccss, it can not bc cquatcd with thcsc par-
ticipants; thc systcm as such cxists indcpcndcntly ol particular
individuals who comc and go in it. This hcrcditary, histori-
cal naturc ol cconomy is what distinguishcs human cconomic
systcms lrom animal oncs. l coursc, thc proccss ol consump-
tion is lamiliar to thc cntirc animal world, although that ol
production is most lrcqucntly rcduccd to simplc cxpropriation
and thc dcstruction ol othcr spccics in thc strugglc lor lilc,
whcrc thc csscntial tools bccomc tccth and claws. !l it is pos-
z:, On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
2
o
f
3
5
8
siblc to spcak hcrc ol labor at all, thcn this is only in thc scnsc
ol thc diculty ol thc strugglc, although, it is truc, almost
all animals must cxpcnd labor in thc construction ol housing,
and somc actually cngagc in rcgular cconomic activity, lor cx-
amplc, bcavcrs, ants, and bccs. 8ut although thc labor ol bccs
or ants, thcir cconomy, docs lollow a collcctivc principlc, still
this unity has vcry narrow boundarics. Thcy arc dcncd by thc
nccds ol thc cconomic organism, which rcproduccs itscll im-
mutably lrom gcncration to gcncration and rcmains cntircly
alicn to history. sscntially, thc collcctivity ol bccs or ants docs
not cxtcnd bcyond thc givcn hivc or anthill and ncvcr rcachcs
thc spccics as a wholc, which cxists as such only lor thc natu-
ral scicntist. !n this way thc animal cconomy dicrs qualita-
tivcly lrom human socicty, which, though bascd on thc samc
common lorms (thc lamily) as animal socictics, is capablc ol
cxpansion to includc, sooncr or latcr, thc cntirc human spccics.
Animal socicty prcscnts a changclcss instinctual rcproduction
ol thc samc proccss, with no progrcss, and political cconomy
as a historical scicncc would nd itscll at a loss il conlrontcd
with this immobility. Human cconomic activity, in contrast, is a
proccss ol social-historical dcvclopmcnt, and political cconomy
tcachcs this as a scll-cvidcnt truth. This mcans that human
cconomy is not only collcctivc (as lor animals) but also social in
a broadcr scnsc. Human cconomic activity is inhcrcntly social.
vcry individual cntcring into thc cconomic proccss occupics
a spccicd placc, and individual contributions acquirc social,
transsubjcctivc mcaning as part ol a wholc systcm.
2
Just as, ac-
cording to Aristotlc, thc statc as a wholc cxists prior to its parts,
so cconomy as a social systcm cxists prior to its participants.
3
Thc human cconomy dcvclops both cxtcnsivcly and intcn-
sivcly, so that at cach historical stagc at lcast somc part ol
thc prcccding proccss bccomcs intcgratcd into thc prcscnt; thc
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z:
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
3
o
f
3
5
8
prcscnt grows out ol thc past, assimilating it organically, simi-
larly to thc way in which lctal dcvclopmcnt rccapitulatcs bio-
gcncsis. 8ut at thc samc timc thc ncw spccics, this intcgral
ol thc prcccding historical scrics, contains within itscll somc
ncw clcmcnt, and this is what constitutcs historical dcvclop-
mcnt in naturc and in human history. This crcativity, this con-
stant introduction ol ncw clcmcnts is what rcndcrs historical
proccsscsamong thcm cconomy (and knowlcdgc)possiblc.
History is thus individual rathcr than typical.
4
!n this scnsc,
history is not subjcct to univcrsal laws, although thc laws ol
causality do opcratc within it.
5
Human cconomy is a social proccss that dcvclops ovcr timc
this proposition, madc up ol scll-cvidcnt lacts, has thc avor
ol apodictic ccrtainty. Thc history ol cconomic lilc studics thc
concrctc lorms assumcd by cconomic organization; it ordcrs thc
various typcs ol cconomic systcms (natural, cxchangc, national,
intcrnational) as succcssivc stagcs ol a singlc proccss, rcprcscnt-
ing thcm as thc rcalization ol a hiddcn potcntial. This proccss
is not nishcd, and it procccds not in a straight linc but by a
crookcd, brokcn spiral; it bcgins lrom scvcral dicrcnt points at
oncc, lrcqucntly brcaks o, and occasionally rcgrcsscs. !n othcr
words, thc capricious matcrial ol history, whosc dcity is li-
ccnsc, rcvcals only thc gcncral naturc ol thc proccss without
prcscnting it in nishcd lorm (lor this would signily thc cnd
ol history). Thc cconomic proccss is inhcrcntly social (prior to
thc lormulation ol any socialist or communist thcory), lor it
is drivcn not by individuals but by historical humanity. Thc
singlc truc transccndcntal subjcct ol cconomic activity, thc pcr-
sonication ol pure economy, is not any givcn individual but
humanity as a .hole. conomy would bc impossiblc and in-
comprchcnsiblc il wc did not acknowlcdgc thc cxistcncc ol
such a transccndcntal subjcct, bringing unity to thc many dis-
z:o On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
4
o
f
3
5
8
paratc acts that makc up thc cconomic proccss. Thcsc various
acts would lall apart without such a subjcct, would lail to coa-
lcscc in a total systcm. Hcrc it will bc objcctcd that thcrc arc
many causal mcchanisms thanks to which thc cconomic sys-
tcm comcs togcthcr as a wholc and that thcsc mcchanisms
lorm thc subjcct mattcr ol thc disciplinc ol political cconomy.
8ut wc can answcr that nothing can comc togcthcr by itscll
and that such a mcchanistic cxplanation asks only ho. without
asking .hat. Such an approach causcs historians and ccono-
mists to losc sight ol thc wholc in thcir conccntration on thc
parts, and wc can only rccommcnd that thcy rcturn to Aris-
totlc with his prolound notion ol thc logical priority ol thc
wholc ovcr thc parts and ol cnds ovcr mcans. Thc qucstion
ol thc cconomy as a wholc, cxisting prior to particular cco-
nomic cvcnts (in thc scnsc ol coursc ol logical and not chrono-
logical priority), must naturally attract our attcntion, though
it stands outsidc thc rcalm ol cmpirical invcstigation or cco-
nomic scicncc: this is thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol ccon-
omy. This problcm is analogous to thc transccndcntal problcm
ol knowlcdgc in gcncral: !s thcrc a transccndcntal subjcct ol
knowlcdgc who imparts unity to scparatc acts ol cognition. Al-
though thc transccndcntal charactcr ol knowlcdgc can at thc
prcscnt timc bc considcrcd morc or lcss clcarcd up, thc problcm
ol thc transccndcntal charactcr ol cconomy has not yct bccn
addrcsscd. !n csscncc thc qucstion hcrc is onc and thc samc,
namcly: Vhat can wc say about thc transccndcntal subjcct that
lics at thc loundation ol all cconomic and cognitivc proccsscs
and brings cohcrcncc to knowlcdgc and cconomy as cncrgics.
o knowlcdgc and cconomy cxist dynamically, as cncrgy or
powcr, as wcll as cmpirically, or statically. Kants crror lay in his
cpistcmological individualism, or atomism.
6
His transccndcntal
subjcct ol knowlcdgc, thc cpistcmological !, is an individual,
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z:,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
5
o
f
3
5
8
though, it is truc, stcrilizcd and clcanscd ol any psycholo-
gism, that is, ol cmpirical concrctcncss. Kants cpistcmologi-
cal subjcctaround which thc world turns in Kants philoso-
phy (this is his notorious Copcrnicanism)cxists ncithcr in
cmpirical rcality, lor it is concrctc, psychological, and thcrc-
lorc not clcan, nor outsidc thc cxpcricncc ol this rcality, lor
cntry into thc transccndcntal rcalm is lorbiddcn. Thcrclorc
thc cpistcmological individual is hcrc mcrcly a mcthodologi-
cal ction, a mcthod (as Cohcnism proclaimcd) and nothing
morc; knowlcdgc rcmains dcprivcd ol a truc subjcct. Kants
Critique dcstroys much morc than hc intcndcd; it subjcctivizcs
not only thc objcct ol knowlcdgc, translorming it into a mcrc
rcprcscntation, but also its subjcct, placing it somcwhcrc in a
transitional arca bctwccn thc cmpirical and thc transccndcn-
tal, in thc middlc bctwccn ycs and no. This nail, hammcrcd
into thc air, would not succ to support so much as a lcathcr,
lct alonc thc cntirc univcrsc that Copcrnicus Kant wants to
attach to it.
7
A transccndcntal subjcct ol knowlcdgc cannot
bc rcconcilcd with a multiplicity ol cpistcmological subjccts as
mutually impcnctrablc cntitics. Such subjccts would bc tran-
sccndcntal with rcspcct to cach othcr, and this would makc
objcctivc or all-human knowlcdgc complctcly impossiblc; yct
this univcrsal validity (llgemeingultigkeit) is ccntral to Kants
cpistcmology. 8ut prcciscly this idca ol univcrsal validity docs
not t into Kants transccndcntal philosophy: it is too big a y,
and it tcars thc nc cpistcmological wcb. A gcncral thcory ol
knowlcdgc is impossiblc unlcss wc makc thc lcap toward ac-
knowlcdging thc cxistcncc ol a gcncral transccndcntal subjcct,
rathcr than simply postulating a subjcct as a mcthodological
dcvicc (as Kant docs). !ncvitably, cpistcmology hcrc lcads us to
mctaphysics, to thc ontological prcmiscs ol thc possibility ol
cognition. Thc transccndcntal subjcct ol knowlcdgc is a lunc-
tion ol knowlcdgc and is rcalizcd through scparatc individuals
z:8 On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
6
o
f
3
5
8
but is supraindividual both in its task and in its signicancc, as
wcll as in its potcntial. !ndividuals arc only thc cycs, cars, and
organs ol thc singlc subjcct ol knowlcdgc, which posscsscs all
thc lorcc ol knowlcdgc, its cncrgy, its dcpth, and its products.
!t lorms thc loundation ol knowlcdgc not only in its innitc
divcrsity ol contcnt but also in its unity ol lormin gcncrally
applicablc norms, logical laws, transccndcntal lorms ol scnsi-
bility, and cognitivc catcgorics. !t is this subjcct that brings thc
innitc multiplicity ol cxpcricncc togcthcr in onc spacc, orga-
nizcs it in subscqucnt momcnts ol a unicd timc, and tics it
with an unbrokcn causal conncction. All ol thc traits that Kant
considcrs to bc a priori, suspcndcd somcwhcrc bctwccn bcing
and nonbcing, in lact bclong to this subjcct and arc assimilatcd
by it into thc cognitivc proccss, as Fichtc has rightly shown.
8oth thc a priori and thc a postcriori ol knowlcdgc bclong
to it. ithcr scparatc acts ol cognition arc absolutcly indcpcn-
dcnt and transccndcnt with rcspcct to cach othcr, in which casc
thcrc can bc no absolutc knowlcdgc, or thcsc acts ol cognition
cxist in a rcal, singlc, knowing bcing, as his activity or cncrgy.
Hcncc thcrc must rcally cxist a subjcct that has thc positivc
powcr ol knowlcdgc both in its gcncral, lormal aspccts and in
thc innitc multiplicity ol its contcnt, only partially known by
humanity. This subjcct is what makcs possiblc thc potcntial
lor univcrsal knowlcdgc, lor which cvcry pcrson strivcs. Thc
limits ol our knowlcdgc arc dctcrmincd only by thc cxtcrnal
limitations ol human lilc, cncrgy, and hcalth; in principlc, one
person ol gcnius and trcmcndous capacity lor work could at-
tain complctc kno.ledge of e.erything. This rcmains thc idcal
ol cducation: lor a singlc subjcct to achicvc uni.ersal kno.l-
edge, to rcalizc cmpirically that which is thc propcrty only ol
thc transccndcntal subjcct. Thcorctically, knowlcdgc could bc
organizcd to makc it acccssiblc to thc human consciousncss.
Thc lattcr is cmpirically limitcd but potcntially innitc and
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z:,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
7
o
f
3
5
8
capablc ol assimilating any contcnt. !n its thirst lor knowlcdgc
thc human consciousncss is capablc ol cncompassing cvcry-
thing; cach individual consciousncss contains absolutc strivings
natural only lor thc transccndcntal subjcct. Univcrsal knowl-
cdgc, though ncvcr rcalizcd, is givcn to us as a potcntial, as a
thirst.
Thus, thcrc docs cxist a transccndcntal subjcct ol knowlcdgc
that cstablishcs thc unity ol knowlcdgc both lormally, or cpis-
tcmologically, and in tcrms ol contcnt, or scicntically. Knowl-
cdgc is rcally onc and is intcgratcd in this subjcct. !t is mcrcly
rcalizcd through individual acts ol cognition, which bccomc
thc vchiclc lor its complctc cxprcssion and, ultimatcly, coalcscc
into a wholc in thc coursc ol thc cognitivc proccss. Only one
truly kno.s, but many engage in the process of cognition. This onc,
this transccndcntal subjcct ol knowlcdgc, is not thc human
individual but humanity as a wholc, thc world soul, thc divinc
Sophia, thc Plcroma, natura naturansit appcars undcr vari-
ous namcs and in various incarnations in thc history ol idcas.
!n modcrn Gcrman philosophy only Schclling has a thcory ol
thc univcrsal subjcct, in his philosophy ol idcntity. This thcory
occupicd a promincnt placc in Plato and thcn Plotinus, was
known to thc Stoics, and achicvcd uniquc signicancc in Chris-
tian philosophy, namcly, in thc doctrincs ol thc Logos and thc
rst and sccond Adam, in thc works ol St. ionysius thc Arco-
pagitc, St. Maxim thc Conlcssor, and St. Grcgory ol Nyssus,
and in J. Scotus rigcna, as wcll as in 8hmcs mystical rcvc-
lations, adoptcd by Franz 8aadcr; in rcccnt timcs, this problcm
has spontancously appcarcd in Russian philosophy so promi-
ncntly that it has bccomc its distinguishing charactcristic. This
is particularly truc ol \ladimir Solovicvs philosophical systcm,
in which thc notion ol thc world soul, or ol humanity as thc
divinc Sophia, occupics a major placc. Thc samc conccpt lorms
thc basis ol S. N. Trubctskoys cpistcmology
8
and is morc or
zc On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
8
o
f
3
5
8
lcss sharcd by thc contcmporary Russian philosophcrs who arc
ol thc samc philosophical oricntation.
Man can attain knowlcdgc in his capacity as thc cyc ol thc
world soul insolar as hc carrics within himscll thc rays ol thc
plcroma ol thc divinc Sophia. nly thc sunnincss ol his cycs
(lollowing Platos and Gocthcs cxprcssion) pcrmits him to scc
thc sun. 8ut hc docs so only impcrlcctly bccausc his cogni-
tion occurs through thc disorganizcd lragmcntation ol cmpiri-
cal rcality. For this rcason hc is only a piccc ol his potcntial
scll, who lurthcrmorc obscurcs his highcr naturc through this
vcry lragmcntation, although it could scrvc as a window to that
highcr naturc. !mpcnctrablc darkncss, whcrc thcrc is no knowl-
cdgc and no dicrcntiation, rcigns outsidc this sourcc ol light.
Yct man has a glimpsc ol that grcatcr knowlcdgc ol which hc
himscll is an impcrlcct bit; it is through him that transccndcnt
knowlcdgc cxprcsscs itscll, just as a lccblc amc partakcs ol thc
samc light as do thc suns rays.
vcrything wc havc said so lar about knowlcdgc and its
transccndcntal subjcct applics cqually to cconomy and its tran-
sccndcntal subjcct. Knowlcdgc itscll (as wc will scc bclow) is
also cconomic activity, insolar as it involvcs labor. !n practicc,
knowlcdgc in its pragmatic dimcnsion and cconomic activity
bccomc onc. Knowlcdgc and cconomy cannot cxist indcpcn-
dcntly: knowlcdgc crcatcs modcls and plans csscntial to cco-
nomic organization and itscll cxists only as part ol thc cconomic
systcm. Man cannot progrcss in knowlcdgc without simulta-
ncously rcalizing this progrcss in practical lilc. conomy is
knowlcdgc in action; knowlcdgc is cconomy in thcory. A singlc
synthcsizing lunction is rcsponsiblc lor intcgrating cconomic
acts into an cconomic systcm, cognitivc acts into scicncc, scpa-
ratc human actions into history. conomy, knowlcdgc, and his-
tory arc all intcrrclatcd, lor all arc lunctions ol thc transccn-
dcntal subjcct.
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
3
9
o
f
3
5
8
Vc must cmphasizc oncc morc that thcrc is onc subjcct and
not many: thc transccndcntal subjcct ol knowlcdgc, ol ccon-
omy, ol history is clcarly onc and thc samc; it lounds and objcc-
tivizcs all ol thcsc proccsscs, translorming thc subjcctivc into
thc transsubjcctivc, synthcsizing thc lragmcntcd actions and
cvcnts that makc up cconomy, knowlcdgc, and history into a
living wholc. 8ut what can wc say about this subjcct. How can
wc charactcrizc it on thc basis ol this synthcsizing lunction.
Vhat can wc say about thc world soulhumanity (lor, clcarly,
this subjcct is thc world soul as it rcvcals itscll through this
synthcsizing lunction). !n ordcr lor cconomy to bc possiblc,
thc subjcctthc world proprictor, or dcmiurgcmust bc part
ol thc natural world, must bc immancnt in cmpirical rcality.
conomy is contingcnt on bclonging to thc world. 8ut ccon-
omy as a product, natura naturata, constitutcs a mcchanical col-
lcction ol lorccs that, though conncctcd, arc not conscious ol
any unilying ccntcr. And although naturc sccms an inanimatc
mcchanism, in lact it contains thc potcntial lor bcing a living
organism. Thc living, organizing lorcc containcd in naturc bc-
comcs cvidcnt only in thc strugglc to ovcrcomc thc lilclcss,
mcchanical statc in which naturc cxists in cmpirical rcality and
in which it is subjcct to thc laws ol blind ncccssity. Natura
naturata prcscnts a picturc ol a strugglc ol lilc and dcath, thc
csscncc ol thc cosmic cconomy. !nsolar as naturc can libcratc
itscll lrom thc hcavy burdcn ol mcchanism and ncccssity only
through its own lorccsthrough a cosmic proccss involving
laborthc dcmiurgc must also bc subjcct to thc samc laws as
thc rcst ol crcation. Likc Hcraclcs, hc must submit to natural
ncccssity: thc dcmigod must clcan out thc Augcan stablcs. !n
ordcr to work with naturc as it cxists in cmpirical rcality, thc
dcmiurgc must cntcr into it, must bccomc a link in thc chain
ol incvitability to which thc natural world is subjcct.
z: On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
0
o
f
3
5
8
!n ordcr to incitc naturc to rcbcl against itscll, thc dcmi-
urgc must simultancouslylikc Promcthcus struggling with
thc dcspotic rulcr ol thc univcrsc, likc Sicglricd battling thc
dark lorccs ol thc latc that binds mcn and gods alikcrcmain
highcr than naturc, must contain within himscll thc amc ol
lilc in a dcadcncd world. !n a natural world, hc must bc supcr-
natural. Hc must posscss thc kcys to thc mystcrics ol naturc,
must bc thc living prophct ol its ultimatc rcsurrcction. Hc must
bc thc rcdccmcr ol naturc (Schclling), by thc samc tokcn rc-
dccming his own sin ol thc original corruption ol naturc. Hc
must bccomc thc mcdiator bctwccn thc natura naturans, as an
organism ol living idcas-cncrgics, and thc natura naturata, its
lrozcn and thcrclorc distortcd rccction. Hc bccomcs thc link
bctwccn a highcr world whcrc lilc is triumphant and a slccp-
ing, lcthargic naturc that appcars quitc dcad, though in lact its
mctaphysical basis rcmains lrcc ol thc lorccs ol dcath and non-
bcing. Thc spirit ol nonbcing holds its mirror bclorc thc lips
ol dcadcncd naturc, and no damp condcnsationthc sign ol
lilcappcars. Thcsc dcathlikc imagcs multiply in thc mirror ol
nonbcing, thc kingdom ol nonbcing bccomcs llcd with thcm,
and dcath bccomcs animatc as it bcgins to rccct lilc, howcvcr
palc. Thc kingdom ol nonbcing rcccivcs positivc dcnition and
turns into a mcchanism, and thc ghosts ol dcath ll thc world
and crasc thc linc bctwccn thc truly cxisting and thc mcon.
And so it was until thc ncw Hcraclcs pcnctratcd into thc king-
dom ol thc shadows, illuminating thc twilight ol dcath and thc
darkncss ol nonbcing with thc light ol his Rcsurrcction.
8ut arisc! o not lct your aching soul
8ow down bclorc latc.
Though you arc dclcnsclcss and disarmcd,
Challcngc dcath to a dcadly battlc.
And on thc twilit thrcshold,
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
1
o
f
3
5
8
!n thc crowd ol wccping shadows
Thc cnchantcd gods
Shall rccognizc you, rphcus!
Thc pcals ol thc victorious song
Vill shattcr thc rmamcnt ol Hadcs,
And palc dcaths mastcr
Shall surrcndcr urydicc.
!. Solo.ie., Three Feats.
!n thc cconomic proccss thc dcmiurgc organizcs naturc,
translorming its mcchanistic charactcr oncc morc into an org-
anism and its lilclcss products into thc living lorccs that gcn-
cratcd thcm, changing naturcwhich has bccomc mcrcly an
objcctoncc morc into a subjcct-objcct, rccstablishing thc lost
and lorgottcn unity ol natura naturans and natura naturata. !n
so doing, hc makcs thc cconomic systcm into a work ol art, in
which cach product glows with its own idca, and thc world as
a wholc turns into a cosmosa chaos that has bccn conqucrcd,
tamcd, and illuminatcd lrom within. Thus thc victory ol ccon-
omy is cxprcsscd in thc cosmic victory ol bcauty; this is thc
prophctic signicancc ol thc maxim that bcauty will savc thc
world.
Humanity as thc soul ol thc world thus works within naturc
but is also transccndcnt with rcspcct to thc natural world. !n
this scnsc, thc world soul is analogous to Plotinus prolound
notion ol thc soul-monad, which pcnctratcs and organizcs all
thc lunctions ol thc individual organism; it dirccts thcm, rulcs
ovcr thcm, bccomcs immancnt in thcm, yct simultancously
rcmains transccndcnt with rcspcct to thc body. !n cmpirical
rcality, howcvcr, humanity bclongs to thc natural world, and thc
cconomic proccss unlolds in thc conditions ol a cosmic illncss, a
division bctwccn thc natura naturans and natura naturata. Thc
goal ol cconomic activity is to ovcrcomc this division, to rcstorc
z, On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
2
o
f
3
5
8
thc primordial unity ol living naturc. Man as part ol naturc
also carrics within himscll thc scll-consciousncss ol naturc as a
wholc, potcntially contains thc cntirc univcrsc within himscll.
Man is thus an cxprcssion ol thc world soul, thc pcrlcct ccn-
tcr ol thc world; in this scnsc naturc rcscmblcs man, as ! havc
mcntioncd abovc. ach human individual potcntially partakcs
both ol natura naturans, thc crcativc soul ol thc natural world,
and ol natura naturata, naturc as it cxists at prcscnt. This is
what makcs cconomy into a singlc, unicd proccss, involving
a common task lor all ol humanity.
9
ach individual cconomic
act is csscntially part ol a singlc truc cconomic proccss in which
thc subjcct ol cconomic activity acts on its objcct, bringing
about an intcraction ol thc natura naturans and natura natu-
rata. Thc cconomic proccss is actually a synthctic cort, both
cxtcnsivc and intcnsivc, to posscss a singlc objcct through labor
and cconomic activity (this is known as thc dcvclopmcnt ol
productivc lorccs in thc languagc ol political cconomy). Thc
transccndcntal subjcct, thc world soul, natura naturans, strivcs
to posscss thc natural world, natura naturata, to makc it trans-
parcnt so that thc subjcct can rccognizc itscll in naturc. This is
thc goal ol cconomy, alrcady bcyond history; and again thcrc is
hcrc a similarity with knowlcdgc, whosc goal ol truth also lics
bcyond thc cognitivc proccss as such, lor whcn wc achicvc it
thc vcry notion ol truth as an objcct ol discursivc knowlcdgc
vanishcs. Truth is not an objcct ol cognition, lor all knowablc
truths arc multiplc and contingcnt. Truth is a state of being, such
is thc ccntral position ol thc world soul in thc world, in bcing
as wcll as in consciousncss, so that to think bcing and to cxist
in thought bccomc possiblc. Knowlcdgc itscll as a division ol
subjcct and objcct, alicn to cach othcr, will ultimatcly disappcar
in thc suprcmc synthcsis ol consciousncss and bcing, thc idcal
and thc rcal. Thc path ol knowlcdgc lcads to thc climination ol
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
3
o
f
3
5
8
knowlcdgc; all ol its partial truths will dissolvc in thc immcdi-
atc cxpcricncc ol Truth, bcing in Truth. Thc truths ol knowl-
cdgc assumc a singlc Truth as csscncc, and this cstablishcs a
singlc path lor knowlcdgc.
10
Thc ultimatc path ol cconomy and
ol knowlcdgc is thc samc, and thcir limit is thc organization ol
thc world as Truth and as lilc.
Thc singlc subjcct ol cconomy, thc world soul, acts in his-
tory through an indcnitc quantity ol scparatc, indcpcndcnt
ccntcrsindividual human minds and wills. !ts unity bccomcs
rcalizcd only in multiplicity; its organic cohcrcncc bccomcs ap-
parcnt only in thc cxtcrnal succcssion ol cvcnts in timc and in
thc cxistcncc ol a causal conncction. Thc mirror is brokcn into
many shards, cach ol which rcccts thc world in its pcculiar
way. Thcrc docs not sccms to bc any humanity as an idcal unity,
as a world soul; instcad wc scc only pcoplc, a mcchanical col-
lcction ol individuals cxtcrnally unitcd by kinship, nation, or
statc. Thc organic conncction among pcoplc, which bcars wit-
ncss to thc unity ol humanity as a wholc, is limitcd to a tic ol
birth: humanity is a sort ol hugc lamily, a union ol lathcrs and
childrcn
11
(although scicncc cannot provc thc origination ol thc
cntirc human gcnus lrom common lorclathcrs). 8ut thc lact
ol humanitys biological unity (cxprcsscd through inhcritancc)
as a gcnus is ol trcmcndous symbolic importancc: it cxprcsscs
cmpirically thc mctaphysical unity ol humanity, without which
human history would shattcr, would bccomc mystcrious and
incomprchcnsiblc. cning thc gcnus, which natural scicntists
trcat as a givcn, is actually a trcmcndous mctaphysical prob-
lcm. Vhcn scicntists cxplorc thc mcchanisms ol inhcritancc,
which dcncs thc gcnus, thcy bclicvc thcir task to bc limitcd
to cstablishing particular lacts ol hcrcdity, but philosophically
this only poscs thc rcal problcm in all ol its brcadth: Vhat is
this mystcrious lorcc, this magic, that pcrmits unity in multi-
plicity. nly thc cxistcncc ol gcnctic prototypcs, idcas rcalizcd
zo On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
4
o
f
3
5
8
in naturc, can makc thc notion ol gcnus intclligiblc. For cach
gcnus contains within itscll an idca, primordially cxisting in thc
divinc Sophia, ol which individual rcprcscntativcs arc mcrcly
copics or cxamplcs.
ic Rosc, wclchc hicr dcin ussrcs Augc sicht,
ic hat von wigkcit in Gott also gcblht.
(Thc rosc that you scc hcrc with your cxtcrnal cyc
Has lorcvcr bloomcd in God.)
s ist kcin \or, noch Nach: was morgcn soll gcschchn,
Hat Gott von wigkcit schon wcscntlich gcschn.
(Thcrc is ncithcr bclorc, nor altcr: what must happcn
tomorrow
Has in its csscncc bccn known to God lrom thc
bcginning.)
12
And not only thc rosc blooming in Gods mind but thc wholc
world is rcally thc artistic rc-crcation ol thc ctcrnal idcas that
togcthcr makc up thc idcal organism, thc divinc Sophia, thc
Visdom that cxistcd with God bclorc thc Crcation and whosc
joy is with thc sons ol man. This Visdom says about itscll
(Prov. 8:::.):
::. Thc Lord posscsscd mc in thc bcginning ol
his way, bclorc his works ol old.
:. ! was sct up lrom cvcrlasting, lrom thc bc-
ginning, or cvcr thc carth was.
:. Vhcn thcrc wcrc no dcpths, ! was brought
lorth; whcn thcrc wcrc no lountains abounding
with watcr.
:. 8clorc thc mountains wcrc scttlcd, bclorc thc
hills was ! brought lorth.
:6. Vhilc as yct hc had not madc thc carth, nor
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
5
o
f
3
5
8
thc clds, nor thc highcst part ol thc dust ol thc
world.
:y. Vhcn hc prcparcd thc hcavcns, ! was thcrc;
whcn hc sct a compass upon thc lacc ol thc dcpth:
:8. Vhcn hc cstablishcd thc clouds abovc: whcn
hc strcngthcncd thc lountains ol thc dccp:
:. Vhcn hc gavc to thc sca his dccrcc, that thc
watcrs should not pass his commandmcnt: whcn hc
appointcd thc loundations ol thc carth:
c. Thcn ! was by him, as onc brought up with
him:
13
and ! was daily his dclight, rcjoicing always
bclorc him;
.. Rcjoicing in thc habitablc part ol his carth;
and my dclights wcrc with thc sons ol mcn.
Vc rcad about thc samc divinc wisdom in thc uncanoni-
cal book ol thc Visdom ol Solomon (:): And with thcc
is wisdom, which knowcth thy works, and was prcscnt whcn
thou wast making thc world, and which undcrstandcth what
is plcasing in thinc cycs, and what is right according to thy
commandmcnts.
14
Thc world ol idcas, discovcrcd lor philosophy by Plato, con-
tains thc mctaphysical basis lor thc hcrcditary charactcr ol lilc
in gcncral and human lilc in particular; hcrcdity cxccutcs by
biological mcans thc task sct by idcas-cncrgics, or thc Aris-
totclian cntclcchics. Natura naturans consists ol thcsc cntclc-
chics, organically conncctcd and hicrarchically ordcrcd. This
hicrarchy ol cntclcchics is crowncd by man, who scrvcs as thc
living link bctwccn thc two worlds ol mountains and vallcys,
natura naturans and natura naturata. Man cxists only as spccics
or gcnus. 8ut should wc undcrstand man according to a nomi-
nalist or rcalist intcrprctation, that is, is man a conccpt lormcd
by gcncralizing lrom many scparatc individuals, or docs it cx-
z8 On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
6
o
f
3
5
8
prcss somc dccp ontological unity. Vhich is rst, Adam or
adamitcs. !t sccms to mc that only thc acknowlcdgmcnt ol
a prior unicd humanitya mctaphysical lorclathcr, Adam
can cxplain thc charactcristic conncction ol thc individual and
thc all-human in thc human pcrsonality. Vhat makcs an indi-
vidual human is not thc individual principlc but his cxprcssion
ol that which is common to all ol humanity. Humanity is onc
although it has many laccs. This is not a scntimcntal phrasc
but thc cxprcssion ol an ontological rclation. ach individual
partakcs ol humanity as a wholc, as many rcligions and philo-
sophical thcorics havc postulatcd.
ass du nicht Mcnschcn licbst, das tust du rccht und wohl,
ic Mcnschhcit ists, dic man im Mcnschcn licbcn soll.
(You arc right not to lovc mcn as such,
For it is humanity that wc must lovc in man.)
15
Mans potcntial humanity, his potcntial unity with all ol
mankind, lics much dccpcr than thc individuation that dividcs
human bcings. ach individual partakcs ol a largcr humanity,
rcgardlcss ol how long hc livcs, how much or how littlc hc is
ablc to cxpcricncc in his cmpirical lilc, or which corncr ol thc
world kalcidoscopc is rcvcalcd to him. Mans lilc mcans not
only his tcmporary and limitcd cxistcncc but, morc important,
his unity with thc wholc ol mankind, a unity that is rcalizcd
with a grcatcr or lcsscr dcgrcc ol pcrlcction. !t is thcrclorc just
to say that
in Kind, das aul dcr Vclt nur cinc Stundc blcibt,
as wird so alt, als man Mcthusalcm bcschrcibt.
(A child who has spcnt but an hour in this world
!s alrcady as old as Mcthusclah.)
16
And bclorc this child potcntially opcns thc abyss dcscribcd by
thc samc poct-thinkcr:
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
7
o
f
3
5
8
cr Abgrund mcincs Gcists rult immcr mit Gcschrci
cn Abgrund Gottcs an: sag, wclchcr ticlcr sci.
(To thc abyss ol my soul always calls
Thc abyss ol God: pray tcll, which onc is dccpcr.)
17
This original, mctaphysical unity ol humanity is a positivc
spiritual lorcc acting in thc world as a unilying principlc.
Mcnsch, allcs licbct dich, um dich ists schr gcdrangc:
s laulct alls zu dir, da cs zu Gott gclangc.
(vcrything lovcs you, man, cvcrything strivcs lor you,
And runs to you, in ordcr to comc to God.)
This primordial unity madc possiblc original sin lor humanity
as a wholcthat ontological sin which sprcad lrom Adam to
all mcn. 8ut thc samc unity also makcs possiblc salvation in
Christ through thc church as a ncw unilying ccntcr; humanity
bccomcs thc body ol Christ so that Christ as a pcrson can rc-
crcatc human naturc, thus bccoming a ncw Adam ol whosc
csh and blood humanity partakcs. This unity must howcvcr
bc undcrstood not mcchanically but as a dynamic proccss ovcr
timc and manilcstcd in history, in knowlcdgc, and in cconomy.
Humanity in its unity is noncthclcss madc up ol many scpa-
ratc individuals, whosc scll-cxprcssion is not hampcrcd by thcir
inclusion in thc wholc. Thc oncncss ol humanity is not cmpty
but consists ol coordinatcd and unitcd multiplicity, lor indi-
viduality as a particular ray in thc plcroma ol Sophia in no
way contradicts thc notion ol thc wholc, which allows its parts
to dcvclop lrccly. ach pcrson, with thc uniquc scll that our
individualistic cra so prizcs, pcrccivcs and intcrprcts thc world
in his own way, and thcsc various intcrprctations supplcmcnt
cach othcr. !n lact, thc harmony ol individuals in lrcc lovc and
activc unity is a sourcc ol particular happincss lor cach par-
z,c On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
8
o
f
3
5
8
ticipant. To dissolvc in thc supraindividual, to nd oncscll in
othcrs, to lovc and bc lovcd, to rccct cach othcr, to trans-
lorm individuals into ccntcrs ol lovc instcad ol discord, to scc
thc possibility ol ncw lovc in cach ncwborn pcrsonthis is to
rcalizc thc idcal givcn to humanity and cxprcsscd in Christs
words: That thcy all may bc onc; as thou, Fathcr, art in mc,
and ! in thcc (John .y::.). Ultimatcly thcsc many individu-
als ovcrcomc thcir divisions to cxist in harmony, but in thc
prcscnt impcrlcct rcality this multiplicity oltcn takcs thc lorm
ol discord, ol conict among individual cgos. Scllncss throws
its hcavy vcil ovcr all ol lilc, translorming it into a valc ol tcars
and sorrow, implanting dccp mclancholy, sadncss, and dissatis-
laction. This statc ol things originatcd with thc Fall, which is
thc basis ol thc cntirc historical proccss. Humanity cxists cm-
pirically only as a succcssion ol gcncrations coming and going
lrom thc historical arcna. Thc strugglc ol individuals, groups,
classcs, and nationshomo homini lupus est, thc law ol strugglc
lor survivalbccomcs a gcncral rulc in thc human world as
wcll as in thc animal kingdom. Mcn as brothcrs rcalizc thcir
brothcrhood only as Cain and thc cainitcs did, and thc carth is
rcd with thc blood ol brothcrs. Thc unity ol thc human spccics,
howcvcr, which is ultimatcly indcstructiblc lor it lics bcyond
history, bccomcs subjcctivcly cxprcsscd in mankinds constant
striving lor lovc and solidarity, in thc scarch lor an idcal social
ordcr. That which cxists in consciousncss as an impcrativc is
containcd in thc mctaphysical rcalm as bcing. Thc world and
humanity in thc world, rcmovcd lrom thcir original statc, strivc
to rcturn to it. Social idcals arc thc hypothctical lormulation ol
thc highcr unity and harmony that actually cxist in thc mcta-
physical world.
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
4
9
o
f
3
5
8
!!. Tnv Sovnic coxo:v
So lar wc havc dcncd thc contcnt ol cconomic activity as thc
strugglc bctwccn lilc and dcath, as thc rcstoration ol thc con-
ncction bctwccn natura naturans and natura naturata, or thc
rcsolution ol naturcs sti and lilclcss products into thc lorccs
that gcncratc thcm, as thc organization ol naturc. Through
cconomic activity naturc can rccognizc itscll in man.
18
Through cconomic activity, man is capablc ol translorm-
ing naturc according to his will; hc constantly crcatcs a cul-
tural rcalityncw goods, ncw knowlcdgc, ncw lcclings, ncw
bcautyalongsidc thc natural world that is givcn to him.
This capacity lor cconomic and cultural crcativity is particu-
larly cvidcnt in our day, whcn thc limits ol thc possiblc sccm
practically to havc disappcarcd. Thc world is plastic, it can
bc rc-crcatcd, and in dicrcnt modcs. ur childrcn will livc in
complctcly dicrcnt circumstanccs, and wc darc not cvcn gucss
thc conditions in which our grandchildrcn will livc. vcrything
has bccomc uid, as il thc natura naturans and natura naturata
arc owing togcthcr; wc livc in thc consciousncss ol thc con-
stantly growing powcr ol cconomic activity, which in turn opcns
limitlcss possibilitics lor thc crcation ol culturc. This situation
stands likc thc Sphinxs riddlc bclorc thc contcmporary cdi-
pus. Vhat, wc must ask, givcs man thc powcr to crcatc thc
world in this lashion. Thcrc arc thrcc possibilitics: !s this a sign
ol humanitys coming ol agc as it rcasscrts its lost rights ovcr
naturc, our cntry into a ncw cosmic cra. r is it a sly magic
trick pcrpctratcd on lccblc humanity by thc Antichrist, stcal-
ing thc cncrgy ol thc divinc crcation, in ordcr to blind pathctic
humanity with this stolcn powcr. r, nally, is it man him-
scll, who, accidcntally gcncratcd lrom blind mattcr, has now,
by lorcc ol thc samc accidcnt, achicvcd a sucicntly high lcvcl
z,: On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
0
o
f
3
5
8
ol ncrvous organization that hc darcs takc mattcrs into his own
hands to mold himscll into a ncw spccics, a supcrman.
Thc last ol thcsc propositions docs not dcscrvc philosophical
discussion, although it is a widcsprcad bclicl cvcn now: it is a
purcly matcrialistic vision that sccs absolutc chancc as thc ulti-
matc cxplanation ol cvcrything; in othcr words, it mcrcly hidcs
thc abscncc ol a rcal cxplanation. How could man cmcrgc by
himscll lrom thc dcad mcchanism ol naturc. Howcan incrt and
blind mattcr subjcct itscll to his crcativc impulscs, rclinquish-
ing its mystcrics and sccrcts. And how can man thcn transccnd
his own scll to makc himscll into a highcr bcing. Thcrc can
bc no answcr to such qucstions. This is purcly mythological
thinking, a rcturn to naivc naturalism. 8ut thc matcrialist myth
is actually lcss satislactory as an cxplanation ol thc univcrsc,
and answcrs lcwcr qucstions, than thc talcs about thc living
charactcrs ol thc old mythology. Uranus and Ncptunc, Gaca
or Cybclla, thc Grcat Mothcr giving birth to thc childrcn ol
arth arc at lcast living lorccs, whcrcas contcmporary matcrial-
isms absolutc chancc, which crcatcs lrom a bag lull ol jumping
atoms, opcratcs with nothing but dcad agcnts. 8ut lct us lcavc
thc dcad to bury thcir dcad.
Vhat thcn is thc sourcc ol human crcativity, in cconomy, in
culturc, in scicncc, in art. Crcativc activity rcquircs, rst, will
and intcntionality, and, sccond, powcr, or thc possibility ol cxc-
cuting thc initial conccption; both aspccts involvc lrccdom, lor
unlrcc crcativity is a contradiction in tcrms. All crcativity rc-
quircs labor, cort, willall symptoms ol scll-dctcrmination.
Thc individual must cxist in ordcr to will, and in ordcr to crc-
atc hc must not only dcsirc but also bc ablc to lulll thc task
hc scts himscll; othcrwisc crcativity will turn out to bc cithcr
impossiblc or incomplctc. And hcrc wc approach thc crux ol
thc problcm ol cconomic crcativity. Sincc man obviously is not
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
1
o
f
3
5
8
all-powcrlul, hc cannot crcatc lrom nothing but must draw on
thc cxisting world in rc-crcating his ncw, articial world, thc
world ol culturc. Hc can imprint his idcas on thc crcatcd world,
cxpcrimcnt with it, and nd in it thc answcrs to his qucstions;
in cconomic activity, thc ncw world ol culturc takcs shapc. 8ut
whcrc docs hc nd thc imagcs, thc modcl idcas on which to
basc his crcativc activity. This is rcally thc samc qucstion as
that ol thc sourcc ol artistic or scicntic inspiration: Vhcncc
comcs thc crcativc conccption, thc mcntally pcrccivcd imagc,
that torturcs thc artist and sccks cxprcssion in thc word, in
sound, in marblc. Vhcncc thc anxicty ol thc scicntist ovcr ccr-
tain problcms, an anxicty that makcs scicncc itscll possiblc.
Vhcncc thc conccption ol thc activitics that constitutc thc
cconomic proccss. Vhcncc thc invcntion ol thc tcchnology
that makcs this proccss possiblc. Naturc rcvcals its sccrcts
only to thosc who know whcrc to look lor thcm and would
rcmain impcnctrablc to man il hc did not posscss a ccrtain
intuition in his scarch.
!l Kant inquircd into thc possibility ol cxpcricncc lrom a
formal standpoint, thcn thc qucstion ol its possibility lrom thc
standpoint ol content is also appropriatc.
For cpistcmological lormalism, which rcduccs thc ! to a lunc-
tion ol thc unity ol transccndcntal consciousncss, such a qucs-
tion is complctcly unrcsolvablc and cvcn impossiblc. !t ascribcs
a mcrcly contingcnt cxistcncc to thc subjcct in its transccndcn-
tal lunction; yct this samc subjcct is cndowcd with thc magical
powcr ol gcncrating all ol cxpcricncc (only in thc background
a mystcrious x lingcrs, thc irrational cxtcrnal impulsc). Noth-
ing, creating e.erything from nothingsuch is thc contcnt ol
transccndcntal idcalism as an ontological thcory.
Thc thcory ol thc transccndcntal subjcct, thc world soul,
rcsolvcs this qucstion dicrcntly. Humanity is and always rc-
mains thc unilying ccntcr ol thc world in thc ctcrnal harmony
z,, On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
2
o
f
3
5
8
and bcauty ol thc cosmos crcatcd by God. Thc cmpirical world
is immcrscd in proccss, in timc and spacc, in history, and as
such is impcrlcct and disharmonious; yct, likc humanity itscll,
it is ncvcr wholly scparatcd lrom a highcr mctaphysical rcality,
lrom thc divinc Sophia that cvcr soars abovc thc world, illumi-
nating it through rcason, through bcauty, through . . . cconomy
and culturc. Natura naturata with its mask ol dcath still rcmains
a crcation ol thc natura naturans and, though thcy arc in actu
scparatc, thcy rcmain ctcrnally linkcd in potentia. Thc world as
cosmos and thc cmpirical world, Sophia and humanity, main-
tain a living intcraction, likc a plants nourishmcnt through its
roots. Sophia, partaking ol thc cosmic activity ol thc Logos,
cndows thc world with divinc lorccs, raiscs it lrom chaos to
cosmos. Naturc always pcrccivcs hcr rccction in man, just as
man, dcspitc his laults, always pcrccivcs his own rccction in
Sophia. Through hcr hc takcs in and rcccts in naturc thc wisc
rays ol thc divinc Logos; through him naturc bccomcs sophic.
Such is this mctaphysical hicrarchy.
This rcsolvcs thc puzzlc ol human crcativity, lor in all clds
in knowlcdgc, cconomy, culturc, artit is sophic, that is, it
partakcs ol thc divinc Sophia. Mans participation in Sophia,
which brings thc divinc lorccs ol thc Logos to thc world and
plays thc rolc ol natura naturans toward naturc, makcs human
crcativity possiblc. Man can conqucr naturc only insolar as
hc potcntially contains all ol naturc within himscll; hc comcs to
posscss naturc in thc proccss ol rcalizing this potcntial. Thus, as
Plato pointcd out, kno.ledge is really remembrancenot in thc
thcosophical scnsc ol rcmcmbrancc ol past livcs but mctaphysi-
cally. Human crcativity is rcally a rc-crcation ol that which
prccxists in thc mctaphysical world;
19
it is not crcation from
nothing but rcplication ol somcthing alrcady givcn, and it is crc-
ativc only insolar as it is lrcc rc-crcation through work. Thcrc
is nothing metaphysically ne. in human crcativity; wc can only
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
3
o
f
3
5
8
rcproducc a likcncss ol thc imagcs that arc divincly givcn to
us. nly God can crcatc lrom nothing, whcrcas thc crcatcd
world, including man, is not absolutc and thcrclorc incapablc
ol mctaphysical originality. !n lact, man is lrccand in this
scnsc capablc ol originalityonly in choosing thc dircction his
activity takcs; hc is not lrcc to choosc his own naturc, his own
scll, which is givcn to him. Human crcativity can only rcpro-
ducc a likcncss, not crcatc an imagc; it can only rc-crcatc, in
thc coursc ol thc historical proccss, that which alrcady is as an
idcal modcl. !l crcation takcs mattcrs into its own hands, scck-
ing a modcl outsidc ol thc divinc Sophia, it shapcs a shadowy,
satanic world alongsidc thc givcn, crcatcd onc. Satan not only
bccomcs a mctaphysical robbcr and prctcndcr, ascribing to him-
scll that which thc Crcator gavc him, but also makcs himscll
thc spirit ol nonbcing and dcath, lor hc consciously sccks thc
ccntcr ol his bcing outsidc thc Crcator, in thc sphcrc ol mcta-
physical nonbcing, in thc kingdom ol shadows. Hc projccts this
shadowy, parasitic world (thc cxistcncc ol a hangcr-on, to usc
ostocvskys cxprcssion) onto bcing and bccomcs thc princc
ol this world, that is, ol thc shadowy statc ol thc cosmos, until
thc nal division ol light and dark and thc ultimatc unmasking
ol this shadowy cxistcncc. Such is thc only possiblc rcsult ol
mans cort to crcatc absolutcly, lrom nothing; this is satanism.
Human crcativity in its propcr lunction as rc-crcation has
nothing in common with such a usurpation, although it also
may bccomc inlcctcd with satanism. 8ut this topic bclongs to
thc cschatology ol cconomy.
So cconomy is sophic in its mctaphysical basis; it is possiblc
only bccausc man bclongs simultancously to both worlds, to
Sophia and to cmpirical rcality. Hc is simultancously thc potcn-
tial ccntcr ol thc cosmos and a product ol thc rcal world; hc
is abovc thc cmpirical world yct subjcct to its laws. For him,
naturc is potcntially transparcnt and throws o hcr shroud;
z,o On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
4
o
f
3
5
8
yct at thc samc timc hc himscll is drapcd in this shroud, is
hobblcd by a dccp cosmic slccp. conomy is sophic in its potcn-
tial but not in its cmpirical rcality with its mistakcs, lalsc starts,
and lailurcs. Historical humanity cngagcs in cconomic activity
with all ol its cmpirical limitations, and thc cconomic proccss
rarcly visibly rcccts thc light ol Sophia. Yct it always partakcs
ol Sophia, lor thc cconomic proccss is thc cort to ovcrcomc
naturc by culturc, to humanizc naturc.
20
!n this scnsc naturc is
basically alrcady nata, crcatcd, but it is also natura, rc-crcatcd.
!nsolar as this occurs through culturc, wc can say that culturc
rc-crcatcs naturc, thus rcmoving thc usual opposition ol naturc
and culturc.
8ut thcrc arc absolutc limits to this proccss, lor man cannot
crcatc ncw lilc. This inability to cxpand thc crcativc lorccs ol
naturc, to cxtcnd his inucncc to natura naturans, thc sourcc ol
lilc, dcncs mans limitations as a crcatcd bcing. Lilc is givcn
by God and cannot bc brokcn down or cxplaincd. Lilc procccds
lrom thc Sourcc ol Lilc outsidc ol this world, thc living God,
who docs not know cnvy and who crcatcs lilc through divinc
lovc:
21
Nicht du bist, dcr du lcbst, dcnn das Gcschpl ist Tod,
as Lcbcn, das in dir dich lcbcn macht, ist Gott.
(!t is not you who livc, lor all that is crcatcd is dcad,
8ut thc lilc that is within you is God).
22
Thus lilc comcs about not through labor or cconomic ac-
tivity but through birth, that is, through thc rcalization ol a
primordial lilc lorcc. Vc can broadcn thc sphcrc ol lilc, pcr-
haps cvcn rcsurrcct lilc, but wc can not crcatc it, bc it thc lilc ol
a miscrablc bug or a homunculc in a tcst tubc; so cconomy bc-
comcs a lunction ol lilc that cxists prior to any human activity.
This divinc amc, lit by crcativc lovc, is thc basis lor all natura
naturata.
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
5
o
f
3
5
8
And undcr thc impartial mask ol mattcr
vcrywhcrc burns thc divinc amc . . .
!. Solo.ie.
Thc task ol thc cosmic and historical proccss is to cxpand
thc amc ol lilc, so that it pcnctratcs, warms, illuminatcs all
ol crcation, but it is not lor us to worry about crcating thc
amc itscll, lor this would bc cquivalcnt to thc ridiculous at-
tcmpt to gcncratc oncs own scll. Thc crcation ol thc world is
csscntially nishcdGod rcstcd lrom His works; thc potcn-
tial clcmcnts ol thc world, its sophic naturc, havc alrcady bccn
dctcrmincd as thc immutablc loundation ol all ol mans activi-
tics as history unlolds. 8ut cvcn thc thought that thc crcatcd
might crcatc lilc is lalsc, lor thc Sourcc ol Lilc cannot havc lclt
untouchcd anything worthy ol bcing. 8csidcs, all ol crcation
alrcady livcs, though it lics in a dcathlikc, nightmarish slccp. !t
is truc that dcath cxists, that cvcrything that is born must dic;
but is not thc dcath that wc scc in thc world mcrcly a rcbirth,
or pcrhaps a postponcmcnt ol lilc. Vc cannot yct answcr this
qucstion, but wc do know that, although thc individual dics,
thc gcnus rcmains. cath rcaps thc harvcst ol lilc but not lilc
itscll. This docs not mcan that wc arc immortal, or that wc
havc vanquishcd dcath, as thc naturalists would havc it, but it
docs indicatc that dcath is contingcnt. !t lacks thc strcngth to
prcvcnt thc gcncration ol lilc on carth, dicult as lilcs strugglc
may bc, or complctcly to cut o lilc that has alrcady bcgun.
cath bccomcs mcrcly a lunction ol lilc. !t is a condition ol thc
historical proccss into which lilc is incvitably drawn as a rcsult
ol its rclativity and subjcction to timc. 8ut dcath brcaks this
lragilc lorm.
Thc contcnt ol cconomic activity is not thc crcation ol lilc
but its dclcnsc, its rcsuscitation lrom a dcathlikc statc. vcn
il this activity translorms thc cntirc world, and lilc is rccstab-
z,8 On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
6
o
f
3
5
8
lishcd in all ol its might, this will rcmain mcrcly a rc-crcation,
lor, as N. F. Fcdorov taught,
23
cmpirical rcality intrinsically con-
tains thc potcntial lor bccoming thc bcst ol all possiblc worlds.
This principlc is what distinguishcs thc two rcligions lrom cach
othcrmangodhood, lor which man is not crcatcd but crcator,
and Christianity, in which man rcccivcs his task ol rc-crcation,
ol cconomic activity, lrom God. And hcrc wc arrivc at thc basic
qucstion ol rcligious scll-dcnition: with God or against him
a choicc that is complctcly lrcc and not cxtcrnally dctcrmincd.
24
Thc notion ol thc sophic naturc ol thc cconomic proccss rc-
quircs lurthcr cxplanation. !l wc cstablish that this naturc con-
stitutcs its driving lorcc, thcn thc qucstion ol thc prccisc con-
ncction ol Sophia with cconomic activity ariscs. Vhy docs our
cmpirical rcality rcmain alicnatcd lrom Sophia and rcsist its in-
ucncc passivcly or cvcn activcly. !n thc cmpirical world, bcing
is lundamcntally irrational and hcncc antisophic, and Sophia
cxists only as a postulatc to bc rcalizcd in thc proccss ol history.
How can wc cxplain such a statc ol things. Vhat hypothc-
sis (not scicntic, ol coursc, but mctaphysical) would rcndcr it
comprchcnsiblc.
Although thc world is chaotic in cmpirical rcality, in thc
sphcrc ol cxtratcmporal cxistcncc it in lact is Sophia, shining
with thc light ol thc Logos, without which was not any thing
madc that was madc (John .:). Thc world is alicnatcd lrom
Sophia in its currcnt condition but not in its csscncc. vcn
in its chaotic statc, lying in sin and living in strugglc and
disharmony, it rctains its conncctcdncss and partakcs ol thc
light ol Sophia. Thc chaotic clcmcnts arc linkcd in a univcr-
sal wholc, illuminatcd by lilc that shincs within it; and man,
though as an individual hc is torn lrom his sophic unity, rc-
tains his sophic roots and bccomcs thc instrumcnt lor bringing
Sophia to naturc. Thc currcnt stagc ol strugglc bctwccn cn-
tropic and organizing lorccs is comprchcnsiblc only as a vio-
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
7
o
f
3
5
8
lation ol Sophias primordial unity, in which thc mctaphysi-
cal ccntcr ol bcing bccomcs displaccd and a gcncral illncss ol
bcing rcsults; this dcccntralization rcsults in thc worlds bcing
plungcd into thc proccss ol bccoming, ol subjcction to timc, to
contradictions, cvolution, cconomy.
25
Thc chaotic statc ol thc
cmpirical world is thc rcsult ol a lalling away lrom thc sophic
world in its complctc and absolutc harmony, whcrc cvcrything
nds itscll in cvcrything clsc and ultimatcly in God, through
that timclcss mctaphysical act that in rcligion is known as origi-
nal sin and that involvcd not man alonc but all ol crcation.
This idca is thc lruit not only ol rcligious cxpcricncc but also ol
philosophy, lor cxamplc, Schclling, in thc Philosophische Unter-
suchungen uber das !esen der menschlichen Freiheit |Philosophical
invcstigations on thc naturc ol human lrccdom| and Solovicv
(in thc Lccturcs on Godmanhood, as wcll as in othcr works).
Thc basis ol thc world proccss is freedom as thc loundation
ol thc crcation ol thc world, as thc csscncc ol Gods imagc.
Sophiaprimordial humanityas thc soul ol thc world is thc
ccntcr ol all crcation insolar as it rcjccts its own scllncss, but it
is also csscntially lrcc and thcrclorc may rcalizc thc dark sidc ol
its bcing in cxcrcising a blind and chaotic will (thc only will rcc-
ognizcd by Schopcnhaucr). Sophia lics likc a blankct ovcr thc
world, but thc world itscll is chaos. 8oth individuality and its
cxtrcmc ol scllncss arc madc possiblc by this primordial cxcrcisc
ol will.
26
Thc mctaphysical Fall is a major hypothcsis lor thc phi-
losophy ol cconomy. l coursc this was not an cvcnt in timc,
and wc would scarch in vain lor its traccs in thc annals ol
history or in palcontological cvidcncc, whcrc scicntists arc cur-
rcntly looking lor traccs ol prchistoric man.
27
8ut wc can scc
its imprint in thc vcry cxistcncc ol thc historical proccss, which
bcars witncss to thc primordial catastrophc just as thc rcsults ol
a volcanic cruption indicatc thc cxistcncc ol thc volcano itscll.
zc On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
8
o
f
3
5
8
Plato distinguishcd a hcavcnly and a popular Aphroditc; a
similar distinction idcntics a hcavcnly, timclcss Sophia and
an cmpirical Sophia, or mctaphysical and historical humanity.
28
Plato saw thc conncction bctwccn thc two mcrcly as ros; but
lor us as Christians, Christthc Logos incarnatcis thc tic
bctwccn thc mctaphysical and thc cmpirical worlds. Thc Logos
was prcscnt and activc in thc world cvcn bclorc its incarnation
in Christ; as Schclling cloqucntly puts it, Christ acts in history
cvcn bclorc his incarnation, though not in thc pcrson ol Christ.
ivinc Providcncc manilcsts itscll in thc univcrsal conncctcd-
ncss ol thc world, in thc gradual gcncration ol lilc in all ol
its aspccts bclorc man, in mans rst stcps in history. And this
logos ol things, this univcrsal conncctcdncss, also makcs thc
cconomic proccss possiblc: cconomic activity is a sophic proccss
that gradually raiscs thc world to a highcr lcvcl until, ultimatcly,
that Sophia which now shincs in thc bcauty ol a owcr or ol
thc starry sky bccomcs lully rcalizcd. God lcavcs thc world and
mankind lrcc to dcnc thcmsclvcs through thc cxpcricncc ol
good and cvil lor, by Schcllings prophctic cxprcssion, nothing
in thc univcrsc can rcmain ambiguous.
29
Thc world must at-
tain scll-consciousncss through immcrsion in itscll
30
and thus
also in thc immcdiacy and sharpncss ol cxpcricncc.
31
Yct cvcn
in this proccss thc cncrgics ol thc world rcmain sophic, though
thcy arc uscd in a willlul and impcrlcct manncr. Sophia shincs
in thc world as thc primordial purity and pcrlcction ol thc uni-
vcrsc, in thc charm ol a child and thc cnchantmcnt ol a uttcr-
ing owcr, in thc bcauty ol a starry sky or ol a aming sunrisc
(in whosc rays thc young \ladimir Solovicv saw hcr in thc Sa-
hara dcscrtscc thc pocm Tri svidaniia |Thrcc cncountcrs|).
Thcsc sophic rays arc what attract us to naturc, though in
lact such a statc is supcrnatural with rcspcct to thc prcscnt statc
ol crcation. Hcrc, instcad ol unity wc nd multiplicity, scpara-
tion instcad ol intcrnal cohcrcncc. !n thc currcnt, lallcn statc
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
5
9
o
f
3
5
8
ol cmpirical rcality, timc and spacc, which sccm to conncct
things, actually dividc thcm, lor thcy arc mcrcly a mcchanical
tic. Thc hcavy pall ol mcchanism lics on thc body ol Sophia,
and thc law ol cxtcrnal causality rcmains thc only conncction
among things. Thc world has turncd into a dcadcncd natura
naturata, a purc objcct with no subjcct. Thc initial immcdiacy,
thc intuitivcncss ol contcmplation, thc idcntity ol knowlcdgc
and consciousncss, thc subjcct-objcctncss ol bcing in Sophia
havc all bccn lost, and knowlcdgc has bccomc abstract and dis-
tant; purc rcason, rationality, has rcplaccd thc Logos, which
has hiddcn to bccomc mcrcly thc inncr, sccrct conncction ol
things. Fatio, scicntic or thcorctical rcason, cmcrgcs lrom thc
ruins ol thc sophic; it bccomcs thc lantcrn with which wc scck
thc Logos in thc nocturnal darkncss (and in thc philosophy ol
rationalism this lantcrn whosc light, altcr all, rcally comcs lrom
thc sun, is actually cquatcd with thc sun).
!n bccoming a kingdom ol objccts, thc world bccomcs ma-
tcrial: thc incrt wcight ol matcrial bcing scttlcs on it. Lilc sur-
vivcs only bccausc its sccds, sown by thc Crcator, arc indcstruc-
tiblc; thc mctaphysical rcvolution translormcd thc condition
but not thc csscncc ol thc world, plunging it into a dcathlikc
laint but prcscrving thc sccds ol lilc.
32
8ut lilc is lorccd to nd
rclugc in distant corncrs whcrc it must constantly battlc thc
lorccs ol dcath. Though lilc rcigns in thc sophic world, in cm-
pirical rcality it must, so to spcak, obtain dcaths pcrmission lor
its mcrc cxistcncc. Thc organizing powcr ol lilc provcs insu-
cicnt to savc its crcations lrom dcstruction. cath, howcvcr, is
not an inncr ncccssity lor thc organism as such,
33
lor dcath is
not crcatcd by God but is a lunction ol thc currcnt, sinlul cm-
pirical rcality. Hcrc, ol coursc, dcath is an incvitablc part ol lilc;
it is a stcp toward its ultimatc rcsurrcction (wc shall spcak ol
thc mctaphysics ol dcath in thc cschatology ol cconomy), but
this incvitability is mcrcly a product, pcrhaps cvcn thc worst
z: On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
0
o
f
3
5
8
manilcstation, ol thc gcncral malady ol bcing, and dcath rc-
mains thc worst cncmy. Fragmcntation rcplaccs solidarity, and
thc strugglc lor survival bccomcs thc lawol lilc in thc human as
wcll as thc animal world. Lilc is opprcsscd by thc soullcss world,
and its amc smoldcrs undcr thc ashcs. Lilc and consciousncss,
potcntially capablc ol containing cvcrything, bccomc rcduccd
to an almost animal statc. Human history, thc path lrom bar-
barism to civilization, bccomcs a strugglc lor widcning thc con-
sciousncss ol lilc not only to all ol humanity but cxtcnding to
naturc as wcll, so that ultimatcly thc world ol dcad, opaquc ma-
tcrial bccomcs translormcd into living cncrgy. 8ccausc hc is onc
with naturc, man rcsurrccts his own dormant lorccs by simulta-
ncously rcsurrccting thosc ol naturc, translorming mattcr into
his own body, tcaring it lrom thc calcicd skclcton ol natura
naturata and warming it with his amc. Thc shroud gradually
lalls lrom thc alrcady putrid body ol Lazarus, who awaits thc
command, Lazarus, comc lorth!
Thc purposc ol cconomic activity is to dclcnd and to sprcad
thc sccds ol lilc, to rcsurrcct naturc. This is thc action ol Sophia
on thc univcrsc in an cort to rcstorc it to bcing in Truth.
Sophia acts through thc mcdium ol historical humanity, and it
is Sophia that dctcrmincs thc tclcology ol thc historical proccss.
Thc world as Sophia, though it has lallcn into a lalsc and hcncc
mortal condition, must rcgain bcing in Truth through labor, or
through thc cconomic proccss. !l scllncss in man could only bc
vanquishcd through scll-improvcmcnt or rcligious dcdication,
scllncss in naturc is vanquishcd through labor and in thc his-
torical proccss. conomic activity ovcrcomcs thc divisions in
naturc, and its ultimatc goaloutsidc ol cconomy propcris
to rcturn thc world to lilc in Sophia.
Not only thc ultimatc goal but also thc origins ol cconomy lic
outsidc ol thc historical cconomic proccss propcr. Thc currcnt
cconomy was prcccdcd by a dicrcnt onc, a dicrcnt typc ol
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
1
o
f
3
5
8
laborlrcc, sclcss, loving, in which cconomic activity mcrgcs
with artistic crcativity. Art has prcscrvcd thc prototypc ol this
primordial typc ol cconomic labor.
34
riginally, cconomic ac-
tivity was thc harmonious intcraction ol man with naturc; this
was thc dcnic cconomy, prcccding thc historical proccss that
bcgan with thc Fall. 8clorc thc original sin, God lcd man, thc
natural lord ol thc world, thc living tool ol thc divinc Sophia,
into thc Gardcn ol dcn (into which man was to translorm thc
wholc world) and badc him to drcss it and to kccp it (Gcn.
::.). All thc birds and animals wcrc brought to man so that
hc might namc thcm according to thcir spccics (Gcn. ::.:c).
Thus cconomic activity and invcstigation (scicncc), thc labor
on a rcal and idcal objcct, bcgan in an dcnic statc, whcn thc
mctaphysical csscncc ol mans rclation to thc world was still
unharmcd, whcn hc did not lcar dcath or hungcr, lor thc trcc
ol lilc was acccssiblc to him: thc labor ol cognition and action
could hcrc bc pcrlormcd only in a spirit ol lovc toward Gods
crcation. !n this scnsc wc can spcak ol thc dcnic cconomy as
thc sclcss loving cort ol man to apprchcnd and to pcrlcct
naturc, to rcvcal its sophic charactcr. 8ut altcr thc Fall ol man,
which in rcligious tcrms corrcsponds to a cosmic catastrophc,
thc mcaning and motivations ol cconomic activity changcd dra-
matically. Thc hcavy shroud ol cconomic nccd dcsccndcd on
cconomic activity and hid its sophic charactcr; thc strugglc lor
survival bccamc thc goal ol cconomy, and cconomic matcrial-
ism bccamc its natural idcology. Thc cconomic proccss bccamc
thc rcalization ol Gods judgmcnt on sinlul humanity: in thc
swcat ol thy lacc shalt thou cat brcad, till thou rcturn unto thc
ground; lor out ol it wast thou takcn (Gcn. :.).
Sophia rulcs ovcr history, manilcsting itscll as Fatc, as cau-
sality, as thc law ol progrcss (which positivist sociologists try
in vain to cstablish by strictly cmpirical mcans). ur only as-
surancc that history has mcaning, that it cxists at all as a uni-
z, On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
2
o
f
3
5
8
cd proccss with a givcn crcativc goal, that it is not simply
a cyclical proccss or unilorm mcchanism or absolutc chaos, is
thc consciousncss that it is dircctcd by Sophia. History is orga-
nizcd around a ccntcr that lics outsidc ol thc historical proccss;
thc carthly Sophia appcars only bccausc it has a guidc in thc
hcavcnly Sophia, which dirccts it with its crcativc cncrgy. This
highcr guidancc is what prcvcnts lilc lrom bcing morc than
simply a war ol all against all, an animal strugglc lor survival;
instcad, collcctivc humanity, in thc coursc ol cconomic dcvcl-
opmcnt, conqucrs naturc thanks to thc highcr lorcc that Hcgcl
calls thc cunning ol rcason and that wc hcrc call thc sophic
naturc ol cconomy.
Sophia, which cstablishcs thc ultimatc conncction ol all
things, cannot bc undcrstood through scicncc, which only ob-
scrvcs naturcs rcgularitics and pattcrns (comparc thc lollowing
chaptcr). Vc havc alrcady sccn that Truth cannot bc attaincd
by thcorctical knowlcdgc, which is bascd on thc division ol
subjcct and objcct and on thc disintcgration ol bcing; Truth
lics bcyond knowlcdgc. For this rcason it also cannot bc cx-
prcsscd in tcrms ol discursivc knowlcdgc, and thc holy mcn
who rosc, likc thc apostlc Paul, to thc third hcavcn could tcll
us nothing ol thc unsaid words which man may not spcak
that thcy hcard thcrc. !ncxprcssibility and conscqucntly mys-
tcry surround Truth likc a cloud; only thosc who arc worthy
ol bccoming thc tools ol its re.elation can attain Truth. Sophia
can bc pcrccivcd only by mcans ol rcvclation: Truth re.eals itself
in miraculous, intuitivc ways indcpcndcnt ol scicntic cogni-
tion. This rcvclation can takc on dicrcnt lorms: rcligious, as
myths and symbols; philosophical, as thc brilliant intuitions ol
philosophical gcniuscs; artistic, as works ol art, through which
(according to Schcllings dcnition) thc innitc shincs through
thc nitc. Sophia rcvcals itscll, nally, in thc mystcrics ol pcr-
sonal rcligious lilc. Vhocvcr has oncc cxpcricnccd thc incx-
On the Transcendental Subject of Economy z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
3
o
f
3
5
8
prcssiblc knows about this, and whocvcr has not is incapablc ol
undcrstanding it. nly onc path lcads dircctly to Truththc
path ol thc rcligious dccd, thc acccptancc ol thc nc who said
ol himscll: ! am thc way, truth and lilc; whocvcr partakcs
ol lilc in Christ alrcady partakcs ol lilc in Truth. Hc bccomcs
a living mcmbcr ol thc divinc Sophia, thc body ol Christ, his
church, and in so doing apprchcnds thc sophic worldlor us
mcrcly an idcalas living rcality. Hc bccomcs transparcnt and
sophic; Sophiathat sun which shincs and warms us whilc rc-
maining invisiblccmcrgcs lrom thc clouds and opcnly stands
in thc middlc ol thc sky. Thc livcs ol thc saints arc llcd with
such visions ol Truth. 8ut thcy arc not unknown to thc cxtra-
Christian world as wcll, in thinkcrs and ascctics distinguishcd
by a particularly acutc rcligious scnsc (Plotinus light, Socratcs
dcmon, thc cxpcricncc ol 8uddhist monks, 8rahmins, and so
on). l coursc, in rcligious tcrms, an abyss lics bctwccn thc cx-
pcricncc ol thc world as sophic lor pcoplc within and outsidc ol
thc church, lor cxamplc, bctwccn thc cxpcricncc ol Christian
asccticism and Hindu yogism. 8ut hcrc wc arc lcss intcrcstcd
in this dicrcncc than in thc simplc statcmcnt ol thc lact that
wc can glimpsc thc sophic world cvcn now, though to varying
dcgrccs and by dicrcnt mcans. 8ut thc lurthcr invcstigation ol
this qucstion lcads us alrcady to thc philosophy ol rcvclation,
which docs not at prcscnt constitutc thc subjcct ol our inquiry.
zo On the Transcendental Subject of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
4
o
f
3
5
8

Thc Naturc ol Scicncc

!. Tnv Mii:iviici:v ov Scivx:ivic Kxowivbcv
Truth is not an immcdiatc objcct lor thcorctical knowlcdgc.
Thc singlc Truth is inacccssiblc or transccndcnt to discursivc
knowlcdgc; it thcrclorc constitutcs, to usc Kantian languagc,
but an idcal ol knowlcdgc. 8ccausc Truth is bcyond his-
tory, only movcmcnt, rathcr than a clcar goal, is cvidcnt in thc
lattcr; history strctchcs out in an cndlcss scrics ol discourscs in
knowlcdgc and action. Truth as such docsnt t into any onc ol
thcsc particular projccts, with thc rcsult that, in practicc, thcrc
is no onc truth but only thc many truths ol various scicnccs
and only particular historical goals. Knowlcdgc and history arc
both cvil innity with no natural cnd, as Kant and cspccially
nco-Kantianismthat contcmporary lorm ol thc philosophy
ol cvil innityhavc pointcd out. This brings us to thc qucs-
tion ol thc naturc ol scicncc. Thcrc is a lundamcntal and in-
supcrablc antinomy in thc naturc ol scicntic knowlcdgc: all
scicntic knowlcdgc cxists only on thc assumption that thcrc
is a Truth; yct it itscll lragmcnts this onc Truth into a mul-
tiplicity ol particular, spccializcd truths that cithcr contradict
cach othcr or, morc oltcn, simply havc no rclation to cach othcr.
Thcy rcscmblc a nctwork ol wircs strctching abovc thc rools
ol a big city, going in all dicrcnt dircctions and lor all dicr-
cnt purposcs. This imagcincluding thc wircs bcing put up as
wcll as thosc alrcady in placc (and also thc oncs that will or
might bc put up in thc luturc)accuratcly convcys thc intcr-
rclation ol thc various scicnccs. Thc lattcr, though wc considcr
z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
5
o
f
3
5
8
thcm to bc part ol a unicd scicncc, in lact lunction indcpcn-
dcntly and scparatcly bccausc spccialization and thc division
ol labor bccomc ncccssary. Thc possibility ol this lar-rcaching
spccialization ol knowlcdgc and thc rcsulting contingcncy and
rclativity ol scicntic propositions, bccausc thcy arc so spccial-
izcd, is a problcm that nccds to bc claricd in philosophical
tcrms. thcrwisc thc most irrcsponsiblc skcpticism will havc
lrcc play hcrc, dcmanding, bclorc this innitc scrics ol spccial-
izcd truths: Vhat is Truth. or, bclorc thc long list ol scicnccs:
Vhat is Scicncc. nc ol thc most important problcms lor thc
philosophy ol scicncc is thc justication of science. !t is too casy
to succumb to thc tcmptation to lorsakc Scicncc lor scicnccs
and Truth lor truths (as 8azarov oncc did). Vhcn pcoplc try
to dclusc this doubt by rclcrring to thc singlc idcal ol knowl-
cdgc, or by hcsitantly cxprcssing hopc lor a nal synthcsis ol
scicntic knowlcdgc, thcy arc rcally only giving voicc to a laith
that is inappropriatc hcrc, particularly sincc it is contradictcd
by thc rcal progrcss ol scicncc, which is bccoming incrcasingly
lragmcntcd rathcr than unicd.
At onc timc thcrc was a hopc ol ovcrcoming this lragmcnta-
tion by mcans ol a classication ol thc scicnccs, in which thcy
would bc rangcd on a scalc lrom thc simplc to thc complcx,
and thus intcgratcd as a scrics. Comtcs lamous classication ol
thc scicnccs was constructcd on this principlc (as is Spcnccrs),
with a naivc laith in a singlc scicntic worldvicw, in scicn-
tic synthcsis, or a synthcsis ol thc scicnccs. Scicnccs with a
simplcr objcct arc hcrc rcprcscntcd as prcmiscs lor thc morc
complcx scicnccs, so that thc cntirc organism ol scicnccs looks
likc a cohcrcnt chain ol syllogisms. Thc apt obscrvation that
thc data ol onc scicncc can bc uscd lor anothcr lorms thc basis
ol Comtcs classication. Thc most obvious cxamplc is mathc-
matics: mathcmatics as a method, as a totality ol cquations that
z8 The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
6
o
f
3
5
8
arc workcd out and rcsolvcd, can bc applicd cvcrywhcrc whcrc
thcrc is numbcr or mcasurc, whcrc phcnomcna can bc schcma-
tizcd as quantiticsthough always up to a point. ! will not
dwcll on thc dicult problcm ol thc limits ol thc mathcmati-
cal mcthod in scicncc. 8ut it would dcnitcly bc wrong to say
that thc dcgrcc ol applicability ol mathcmatics dctcrmincs thc
dcgrcc ol scicntic validity, making it possiblc to construct an
a priori schcma ol scicnccs bascd on thcir rclation to mathc-
maticsas Cohcn is trying to do now (though cvcn hc is not
rcally succcsslul, lor thcrc turns out to bc a wholc group ol sci-
cnccs govcrning thc cthics ol purc will alongsidc thc logic
ol purc cognition, not to spcak ol acsthctics). Howcvcr grcat
thc mathcmaticization ol particular scicnccs or ol thcir intcr-
rclation, this clcarly docs not providc thc propcr critcrion lor
constructing cithcr a hicrarchical laddcr ol progrcssion lrom thc
simplc to thc complcx, or circlcs chartcd lrom a singlc ccntcr
il with dicrcnt radii. !t would bc morc accuratc to imaginc a
multiplicity ol circlcs chartcd lrom dicrcnt ccntcrs and with
dicrcnt radii and hcncc irrcgularly intcrscctinga labyrinth
rathcr than conccntric circlcs. Comtc imagincd thc diagram ol
scicnccs as lollows:
!. . . . a
!!. . . . a b
!!!. (a b) c
!\. ( a b c ) d
\. . . . (a b c d) c
and so on, but thc rcal intcrrclation among thc scicnccs is cx-
prcsscd by various combinations ol wholc and lractional quan-
titics that, although thcy may havc somc common parts, havc
thcm in dicrcnt dcgrccs and dicrcnt combinations:
The Nature of Science z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
7
o
f
3
5
8
!. a .[: b .[ c . . . l
!!. .[ a b :[ c . . . c
!!!. .[: b c . . . g .[ c
and so on.
!n a word, although thcrc rcally is a ccrtain cohcrcncc, a
mutual dcpcndcncc, and cvcn contingcncy in thc dcvclopmcnt
ol scicncc, yct thcrc is no natural hicrarchy that would pcrmit
us to situatc all thc scicnccs in a ncat, consistcnt diagram or
classication. n thc contrary: cvcr sincc scicncc stood up on
its own two lcct and rccognizcd its own strcngth, it has bccn
progrcssing rapidly in thc oppositc dircctionthat ol spccial-
ization. Scicncc is bccoming morc and morc powcrlul but at
thc samc timc morc and morc lragmcntcd. Vc might cvcn gct
thc imprcssion that scicncc can actually cxist indcpcndcntly ol
Truth, making do with its own utilitarian, pragmatic critcria.
From hcrc it is just onc morc stcp to skcptical rclativism, lor
which truth is only utility. Contcmporary pragmatism in lact
takcs this stcp.
Pragmatism is in this rcspcct an important symptom ol
thc scicntic scll-consciousncss ol our agcthc awarcncss ol
thc rclativity ol scicntic knowlcdgc. !t arms in principlc thc
qualitativc distinction bctwccn thc onc Truth in its princcly
glory and thc multiplicity ol particular propositions cstablishcd
by particular scicnccs and that also call thcmsclvcs truths. Yct,
as scicntic mcthods grow morc sophisticatcd and our immcr-
sion in thc logic ol scicncc dccpcr, thc rclativc and utilitarian
naturc ol thcsc partial truths, and thc lact that thcy arc quali-
tativcly distinct lrom Truth, bccomc incrcasingly clcar. Thc
instrumental naturc ol scicntic truths, thcir contingcncy and
dcpcndcncc on a givcn task, comcs to thc lorc, whilc scicntic
thcorics comc to rcscmblc mcrc working hypothcscs. Thc rcla-
tivism ol scicntic truths has bccomc so obvious that wc hcar
zoc The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
8
o
f
3
5
8
crics ol scicnccs bankruptcy on onc hand and accusations ol
pragmatism on thc othcr.
!t is truc that scicncc docs not dcal dircctly with Truth: prag-
matisms skcpticism is right on this count. Scicntic knowlcdgc
is not and cannot bc summcd up in any kind ol synthcsis: in-
creasing speciali.ation is a la. of scientic progress. A scicntic, as
opposcd to a philosophical, synthcsis ol thc scicnccs into Sci-
cncc is a utopia, lor scicncc has no way out ol thc cmpirical
world, whcrc all is multiplicity. Vc mustnt lorgct that scicnccs
crcatc thcir own objccts, sct up thcir own problcms, and dctcr-
minc thcir own mcthods. Thcrc can thus bc no singlc scicntic
picturc ol thc world, nor can thcrc bc a synthctic scicntic
worldvicw. ach scicncc yiclds its own picturc ol thc world; it
crcatcs a rcality ol its own, which may or may not rcscmblc
thc rcality ol anothcr. ach crcatcs its own cosmos as it works
out a cohcrcnt systcm ol scicntic conccpts. ach has its own
stylc, and stylizcs rcality in its own way, so that any lact can
bc gcncralizcd in an innitc numbcr ol ways.
1
Stylization is as
charactcristic ol scicnccas an art ol logic, as crcativity with
conccptsas it is ol art. This is why our rcprcscntations ol thc
world lrom thc pcrspcctivcs ol mathcmatics, astronomy, his-
tory, cconomics, philology, and so on will bc dicrcnt. Thcy
might conncct, strung togcthcr likc bcads on a string; but thcy
will ncvcr lorm a singlc wholc, or maybc only partially and at
particular momcnts. At thc samc timc, stylization is lor scicncc
a conscious point ol dcparturcan intcntionally onc-sidcd ap-
proach to thc world: a givcn spatial body cxists lor thc gcomctcr
as such, rcgardlcss ol whcthcr it is thc body ol a pcrson, a doll,
or a manncquin; a givcn lorcc cxists lor thc physicist, bc it gcn-
cratcd by a human, a horsc, or a stcam cnginc; and a givcn nu-
mcrical quantity cxists lor thc statistician, whcthcr it indicatcs
a criminal or a saint, an idiot or a gcnius; and so on. This is why
thc picturc ol thc world yicldcd by scicncc rcally always cxists
The Nature of Science zoz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
6
9
o
f
3
5
8
only in thc imagcs yicldcd by particular scicnccs: it is always
contingent. Vc can usc it lor a particular purposc or projcct, but
no onc ol thcm can prctcnd to bc an adcquatc rccction ol lilcs
concrctcncss and hcncc cannot lorcc us to vicw lilc through
its lcns alonc. Thc scicnccs arc conncctcd among thcmsclvcs
by thcir lormal aspccts, thcir methodism, thc logical tcchniqucs
ol conccpt lormation, rathcr than by thcir contcnt (which is
only somctimcs, and partially, possiblc). Contcmporary corts
to crcatc a scicntic philosophy, or a philosophy oricntcd on
scicncc, pursuc thc path ol panmcthodism
2
thc mcthodologi-
cal unity ol thc scicnccsbut thcy no longcr havc in mind thc
idcal ol a gcncral synthcsis ol scicntic thcorics. Scicnccs arc
unitcd in thc oncncss ol thcir (transccndcntal) subjcctman as
univcrsal humanityand in thcir substratumthc singlc all-
pcnctrating and all-crcating lilc, which gcncratcs thcm lrom its
womb, lrom mystcrious and immcasurablc dcpths.
This living, supralogical rathcr than logical, unity ol thc sci-
cnccs in thc crcator ol scicncc himscll and in thc matcrnal
womb ol lilc ovcrcomcs thcir mutual impcnctrability and lrag-
mcntation.
xtrascicntic, and lor that mattcr suprascicntic, rcality is
lullcr and dccpcr, morc immcdiatc and naivc, as wcll as morc
amorphous, than scicntic, catcgorically lormulatcd rcality.
Vhich rcality is morc rcal: thc scicntic or thc cxtrascicntic.
ocs scicncc cstablish bcing and rcality through purc logic.
r arc thcsc mcrc logical shadows, contingcnt on thc cxistcncc
ol objccts to cast thcm. !s rcality a dicrcntial (Cohcns in-
vcntion), that is, a logical-mathcmatical conccpt, or is rcality
givcn, il only in raw lorm. r, to spcak morc concrctcly, which
is morc rcal: my imprcssion ol music and color, or thc cor-
rcsponding mathcmatical lormulac ol aural and visual wavcs.
nly immcdiatc cxpcricncc is rcal in lilc; only naivc rcalism has
thc right idca. Lilc is always naivc, as all wholcncss and im-
zo: The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
0
o
f
3
5
8
mcdiacy is naivc. Scicntic, contingcnt, rccctivc rcality always
has mcaning only in a particular intcrprctation, in a particular
contcxt. vcn wcrc scicncc to succccd in undcrstanding thc cn-
tirc univcrsc as a mcchanism moving with clocklikc rcgularity,
cvcn wcrc scicncc, with its contingcnt oricnting constructions,
to nd such a construction most convcnicnt, lilc in its majcs-
tic immcdiacy would bc just as littlc thrcatcncd as a landscapc,
which docs not bccomc lcss colorlul and lovcly lrom bcing sub-
jcctcd to topographical survcys and dcpictcd on maps. Adrian
Sixts studcnt (in 8ourgcts novcl Le Disciple) nccd not havc
bccn so lrightcncd ol his tcachcrs lormulac that hc lost his
laith in lilc and placcd thc authcnticity ol scicntic rcality
highcr than that ol lilc: hc could havc calmly rccctcd that,
cvcn wcrc his tcachcr right, thcn only with a ccrtain lowcr,
contingcnt, limitcd corrcctncss; ccrtainly hc would not havc
succccdcd in scooping up thc sca with a sicvc.
nc ol thc most signicant lacts ol contcmporary scicn-
tic and philosophical consciousncss is that it acknowlcdgcs thc
relati.ity and contingcncy ol scicntic propositions. This is not
thc samc rclativity ol all knowlcdgc that Augustc Comtcs posi-
tivism prcachcd, lor it was prcciscly positivism that had naivc,
dogmatic laith in scicnccthat absolutc that it dcnounccd
aloud:
Sic trankcn hcimlich dcn Vcin
Und prcdigtcn cntlich Vasscr.
(Thcy sccrctly drank winc
Vhilc publicly prcaching watcr.)
Heinrich Heine
For Comtc (and now partly lor Cohcn), scicntic rcality is
truc rcality and scicncc is abovc lilc bccausc it is its quintcs-
scncc; it rcvcals thc irrclutablc, ctcrnal, iron laws ol lilc: cog-
nition mcans nding thcsc laws, disco.ering thcm in thc truc
The Nature of Science zo
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
1
o
f
3
5
8
scnsc ol thc word. Thc positivc thcory ol scicncc has bccn dc-
stroycd lor us abovc all by thc succcsscs ol scicncc itscll, which
havc dcmonstratcd in practicc all thc incxactncss and contin-
gcncy ol what sccmcd thc most immutablc scicntic truths;
thcy, in turn, havc conscqucntly bccn rclcgatcd to mcrc working
hypothcscs. Thc dcvclopmcnt ol natural scicncc ovcr thc last
dccadcs (bcyond my scopc in this book) bcars cloqucnt witncss
to this; thc most scnsitivc scicntic minds ol our timc (lor cx-
amplc, Poincar) havc givcn voicc to this imprcssion. Alongsidc
thc practicc ol scicncc, thc dcvclopmcnt ol critical philosophy
has madc a contribution hcrc, particularly in thc morc rcccnt
corts ol nco-Kantianism, which scck to bc scicntic philoso-
phy and actually arc working out a thcory ol scicncc. Hcrmann
Cohcn and Paul Natorp (thc Marburg school) arc most im-
portant in this rcspcct; thc mcthodological writings ol Rickcrt,
Vindclband, Lask, Husscrl, and othcrs arc also rclcvant. Thcy
havc all broadcncd and dccpcncd thc channcl dug by Kant in
thc Critique of Pure Feason, which Cohcn aptly charactcrizcs
as a critiquc ol purc scicncc,
3
that is, a thcory ol scicncc. Sci-
cntic philosophy, which lound its most cohcrcnt and radi-
cal cxprcssion in Cohcn, insistcntly strcsscs thc signicancc ol
apriorism in scicncc; in lact this is supposcd to bc what tran-
sccndcntal philosophy docs, discovcring thcsc a priori schcmas
and constructing a philosophical systcm lrom thcm. !ronically,
this apothcosis ol purc scicntism cnds up as a rcmarkably con-
vincing dcmonstration ol thc rclativity and contingcncy ol sci-
cntic truths and ol thc rclativism ol scicncc in gcncral. All ol
transccndcntal idcalism, bcginning with Kant and cnding with
Rickcrt and Cohcn, rcvcals thc truth that science is constructed
by people, and that thc lormal, idcalistic a priori pcnctratcs
to its inncrmost dcpths. Vc nccd only juxtaposc two conccp-
tions ol scicncc: positivisms naivcly dogmatic vicw, lor which
scicncc mcrcly rcvcals itscll in man, who in turn bccomcs a
zo, The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
2
o
f
3
5
8
mcrc rcccivcr or mirror lor thc rccction ol thc laws ol naturc,
and idcalisms vicw, oncc proclaimcd by KantRcason prc-
scribcs laws to naturc, rathcr than constructing thcm a priori
lrom naturc (Prolegomena, p. .c:)and now proclaimcd by
Cohcnbcing is thc bcing ol consciousncss and conscious-
ncss, as thc consciousncss ol bcing, is thc consciousncss ol cog-
nition (Logik der reinen Erkenntniss, p. .). !n thc rst casc thc
cognitivc subjcct, who givcs himscll to thc objcct and mcrcly
rcccts it, is complctcly passivc; in thc sccond this passivity is
attributcd to thc objcct gcncratcd by thc cognitivc subjcct.
Thc idcalist analysis ol cognition in gcncral and various sci-
cnccs in particular, as wcll as thc critical thcory ol scicncc in
gcncral, has, indcpcndcnt ol its largcr philosophical conclu-
sions (transccndcntalism), bccn ol cnormous positivc signi-
cancc lor ovcrcoming thc tcmptation ol scicntic dogmatism,
which is philosophically cmbodicd in positivism. Thc critiquc
ol scicntic rcason has shown, complctcly clcarly, not only that
scicnccs arc constructcd, but ho. thcy arc constructcd. This
has givcn risc to thc problcm ol thc justication of science. From
an autocratic lcgislator ol knowlcdgc it has bccomc a sub-
jcct, submitting to thc judgmcnt ol logic and cpistcmology.
!n thc proccss, though, thc instrumcntal, approximatc, con-
tingcnt naturc ol thc conccpts ol any particular scicncc bc-
comcs apparcnt, making a skcptical or at lcast critical attitudc
toward thcm possiblc; in this scnsc idcalism, dcspitc all its
philosophical absolutism, rcscmblcs pragmatism. Thc kinship
ol idcalism and pragmatism as lorms ol rclativism in scicncc,
although thcy lollow lrom dicrcnt philosophical prcmiscs, is
an amazing lact ol thc contcmporary philosophical conscious-
ncss, although it is conccalcd by thc apparcnt hostility ol thcsc
two currcnts. Nonc othcr than Kant is thcrclorc thc lathcr
ol scicntic pragmatism,
4
and its most promincnt contcmpo-
rary cxponcnts arc Cohcn, Natorp, and Rickcrt, who in turn
The Nature of Science zo
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
3
o
f
3
5
8
havc somcthing in common with 8crgson
5
and thc Amcrican
pragmatists. Rickcrts mcthodological thcory ol thc lormation
ol natural-scicntic and historical conccpts also has pragmatic
implications and is only supcrcially rclatcd to his cpistcmo-
logical tclcologism. Many ol Natorps statcmcnts conccrning
thc mcthod ol thc cxact scicnccs (Uber die Methode der ex-
akten Natur.issenschaften), which apply Cohcns idcas, arc sus-
ccptiblc to complctcly pragmatic intcrprctation in thc spirit ol
Poincars radical scicntic pragmatism.
6
!dcalism whcn it dcals
with rcal scicncc is actually doing thc samc thing as pragma-
tism, il wc can lorgct lor a momcnt about its cpistcmological
absolutism or transccndcntalism: namcly, it humani.es knowl-
cdgc and undcrscorcs thc signicancc ol thc lormally subjcctivc
lactor in scicntic cognition (though it conccivcs it as inhuman
or supcrhuman and lcars impurity or psychologism abovc
all clsc). Thc bottom linc ol both cpistcmological idcalism and
positivist pragmatism is scientic anthropologism. Thc problcm
ol scicncc cnds with thc mystcry ol man, and thc thcory ol sci-
cncc bccomcs a division ol philosophical anthropology. Man is
thc crcator ol scicncc, zon mayhmatikna crcaturc capablc
ol scicncc. Vhat lics bchind this capacity, what prcmiscs arc
conncctcd with it.
!!. Tnv coxo:ic N~:ivv ov Scivxcv
Man stands in an cconomic rclation to naturc, holding a tool in
onc hand and thc aming torch ol knowlcdgc in thc othcr. Hc
must strugglc lor his lilc, that is, cngagc in cconomic activity.
Scicncc is also born in this strugglc, it is its instrumcnt and
outcomc. !t rcccts thc world as it appcars to thc calculating
proprictor, and wc know with what dicrcnt cycs thc practi-
cal proprictor and thc drcamy contcmplator, thc artist or phi-
losophcr, look on thc world. vcrything appcars in an cntircly
zoo The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
4
o
f
3
5
8
dicrcnt pcrspcctivc to thc proprictor with his downturncd
hcad and back bcnt by work than to somconc who rcgards thc
world lrom thc hcights ol contcmplation or artistic obscrva-
tion. Thc clusivc and capricious dcvclopmcnt ol scicncc that
wc obscrvc rcsults lrom thc collcction and pasting togcthcr ol
a scattcrcd univcrsc lrom scparatc picccsa sort ol cconomic
mosaic. Platos lamous cxamplc (in thc Polytheus) ol a cavc with
prisoncrs lockcd insidc, watching thc mcrc shadows ol things
and constructing thcir undcrstanding ol thcsc things by thcir
shadows, can also bc applicd whcn dcscribing an cconomic-
scicntic rclation to thc world. Scicncc, instrumcntal and prag-
matic, is apparcntly dcncd by thc position ol thc prisoncrs in
thc cavc and by thcir rclation to thc sourcc ol light. Vc nccd
only slightly modily this position, and thc cntirc oricntation,
with all its problcms and mcthods, also changcs, just as it would
changc il man wcrc suddcnly to bc ablc to y in thc air, or livc
in thc watcr, or il hc bccamc microscopic in sizc, or bccamc a
two-dimcnsional crcaturc, and so on. !l thc cavc wcrc to bc di-
rcctly illuminatcd, and our cycs wcrc capablc ol cnduring this,
cvcry rclativc, contingcnt oricntation would bc abolishcd, and
scicncc, born in thc rcalm ol shadows and hall-shadows, would
bccomc unncccssary. Scicncc is markcd with thc stamp ol its
origin.
!n addition to thc practical and utilitarian naturc ol knowl-
cdgc, notcd by pragmatism, it is important to rccognizc thc
economic naturc ol knowlcdgc, bccausc lilc is a continuous cco-
nomic proccss transpiring in thc intcnsity ol labor. conomic
matcrialism has had thc privilcgc ol apprchcnding this impor-
tant truth, although its primitivc philosophical apparatus has
so lar stood in thc way ol its lurthcr dcvclopmcnt. Avcnarius
and Machs thcory ol thc cconomic naturc ol mcntal acts, and
thc principlc ol conscrvation ol cncrgy (Kraftersparung) char-
actcristic ol scicntic thought, arc also idcas ol this sort.
7
The Nature of Science zo,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
5
o
f
3
5
8
Scicncc is a social proccss involving labor and dircctcd toward
thc production ol idcal valucs, that is, ol knowlcdgc, which
arc ncccssary or usclul to man lor various rcasons. As a pro-
ccss involving labor, it is a branch ol mans cconomic activity
gcncrally, which is dircctcd toward supporting, dclcnding, and
cxpanding lilc and which is at thc samc timc an organic part
ol lilc. No houschold can bc run by purcly mcchanical mcans,
without any plan or tclcology: thc clcmcnts ol a cognitivc-
scicntic approach to thc world as an objcct ol cconomic ac-
tivity arc inalicnablc lrom it, and in this scnsc scicncc has ncvcr
bccn and ncvcr will bc somcthing man can do without. Thcrc is
an cnormous quantitativc dicrcncc bctwccn thc scant knowl-
cdgc ol thc practical proprictor and thc rcsults ol a scicntic
cxpcrimcnt, bccausc ol thc dicrcncc in thcir mcthods, thcir
brcadth, thcir systcmatization ol cxpcricncc; but thcrc is no
qualitativc distinction, no dicrcncc in principlc. Still, at a
givcn stagc ol dcvclopmcnt, a dicrcntiation in thc houscholds
cconomic activity takcs placc, and thc production ol idcal, cog-
nitivc valucs, scparating out lrom thc singlc proccss ol lilc in
labor, bcgins to lcad a scparatc and indcpcndcnt, il not cntircly
scll-sucicnt, cxistcncc.
Thc labor that is cxpcndcd on scicncc pursucs two lunda-
mcntal aims: to broadcn cxpcricncc or accumulatc knowlcdgc
(which can bc comparcd with thc inhcritcd crcation ol matcrial
wcalth and culturc passcd lrom gcncration to gcncration: roads,
citics, wcll-larmcd land, lactorics and industrial plants, and thc
likc), and to organizc thcm, to gcncralizc thcm scicntically
into conccpts or laws (which can bc comparcd with thc accu-
mulation ol capital, thc capitalization ol thc products ol labor
lor thc purposcs ol production). 8oth havc thc most dircct and
immcdiatc rclation to cconomy.
Scicncc is abovc all thc rcgular and systcmatic study ol
lacts, thcir discovcry and conrmation; it is spccializcd at-
zo8 The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
6
o
f
3
5
8
tcntion and systcmatic obscrvation. For thc grcatcr part ol sci-
cntic discovcrics havc to do prcciscly with thc discovcry ol
ncw lacts, that is, thc broadcning and dccpcning ol thc world
that appcars to thc nakcd cyc and to thc uncquippcd con-
sciousncss. Scicncc calls thc scicntic cosmos lorth lrom thc
mconic twilight, awakcns drcaming mconic bcing to lilc, and
conscqucntly broadcns thc possibility ol lilc, its univcrsality
and cncrgy. As thc mincr carvcs ncw orcs lrom thc clis, so
thc scicntic workcr calls ncw bcingwhich hc docs not crc-
atc but cxposcs and libcratcsto lilc, lorth lrom thc darkncss.
This labor is conductcd according to a strict and dcnitc plan,
applying instrumcnts and cxpcrimcnts that rcnc and sharpcn
our scnscs, according to cstablishcd rulcs (mcthods), as il by
a singlc collcctivc workcr; scicntic coopcration prcscnts an
cxamplc ol coopcration in gcncral. Particular scicnccs act as
storagc-houscs ol cxpcricncc, in which thc transccndcntal sub-
jcct ol scicncc, humanity, as opposcd to scparatc, cmpirically
contingcnt and limitcd individuals, acquircs scnsiblc bcing, bc-
comcs almost cmpirical whcrcas it was oncc supcrcxpcricntial.
As a trcasury ol knowlcdgc, scicncc is a sort ol condcnscr ol
lilc cxpcricncc. Scicncc docs not limit itscll to accumulating
knowlcdgc but strivcs always to systcmatizc and gcncralizc it
in hypothcscs. !ts tool hcrc is thc conccpt, which symbolizcs an
indcnitc quantity ol similar phcnomcna and comprcsscs thcm
into laws; scicntic thinking uscs conccpts to piccc togcthcr
scicntic thcorics. Corrcctly, that is, usclully, constructcd sci-
cntic conccpts scrvc as a condcnscr not just ol lilc cxpcricncc
gcncrally but also ol scicntic cxpcricncc. Scicntic thcorics,
which strivc to conncct various conccpts and rcprcscnt thcm
in simplc lormulac or laws, arc, in turn, condcnscrs ol thcsc
condcnscrs and, conscqucntly condcnsc cxpcricncc to a still
grcatcr dcgrcc. This cxplains why thc principlc ol conscrvation
ol cncrgy rcally holds in scicncc and why it strivcs to achicvc a
The Nature of Science zo,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
7
o
f
3
5
8
goal with a minimum cxpcnditurc ol cort: this is thc lunda-
mcntal principlc ol cconomic activity, and scicncc is cconomic
in its structurc.
Scicnccs cconomic naturc manilcsts itscll in thc manncr in
which it is rootcd in lilc, too. As, in thc production ol cconomic
goods in thc narrow scnsc ol thc word, labor is cxpcndcd lor thc
production ol commodity valucs having utility, that is, capablc
ol satislying csscntial or noncsscntial, actual or invcntcd but
noncthclcss rcal nccds, so in scicncc thc production ol idcal
goods, thc labor ol rcscarch, is dircctcd toward thc satislaction
ol nccds dictatcd by lilc. Man disposcs ol a limitcd quantity
ol labor and cannot wastc it aimlcssly or uncconomically; play,
thc cxpcnditurc ol cncrgy without any aim and justicd only
within itscll, constitutcs an cxccption, and thcrc is no room
lor purc jeu desprit in scicncc. !n scicncc as in cconomy, labor
is cxpcndcd lor thc satislaction ol an cxisting or an cmcrging
nccd. Scicncc is an answcr to a qucstion that prcccdcs scicncc.
Practical motivcs or lilc intcrcsts, impcriously rcsting thcir at-
tcntion on a givcn aspcct ol lilc, call into bcing a corrcsponding
scicncc.
8
Thc history ol scicncc is not thc history ol thc co-
hcrcnt logical dcvclopmcnt ol scicncc, as it would cmcrgc lrom
purcly thcorctical rclations; rathcr, lilc impulscs and practical
nccds havc callcd dicrcnt branchcs ol knowlcdgc into bcing in
dicrcnt pcriods. Vc can scc this cspccially clcarly in thc dcvcl-
opmcnt ol thc natural and tcchnological scicnccs, and also ol
thc social scicnccs, in thc ninctccnth ccntury. 8clorc our cycs,
practically cvcry lilc qucstion calls lorth a scicntic rcsponsc,
crcatcs a scicncc lor itscll. !t is truc that, in thc coursc ol sci-
cntic dcvclopmcnt, somcthing othcr than what was intcndcd
has bccn discovcrcd, much as Columbus discovcrcd Amcrica in
his scarch lor a roundabout way to !ndia. vcn as it cxpcricnccs
thc inucncc ol lilc intcrcsts, scicncc in turn cxcrts a powcrlul
inucncc on lilc. !t docs not rcmain outsidc ol lilc and, consc-
z,c The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
8
o
f
3
5
8
qucntly, stands in a living intcrrclation with all that cxists. !n
any casc thc scicnccs cmcrgc on thc basis ol a sclcction pro-
ccss; only particular thcmcs arc takcn lrom thc innitc sca ol
possiblc cxpcricncc. Scicncc lormulatcs lilc qucstions arising
lrom a particular intcrcst in a manncr convcnicnt lor itscll and
tcchnically appropriatc, but it still rcmains truc to thc initial
intcrcst, just as all sorts ol mcdical disciplincs scrvc but a singlc
lilc taskthc prcscrvation ol human hcalth.
Thus scicncc alrcady bcars a ccrtain cconomic avor cvcn at
its inccption. Vc should ol coursc not cxaggcratc this propo-
sition, which is basically valid lor scicncc in gcncral or lor a
givcn group ol scicnccs but not always applicablc to its vari-
ous dcpartmcnts and disciplincs, howcvcr ncccssary thcy may
bc lor thc scicntic lilc ol thc wholc. Scicncc also has its pccu-
liar logic ol dcvclopmcnt, which gcncratcs particular construc-
tions, somctimcs ol a purcly thcorctical naturc, with an inncr
ncccssity. Yct il wc takc a widcr pcrspcctivc, wc will casily bc
convinccd ol thc cxistcncc ol practical motivcs lor thc cmcr-
gcncc ol thcsc constructions as wcll. Vc nccd only rclrain lrom
too crudc an intcrprctation ol thcsc idcassomcthing ol which
cconomic matcrialism is guilty: to acknowlcdgc thc cconomic
naturc ol scicncc in no way signics to cxplain it complctcly by
cconomic motivcs in thc narrow scnsc. Truc, a signicant pro-
portion ol scicnccs, cxamincd as a wholc, arc ol an cconomic-
tcchnological naturc in thcir practical application. Vc can say
this ol both mathcmatical (including purc mathcmatics) and
dcscriptivc-cxpcrimcntal natural scicncc: tcchnology, agricul-
turc, mcdicinc, transportationall arc dircctly rclatcd to ccon-
omy. Vc must admit this ol thc social scicnccs, too, which arc
ol an cntircly practical naturc. conomic matcrialisms most
paradoxical asscrtions ol thc conncction ol tcchnical and social
scicnccs with a capitalist cconomy arc in this casc not always
cxaggcratcd. Scicncc and tcchnology (in thc broadcst rathcr
The Nature of Science z,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
7
9
o
f
3
5
8
than in thc narrow scnsc) arc vcry closcly rclatcd. Yct, though
thc conncction ol scicncc with tcchnology, or thc tcchnologi-
cal naturc ol scicncc, is onc ol thc morc important traits ol
scicntic knowlcdgc, and onc that thc philosophy ol scicncc
must takc into account, wc ought not to projcct this on all
ol scicncc and dircctly cquatc scicncc and tcchnology, lor thc
lattcr is aimcd at thc rcsolution ol cconomic problcms. Scicncc
docs not only scrvc cconomic nccds, and man docs not livc
by brcad alonc. Thcrc may also bc othcr practical intcrcsts
although thcsc, too, arc also qucstions ol lilc oricntation and
thc dcvclopmcnt ol rulcs ol intcrnal and cxtcrnal bchavior, and
thcy arc also rcsolvcd by scicncc. Thc various dcpartmcnts ol
humanistic knowlcdgc bclong hcrchistory in all its branchcs,
philology, philosophy. !n a scnsc wc might cvcn placc art in
this catcgory, as labor inhcritcd lrom gcncration to gcncration
in thc scrvicc ol bcauty. Although cvcn hcrc thc cxpcnditurc
ol labor introduccs an cconomic clcmcnt, and although sci-
cncc and art arc not torn lrom roots in lilc with its practi-
cal intcrcsts, yct thc idcal, spiritual naturc ol thcsc nccds docs
not pcrmit us to rclcgatc thcm to tcchnical, applicd, cconomic
knowlcdgc. Thc makcup ol thc scicnccs rcccts thc nccds ol
man, who crcatcs thcm according to his nccds, both practical-
cconomic and idcal. nly onc thing is impossiblc: lor a scicncc
to cmcrgc and cxist that scrvcs no nccd at all, ncithcr prac-
tical nor idcal, and that would thcrclorc bc unintcrcsting and
unncccssary. Thc scicnccs arc born ol lilc but, oncc gcncratcd,
dcvclop according to thcir own laws and lcad an indcpcndcnt
cxistcncc. Scicncc is an attributc ol man, his tool, which hc
crcatcs lor onc or anothcr task. Scicncc is thoroughly anthro-
pological and, insolar as actuality and cconomy in labor is thc
csscntial ncrvc ol human history, scicncc is also cconomic, or
pragmatic. !n ordcr to undcrstand scicncc wc must undcrstand
man. !t is not scicncc that cxplains man but man who cxplains
z,: The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
0
o
f
3
5
8
scicncc. Thc philosophy ol scicncc is a branch ol philosophical
anthropology.
!n accordancc with its dual, objcctivc-logical and pragmatic
naturc, scicncc must bc chcckcd by a dual critcrion, cvaluatcd
not only according to thc logical corrcctncss ol its conclusions,
thcir cohcrcncc and utility, cconomy ol thought, gracc, and clc-
gancc, but also according to its practical, oricnting utility. !n
othcr words, bccausc scicncc has a dual critcrion, thc naturc ol
scicntic crror or misjudgmcnt is also dual. Vc can clarily this
thought using thc cxamplc ol mathcmatics, which is currcntly
somctimcs sccn as thc logic ol scicncc itscll, or at thc vcry lcast
thc citadcl ol purc scicntism. And yct thc prolound invcstiga-
tions ol onc ol thc most promincnt contcmporary mathcma-
ticians rcvcal in cntircly acccssiblc lorm thc cconomic naturc
cvcn ol mathcmatical thinking. Namcly, in discussing thc qucs-
tion ol non-uclidcan gcomctry (Lobachcvsky and Ricmann),
which, though constructcd according to dicrcnt axioms than
uclidcan gcomctry, is no lcss logically cohcrcnt, Poincar ar-
rivcs at thc lollowing conclusion, gcncrally charactcristic ol
contcmporary scicntic thought and at thc samc timc so dis-
tant lrom Cohcns obliquc lormalistic absolutism: gcomctric
axioms, whosc dicrcncc cxplains thc plurality ol possiblc gc-
omctrics, arc convcntions; our choicc among all possiblc con-
vcntions is guided by cxpcrimcntal lacts; but it rcmains lrcc, so
that the axioms of geometry are only denitions in disguise. Vhat,
thcn, arc wc to think ol thc qucstion: !s uclidcan gcomctry
truc. !t has no mcaning. Vc might as wcll ask il thc mctric
systcm is truc, and il thc old wcights and mcasurcs arc lalsc;
il Cartcsian coordinatcs arc truc and polar coordinatcs lalsc.
nc gcomctry cannot bc morc truc than anothcr; it can only bc
more con.enient,
9
and this is dccidcd by cxpcricncc. Hcrc prag-
matism pcnctratcs to thc vcry hcart ol scicntic thinkingto
mathcmatics. Thc cnormous signicancc ol thc mathcmatical
The Nature of Science z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
1
o
f
3
5
8
mcthod lor scicncc in gcncral is also bascd on considcrations
ol practical convcnicnccthc rcduction ol qualitics to quanti-
tics and thc application ol mcasurcmcnt and counting whcrcvcr
this is at all possiblc. Yct bcyond thcsc boundarics thc appli-
cation ol mathcmatics bccomcs usclcss and cvcn harmlul and
turns into a caricaturc. A typical cxamplc is 8cnthams moral
arithmctic, which makcs an cort to apply numbcrs to cthics.
! am alraid that in contcmporary logistics wc also havc an
cxamplc ol how not to usc mathcmatics in logic. Vc can nd
similar cxamplcs in political cconomy, too, whcrc thcrc is also
an cort to crcatc somcthing likc a calculus ol human nccds,
utilitics, valucs. Vc should mcrcilcssly apply thc critcrion ol
pragmatism to such constructions: dcspitc thcir clcgancc and
logical cohcrcncc, pcrhaps cvcn clcvcrncss, such constructions
arc usclcss, lor thcy havc no oricnting valuc and must hcncc bc
acknowlcdgcd as scicntic misjudgmcnts.
!!!. Tnv Sovnic N~:ivv ov Scivxcv
Thus thc problcms that scicncc scts lor itscll, which dctcrminc
thc objccts and pattcrns it invcstigatcs, arisc lrom mans nccd
to oricnt himscll with rcspcct to his position in thc world; sci-
cntic thcorics and hypothcscs havc a mcrcly auxiliary mcaning
and can bc likcncd to scaolding that bccomcs unncccssary
altcr a building has bccn constructcd. 8ccausc ol thcir cco-
nomic naturc, thc scicnccs havc thcir raison dctrc in utility
rathcr than in Truth. Thcy arc in this scnsc tools ol thc strugglc
lor cxistcncc; thcy arc an accuratc swipc ol thc hand, a prc-
ciscly aimcd blow, a sharp glancc; in thcm thc transccndcntal
scicntic-cconomic subjcct sccs, hcars, lccls thc world as thc
objcct ol his cconomic activity. Yct radical pragmatism, with
its skcpticism and tcndcncy to scc in utility thc single critcrion
ol truth, is dccply wrong. !t cannot account lor logical con-
z,, The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
2
o
f
3
5
8
sciousncssthc ncccssity ol drawing ccrtain conclusions lrom
ccrtain prcmiscs that is indubitably charactcristic ol scicncc and
lorms its logical loundation. Scicntic propositions, whatcvcr
thcir origin, indisputably havc a basis in logic, and this crcatcs
scicntic ccrtainty and arms thcir mcaninglulncss.
bjcctivc and logical conncctcdncssthc logic ol idcas in-
cvitably bascd on thc logic ol things, which pcnctratcs both
bcing and consciousncss, both subjcct and objcct, and hcncc
prcsupposcs a ccrtain idcntity ol consciousncss and bcingis
what makcs scicncc scicntic and kccps its propositions lrom
bccoming arbitrarily subjcctivc or voluntaristic.
10
Scicncc is lrcc
and pragmatic in sctting up its objcct and its problcms; it is at
libcrty to ask about thc critical mass ol atoms or thc numbcr
ol jackdaws on a cross, to count stars in thc sky or pcnctratc
into thc dcpths ol thc carth; this is its busincss. 8ut, givcn a
particular task and particular clcmcnts ol a problcm, an objcc-
tivc logic ol things, a ccrtain iron ncccssity, comcs into play and
dictatcs a particular solutionproviding that wc do not mock
thc obvious and proclaim that :: - a paran candlc. And this
logic is no longcr pragmatic or cconomic but pure, this is what
makcs scicncc and cvcn cconomy itscll possiblc. !t is thc idcal
structurc ol cognition but also thc transsubjcctivc conncction
ol things. Feality is logical, it is cohcrcnt; this cohcrcncc is idcn-
tical with logical thinking, it opcns and yiclds itscll to it. Thc
idcntity ol subjcct and objcct that wc cstablishcd abovc as an
a priori ol cconomy bccomcs cvidcnt in tcrms ol its objcctivc
and logical lorm, as wcll. Thc conncction is not immutablc in
its lorms and manilcstations. !t is plural and multilacctcd. This
is why wc nd it in dicrcnt lorms, using dicrcnt mcthods,
and in rclation to dicrcnt objccts. Hcncc also thc multiplicity
ol scicnccs and thc possibility ol scicntic progrcss, that is, thc
broadcr and dccpcr pcnctration into this conncction. Thc con-
ncction is univcrsal lor it is thc conncction ol cvcrything with
The Nature of Science z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
3
o
f
3
5
8
cvcrything clsc. !n scicncc, it takcs on thc lorm ol a univcr-
sal causal conncction, pulling thc world mcchanism togcthcr.
11
Vithout this conncction thcrc would bc ncithcr idcntity nor
dicrcntiation. 8ut thc conncction is. Thcrc is a Logos ol thc
world that in turn scts up a logic ol things, a logic ol scicnccs,
a logic ol actions: cvcrything cxists in an all-pcnctrating con-
ncction. For thc world in its positivc basis is not Chaos but
Sophia.
Science is sophic: this is thc answcr wc can givc to skcpti-
cal pragmatism and dogmatic positivism. !t is rcmovcd lrom
Truth, lor it is a child ol this world, which cxists in a statc ol
untruth, but it is also a child ol Sophia, thc organizing lorcc
that lcads this world to Truth, and it thcrclorc bcars thc mark
ol truthfulness, Truth as a proccss, as bccoming. Likc thc Pla-
tonic ros, thc son ol Poros and Pcna, wcalth and povcrty, thc
absolutc organism and thc mcchanical disorganization, it bc-
longs to both worlds. !t is limitcd, rclativc, instrumcntal, but
at thc samc timc, as it advanccs, ncw shrouds conccaling Truth
lrom our cycs progrcssivcly lall away, and Truth shincs through,
il only likc a lortunc-tcllcrs mirror.
Logic, thcnwhich has both idcal and rcal mcaning bc-
causc ol thc initial idcntity ol subjcct and objcct and bccausc
subjcctivc and objcctivc arc csscntially only conscious or uncon-
scious manilcstations ol a singlc proccss, ol a singlc principlc
that is highcr than thc distinction ol subjcct and objcct or thc
opposition ol conscious and unconsciouslurnishcs thc lormal
dclcnsc lor thc truth ol scicntic propositions. !n tcrms ol con-
tcnt, thc truthlulncss ol scicncc is bascd on its sophic naturc;
Sophias organizing powcr makcs it possiblc. !n it Sophia comcs
to posscss thc world. Vc might say that thc awakcning ol thc
worlds scll-consciousncss nds cxprcssion in scicncc, as thc
worlds dcathlikc stincss lalls away. So rcal progrcss docs occur
as scicncc dcvclops. This lunctional unity points to thc cxis-
z,o The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
4
o
f
3
5
8
tcncc ol a singlc scicnccnot as unicd knowlcdgc but as uni-
cd action. Hcrc scicncc mcrgcs with thc cconomic proccss in
gcncral and bccomcs onc ol its lactors. Scicncc is a tool lor rc-
viving thc world, lor thc victory and scll-armation ol lilc. !ts
positivc rcsult is that thc incrt, dcad, impcnctrablc world pro-
grcssivcly loscs thcsc charactcristics and yiclds to cncroaching
lilc.
!l wc do not acknowlcdgc this objcctivc logical conncction
ol thingsthc primordial sophic naturc ol thc world and thc
sccondary sophic naturc ol scicnccthcn thc lact ol scicncc,
thc lact ol cconomy, and history itscll bccomc an unlathomablc
miraclc, somc kind ol hocus pocus or rcvclation ol naturcs
sccrcts. 8ut it is not possiblc to lollow this train ol thought
to its logical conclusion without lalling into obvious contradic-
tions or crudc mythologizing, without translorming thc dcad
and scattcrcd aggrcgatc ol naturc, as it appcars to a mccha-
nistic worldvicw, into a living crcaturc, il only into that goddcss
in grccn clothing and with moist cycs that Turgcncv dcscribcs
in his prosc pocm Naturc.
!\. vis:v:oiocv ~xb Pv~xvoiocv
Scicntic knowlcdgc is activc
12
or, to put it dicrcntly, it is
tcchnological. Thc lact that tcchnologythc convcrsion ol
knowlcdgc to action, thc lcap lrom contcmplation to rcality
is possiblc shows that scicntic cognition, or thc logical con-
ncction ol conccpts, is transsubjcctivc, that is, that cognition is
tcchnically usclul. !n othcr words, technology is logical or logic
is technological. Mathcmatics is ol cognitivc valuc not only
bccausc it is an absorbing gamc ol thc logical imagination but
bccausc it lorms a support lor tcchnology; dicrcntial calculus
provcs usclul lor thc construction ol a railway bridgc. Scicncc
not only constructs logical modcls ol rcality but also crcatcs
The Nature of Science z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
5
o
f
3
5
8
projccts lor acting on it; it is this conncction ol projccting and
modcling, knowlcdgc and action, that nccds to bc conccptual-
izcd philosophically. A purc thcory ol cognition is not cnough,
indccd it is impossiblc, lor wc nccd a thcory ol action bascd on
knowlcdgc, a praxeology rather than an epistemology. Thc prob-
lcm ol pragmatism only bcgins whcrc its proponcnts think it
nishcd.
Thc problcm ol scicncc in its praxcological dimcnsion docs
not t at all into thc lormulation proposcd by Kant with his
purcly rccctivc, rcally only thcorctical, inactivc rcason. Cogni-
tion lor Kant is only modcling, not projcction vcricd by lilc.
Cohcn justly rcmarks that Kant dcals with naturc as an objcct
ol scicncc (Natur als !issenschaft).
13
Yct naturc ought rst to
bc undcrstood as an objcct ol cconomy (Natur als !irtschaft).
Vc cannot lccl naturcs rcality in thc mirror imagc givcn by
Kants cpistcmology; this is why thc problcm ol thc rcality ol
thc cxtcrnal world and thc othcr !, as has bccn shown abovc,
14
bccomcs lor him latally irrcsolvablc. For thcorctical rcason thc
world, too, has only a thcorctical cxistcncc; it is, so to spcak,
projcctcd onto a planc likc a scrics ol diagrams and skctchcs.
Thcsc may bc accuratc or inaccuratc lrom thc standpoint ol
thcir logical clcgancc, but wc havc no way ol knowing whcthcr
thcy havc any transsubjcctivc, living mcaning. Kants vcry lor-
mulation ol his problcm cut o thc path to living rcality and
condcmncd him to a labor ol Sisyphus, a constant chasc altcr
thc cvcr-cscaping shadow ol rcality. Kants conccpt ol a phe-
nomenon, lormcd by thc a priori lorms ol cognition, docs not
takc into account thc possibility ol action; othcrwisc it would
havc to bc rccvaluatcd in a rcalist spirit, and this would incvi-
tably lcad to a rccvaluation ol thc cntirc thcory ol thc lorms ol
consciousncss, ol thc phcnomcnon and thc corrcsponding thing
in itscll. About thc world, theoretically constructcd, Kant could
justiably arguc that rcason dictatcs thc laws ol naturc, but
z,8 The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
6
o
f
3
5
8
wc must add that pcrhaps this naturc docs not cxist, likc thc
idcal thrcc talcrs in Kants lamous cxamplc, whosc bcing docs
not lollow lrom thcir conccpt. !l wc can convincc oursclvcs ol
thc rcal, rathcr than thc idcal, cxistcncc ol thc thrcc talcrs only
by lccling our pockct, thcn wc can convincc oursclvcs ol thc
rcal cxistcncc ol thcorctically constructcd naturc only by lccling
it, that is, moving outsidc thc boundarics ol thcorctical con-
ccptualization. Vc must movc outsidc it in ordcr to impart
to it thc charactcristics ol cxistcncc, as Kant puts it.
15
nly
practicc or tcchnology can convincc us that scicncc is not crcct-
ing a phantasmagoric world but is somchow rclatcd to rcality.
Hcncc thc bridgc constructcd according to mathcmatical cal-
culation in a scnsc validatcs calculus. Vithin thc boundarics
ol Kants cpistcmology, though, thcrc is absolutcly no mcans
ol drawing a distinction bctwccn thrcc rcal or idcal talcrs,
16
bccausc thcorctically, in thcir contcnt as conccpts, thcy arc
idcntical, and Kant acknowlcdgcs this; thcy arc dicrcntiatcd
only by thcir positionthc prcdicatc ol bcing. Thcrc is no
rcality outsidc thc logical lor thcorctical rcason; Cohcn, lollow-
ing Kant, takcs this idca to its logical conclusionsomcthing
lor which thc Marburg school, in which rcality is opcnly rc-
placcd by scicncc, must bc givcn crcdit. This point ol vicw is thc
last word ol armchair, scicntic idcalism. Kant himscll con-
stantly wavcrs bctwccn idcalism
17
toward which thc logic ol
his philosophy pushcs him but which (as rcprcscntcd by 8crkc-
lcy) hc docs his bcst to rclutcand rcalism. His living scnsc ol
rcality lorccd him to hold on to rcalism; howcvcr, thcrc is no
basis lor this in Kants thcory ol phcnomcna, and this wavcring
(alrcady rccctcd in thc distinction bctwccn thc rst and thc
sccond cditions ol thc Critique of Pure Feason) crcatcs a sourcc
ol conlusion in Kants systcm and nally lcavcs opcn what lor
him is a lundamcntal qucstion: Vic ist Natur sclbst mglich.
|How is naturc itscll possiblc.| (Prolegomena, scc. 6). Tracing
The Nature of Science z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
7
o
f
3
5
8
thcsc wavcrings and showing thc incscapablc duality in Kants
undcrstanding ol naturc would bc an intcrcsting task, lcading
to thc vcry ccntcr ol Kantian thought and rcvcaling thc lalsity
ol his Copcrnicanism.
18
nly Schclling with his brcakthrough
to rcality was ablc to tcar thc spidcr wcb ol Kantian cpistc-
mology and to lay a path to thc philosophy ol cconomic rcalism,
which docs not brcak thc unity ol cognition and action, naturc
as scicncc and naturc as cconomy.
Thus cpistcmology oricnts itscll on thc lact ol thcorctical
cognition (or scicncc) and trics to nd a path to rcality, to
tcar thc nct ol idcalism. 8ut thcorctical knowlcdgc, within
whosc boundarics cpistcmology rcmains, is idcalistic in its vcry
csscncc; it dcals with algcbraic signs rathcr than concrctc arith-
mctic quantitics. Yct in rcality thcrc is no such thing as purcly
thcorctical knowlcdgc; it is an abstraction, lor knowlcdgc cxists
only as a momcnt ol an actions concrctc unity and constitutcs a
part ol thc proccss ol lilc as labor and as cconomy. conomy is
a no lcss immutablc lact than knowlcdgc, but it is morc gcncral
and hcncc logically prior to knowlcdgc. Thc thcory ol cogni-
tion, whcn it is oricntcd on thc lact ol cconomy, that is, not
just thcory but also tcchnology, will look quitc dicrcnt than
its abstract thcorctical countcrpart. Subjcctivc idcalism can bc
ovcrcomc only on thc basis ol cconomic rcalismthc living
authcnticity ol thc objccts ol labor, and knowlcdgc bccomcs
transsubjcctivc thinking. To tcar apart thc concrctc unity ol thc
momcnts ol thcory and practicc, knowlcdgc and action with
thc purposc ol latcr pasting a living wholc togcthcr lrom its two
partspurc and practical rcasonwould bc to takc thc wrong
path, to sct up unncccssary dicultics and irrcsolvablc prob-
lcms. ! do not dcny thcsc problcms ol thc thcory ol knowlcdgc,
but ! do dcny thcir prcscnt abstract lormulation. Thcrc is a ccr-
tain a priorism and schcmatism, tosscd likc a nct on immcdiatc
lilc cxpcricncc, in scicntic cognition, as cpistcmological analy-
z8c The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
8
o
f
3
5
8
sis clcarly dcmonstratcs. Thc Kantian cpistcmological subjcct
is thc mind ol a scicntist prcparing an cxpcrimcnt. Thc a priori
lorms ol consciousncss in thcir pcculiarity constitutc thc objcct
ol thc thcory ol scicntic cognition or, as thc currcnt cxprcssion
gocs, purc logic. !t is not, howcvcr, thc highcst and nal court
bclorc whosc tribunal all qucstions can bc rcsolvcd. !nstcad,
scicncc itscll rcquircs justication or philosophical conccptual-
ization, and this is why a scicncc about scicncc, a philosophy
ol scicncc, cmcrgcs. Thc lattcr is not inlrcqucntly translormcd
dircctly into philosophy (Cohcn, Husscrl) and cxpoundcd as a
philosophical systcm. Thc samc happcns with thc philosophy
ol transccndcntalism.
\. Scivxcv ~xb Livv
Scicncc is a lunction ol lilc; it is born in thc proccss ol labor,
and thc naturc ol all labor is cconomic, that is, has thc aim
ol dclcnding or cxpanding lilc. Lilc ncvcr rcsts; it is in a statc
ol ccasclcss tcnsion, actuality, strugglc. Lilc is in this scnsc an
unccasing cconomic proccss. !t is action in which momcnts ol
rccction or thcorctical knowlcdgc cxist only as momcnts ol
action. An cconomic rclation to thc world includcs a thcorcti-
cal oricntation in thc world, that is, scicncc, as a ncccssary tool.
Scicncc is born ol practical nccd and dcvclops lollowing thc
samc impulsc. This pragmatism, thc cconomic naturc ol sci-
cncc, is cstablishcd by thc position that thc subjcct occupics
in rclation to thc objcct in thc proccss ol scicntic knowlcdgc.
conomy is contingcnt on thc alicnation and mutual impcnc-
trability ol subjcct and objcct, ol living and nonliving bcing.
Thc subjcct pcnctratcs into thc objcct through cconomy, brings
it closcr and movcs out ol itscll into thc objcct, assimilating
it and making it transparcnt and pcnctrablc. 8ut in ordcr lor
this actthc triumph ol lilc, whcthcr in a singlc act or in thc
The Nature of Science z8z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
8
9
o
f
3
5
8
wholc cconomic-historical proccssto bc possiblc, thc objcct
must rst stand apart in all its alicnation, impcnctrability, ob-
jcctncss, in all its multiplicity and chaos. As it prcparcs to makc
its lcap, or to bcgin its work, thc subjcct makcs rcady, taking
aim likc a tigcr bclorc it lcaps on its prcy, and lrcczcs lor an
instant in this posc. Howcvcr bricl this instant, it is csscntial
and unavoidablc in thc proccss as a wholc: it is a part ol it and
can bc only undcrstood as such a part, but at thc samc timc it
has a ccrtain cohcrcncc or wholcncss in itscll. At thc momcnt
ol this prcparatory posc, attcntion is cntircly translcrrcd to thc
objcct, and thc subjcct sccms to disappcar or hidc, and only
thc objcct ol study rcmains. This is purc scicntism, a scicntic
rclation to thc world. So scicntism is but a posc assumcd by
lilc, a momcnt in lilc. Thcrclorc it cannot and should not lcgis-
latc ovcr lilc, lor it is rcally its handmaidcn. Scientia est ancilla
.itae. Scicntic crcativity is immcasurably narrowcr than lilc,
lor thc lattcr is living, continuously rcalizcd subjcct-objcctncss,
thc subjcct and objcct in thcir polarity and thcir living unity,
cxprcsscd not in scicntic cognition but in cconomic action,
whcrcas scicncc is only objcctivc. bjcctivity and impcrsonality
arc considcrcd virtucs lor scicncc, and, indccd, it ought to bc
impcrsonal (subjcctlcss, cxtrasubjcctivc) and objcctivc; in it thc
subjcct tcmporarily movcs out ol itscll and thinks itscll in thc
objcct, cxists in thc objcct so that it sccms that thc purc ob-
jcct alonc rcmains. From this position, or lrom that window
through which scicncc survcys thc world, thc subjcct with its
immcdiatc, living rclation to thc objcct, with thc rays ol lilc
that it radiatcs, is invisiblc. Similarly, wc would scarch in vain
lor a tall mountain, looming ovcr thc landscapc and comprising
all its bcauty, il wc wcrc oursclvcs on its summit. Vc cannot
scc thc spcctral landscapc lrom this vantagc point, thought this
docs not mcan that it cannot bc sccn at all.
Vhcn wc approach thc world scicntically, it bccomcs trans-
z8: The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
0
o
f
3
5
8
lormcd lrom an arcna ol struggling lilc into a rcgulatcd world
ol objccts conncctcd mcchanically to cach othcr. Vhcrcvcr sci-
cncc dirccts its lantcrn, all living colors ladc and laccs hardcn
as il in rcsponsc to a solar cclipsc, and naturc bccomcs a dcad
dcscrt with an anatomical dissccting room. Lilc runs away,
lor it has no placc in this kingdom ol shadows, ol subjcctlcss
objccts, ol matcrializcd abstractions; lilc itscll is hcrc cxam-
incd only as an objcct, that is, as a mcchanism or a machinc.
To comprchcnd lilc scicntically mcans to cxplain it mcchani-
cally, to turn organisms into machincs: not lor nothing was
thc phrasc lhomme-machine, scicntism, translormcd into phi-
losophy, uttcrcd by thc philosophcr ol cnlightcnmcnt, in ccstasy
at its scicntism.
vcrything that bcars thc imprint ol thc subjcct and con-
tains signs ol lilc is irrcconcilablc with a scicntic, purcly ob-
jcctivc rclation to thc world. Scicncc dclibcratcly commits a
murdcr ol thc world and ol naturc, it studics naturcs corpsc,
it is thc anatomy and mcchanics ol naturc; and biology, physi-
ology, and psychology arc cqually guilty ol this. Scicncc throws
a nct ol mcchanism, impcrccptiblc as arc thc thrcads ol a spidcr
wcb to a y, ovcr thc cntirc world. scientic and a mechanical
.orld.ie. are synonyms. scientic relation to the .orld is a re-
lation to the .orld as mechanism. Vithin thcsc boundarics thc
kingdom ol scicncc is imprcgnablc and pcrmits ol no incur-
sion. Thc qucstion is only whcthcr this kingdom is univcrsal,
whcthcr it docs not lcavc sucicnt tcrritory around it to pcr-
mit surrounding it and taking it prisoncr. Thc objcct is plural
by naturc, and this plurality puts prcssurc on and opprcsscs thc
consciousncss, which rcquircs a multiplicity ol oricntations to
dcal with this plurality. Scicncc cuts picccs ol rcality out ol
thc living organism in ordcr to oricnt itscll in thcm and dctcr-
minc thcir mcchanical rcgularity. And thcn it picccs an alrcady
dcad naturc back togcthcr lrom thcsc cxciscd bits. Naturc as
The Nature of Science z8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
1
o
f
3
5
8
univcrsal organism, n ka pn, docs not yicld itscll alivc to sci-
cncc, and naturcs murdcr takcs placc on thc vcry thrcshold ol
scicncc, just outsidc thc bordcrs ol its kingdom. This is why
practitioncrs ol scicncc havc no mcmory ol thc past, and, with
naivc dogmatism, thcy cquatc rcality in thc lorm acccssiblc to
scicncc with rcality gcncrally; in othcr words, ontological sig-
nicancc is ascribcd to scicntic mcthodology. !n this manncr
thc lalsc assumption that a scicntic rclation to rcality is in
lact thc dccpcst and most authcntic takcs root and ourishcs,
and thc intcntional limitations ol scicncc arc lorgottcn. All
ol scicntic positivism is such a naivc philosophy ol thc purc
objcct apprchcndcd (it is unclcar how and by whom) by sci-
cncc. Vhat positivism docs naivcly and dogmatically is donc
with critical rcncmcnt by criticism, and particularly in its rc-
ccnt lorm ol scicntic philosophy. Thc philosophy ol purc
cxpcricncc and ol purc consciousncss is a philosophy ol sub-
jcctlcss cxpcricncc, or that purc objcctncss that is charactcristic
ol scicncc. Rcality as a purc objcct incvitably bccomcs a world
ol things, cxisting in a rclation ol mcchanical causality to cach
othcr. Thc rccognition ol naturc as a mcchanism, pcrmcatcd
by a singlc causal conncction (ncvcr, ol coursc, lully knowablc,
but postulatcd a priori) is in a scnsc a mcthodological prcm-
isc ol scicncc, an cconomic approach to naturc in thc cort to
apprchcnd its mystcrics and sccrcts (8acon). This, to par-
ody Hcgcls lamous cxprcssion about thc List der !ernunft, is
cconomic cunning (List der !irtschaft), hall-consciously, hall-
instinctivcly accomplishcd by lilc as it lrcczcs in a contcmpla-
tivc posc bclorc pcnctrating into thc objcct with all its subjcct-
ncss.
Scicnccs lundamcntal conviction or assumption, lully ac-
ccptcd by scicntic philosophy as wcll, namcly, that thc givcn
array ol world clcmcnts cannot bc changcd or cxpandcd, lol-
lows lrom its rclation to naturc as a mcchanism. Thc law ol
z8, The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
2
o
f
3
5
8
conscrvation ol world clcmcnts mcans that all changcs in thc
world ought to bc undcrstood only as a rcsult ol thc mcchani-
cal intcraction ol thcsc clcmcnts, and thc possibility ol any ncw
crcation, any cnrichmcnt or growth ol thc world, is cxcludcd in
advancc (hcncc thc rcjcction in principlc ol thc miraclc, that is,
thc disruption ol thc currcnt laws ol naturc lormulatcd using
thcsc clcmcntsscicnccs wcll-known lcar ol miraclcs). Sci-
cncc lays claim, at lcast in thc idcal, to compiling an cxhaustivc
invcntory ol world bcing.
19
Hcncc also its claim to an unlimitcd
capacity lor prcdiction, which would makc it possiblc to portray
thc world, to quotc ubois-Rcymond,
20
as onc immcnsc sys-
tcm ol simultancous dicrcntial cquations, |as| a singlc mathc-
matical lormula. Kant cxprcsscs this samc thought cvcn with
rcspcct to human actions; it lics at thc basis ol sociological dc-
tcrminism: it was statcd in most radical lorm by Laplacc and
latcr by Huxlcy.
21
And, having portraycd thc world as such a mcchanism, sci-
cncc procccds to brcak it down into atoms (in thc broadcst
scnsc ol thc word) and to tcar thc wholc into parts using, in
8crgsons clcvcr words, a cincmatographic mcthod,
22
and hcncc
it dcstroys thc unity, thc wholcncss, thc continuity in naturcs
lilc. Scicnccs rclation to naturc is articial and pragmatic as op-
poscd to immcdiatc and sclcss. Scicncc has a voluntary, activc
origin; it is not a pcnctration into thc objcct as it is (which,
incidcntally, is impossiblc bccausc thc purc objcct, thc thing, is
an abstraction, and thc objcct cxists only lor thc subjcct) but
an cconomic oricntation insidc it, a prcparation lor action. Thc
indicativc mood ol scicncc always prcccdcs thc conditional and
is lollowcd by thc impcrativc.
Thus scicncc is a contingcnt rclation to naturc as a purc ob-
jcct and, conscqucntly, as a mcchanism. Scicntic thinking and
a mcchanical undcrstanding ol thc world, or scicntic dctcr-
minism, arc onc and thc samc. Scicncc cxists only as a dctcr-
The Nature of Science z8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
3
o
f
3
5
8
ministic systcm, that world mcchanics ol which Kant, Laplacc,
and othcrs drcamcd. 8ut it is clcar that thc philosophical qucs-
tion ol lrccdom and ncccssity rcmains cntircly outside scicntic
consciousncss. Thc scicntic oricntation is so narrow, spccial-
izcd, and pragmatic that all thc qucstions arising bcyond its
thrcshold do not cxist lor it, including thc dcnition ol thc
subjcct in rclation to thc objcct, or ol thc will in rclation to
action. This docs not cxist lor scicncc in thc samc dcgrcc that
no qualitativc distinction among bodics that hc studics as g-
urcs and volumcs cxists lor thc gcomctcr: lor scicncc, a marblc
statuc and thc modcl that it rcproduccs arc cntircly idcntical.
cspitc all its innitc richncss and complcxity ol contcnt, sci-
cncc is cxtraordinarily simplc, clcmcntary and impovcrishcd in
its task. !ts only commandmcnt proclaims: know thc world as
a mcchanism, act as il it wcrc only a mcchanism that can bc
complctcly undcrstood. 8ut it would bc usclcss to ask scicncc
about thc validity ol this commandmcnt itscll.
\!. x :nv Scivx:ivic Vovibvivw
An ontological intcrprctation is lrcqucntly ascribcd to scicnccs
contingcnt-pragmatic mcchanical worldvicw, according to
which thc world is not only scicntically apprchcndcd as a
mcchanism, pcrmitting a mcchanical oricntation toward it, but
actually is a mcchanism, and all ol bcing is intcrprctcd on thc
basis ol this mcchanism. Thc cognitivc, cconomically oricntcd
subjcct is impcrccptibly lcd out thc door and rcplaccd by an
cxtraworldly, contcmplativc, inactivc scicntic rcason, to which
thc contcmplation ol this mcchanism is ascribcd. nly thus
is that purc objcct, which docs not corrcspond with any sub-
jcct and thcrclorc cmbodics purc mcchanism, obtaincd. Thcn
thc world is sccn as a totality ol things, whcrcas thc knowing
rcason, as a totality ol thcir schcmas, appcars as a passivc schc-
z8o The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
4
o
f
3
5
8
matism ol thc world. All is acccssiblc to cognition, all partakcs
ol thingncss, mcchanicity, objcctncssthis is thc catcchism ol
thc mctaphysics ol scicntic rationalism. This scicntic ratio-
nalism, this mcchanical worldvicw rcprcscnts such a typical
discasc ol contcmporary philosophy that it rcquircs cxplanation
as wcll as rclutation. Likc cconomic matcrialism as an idca, it
is strongcr and morc powcrlul than its various spccic lormula-
tions. For scicntic rationalism can now say ol itscll: my namc
is lcgion, lor wc arc many. For all currcnts ol thought (and not
just ol thought but, morc important, ol lilc), which bcar thc
namc ol cnlightcnmcnt in its many manilcstations, lay thc
loundation lor scicntic rationalism. Lockc and Humc, 8acon
and Mill, Kant and thc nco-Kantians, Molcschott and Hckcl,
thc majority ol scicntistsall arc conscious or unconscious,
activc or passivc, militant or pcacclul cxponcnts ol scicntic
rationalism. !t compriscs thc spiritual atmosphcrc ol our timc,
wc brcathc it impcrccptibly lor oursclvcs; in it thc scnsc ol thc
mystcry and dcpth ol bcing disappcar and mysticism and rcli-
gion arc cxtinguishcd. Mcphistophclcs, thc spirit ol scicntic
rationalism, produccs a tablc ol logarithms with a at snccr and
with thc words eritis sicut dei scientes bonum et malum, and mali-
ciously looks on as Gods world is ground at this mill. l coursc
such a signicant and inucntial currcnt ol spiritual lilc cannot
bc bascd solcly on thcorctical dclusion; it must havc dccp roots
in thc illncss ol bcing, in its lragmcntation, in which wc can
indccd pcrccivc thc bcginning ol discursivc knowlcdgc, that is,
ol scicncc and scicntic philosophy. As lor its blossoming in
our timc, wc will say togcthcr with Marxism that thc roots
ol contcmporary rationalism lic in thc cconomy, in thc intcnsc
cconomic lilc ol our timc (not in vain do ccrtain cconomists, lor
cxamplc, Sombart,
23
considcr rationalism thc distinctivc lca-
turc ol contcmporary capitalist industrialism). Kant and Vatt,
Cohcn and Sicmcns arc childrcn ol a singlc cconomic cpoch
The Nature of Science z8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
5
o
f
3
5
8
capitalism. ur timc is charactcrizcd by a tcrriblc intcnsity ol
cconomic cncrgy, cxprcsscd cqually in thc dcvclopmcnt ol sci-
cncc and in thc cconomic conqucring ol thc cosmos. This in-
tcnsity is cxprcsscd in thc cxtrcmc immcrsion ol thc subjcct
in thc objcct and is accompanicd by a ccrtain displaccmcnt ol
thc ccntcr ol consciousncss. 8clorc bcing conqucrcd, thc objcct
tcmporarily conqucrs its conqucror. At thc samc timc ccon-
omys succcsscs arc not yct scnsiblc cnough to provokc a lccling
ol victory ovcr thc objcct, its dissolution in thc subjcct. Thc
hypnotizing inucncc ol thc objcct bcing conqucrcd, thc tcns-
ing ol thc musclcs and thc will in thc coursc ol conqucring it, is
naturally rccctcd in contcmporary humanitys historical con-
sciousncss by thc succcsscs ol scicntic rationalism. Thc high
valuc ol scicncc as a tool has lcd to thc cxpansion ol its cld
bcyond its rcal limits and has provokcd an cort to usc this
kcy to unlock locks that it docs not t at all. From this that
unhappy product ol thc cra ol rationalismthc idcal ol sci-
cntic philosophy, that is, a scicntic rcsolution ol supra- and
cxtrascicntic qucstionswas born.
8ut although scicncc translorms thc world into a lilclcss
mcchanism, it is itscll a product ol lilc, a lorm ol thc subjccts
scll-dcnition in thc objcct. vcn thc mcchanism that lor a
mcchanistic worldvicw sccms a univcrsal ontological principlc
is only thc subjccts contingcnt scll-dcnition. Thc mcchanism
is a boundary lor thc subjcct, thc abscncc ol organism; but
thc limitcd is prior to what limits it, and lilc is not cstablishcd
but only limitcd by thc mcchanism. Thc mcchanism itscll is
a ncgativc rathcr than a positivc conccpt; it cxprcsscs thc ab-
scncc ol lilc, that is, lilc (thc subjcct) hcrc scnscs its limit, but
in ordcr to pass bcyond it rathcr than stop bclorc it oncc it has
bccn pcrccivcd.
24
Lilcs tcntaclcs, sprcading lorward and mcct-
ing dcad limits bclorc thcm, scck a way out or around thcm.
Lilc rcmains lor us an immcdiatc givcn, posscssing thc positivc
z88 The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
6
o
f
3
5
8
attributc ol bcing, and thc conccpt ol mcchanism or thingncss,
ncgativc in rclation to it, is lormcd by dcnying this positivc
lcaturc, is its shadow; and apart lrom this ncgativc dcnition
it would disappcar cntircly as a purc minus, as nothing. Hcncc
mcchanical causality is dcncd as thc ncgation ol lilc; it is thc
ncgation ol will and organic causality. And lor this rcason alonc
mcchanism not only cannot account lor lilc but must itscll bc
justicd on thc basis ol its rclation to lilc. 8crgsons grcat philo-
sophical achicvcmcnt was to show (particularly in thc Creati.e
E.olution) thc primordial naturc ol lilc and thc contingcncy on
it ol scicntic rationalism and mcchanism.
This is why, gcncrally spcaking, a rclation to naturc as to
a mcchanism is abovc all cconomic cunning, a tactical dc-
vicc by cncroaching lilc, whosc sccrct and rcal intcntion is to
conqucr and dissolvc in itscll cvcrything nonliving and mc-
chanical, and thc ultimatc aim ol cconomy, or its natural limit,
consists in making a univcrsal human organism out ol thc uni-
vcrsc.
25
Mcchanism in thc organism scrvcs only as a mcans lor
its cnds; it is its ho. rathcr than its .hat. Vhat is uncon-
scious is unlrcc and mcchanical; what is conscious, intcntional,
tclcological is organic, although thc mcchanism ol mcans may
rcmain thc samc in both cascs. This is why, in discovcring onc
or anothcr pattcrn ol causcs and cccts, onc or anothcr mccha-
nism in naturc, lilc strivcs to posscss it, to includc it in its
organism, and this is why cxpanding knowlcdgc ol naturc as a
mcchanism is but a prcparation to its posscssion as an organism.
Thc organism is thc rccognizcd and acknowlcdgcd mcchanism;
thc mcchanism is still unorganizcd, but potcntially organizablc,
naturc. A scicntic imagc ol thc world, thc world as objcct
and conscqucntly as mcchanism, is but an instantancous photo-
graph, similar to thc photograph ol a wavc at thc momcnt whcn
it is crcsting. 8ut it is clcar that, just as this position ol thc
wavc is comprchcnsiblc only in rclation to thc prcccding and
The Nature of Science z8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
7
o
f
3
5
8
lollowing momcnts in thc wavcs lilc, but not in itscll, so a
scicntic imagc ol thc world as purc mcchanism cxprcsscs a
momcnt ol rccction bclorc action, thc grcatcst possiblc oppo-
sition ol subjcct and objcct, thcir countcrposition, which will bc
lollowcd by that lusion and mutual idcntication to which any
cconomic act is ultimatcly rcduciblc. Thc mcchanism ol naturc
discovcrcd by scicncc, thc knowlcdgc ol its pattcrns, opcns thc
possibility lor organizing cconomic activity. !l thc mcchanism
as thc boundary ol lilc and ol thc organism is cxpcricnccd as
thc opprcssivc, nightmarish lorcc ol dcathlikc ncccssity, thcn,
on thc othcr hand, it is activcly rccognizcd as thc possibility ol
organism, ol lilcs triumph, ol thc victory ol thc conscious ovcr
thc unconscious in naturc. For, as wc havc alrcady said many
timcs, man docs not crcatc lrom nothing but mcrcly rc-crcatcs
and translorms; man must havc a mcchanism bclorc him as
thc matcrial lor his action, as a loothold lor his activity. That
lor which thcrc can bc no room in naturc must bc cntircly im-
possiblc.
26
Thc cohcrcncc ol thc momcnts ol cognition and
action, thc signicancc ol scicncc in cconomy as a mcans ol
cconomic oricntation, is hiddcn lor us bccausc thc lunction ol
cconomy, likc thc lunction ol knowlcdgc, is rcalizcd as a wholc
only by thc transccndcntal subjcct, by historical humanity in its
totality (or, at lcast, in largc groups), whcrcas lilc is immcdi-
atcly givcn to us only in its individual, limitcd lorm. Thc cursc
ol involuntary lragmcntation lics on thc lattcr; it is an innitcly
small lraction, an atom ol thc total proccss. This is why indi-
vidual human pcrsons rcalizc primarily onc or anothcr aspcct
ol thc cconomic proccss, somc its cognitivc, contcmplativc as-
pcct and othcrs thc activc aspcct. Hcncc it is natural that thc
cstatc ol scholars, as a rcsult ol thc complcxity ol thcir pro-
lcssion and thc diculty ol thcir task, having scparatcd lrom
socicty in a closcd guild, has acquircd a pcculiar contcmpla-
tivc, armchair rclation to lilc cxprcsscd in thc idca ol scicntic
z,c The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
8
o
f
3
5
8
rcgularity; lor pcoplc ol action, in contrast, thc world appcars
plastic and changcablc. So thc horror ol a mcchanical world-
vicw rcsults not lrom thc idca ol thc univcrsal conncction ol
all that cxists, acccssiblc to us as a systcm or, rathcr, thc vari-
ous systcms ol various scicnccs, lor thcrc is nothing opprcssivc
to thc hcart in this conncction itscll; rathcr, it lollows lrom a
lccling ol lilcs constriction, ol naturcs alicnation lrom us with
its dcathlikc impcnctrablc lacc and its indicrcncc or hostility
to man. Naturcs mcchanism, its corpsc, scarcs us away by its
prcscntation ol thc world as a kingdom ol dcath in a strugglc
with lilc and throws its dcathlikc shadow on our lilc. Scicncc
oricnts us in this kingdom ol dcath and hcncc itscll acquircs a
dcathlikc aspcct. cath conccals itscll bchind this mcchanism
and thrcatcns us. Thc world is a mcchanism only insolar as it
is thc kingdom ol dcath. 8ut to thc dcgrcc that it is thc arcna
ol a strugglc ol lilc and dcath, it is a luturc organism. Vc arc
slavcs to this mcchanism to thc dcgrcc that wc arc slavcs ol
dcath; thcsc arc dicrcnt cxprcssions ol thc samc contcnt. 8ut
thc dcad is not conscious ol itscll as dcad, and purc mcchanism
is not conscious ol its mcchanicity. Thc horror ol dcath can
appcar only in thc living. Mcchanism and organism, ncccssity
and lrccdom, dcath and lilc, although thcy limit cach othcr, arc
also contingcnt with rcspcct to cach othcr, and, through thcir
division, intcraction, and strugglc, bring about thc ncccssity ol
compctition, a proccss that, il only it is not innitc, must lcad
to an cnd marking thc cnd ol this proccss: to thc complctc
victory ol dcath or ol lilc. 8ut can nonbcingthat which is
not and cxists only as a shadowtriumph. Thcrc is only lilc,
and that which is takcn lor dcath and lor lilclcss mcchanism is
damagc or discontinuity in lilc, its laint, which is accompanicd
by thc laint ol naturc as wcll. And that mcchanism which is
studicd by naturc, this bark ol bcing, is mcrcly thc imprint ol
lilcs laint in naturcdcathlikc palcncss, inscnsibility, but not
The Nature of Science z,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
1
9
9
o
f
3
5
8
dcath. Thc proprietor, naturcs son and stcpson, slavc and mas-
tcr, ovcrsccr and workcr, works ccasclcssly to rcvivc naturc. Hc
trics to warm dcadcncd crcation with thc warmth ol his lilc. Hc
is not capablc ol prcscrving this lilc cvcn in himscll as an indi-
vidual; it is prcscrvcd only in thc gcnus as a wholc, whilc thc
individual must acknowlcdgc thc powcr ol his cncmydcath
ovcr him. And in this lics thc tragic naturc ol this strugglc: a
gap constantly lorms bctwccn thc subjcct and thc objcct; dcath
cuts o thcir conncction with its sicklc, but it is rcplaccd ancw.
\!!. Scivxcvs Sviv-Coxscioisxvss
Scicncc cannot comprchcnd itscll, cannot providc an cxplana-
tion ol its own naturc, without passing bcyond thc boundary
ol dctcrminism and ol a mcchanistic worldvicw and cntcring
onto thc tcrritory ol mctaphysical problcms. vcn il cvcry-
thing is a mcchanism, as scicncc assumcs and arms, what
is scicncc itscll as knowlcdgc, as thc contcmplation and scll-
consciousncss ol this mcchanism. How did it appcar as a sort
ol appcndagc to this mcchanism, as its idcal rcproduction or
mirror imagc. Vho idcally rcproduccs this mcchanism, and
how.
27
!l wc proposc that mcchanism, that is, purc objcctncss
and conscqucntly absolutc unconsciousncss, rcproduccs itscll,
calls lor its own scll-consciousncss, thcn this mcans to proclaim
a rathcr bold absurdity and to pokc mcrcilcss lun at thc law ol
contradiction by ascribing scll-consciousncss, that is, subjcct-
ncss, to thc objcctor clsc simply to dcny thc initial point ol
vicw and pass ovcr to a ncw onc that has not yct bccn invcsti-
gatcd.
Thcrclorc it succs mcrcly to posc thc qucstion ol scicnccs
scll-consciousncss as thc hypnosis ol a mcchanistic worldvicw,
and thc cnchantmcnt ol this horror wcakcns, lor it is impos-
siblc to conccivc ol scicncc as an cntircly passivc, mirrorlikc
z,: The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
0
o
f
3
5
8
rccction ol thc world mcchanism. First ol all, thc vcry cxis-
tcncc ol such a rccction would bc incxplicablc, lor thc world
ol purc mcchanism, rcmaining such and only such, would havc
no knowlcdgc and consciousncss ol itscll as a dcad body, sincc
it appcars as a mcchanism only lor thc organism, just as dcath
cxists only in lilc, lor lilc, and bccausc ol lilc. 8ut, apart lrom
this, this notion ol thc mirrorlikc and passivc naturc ol knowl-
cdgc as a rccction ol thc world bcars absolutcly no rclation to
rcality, lor kno.ledge itself is action, and only its products latcr
acquirc thc lrozcn lcaturcs ol objcctncss: scicncc is crcatcd by
labor, it is a lunction ol lilc. Hcncc thc rclation bctwccn thc
mcchanism and its rccction in thc consciousncss, or scicncc,
can clcarly also not bc conccivcd as a mcchanism but lcads out-
sidc its limits and brcaks its boundarics. Knowlcdgc as activity,
and systcmatizcd scicntic knowlcdgc in particular, is ncvcr ol a
purcly objcctivc naturc but also has thc objcct bclorc it; it is thc
idcntity ol subjcct and objcct constantly in thc proccss ol rcal-
ization, passing lrom thc potcntial to thc actual, to thc rcvcalcd
conncction ol things, thc logos ol thc world. Vhcn ! study thc
starry sky, a tclcscopic picturc ol thc world, or clsc thc world ol
thc innitcly small, its microscopic sphcrcs with thcir particu-
lar rulcs and conncctions ol bcing, ! do not always rcmcmbcr
that this is my picturc ol thc world, constructcd .ithin me, a
living potcntial ol thc world, as ! plungc myscll into thc innitc
objcct. !n a scnsc it is ncccssary, lor this, to acknowlcdgc that !
and thc starry sky or thc microscopic world arc onc, capablc ol
lusion or idcntication. vcry act ol knowlcdgc is such a par-
tial idcntication ol subjcct and objcct, thcir unity as it is lclt
and rcvcalcd, as thc answcr to a qucstion is a unity ol qucstion
and answcr. 8oth knowlcdgc and cconomy can ultimatcly bc
bascd on this idcntity ol subjcct and objcct, as has bccn clari-
cd abovc. And in this scnsc ! nd thc starry sky within myscll;
othcrwisc ! would not scc it abovc mc. All knowlcdgc is in this
The Nature of Science z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
1
o
f
3
5
8
scnsc scll-consciousncss. Thc roots ol knowlcdgc arc in Sophia,
in thc idcal idcntity and scll-consciousncss ol thc world, in its
idcal organism. Thc mirror thcory ol scicncc closcs its cycs to
thc prophctic and crcativc anamncsis that actually takcs placc in
scicncc as wcll, dcspitc its mcchanistic worldvicw, as in any ac-
tivity that is alivc and hcncc bascd on univcrsal idcntity and thc
univcrsal conncction ol things. For rcason (ratio), which mcrcly
draws diagrams ol things, dcscribcs thcm and approachcs mir-
rorlikc passivity in its activity, is barrcn. !t docs not givc birth
to scicntic idcas but mcrcly uscs thosc alrcady in cxistcncc,
rcgistcrs and chccks thcm; it is thoughts accountant and not
its crcator. !n rcality, crcativc thoughts and ncw idcas do not
rcsult, in scicncc too, lrom rcasons accounting, but arc born
and rcach consciousncss lrom thc dcpths ol prcconscious idcn-
tity, Sophia. Thcy da.n on thcir crcators analogously to thc way
in which inspiration dawns on thc artist; thcy arc thcmsclvcs
thc lruit ol a ccrtain inspiration, ol cros rathcr than thc cun-
ning ol accounting, and, oncc born, thcy lall into thc hands ol
thcir strict nanny and dcmanding midwilc. Scicntic rcason in
its stcrility cannot givc birth to scicncc; scicncc, likc all that
is living and crcativc, is gcncratcd and crcatcd through cxtra-
scicntic, suprascicntic mcans, and scicntic gcnius, likc any
othcr, is thc capacity to scc clcarly abovc or dccpcr than what
is givcn by rcason. 8ut scicncc kccps a prccisc invcntory ol thc
world as it opcns itscll to suprascicntic, crcativc, sophic con-
sciousncss; scicncc is thc minutcs ol thc rcvclation ol thc world
as sophic, insolar as scicncc bccomcs contcmplation and knowl-
cdgc and insolar as thc subjcct, having achicvcd its cxit into thc
objcct and rcalizcd its idcntity with it, rcturns lrom actuality to
potcntiality and hcncc projccts thc conncction ol things on thc
scrccn ol thc objcct as a mcchanism.
Scicncc introduccs thc light ol dicrcntiation and rcgularity
into thc dark chaos ol incrt mattcr, thc conlusion ol cosmic
z,, The Nature of Science
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
2
o
f
3
5
8
lorccs and clcmcnts. !t idcally organizcs thc world as an objcct
and pcrmcatcs thc chaos ol phcnomcna with thc light ol idcas,
ol univcrsal and rational laws.
28
Scicncc is thc proprictorship
ol rcason in naturc, thc rcstoration through labor ol thc idcal
cosmos as an organism ol idcas or idcal rcgularitics in which
cosmic lorccs arc harmoniously mcrgcd and primordial mat-
tcr and primordial cncrgythc lorcmothcr ol bcingtakc
shapc. !n thc proccss ol labor and cconomy scicncc pcnctratcs
through thc bark and pith ol thc chaos-cosmos to thc idcal cos-
mos, thc cosmos-Sophia. Thc world thcn truly ariscs as a unity,
but not in thc scnsc ol Kant and Laplacc. This unity will bc
rcalizcd not in an abstract lormula ol univcrsal dctcrminism but
through an organism ol idcas, which mcchanical unity mcrcly
rcccts in an upturncd and distortcd imagc. Such is thc idcal
limit ol scicntic knowlcdgc.
The Nature of Science z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
3
o
f
3
5
8
6
conomy as a Synthcsis
ol Frccdom and Ncccssity
!. Fvvvbo: ~xb C~is~ii:v
Thc rcccting (cpistcmological) subjcct, abstract and lilclcss,
conlronts thc objcct, or topic, ol cognition, as somcthing out-
sidc himscll; his only rclation to this objcct is thc lunction ol
cognitionthat idcal assimilation into scicncc that is but onc
ol thc activitics ol man as living, concrctc subjcct. Thc samc
subjcct, in his capacity as an cconomic actor, not only rcccts on
thc objcct bclorc him but feels it outsidc himscll, alicnatcd lrom
himscll. Hc cxpcricnccs thc objcct not only as a problcm ol
knowlcdgc (or his own idcal limit) but as thc limit ol his powcr,
his vcry bcing, and lor this rcason strivcs to push back this
limit, to warm thc cold and alicn objcct with his subjcctivity, to
introducc it into his lilc, to assimilatc it to himscll onc way or
anothcr. Just as thc dualism and opposition ol subjcct and ob-
jcct lorm thc loundation ol discursivc knowlcdgc and scicntic
cxpcricncc, so thcir dualism and opposition in action and in lilc
lorm thc loundation ol thc intcraction ol subjcct and objcct,
that is, cconomy. !nsolar as thc objcct in cconomy is cxpcri-
cnccd as thc limit ol thc subjccts powcr, it cxprcsscs ncccssity
and unlrccdom lor thc subjcct; insolar as this limit is constantly
pushcd back and rcmovcd by thc subjcct, it bccomcs thc rcal-
ization ol his lrccdom. Frccdom in cconomy has ncccssity, that
is, its oppositc, as its objcct. !n action, in thc cconomic proccss,
thc synthctic unity ol thcsc two principlcswhich, takcn scpa-
ratcly, arc mutually cxclusivcis rcalizcd. !n similar lashion an
z,o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
4
o
f
3
5
8
incrt and lormlcss mass ol stonc or marblc bccomcs thc matcrial
lor thc rcalization ol a sculptural or architcctural idca, lor thc
cmbodimcnt ol idcal lorms. Thus also thc light ol knowlcdgc
and consciousncss is ignitcd in thc darkncss ol ignorancc and
obscurity ol unconsciousncss and ovcrcomcs thcm. Similarly,
ncccssity constitutcs thc constant substratum, or loundation, ol
lrccdom, pcrmitting lrccdom to triumph ovcr it.
Thc qucstion ol thc synthcsis ol lrccdom and ncccssity as thc
basis and csscncc ol thc cconomic proccssboth its lounda-
tion and thc task it scts lor itscllrcquircs clarication. First
ol all, what is lrccdom, howarc wc to undcrstand it. !n ordcr to
posc this qucstion propcrly wc must rst cntircly cxcludc that
lalsc intcrprctation that looks at thc wholc issuc only in rcla-
tion to scicntic dctcrminism, to thc idca ol mcchanical, causal
rcgularity. This way ol posing thc qucstion passcs quick, but
not lair, judgmcnt on itscll, lor thc notion ol lrccdom is tosscd
ovcrboard, virtually without discussion, as unscicntic, and
rightly so. Frccdom is indccd an unscicntic, cxtrascicntic,
or, il you will, suprascicntic (though not antiscicntic) con-
ccpt and, oncc caught in thc ncts ol scicncc, it tcars thcm and
slips out ol thcm, lor thcy arc complctcly unsuitcd lor such a
catch. Vc know that scicncc is thc apprchcnsion ol naturc as a
mcchanism, in its purc objcctivity; this is its lundamcntal pur-
posc. Clcarly, admitting any intcrruption ol thc mcchanism or
limitation ol its sphcrc ol mastcry will contradict this mcth-
odological prcmisc and thc scicncc that rcsts on it. Thcrclorc
thcrc is no room lor lrccdom in scicncc, and this is acccptcd
by scicntic dogmatists and criticists alikc. Kant in his Cri-
tique of Pure Feason painstakingly patchcd up all thc crcviccs
in thc building ol scicncc (cxpcricncc) and invcstigatcd it
lrom top to bottom in ordcr to convincc himscll that lrccdom
could not pcnctratc it. Actually, cvcn without such an invcsti-
gation onc nccd not doubt that in naturc, sccn as a purc objcct
Economy as a Synthesis z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
5
o
f
3
5
8
ol knowlcdgc and hcncc as somcthing outsidc thc subjcct, as
a mcchanism, any principlc so csscntially conncctcd with thc
subjcct as lrccdom must bc abscnt. Still it would bc crroncous
to draw thc conclusion common to dctcrminists and that in
our day lorms thc loundation ol a scicntic worldvicw; in
lact wc ought prcciscly not to impart ontological, mctaphysi-
cal mcaning to thc mcthodologically contingcnt principlcs ol
cxpcricncc and scicntic cognition ol phcnomcna (scc chap-
tcr ). Frccdom thus undcrstood is but nondctcrminism (or
cvcn antidctcrminism) and has no positivc dcnition. !ts con-
ccptualization is cxhaustcd by a dcnial ol causality; in othcr
words it is idcnticd with abscncc ol causality, absolutc occa-
sionalism, thc rcign ol sa majeste le hasard. Argumcnts opposing
lrcc will try to show that cvcry act ol will is somchow moti-
vatcd, whcrcas psychic causality is unthinkingly cquatcd with
natural mcchanism,
1
which, as such, cannot bc rcconcilcd with
thc acknowlcdgmcnt ol lrccdom undcrstood as absolutc lack
ol causality. orts to dcmonstratc thc absurdity ol thc con-
ccpt ol lrcc will also lollow lrom this gcncral undcrstanding ol
lrccdom; such is thc lamous cxamplc ol 8uridans ass dying ol
hungcr bctwccn two haystacks bccausc ol its inability to undcr-
takc a lrcc, that is, unmotivatcd, choicc, to givc prclcrcncc to
onc or thc othcr ol thcm. vcn Kant transgrcsscd against thc
philosophical conccpt ol lrccdom by admitting an cxpcricncc
so closcd, phcnomcna so mcchanical, that cvcn all subjcctivc,
lrcc acts could bc calculatcd in advancc by a mathcmatical lor-
mula ol thc world. Hc cquatcd thc lccling ol lrccdom through
human action to thc consciousncss ol a rotating spit, wcrc it to
bc cndowcd with such consciousncss (and thc gist ol this com-
parison is its awkwardncss and contradictorincss: a spit that
acknowlcdgcs its own rotation as its o.n is no longcr a spit). !n
any casc, Kant dcscrvcs all thc morc rccognition lor his thcory
ol intclligiblc lrccdom (which Schopcnhaucr so prizcd). Truc
z,8 Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
6
o
f
3
5
8
to his wcll-known claim that mctaphysics is impossiblc, Kant
puts this unqucstionably mctaphysical thcory into thc Critique
of Practical Feason.
A ncgativc undcrstanding ol lrccdom as nondctcrminism,
noncausality, or absolutc occasionalism placcs lrccdom outsidc
thc world in thc cmptincss ol nonbcing, and it is casy lor dc-
lcndcrs ol dctcrminism to dcal with it givcn this intcrprctation.
8ut lrccdom is a positivc as wcll as a ncgativc conccpt. Frcc-
dom is not noncausality but self-causality, thc capacity to act
ol oncscll (a se, hcncc thc unmclodious but convcnicnt cxprcs-
sion aseism), to commcncc causality lrom oncscll, to rclract thc
chain ol causality in oncs own lashion and thus to disrupt thc
principlc ol gcncral mcchanism.
Frccdom is a particular lorm ol causality: thc capacity to
cause in thc cxact scnsc ol thc word. For this rcason thc problcm
ol lrccdom and ncccssity docs not bclong to thc phcnomcnal-
cmpirical world and can bc adcquatcly poscd only outsidc thc
limits ol scicntic dctcrminism. Causality has a dual naturc: it
can bc causality through lrccdom or through mcchanism, thus
in lact bccoming a union ol lrccdom and ncccssity.
2
Frccdom, or
thc capacity lor scll-causalityascismconstitutcs a ncccssary
attributc ol living bcings, whcrcas ncccssity is mcchanisma
lilclcss principlc. Thcrclorc cmpirical causality is but a mask
that may bc hiding cithcr a living lacc or thc congcalcd and in
placcs tcmporarily dcadcncd body ol thc world. Thc opposition
ol lrccdom and ncccssity lrom this pcrspcctivc is thc opposition
ol lilc and dcath, thc living and thc lilclcss.
Causality in thc living comcs lrom within thc scll (which
nds immcdiatc cxprcssion in thc capacity lor scll-motivatcd
actions and lor coordinating actions and goals), and in this
scnsc what is alivc is lrcc. 8ut lilc itscll and conscqucntly lrcc-
dom prcscnts a wholc scalc ol gradations. Thc living is scll-
dctcrmincd, but rcal lrccdom bclongs only to thc spirit, hcncc
Economy as a Synthesis z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
7
o
f
3
5
8
to living crcaturcs that arc carricrs ol thc spirit, that is, human
bcings (thc world ol discmbodicd spirits rcmains outsidc our
scopc). Thc capacity lor scll-causality is will (thus lrccdom
and lrcc will arc synonyms, lor thc quality ol lrccdom as scll-
causality bclongs only to thc will), but will achicvcs its lull cx-
prcssion only givcn lull scll-consciousncss. nly thc individual
pcrsonality posscsscs lully conscious lrccdom. Thc opposition
ol ! and non-! (as thc limit ol thc !) rst ariscs only lor thc !;
lrccdom and ncccssity cxist not only as a lact but cntcr into con-
sciousncss. Thc individual is crowncd by lrccdom as thc living
unity ol will and rational consciousncss (which arc bilurcatcd
and placcd in opposition in Kants systcm). As !s, as individu-
als, wc rccognizc our lrccdom; indi.iduality is freedom, as is
so powcrlully cxprcsscd in Fichtcs systcm. Thc pcrsuasions ol
dctcrminism arc powcrlcss bclorc this immcdiatc, living tcsti-
mony ol lrccdom in our own consciousncss.
3
Thc positivc cx-
prcssion ol lrccdom consists in individuality, which dcncs thc
scll-causality ol thc givcn individual: links ol an absolutc, indi-
vidual naturc arc includcd in thc world chain ol mcchanical
causality; thanks to thcm, world causality is in placcs rclractcd
in a ncw way. Hcrc causa non aequat eectum, and thcrc is no
mcchanical cxplanation lor this ascism in thc past ol thc uni-
vcrsc; it is somcthing absolutcly ncw. Causality through lrcc-
dom, conditioncd by thc individuals scll-dcnition, is untracc-
ablc and transccndcnt lor mcchanical causality although, in its
various manilcstations, it docs cntcr into thc gcncral chain ol
world causality. For this rcason it is impossiblc to undcrstand
thc world only as a mcchanism, as do rcprcscntativcs ol radi-
cal dctcrminism (Laplacc, in part Kant and othcrs); it must
bc undcrstood not only as a machinc but as a living bcing.
Strands ol lrccdom arc wovcn into thc labric ol world ncccssity,
and thcy subvcrt its wholcncss and continuousncss. Thcrclorc
rcality is not a mcchanism (which cxprcsscs only onc sidc ol
:cc Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
8
o
f
3
5
8
bcing) but history, that is, somcthing that, although intcrcon-
ncctcd, is also individual: similar in particular parts but absolutc
and ncvcr rcpcating itscll. Causality through lrccdom makcs it
this way.
Actually, mcchanical dctcrminism turns out to bc inadcquatc
cvcn lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol a law ol causality: a multidirected-
ness ol causcs is possiblc; in othcr words, a givcn ccct can
cqually bc produccd through dicrcnt combinations ol causcs,
and thcrclorc, taking thc ccct as our point ol dcparturc, wc
arc not ablc to rcconstruct a progrcssivc causal scrics.
4
Thcrc is
no dctcrminism in thc Kantian-Laplaccian scnsc cvcn in thc
conncs ol thc causally conditioncd world, lor hcrc too thcrc
is room lor dicrcnt possibilitics.
5
Thcsc nc points arc alrcady
within thc sphcrc ol dctcrminism, howcvcr; thcy arc what wc
might call its dcgrccs, and although thcy havc cnormous mcth-
odological importancc thcy do not acct thc gcncral opposition
ol lrccdom and ncccssity.
!n his individuality and in his scnsc ol scll, man carrics
thc consciousncss ol his lrccdom, his individual ascism, his
qualitativc dcnition. This unity ol qualitativc dcnition and
thc givcnncss ol oncs own !through which it bccomcs to a
ccrtain dcgrcc an objcct lor itscll (lor wc all know oursclvcs
through cxpcricncc), with an immcdiatc scnsc ol scll-idcntity
insolar as thc ! is its own crcationbrings us to thc vcry dcpths
ol bcing, to that whirlpool through which thc roots ol thc tcm-
poral pcnctratc into thc supratcmporal, or ctcrnal. My !, as an
individual, as thc basis ol my own ascism, lunctions as a givcn
lor my tcmporal, dcvcloping ! as it rcccts all thc vicissitudcs
ol bcing in thc world. This cxtratcmporal, givcn ! dcncs thc
tcmporal ! that is dircctly wovcn into thc chain ol causality.
Thc cmpirical ! thus apparcntly turns out to bc sccondary, dc-
pcndcnt on thc original ! (Kant callcd it intclligiblc). Thcrclorc
thc dctcrminists do not stop at cnrolling this !, too, in thc ranks
Economy as a Synthesis :cz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
0
9
o
f
3
5
8
ol mcchanical causcs, ad majorem scientiae gloriam, undcr thc
rubric ol innatc charactcr (hcrc biological thcorics ol hcrcdity
hclp out, as docs thc translation ol this qucstion into thc lan-
guagc ol matcrialistic naturalism). 8ut this manipulation would
work only il wc did not havc an immutablc consciousncss that
our ! is our own crcation and thcrclorc wc arc rcsponsiblc lor
it. Vc arc such bccausc that is how wc want to bc. Truc, our
substantial !, as thc loundation and hcncc also thc limitation on
our cmpirical !, rcmovcs unccrtainty and lorccs scll-dcnition.
Yct, all thc timc, wc still lccl that it is not somconc lrom out-
sidc but wc who limit oursclvcsand thus crcatc our own latc.
This latalism ol individual lrccdom, thc lccling ol lrccdom as
ncccssity (on which tragcdy is loundcd), can bc undcrstood as
our !s tcstimonyindccd an act ol our lrcc scll-dcnition: our
crcation as lrcc bcings, as wc arc and not othcrwisc, did not
takc placc without our participation; crcation was by thc samc
tokcn our scll-crcation. God as thc pcrlcct and absolutc !ndi-
vidual, as Frccdom itscll, wishcd in his lovc to honor man with
his imagc, that is, lrccdom, and thcrclorc lrccdom is includcd
in thc plan ol thc univcrsc as its loundation. Thc act ol crcation
thcrclorc incvitably includcs mans lrccdom ol scll-dcnition;
hcrc thc crcativc act ol divinc omnipotcncc luscs with thc lrcc
rcccption and assimilation ol this act on thc part ol thc crcatcd.
Frccdom as ascism is an inalicnablc momcnt in thc proccss ol
crcation.
6
Thc unity ol crcation and scll-crcation, divinc powcr
and human ascism, is ol coursc untraccablc and incxplicablc
through discursivc rcason, which lollows only causal schcmas.
This act that lics at thc basis ol our cntirc consciousncss can-
not ol coursc simultancously bccomc its objcct. 8ut it must
bc postulatcd by rcason, lor consciousncss incvitably comes up
against it as its own basis, and wc know this lrom our own im-
mcdiatc scnsation. Thc roots ol consciousncss, lrom which its
light will bc born, rcmain ctcrnally outsidc this consciousncss
:c: Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
0
o
f
3
5
8
and arc buricd in darkncss, but consciousncss cxpcricnccs its
own conncction with its loundation, which is how wc can, il
only obliqucly, bc surc ol its cxistcncc. Thc roots ol our cm-
pirical scll, unlolding in timc, arc anchorcd in cxtratcmporal
bcing, in that crcativc and also scll-crcativc act through which
wc arc brought into bcing and into timc. Vc do not cntcr thc
world as a tabula rasa in cithcr a mctaphysical or an cmpirical
scnsc; no, wc cntcr it as qualitativcly dcncd individuals. !l this
scll-dcnition is not conclusivc and lcavcs room lor tcmporal,
cmpirical scll-crcation, thc roots ol bcing noncthclcss rcmain
in thc cxtratcmporal, transccndcnt sphcrc.
Man cxists not through his own powcrs but through thc will
ol God; not just thc origin but thc continuing cxistcncc ol
spccics is an unintcrruptcd crcativc act.
7
Thcsc wait all upon
thcc; that thou maycst givc thcm thcir mcat in duc scason. That
thou givcst thcm thcy gathcr: thou opcncst thinc hand, thcy
arc llcd with good. Thou hidcst thy lacc, thcy arc troublcd:
thou takcst away thcir brcath, thcy dic, and rcturn to thcir
dust. Thou scndcst lorth thy spirit, thcy arc crcatcd: and thou
rcncwcst thc lacc ol thc carth (Ps. .c::yc).
Man is a crcation in thc scnsc that hc rcalizcs in himscll
Gods idca ol him. As a qualitati.ely dcncd individual, hc
cmbodics in himscll thc crcativc idca, contains a givcn idcal
task, cxists bclorc timc as Gods conccption. ur idcal imagcs
(thc guardian angcls wc all havc) cxist bclorc timc in thc spiri-
tual world whilc wc rcalizc thcir likcncss through our lilc and
thusby virtuc ol our lrccdomcomc to rcscmblc thcm or rc-
ccdc lrom thcm. Thcsc idcas about us arc givcn and, as such,
thcy constitutc thc principlc ol mctaphysical ncccssity within
us, as our basis and naturc. Vc did not dcnc oursclvcs but
havc bccn conccivcd and wishcd thus by God, who callcd us out
ol nonbcing. Vc arc crcatcd likc all crcation, likc all animals
and plants. nly God is a scll-sucicnt crcaturc who cxists
Economy as a Synthesis :c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
1
o
f
3
5
8
through his own lorcc, contains his own loundation within
himscll, whcrcas thc loundation ol our bcing in its qualitativc
dcnition lics not within us but in God. 8ut God rcalizcs his
idca ol us through thc principlc ol lrccdom. !n bringing quali-
tativcly dcncd souls to lilc, in crcating thcsc souls, hc gavc
thcm thc chancc to participatc in thcir own crcation, dcning
thcmsclvcs in thcir individually cndowcd bcing through a lrcc
act. Thc rcalization ol an idca through lrccdom allows lor dil-
lcrcnt possibilitics or modcs. As thc clcmcnts ol divinc plcni-
tudc, thc intclligiblc world (ksmow nohtw), all human idcas or
individualitics, qualitativcly dcncd and thcrclorc distinct lrom
cach othcr, partakc ol thcir ctcrnal scll-idcntity in thc synthctic
unity ol thc divinc Sophia. Thcy arc cqual or cquivalcnt to cach
othcr as arc two sidcs ol an cquation, or as two points on a circlc
arc ol cqual valuc although cach has its own qualitativc dcni-
tion corrcsponding to its placc on thc circlc. Thc act ol lrccdom
and scll-crcation introduccs qualitativc distinctions not only in
its intcnt but in its vcry cxistcncc, lor through it individuals
rcccivc and cmbody in thcmsclvcs thcir own idca, thcir idcal
task; thcy dicrcntiatc thcir idcal bcing modally, so to spcak,
according to thc intcnsity ol thcir rcalization ol thc idca that it
is brightncss that distinguishcs onc star lrom anothcr. Thcrc-
lorc pcoplc arc born dicrcnt, lor thcir soulscrcatcd but lrcc
crcaturcsdicr alrcady in thc act ol birth (ol coursc wc must
undcrstand this hcrc not in thc dimcnsion ol tcmporal succcs-
sion but in that ol ontological rclation). Thc csscncc ol this lrcc
act is incxplicablc lor it is noncausal, whcrcas cxplanation in
thc languagc ol discursivc thought mcans rcduction to causcs,
to thc prcccding links in thc chain ol phcnomcna; hcrc this
chain is only bcginning, and wc arc dcaling with absolutc scll-
causality ol thc will.
8
Thc thcory ol mans idcal prccxistcncc in God as Sophia
and ol his crcation on thc basis ol lrccdom is anchorcd in thc
:c, Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
2
o
f
3
5
8
dccpcst bascs ol Christian philosophy. 8ut it bcgins to asscrt
itscll alrcady in thc ancicnt worldin Plato (lor whom, how-
cvcr, it is insucicntly distinguishcd lrom thc complctcly unrc-
latcd thcory ol transmigration ol souls, or mctcmpsychosis) and
with complctc philosophical clarity in Plotinus. !n thc Chris-
tian mind it nds clcar cxprcssion in thc works ol rigcn, in
St. Grcgory ol Nyssus and Maxim thc Conlcssor, in ionysius
thc Pscudo-Arcopagitc, in J. Scotus rigcna, and in thc mysti-
cal thcology ol Jakob 8hmc and Franz 8aadcr; contcmporary
philosophy owcs a particular dcbt lor dcvcloping this idca to
Schcllings prolundity (thc cxtcnsivc quotations lrom his tract
on lrccdom adduccd in thc notcs arc charactcristic ol his point
ol vicw), and hc is joincd hcrc by \ladimir Solovicv. Curiously,
all his rationalism notwithstanding, Kant, too, comcs vcry closc
to this thcory in his discussion ol thc intclligiblc lrccdom ol
will that Schopcnhaucr so highly prizcs. Not having lound any
room lor lrccdom in thc scicntic dctcrminism ol his cxpcri-
cncc, Kant placcs it in thc noumcnal sphcrc ol thc thing
in itscll and proposcs that thc cmpirical charactcr is dcncd
by a lrcc, cxtratcmporal, supracxpcricntial, mcntally apprchcn-
siblc act; it is a mattcr ol intclligiblc lrccdom. Conncctcd
to this is Kants othcr cqually prolound and signicant thcory,
namcly, radical cvil in human naturc as a symptom ol human
lrccdom.
!!. Fvvvbo: ~xb Nvcvssi:v
Thus thc individuals intclligiblc naturc is lrccdom. Thc indi-
vidual rcalizcs thc divinc thcmc ol his bcing on thc basis ol
lrccdom. Thc dicrcnt possibilitics inhcrcnt in this lrccdom
as thcy unlold in history, with its csscntial antinomianism and
strugglc ol opposing trajcctorics, arc not our conccrn hcrc, lor
thcy bclong to thc cschatology ol cconomy. For now it sul-
Economy as a Synthesis :c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
3
o
f
3
5
8
ccs to cstablish thc signicancc ol lrccdom as scll-causality or
as a scll-sucicnt typc ol causalitynamcly, causality through
lrccdom. Thc subjcct, in a world whosc division into subjcct
and objcct lorms thc basis ol knowlcdgc and ol cconomy, is,
in its capacity as carricr ol lrccdom, concrctc cncrgy, cndowcd
with dcnablc attributcs, whcrcas thc gcncral rclation ol thc
subjcct-objcct bccomcs dcncd indcpcndcntly in cach particu-
lar casc, dcpcnding on thc charactcristics ol thc givcn subjcct.
Hcrc is thc sourcc ol thc subjccts incvitablc subjcctivism
(or according to thc currcnt cxprcssion, psychologism)thc
smcll ol individuality contcmporary cpistcmologists arc trying
so hard to gct rid ol. ach ! is individual, concrctc, and pccu-
liar bccausc it is naturally lrcc. !l individuality, as an attributc
ol thc individual pcrsonality, and lrccdom arc idcntical, wc can
say that thc subjcct rcprcscnts thc principlcs ol concrete indi-
.iduality, though not ol an abstract and univcrsal !lor thc
! cannot bc gcncralizcd or rcduccd to a lowcst common dc-
nominator. Thc ! can only bc individual and concrctc, ncvcr
gcncric. Thc univcrsality, thc rcal unity and sharcd naturc ol
dicrcnt !s, thc lusion ol individuals into humanity, is bascd on
thcir gcnuinc participation in a unicd wholc ol which thcy arc
individual aspccts, rathcr than on any imagincd abstract, gc-
ncric idcntity. Thcy rcscmblc cach othcr through this common
loundation and common contcnt, rathcr than thc principium
indi.iduationisthc principlc ol isolation and mutual impcnc-
trability, thc nakcd scllncss incvitably tcnding toward solipsism
(according to which wc could apply to thc ! Lcibnizs dcscrip-
tion ol monads as windowlcss). Thc ! as an isolating principlc
cannot bc ovcrcomc within thc subjcct and its scllncss; it is
vanquishcd only through thc objcct, whcn thc subjcct, with-
out rclinquishing its qualitativc dcnition, ccascs to apprchcnd
itscll as a limit or scparation and instcad cxpcricnccs itscll as
univcrsality through participation in thc singlc csscncc ol thc
:co Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
4
o
f
3
5
8
divinc Sophia, or idcal humanity. Thc cvil rc ol scllncss dics
out, subsumcd by thc amc ol univcrsal lovc.
Concrctc individuality is will and cncrgy as wcll as conscious-
ncss. Thc naturc ol lrccdom is activc and prcscnt-oricntcd,
not passivc. Frccdom strivcs towards powcr; it has no intcr-
nal limits; thc will is limitlcss. !t is absolutc thirst, it wishcs
cvcrything and transccnds cvcry givcn boundary. This aspcct
ol lrccdom is idcntical in thc absolutc as wcll as thc rclativc,
crcatcd bcing. Thc Crcator has honorcd thc crown ol his crc-
ation, which in humanity has achicvcd spirituality, that is, indi-
viduality, with his imagc ol limitlcss bcing. !n thcir lrccdom
pcoplc arc gods, crcaturcs potcntially intcndcd lor divinization,
capablc ol mcrging into thc occan ol divinc bcingand lusing
and mcrging arc possiblc only lor what is likc and ol onc sub-
stancc in thc rst placc. This is why naturcs rcunion with God
occurs only in man and through man as a natural-supcrnatural
bcing. Thc divinc incarnation itscllthat most intimatc union
ol thc Crcator with thc crcatcd and simultancously thc divi-
nization ol thc worldwould havc bccn impossiblc wcrc it not
lor thc prcscncc ol this divinc form, thc human individual, in
thc world; lor thc divinc Logos could cntcr naturc and bccomc
Jcsus Christ, thc Godman and God in naturc, only by way ol
lrccdom. Vithout this path, this bridgc, only thc possibility
ol cxtcrnal mcchanical or magical action on naturc would rc-
main; only divinc powcr, capablc ol crcating and rc-crcating thc
world, would rcmain, to thc cxclusion ol thc divinc lovc that
unlolds in scll-humiliation, in thc dcsccnt to crcatcd bcing, in
thc incarnation ol God in man and through him in thc natural
world. Crcatcd naturc would not havc bccn capablc ol accom-
modating thc Unaccommodatablc in its mangcr il thc samc
naturcs lrccdom had not carlicr said, 8chold thc handmaid
ol thc Lord; bc it unto mc according to thy word (Lukc .:8)
and had not thus opcncd its womb to thc divinc incarnation.
Economy as a Synthesis :c,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
5
o
f
3
5
8
Man is divinc in thc lormal limitlcssncss ol his conscious-
ncss and his lrccdom; hc wishcs to bc all lor cvcrything. 8ut his
lrccdom as activc cncrgy, as powcr, is distinct lrom this scll-
apprchcnsion with its absolutc intcntionality, its mystcrious,
hicratical potcntial that is at oncc rcmcmbrancc and prophccy.
ndowcd with thc capacity to wish innitcly much, cach indi-
vidual is capablc ol innitcly littlc.
Thc limit ol lrccdom as powcr is ncccssity. Thc objcct as
thc cxprcssion ol ncccssity is inimical and alicn to thc subjcct
as thc cmbodimcnt ol lrccdom. 8ut thc vcry cxistcncc ol this
limit pcrmits lrccdom to apprchcnd itscll in its individuality;
it bccomcs conscious and rccctivc only in its opposition to
ncccssity and cntcrs into opcn conict with it.
This polarization ol lrccdom and ncccssity is abscnt only
whcrc thcy do not opposc and mutually limit cach othcr. !t
is abscnt in inanimatc naturc and is only vagucly dctcctablc
among living bcingsmoaning, sucring crcation. !t also
cannot cxist in thc Absolutc. Thc lrccdom ol thc Absolutc has
not boundarics and thcrclorc coincidcs with absolutc ncccssity:
God wishcs only what hc can, and hc can cvcrything hc wishcs
or might wish. Vishing and bccoming mcrgc in onc act; thc
lrccdom to wish alrcady contains in itscll sucicnt grounds lor
its rcalization; in lact thcy lusc with and subsumc cach othcr
to such a dcgrcc that thcy bccomc complctcly indistinguishablc
and ccasc to cxist in scparation or opposition. Thc conccpt ol
divinc lrccdom and omnipotcncc docs not, apparcntly, admit ol
that purcly ncgativc intcrprctation givcn to thc conccpt ol lrcc-
dom in scicntic dctcrminismas absolutc occasionalism and
scll-dctcrmination. Nothing can bc larthcr lrom divinc om-
nipotcncc than this scll-dctcrmincd occasionalism, according
to which God can want absolutcly anything thc limitcd crc-
atcd mind might makc up. All kinds ol pathctic and crazy littlc
idcas, thc invcntion ol our sinlulncss and limitcdncss, can obvi-
:c8 Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
6
o
f
3
5
8
ously not bccomc thc objcct ol divinc dcsirc, lor thc vcry idca
ol ascribing rclativc and limitcd wishcs to thc Absolutc and
Unlimitcd 8cing, thc cort to cquatc thc wholc and its parts,
is an obvious contradiction, and thc problcm lalls apart lrom
its own intcrnal contradictions bclorc it can cvcn bc poscd.
Yct ccrtain smart-alccks managc to prcscnt this impossibility as
thc limit on divinc omnipotcncc, arguing that God is not om-
nipotcnt bccausc hc cannot wish cvil, banality, stupidity, and
all thc othcr things thcir lazy hcads can comc up with. ivinc
lrccdom is diamctrically opposcd to occasionalismwhich is
at oncc dctcrminism turncd insidc out and absolutc ncccssity.
God wants only one thing, corrcsponding to his naturc, his wis-
dom, his goodncss and his lovc, on which thc ncccssity ol his
scll-rcvclation in crcation is constructcd. ivinc lrccdom is
positivc rathcr than ncgativc; God can want only onc thing
Goodand can bc only onc thingLovc. And il God is Lovc
hc cannot want anything that is not lovc or not quitc lovc; hc
wishcs thc maximum, and that in thc lorm ol maximum pcr-
lcction. Vc cannot ascribc thc whims ol a scll-willcd, dcspotic
bcing to Gods omnipotcncc; rathcr, it mcans that as Crcator ol
e.erything, God cxpcricnccs no limits on his powcr cxccpt thc
oncs hc scts lor himscll through his Lovc, lcaving room lor thc
lrccdom ol crcatcd bcings, thus limiting himscll and humili-
ating himscll voluntarily in thc namc ol lrcc lovc.
9
Thcrclorc
absolutc lrcc will is holy .ill, and thc highcst lrccdom lics in
capitulation to a ccrtain holy necessity (Schclling).
8ut il ncccssity is subsumcd in lrccdom at thc ccntcr ol
bcing, thcir intcrrclation is quitc dicrcnt on its pcriphcrics.
!nsolar as crcatcd bcing arms itscll as particular, scparatc,
pcriphcral, and dcccntralizcd, it cxpcricnccs its lrccdom as lim-
itcd and idcal rathcr than rcal. Thc incvitablc conict ol lrcc-
domand ncccssity ariscs in thc crcatcd consciousncss and cstab-
lishcs thc concept of history. Frccdom turns out to bc constraincd
Economy as a Synthesis :c,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
7
o
f
3
5
8
and limitcd by ncccssity. Thc objcct stands in opposition to thc
subjcct in rcal lilc, not just in idcal thcory. Thc subjcct livcs
in thc objcct without considcration lor its will or its lrccdom.
Thc objcct is lor thc subjcct thc dcal and blind lorcc ol ncccs-
sity, moira, latcthc latc not ol divinc will but ol mcchanical
ncccssity, dcad and incrt mattcr impossiblc to blamc or com-
plain about. And yct thc subjcct is immcrscd in this objcct,
lrccdom is tightly soldcrcd to ncccssityso much so that thcy
can bc distinguishcd only through philosophical analysis. Thc
concrctc subjcct both opposcs ncccssity and absorbs it. As an
cmpirical individual, hc is actually crcatcd, up to a point, by
this vcry objcct, that is, ncccssity; to this dcgrcc hc docs not
bclong to himscll, is not his own crcation (likc Fichtcs !), lor
hc has acccptcd and absorbcd thc objcct as ncccssity in himscll
and in his consciousncss and continually rcpcats this acccptancc
and absorption. Thc cmpirical ! bccomcs thc lorm through
which what is givcn thc ! by ncccssity and rcccivcd lrom thc
surrounding cnvironmcnt bccomcs apprchcndcd as oncs own,
as an attributc ol scllncss. Thc individual as a living synthcsis
ol subjcct and objcct thcrclorc rcprcscnts a complctcly incxtri-
cablc conglomcration ol lrccdom and ncccssity, ol ! and non-!.
8oth ol thcsc principlcs arc in a statc ol constant ux, motion,
strugglc, rathcr than calm and cquilibrium, and this intcraction
is thc contcnt ol lilc itscll: thc ! livcs not only in itscll and
through itscll but in thc world and through thc world. nly
God contains cvcrything in himscll and nothing outsidc him-
scll, which is why thcrc is no objcct lor him; morc prcciscly,
thc objcct is subsumcd through its absolutc idcntity with thc
subjcct; it is ctcrnally containcd in thc singlc cognitivc act ol
will that cstablishcs thc worlds cxistcncc. Subjccts, as ccntcrs
ol world consciousncss in this crcatcd world, incvitably nd thc
objcct, thc non-! that outside thc subjcct cxists in thc lorm ol
ncccssity, also prcscnt insidc thcmsclvcs.
:zc Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
8
o
f
3
5
8
!t is casy on thcsc grounds, in arming thc lorcc ol ncccs-
sity ovcr thc subjcct awarc ol his lrccdom, to concludc that
this lrccdom is ccting or cvcn noncxistcnt, to pronouncc thc
individual wholly a product ol ncccssity. This is cxactly what
all dctcrministic thcorics do: thcy dcny lrccdom in thc scnsc
ol ascism and rcgard thc individual as a sort ol mcchanism, a
rccx or sum ol dicrcnt causcs and inucnccs. !n thcsc thco-
rics thc subjcct is cxplaincd by thc objcct, whcrcas in rcality
it is, to thc contrary, thc objcct that is postulatcd by thc sub-
jcct; individuality and lrccdom, as wcll as thc living scnsc ol
powcr,
10
arc immcdiatcly givcn us in thc subjcct (Fichtc was
right on this), and thc lilclcss and incrt objcct is dcncd only
sccondarily. !ndividuality cannot bc accountcd lor in dctcrmin-
istic tcrms, procccding lrom thc absolutc objcct, cxccpt as thc
dogmatic and unprovcablc proposition that thc !s conscious-
ncss is an cpiphcnomcnon ol matcrial proccsscs or an cxcrction
ol thc brain (a naivc and vulgar, but honcst, lormulation). Thc
pcculiaritics ol thc problcm ol intcrrclation ol lrccdom and nc-
ccssity arc obviatcd in dctcrministic thcorics by simply ignoring
hall ol it. Thc problcm is prcciscly how to undcrstand this unity
ol lrccdom and ncccssity, individuality and nonindividuality.
utsidc this unity lilc is unthinkablc, and only il wc cross it out
and rcgard cvcrything as lilclcss and mcchanical can wc dclcnd
thc dctcrminists, but in this lantastic ction thcrc will rst ol
all bc no room lor them with thcir scicncc and thcir cognition,
with thcir postulatcs and dircctcdncss ol thc will.
! would suggcst thc lollowing rcsolution. Concrctc indi-
viduality, rathcr than bcing passivc and rccctivc, is an activc
principlc lunctioning in thc prcscnt; it is will cndowcd with
attributcs. Thcrclorc it rclracts thc cntcring non-! in its own
particular lashion, rathcr than absorbing it likc an cmpty room
with windows and doors thrown opcn, or a blank shcct ol papcr
rcccptivc to any notations that might bc inscribcd on it. Thc
Economy as a Synthesis :zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
1
9
o
f
3
5
8
samc non-! can bc rccctcd and rclractcd dicrcntly and with
absolutc particularity in dicrcnt !s: this rccction dicrs in
quality as wcll as quantity. Vc might say that il thcrc arc no
idcntical !s, thcrc arc also no idcntical non-!s, that is, thc con-
crctc non-! is as individual as thc !. Thc non-! bccomcs thc cld
lor thc rcalization ol thc !s lrccdomits objcct or potcntial.
!t rcvcals thc !s ascism, or qualitativc dcnition. This is why
wc know oursclvcs only through lilc cxpcricncc. Frccdom is thc
vcry csscncc, thc vcry naturc ol thc ! (as Fichtc dcmonstratcd),
and thcrclorc cannot bc takcn away lrom or lost to thc living
pcrson. Thc various ways in which thc scll sccms to bc dcncd
arc cach incvitably its indcpcndcnt, scll-willcd scll-dcnition.
Thc cncmics ol lrccdom would objcct that cvcrything hap-
pcns in accordancc with particular motivcs and hcncc lollow-
ing psychological obligation or ncccssity; man is a product ol
his cnvironmcnt and thc ! is a product ol thc non-!. This
is both corrcct and incorrcct. Unqucstionably, cvcry cmpirical
individual as a subjcct in thc objcct is a product ol thc cnviron-
mcnt insolar as it rcccts thc objccts inucncc, which in turn
comcs lrom outsidc us and our will. Howcvcr wc might imag-
inc this dcpcndcncc, it rcmains truc that thc world, thc cntry
ol thc objcct into thc subjcct, in thc cnd dcncs thc subjccts
contcnt in thc activity ol its rcason, scntimcnt, and will, as
wcll as in its passivc rcccptivity. Vhatcvcr complcx ol imprcs-
sions or piccc ol thc world thc givcn subjcct happcns to comc
upon cnds up dcning his lot in lilc. l coursc, thcrc is still a
lurthcr qucstion whcthcr thc individuals prcdctcrmination and
linkagc to a particular cnvironmcnt might not also admit ol
mctaphysical cxplanationnamcly, whcthcr it would bc pos-
siblc to prcsumc a corrcspondcncc bctwccn thc individuals lrcc
scll-dcnition or scll-consciousncss in ctcrnity with its cmpiri-
cal latc in tcmporal lilc. Anyonc who is capablc ol concciving
thc world as cndowcd with an inncr, supratcmporal unity, lor
:z: Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
0
o
f
3
5
8
whom thc intcrconncctcdncss ol things is not limitcd to mc-
chanical causality, must incvitably postulatc thcsc conncctions
and corrcspondcnccs in mctaphysical tcrms. Man as an intcl-
ligiblc, cxtratcmporal crcaturc dcncs himscll in tcrms ol his
cmpirical bcing through an act ol lrccdom, whilc his spirit
sclccts and crcatcs his physical and historical body. And bclorc
all clsc thc conncction bctwccn lathcrs and childrcn, thc powcr
ol hcrcdity, is incvitably rootcd in thc intclligiblc world and can
ol coursc not bc considcrcd a purcly cmpirical lact cxplicablc
in tcrms ol a mcchanical succcssion ol causc and ccct. How-
cvcr convincing this conncction might sccm, howcvcr likcly it
might bc that man as intclligiblc bcing is thc causc ol himscll
as cmpirical bcing, in lact thcir mutual corrcspondcncc rcmains
a mctaphysical postulatc; a dccpcr apprchcnsion ol this con-
ncction is impossiblc bccausc it brings us into thc transccndcnt
rcalm. Thcrclorc it would bc unlortunatc lor thc philosophi-
cal dclcnsc ol lrccdom against militant dctcrminism il it wcrc
lorccd to rcly only on this morc or lcss problcmatic postulatc.
8ut lrccdom providcs us with a much morc immcdiatc tcsti-
mony that no onc can strip ol its potcncy. This is its tcstimony
to itscll in our own scll-consciousncss. ctcrminism could bc
truc only il our ! wcrc dcad rathcr than alivc, but to pcrmit
this prcmisc is a contradictio in adjecto bccausc individuality is
lilc. Thc ! apprchcnds thc world as a concrctc, qualitativcly dc-
ncd subjcct rathcr than as a blank spot. Thc subjcct makcs
all its dccisions as its o.n, as its scll-dcnition, howcvcr in-
voluntarily thcy may bc imposcd lrom without by thc objcct,
and indccd thcy rccct its qualitativc dcnition, or ascism. No
absolutcly idcntical dccisions or actions cxist cvcn il thc cxtcr-
nal circumstanccs sccm similar. Actions and dccisions arc rst
ol all causally conditioncd or motivatcd, so much is truc; but
this is a psychological, as opposcd to a mcchanical, causality, to
which thc subjcct lrccly contributcs. Scicncc with its thcorics
Economy as a Synthesis :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
1
o
f
3
5
8
ol mcchanical dctcrminism ncvcr pcnctratcs into thc laboratory
ol thc will whcrc dccisions arc madc and crcatcd. Thc cmbry-
ology ol action, ol voluntary scll-dcnitions, rcmains cntircly
outside thc purvicw ol scicntic obscrvation, which is awarc
only ol purc objcctncss; it is bcyond cxpcricncc. nly dccisions
that havc alrcady bccn takcn cntcr cxpcricncc, just as only idcas
that havc alrcady bccn born and havc takcn on somc kind ol
shapc cntcr thc consciousncss, igniting in thc darkncss or aris-
ing lrom obscurc dcpths. !t is truc that all dccisions that havc
alrcady bccn takcn arc, in lact, motivatcd, that is, arc causally
dctcrmincd, but thcy wcrc oncc born in thc womb ol lrccdom.
This is why lrcc will itscll rcmains transccndcnt and inacccs-
siblc to scicntic cxpcrimcnt, which acknowlcdgcs only cvcnts
and lacts that havc alrcady bccn cxccutcd. Thc act ol unity ol
subjcct and objcct, thcir mutual idcntication, which is what
lilc is about, is accomplishcd through thc subjcctivcly cxccutcd
dccision or act ol will undcr thc objccts prcssurc, and no ratio-
nalistic dcnition ol thc proccss is possiblc. This is a synthctic
unity ol lrccdom and ncccssityncithcr lrccdom nor ncccssity
but that living synthcsis givcn in thc proccss ol lilc. No lur-
thcr rationalization or analysis ol this lact is possiblc. Vhat
happcns hcrc is somcthing complctcly individualizcd that can-
not bc cxprcsscd in tcrms cxclusivcly ol lrccdom or ol ncccssity.
Noncthclcss thc unity ol subjcct and objcct, lrccdom and nc-
ccssity, in thc act ol lilc, may takc on varying intcnsitics and
lorms that in lact cxprcss thc cntirc rangc ol lilc with its cncrgy
and its powcr.
!!!. Tnv Svivi: ov coxo:v
Frccdom participatcs in thc crcation or, rathcr, translormation
ol thc world to thc dcgrcc that it nds cxprcssion in crcativity,
:z, Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
2
o
f
3
5
8
distinct lrom thc dcad mcchanism ol things. l coursc it can-
not crcatc lrom nothing, lor it is limitcd and not omnipotcnt,
but thcsc limitations do not rcducc it to a mcrc varicty ol mc-
chanical causality, cithcr. Vhcrc thcrc is lilc and lrccdom, thcrc
is room lor ncw crcation, but not lor any sort ol automatic
causality that would ow lrom a dcnitc and immutablc world
mcchanism, wound up likc a clock. ach individual, howcvcr
wcak, is somcthing absolutcly ncw in thc world, a ncw clcmcnt
in naturc. ach pcrson can bc sccn as thc artist crcating his
own lilc, drawing strcngth and inspiration lrom insidc him-
scll. Thcrclorc thcrc is no room lor lilclcss dctcrminism, which
assumcs a limitcd numbcr ol causal clcmcnts and thcir pcrmu-
tations in history. As wc alrcady know, thcrc can bc no thcory
ol history a priori, that is, constructcd on thc basis ol a givcn
numbcr ol causal clcmcnts. History is created, just likc indi-
vidual lilc. Vc can say that crcativity and lrccdom lcavc thcir
brightcst imprint in our capacity lor labor, lor cvcry crcativc
act is contingcnt on work and an cort ol thc will. nly lrcc
crcaturcs, that is, pcoplc, posscss thc capacity lor conscious,
planncd, crcativc labor. A machinc only translorms powcr, and
an animal works only whcn lorccd and without any purposc
ol its own, or clsc submits to instinct; only man labors con-
sciously, and human labor is an cntircly incomparablc, spccial
lorcc ol naturc. Human labor sccn as an intcrconncctcd wholc
is human history itscll. How is human history possiblc. Vhat
arc its a priori conditions. As wc knowalrcady (lrom chaptcr ),
wc nccd to postulatc a transccndcntal subjcct ol history, a uni-
cd humanity, making a single history, synthcsizing its labor
and capablc ol inhcritancc or tradition, in ordcr to dcducc
thc conccpt ol history (to usc Schcllings cxprcssion). Frcc-
dom is not lragmcntcd, dcccntralizcd, or ungovcrnablc, nor is
it mcaninglcssly wastcd cncrgy; instcad, it must bc drawn into
Economy as a Synthesis :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
3
o
f
3
5
8
thc solid banks ol ncccssity in ordcr to scrvc thc unlolding ol
a singlc grand plan. History must cxhibit a union ol lrccdom
and ncccssity, and bc possiblc through this union alonc.
11
Frccdom is thc gcncral loundation ol thc crcativc proccss,
whcrcas ncccssity dcncs its limits and to this dcgrcc prcdctcr-
mincs lrccdom and dirccts its dcvclopmcnt. Ncccssity cxists
both lor thc individual pcrson and lor historical humanity as
a law that govcrns lilc. This prcdctcrminism is ontological in
naturc, it is thc analytical unlolding through lrccdom ol somc-
thing that cxists only in cmbryonic lorm yct alrcady potcntially
is. Thc world soul, both bclorc and altcr its lall, with all its
potcntials, howcvcr disorganizcd, is thc truc dctcrmining lorcc
in history, lor it cxtratcmporally contains cvcrything in thc
world and thcrclorc prcdctcrmincs humanitys historical latc.
Man with his hiddcn possibilitics and historical lorccs is lully
transparcnt to God, and this is what guarantccs historys out-
comc in accordancc with a divinc plan. Frccdom cxtcnds to thc
historical process itscll but not to its outcome. ivinc activity,
guiding man through ncccssity, is thus thc highcst dctcrmin-
ing lorcc in history.
12
Vc can only spcak ol thc mcaning and
tasks ol history, construct a philosophy and cschatology ol his-
tory, oncc wc havc acknowlcdgcd thc dcpcndcncc ol historys
coursc on this historical ordcr ol things; by thc samc tokcn thc
Apocalypscthc rcvclation ol thc luturc as wcll as ol thc past,
ol things which must shortly comc to pass (Apoc. .:.)
bccomcs possiblc.
Far lrom dcnying lrccdom as thc basis ol history, this mcta-
physical dctcrminism actually prcsupposcs it. History lcavcs its
imprcssion through thc spirit, that is, lrccdom. The spirit of his-
tory, the spirit of the age is truc rcality rathcr than mcrcly an
imagc. History is most proloundly crcatcd through thc spirit,
lor thc pcculiaritics ol history arc dcncd by causality through
:zo Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
4
o
f
3
5
8
lrccdom. Thc stamp ol crcativity and lrccdom marks all ol
its aspccts. Vc cannot isolatc any givcn aspcct ol history that
would bc a purc and automatic mcchanism. !solating particular
aspccts ol history is actually impossiblc (cxccpt abstractly), bc-
causc ol thc unity and conncctcdncss ol lilc, though onc might
think that man is morc lrcc in somc aspccts ol lilc than in
othcrs. 8ut lrccdom cannot bc a mattcr ol dcgrccs: it is cithcr
thcrc or it isnt; it is cithcr automatic mcchanism or living crc-
ativity, and thcrc is no point cvcn asking about quantitics or
proportions ol lrccdom and ncccssity in any particular casc.
Thcrclorc cconomy, both in thc broad and in thc narrow scnsc
ol political cconomy, is also crcativitya synthcsis ol lrccdom
and ncccssity. !l ncccssity sccms complctcly obvious hcrc, pcr-
lorming as an iron law opprcssing all lilc, thcn lrccdom, too
mans crcativc rclation to labor with thc varying possibilitics
it prcscntsis an inalicnablc part ol thc conccpt ol cconomy,
cvcn il it is circumscribcd by this iron ring. Thc usual bclicl
that cconomy is thc sphcrc ol ncccssity alonc, thc kingdom ol
mcchanical rcgularity, originatcd primarily as a conscqucncc ol
thc inucncc ol political cconomy, with its contingcnt styliza-
tion ol cconomic rcality (scc chaptcr 8 on this). Vc must strcss,
with particular cncrgy, thc truth that cvcn political cconomy is
bcginning to apprchcnd as it ripcns as a scicncc: cconomy sccn
as crcativity is a psychological phcnomcnon as wcll; or, spcaking
cvcn morc prcciscly, economy is a phenomenon of spiritual life to
thc samc dcgrcc as all othcr aspccts ol human activity and labor.
Thc spirit of economy (lor cxamplc, thc spirit ol capitalism
so much writtcn about now, particularly by such promincnt
cconomists as Sombart and Max Vcbcr) is oncc again a his-
torical rcality rathcr than a ction or an imagc. ach cconomic
agc has its spirit and is in turn thc product ol this spirit; cach
cconomic agc has its particular typc ol cconomic man gcncr-
Economy as a Synthesis :z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
5
o
f
3
5
8
atcd by thc spirit ol cconomy, and wc can dcclarc him a rccx
ol givcn cconomic rclations only il wc subscribc to that logical
lctishism ol which political cconomy bccomcs a victim whcn
it rcgards cconomythc dcvclopmcnt ol thc lorccs ol produc-
tion, various cconomic organizations, and so onthrough thc
prism ol abstract catcgorics without rcgard to thcir histori-
cal concrctcncss. !n this scnsc political cconomy is badly in
nccd ol an injcction ol truc rcalism, which ncccssarily includcs
causality through lrccdom as wcll as historical psychologism,
capablc ol rccognizing thc spiritual atmosphcrc ol a givcn agc.
Thc undcrstanding ol cconomy as a phcnomcnon ol spiritual
lilc opcns our cycs to thc psychological ol cconomic agcs and to
thc signicancc ol shilting cconomic worldvicws. !t lcads us to
a problcm ol cxtraordinary importancc both in practical and in
scicntic tcrmsnamcly, thc signicancc ol thc individual in
thc cconomic proccss.
13
Thc conccpt ol cconomy as a crcativc
proccss with room lor lrccdom also lcads us to qucstions ol
thc cthics and cschatology ol cconomy and in lact makcs thcsc
qucstions possiblc; wc havc yct to invcstigatc thcm latcr in this
book.
!\. Fvvvbo: ~s Powvv, Nvcvssi:v ~s !:vo:vxcv
Frccdom and ncccssity arc synthcsizcd through crcativity but,
insolar as thcy continuc to bc apprchcndcd as polar oppositcs,
thcy arc juxtaposcd as linkcd and yct mutually rcpcllcnt an-
tinomics. Lilc is an antinomy, but thought docs not dcal wcll
with antinomics; it stumblcs up against thcm and cxpcricnccs
thcm as a limit to bc rcmarkcd on but not ovcrcomc. Lilc can-
not bc lully rationalizcd, and it is thc antinomics ol rcason
that dcnc thc limit ol human rationalism. Transcende te ipsum,
transccnd yourscll, or humbly acccpt thc limitations and wcak-
:z8 Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
6
o
f
3
5
8
ncsscs ol rcason whcn conlrontcd with thc mystcry ol lilc
this is what thc conscious antinomy ol rcason says to discursivc
scll-consciousncss. Rational antinomy and logical impossibility
do not always add up to impossibility in rcal lilc, and an-
tinomics that arc logically impcnctrablc to discursivc rcasoning
might havc primary practical signicancc as thcy rcsolvc thcm-
sclvcs through motion, through cvil innity, through striving
toward an obviously unattainablc idcal. Kant alrcady pointcd
to this twist in thc idca ol antinomics in trying to rcmovc
thcorctical doubts poison tooth; thc antinomy ol lrccdom and
ncccssity that intcrcsts us, and that cvcryonc nds in his im-
mcdiatc consciousncss and cxpcricnccs as thc opposition ol thc
powcr ol his innitc wishcs and impotcncc ol his capacitics,
is among thc antinomics on Kants list. Frccdom and ncccs-
sity rccct cach othcr by virtuc ol thcir antinomian conncction
and charactcrizc mans discursivc cxistcncc in timc. Vc can bc
highcr or lowcr than this opposition but it is rcmovcd only whcn
discursivcncss cnds and timc comcs to an cnd. For thc ivinity,
in whom lrccdom coincidcs with ncccssity and cvcrything is
subsumcd in a singlc act ol thc will, thcrc is strictly spcaking
ncithcr lrccdom nor ncccssity in our human scnsc. Thc oppo-
sitc polc lics outsidc thc limits ol lilc in purc corpscncss, in
indivisiblc objcctncss. Thc consciousncss ol lrccdom arcs up
in thc soul only through thc scnsc ol its limitcdncss, just as
a roundabout path through thc non-! is rcquircd in Fichtcs
systcm in ordcr lor thc ! to achicvc lull consciousncss ol its
individuality. Frccdom strivcs to ovcrcomc any boundary drawn
by ncccssity, lor absolutc and limitlcss striving dcncs its vcry
naturcthat amc ol lilc that ignitcs thc ancicnts whccl ol
bcing (troxw tw gensevw). This limit is ovcrcomc, rcally
rathcr than idcally, in lact rathcr than dcsirc, by thc pcnctration
ol thc subjcct into thc objcct through labor in thc cconomic
Economy as a Synthesis :z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
7
o
f
3
5
8
proccss. !n this scnsc ncccssity lorms thc indcnitcly cxpand-
ing loundation ol lrccdom. Vhcn wc opcratc in thc sphcrc ol
cconomy wc can think ol natural povcrty, thc dcpcndcncc on
thc blind and inimical lorccs ol naturc, in tcrms ol thc objcct,
whcrcas thc accumulation ol wcalth and thc dcvclopmcnt ol
thc lorccs ol production arc associatcd with thc subjcct. Vcalth
is powcr, a plus on thc sidc ol thc subjcct, whcrcas povcrty is
impotcncc, a plus on thc sidc ol thc objcct. Spcaking in cco-
nomic tcrms thc objcct is thc concrctc non-! lor thc subjcct,
violcntly lorccd on it rathcr than bcing lrccly positcd by an act
ol thc !a limitation rathcr than a scll-limitation. Thc sub-
jcct, or proprictor, strivcs to makc thc worldthc objcct ol thc
cconomic proccsstransparcnt lor thc subjcct as it rclinquishcs
itscll to his will and bccomcs an organism lrom a mcchanism,
thus bringing about an idcal ol cquilibrium and ncutralization
ol lrccdom and ncccssity: by cxtcnding my hand, ! am cxccut-
ing a mcchanically contingcnt action, but ! do not conccivc ol
it in this way, lor my consciousncss sccs this movcmcnt as lrcc
and yct rcal and objcctivc. !n this scnsc our body is ol cnor-
mous thcorctical signicancc, lor it objcctivcly rcconcilcs thc
antinomy ol lrccdom and ncccssity, il only in a limitcd sphcrc.
ur body is lor us a subjcctivizcd objcct or objccticd subjcc-
tivity (though suspcndcd in a lragilc cquilibrium that can casily
bc damagcd by illncss, dcath, or thc rclativc indcpcndcncc ol
thc body lrom thc spirit).
Man strivcs to achicvc cconomic lrccdom, powcr ovcr a
naturc that is alicnatcd lrom him, cconomic powcr, or wcalth.
Somctimcs hc sccks to cast a spcll on this naturc through
magic, to subjugatc it to sorccry; somctimcs hc strivcs to con-
qucr it through scicncc. Howcvcr dicrcnt ancicnt magic and
thc scicncc that has rcplaccd it may sccm in thcir mcthods
and gcncral prcmiscs, thcy arc idcntical in this task. !n both
cascs man strivcs to achicvc powcr ovcr naturc, and whatcvcr
::c Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
8
o
f
3
5
8
magic with its occult mcthods ol pcnctrating into naturcs clc-
mcntals gavc him is thc samc thing hc rcccivcs lrom prc-
cisc scicncc though it applics quantication and mcasurcmcnt.
Magic and scicncc arc onc in this goal. Thc ancicnt magi wcrc
thc scicntists ol thcir timc, contcmporary scicntists thc magi-
cians ol scicncc. conomic lrccdom that ovcrcomcs thc ob-
jcct as a mcchanism alicn to lilc is powcr rootcd in knowl-
cdgc. Adam could only namc thc animals bccausc hc alrcady
kncw thc namcs intuitivcly and carricd within him a crypto-
gram ol all crcation. Knowlcdgc is scll-cognition and thc scll-
consciousncss ol thc world in man. Hcrc Gcrman idcalisms
lamous lormula, so unlortunatcly takcn up by Marxism, ap-
plics: freedom is the ackno.ledgment of necessity. Frccdom and
ncccssity and thcir polar opposition disappcar only whcrc powcr
coincidcs with will, which is possiblc only with thc incrcasc ol
cconomic powcr. This cconomic lrccdom or powcr docs not al-
lcct thc contcnt ol dcsirc itscll. Man can wish dicrcnt things:
in his dcsircs hc can bc highcr or lowcr than himscll, can scrvc
God or Satan, Christ or Antichrist, and in this hc rcalizcs his
spiritual lrccdom. 8ut as an incarnatcd spirit and hcncc in-
cxtricably conncctcd to thc world and capablc ol action in it,
hc also rcquircs cconomic lrccdom or powcr and is capablc ol
posscssing it. At thc limit, man can wish and bc capablc ol
cvcrything: hc can bc Gods likcncss and can participatc in thc
rc-crcation ol dcn, or hc can corrupt thc carth, having bc-
comc only csh likc humanity on thc cvc ol thc Flood, or hc
can bccomc thc dcvils tool in his cshly and worldly scparation
lrom God. Powcr is only a mcans and a tool lor lrccdom. 8ut
no onc and nothing can diminish or augmcnt this lrccdom: it
is always charactcristic ol man as thc imagc ol God in him.
man, you havc bccn crcatcd as ncithcr hcavcnly nor
carthly, ncithcr mortal nor immortal! For you must, in accor-
dancc with your will and to your honor, bc a lrcc artist and
Economy as a Synthesis ::z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
2
9
o
f
3
5
8
architcct and crcatc yourscll lrom your own matcrial. You arc
lrcc to dcsccnd to thc lowcst rung ol animality. 8ut you can
also risc to thc highcst sphcrcs ol thc divinc. You can bc what
you will!
14
Vith thcsc words thc inspircd Rcnaissancc thinkcr
Pico dclla Mirandola scnt thc ncw man on his way in his spccch
n thc ignity ol Man.
::: Economy as a Synthesis
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
0
o
f
3
5
8
y
Thc Limits ol Social ctcrminism
!. Tnv S:viv ov Soci~i Scivxcv
Thc currcntly popular doctrinc ol social dctcrminism, which
conccivcs human lilc as a mcchanism ol causc and ccct and
vicws history as subjcct to immutablc laws, conicts with our
undcrstanding ol lilc as a ccasclcssly intcractivc synthcsis ol
lrccdom and ncccssityas creati.ity or as history. A dctcr-
ministic vicw ol history likcns its movcmcnt to thc wound-up
mcchanism ol a clock and thcrclorc considcrs itscll capablc (in
principlc il not in lact) ol scicntically prcdicting thc luturc,
ol prognosis bascd on a calculation ol causcs and cccts;
sociology thcn bccomcs a sort ol inlcrior or incomplctc as-
tronomy or, morc gcncrally, mathcmatical natural scicncc.
This typc ol sociologisma crcation ol ninctccnth-ccntury
scicntic thoughtnds its most radical cxprcssion in two im-
mcnscly inucntial currcnts ol social philosophyComtcan-
ism and Marxism,
1
and also radical Qutclctism in thc cld
ol statistics. Thc problcm ol lrccdom and ncccssity, crcativity
and mcchanism, has bccn vcry sharply poscd in contcmporary
social scicncc, and wc must gurc out onc or anothcr way to
dcal with it.
2
! would rcsolvc this qucstion in lavor ol lrccdom
and crcativity, thus taking up a position against sociological dc-
tcrminism on thc basis ol thc abovc discussion ol thc naturc
ol scicncc, but wc also nccd to addrcss thc application ol this
gcncral approach to social scicncc in particular.
Likc cvcry scicncc, social scicncc is rootcd in practical nccd,
in thc ncccssity to dircct oncs actions propcrly. !l thcrc arc
::
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
1
o
f
3
5
8
any sphcrcs ol scicntic knowlcdgc whosc pragmatic roots arc
complctcly obvious, thcn thc social scicnccs and thcir subgroup,
thc cconomic scicnccs, arc unqucstionably among thcm. Thc
nccd lor social action gcncratcd by ninctccnth-ccntury socio-
cconomic dcvclopmcnt has lcd us incvitably to thc burgconing
ol thc social scicnccs that wc obscrvc today. Thc instrumcntal,
dircctivc, tcchnical naturc ol thcsc scicnccs is so obvious that
many havc comc to doubt that a branch ol scicncc in which
practical intcrcsts and qucstions ol social bchavior so clcarly
ovcrshadowand swallow up thcorctical issucs can bc considcrcd
scicncc at all. !n addition thc vcry soil ol scicntic invcstigation
is so uid hcrc that it tolcratcs only tcmporary constructions,
casily crcctcd and cqually casily dcstroycd; cvcn now social sci-
cncc is lorccd into a dclcnsivc posc as it maintains its rights
to cxistcncc as a scicncc (which may bc thc sourcc ol thosc
hasty corts to put sociology on a scicntic loundation and thus
calm oncs own and othcrs conccrns about its scicntic status).
Vhatcvcr thc contcmporary statc ol social scicncc, howcvcr
pcrhaps mcrcly morc honcst about its pragmatism than othcr
scicnccsit is not distinguishcd lrom thcm in any way; it is
thc youngcst daughtcr ol a common mothcr and has inhcritcd
both hcr strong and hcr wcak charactcristics. Apart lrom its
practical usclulncss, social scicncc must, in ordcr to lcgitimizc
its cxistcncc against thc skcptics, dcmonstratc its own clcarly
dcncd topic ol invcstigation and acquirc its own uniquc mcth-
ods. ocs social scicncc havc such a clcar topic or, bcttcr, docs
it know how to nd and cstablish it, and docs is havc thc appro-
priatc mcthods at its disposal. ! bclicvc that answcr is positivc:
ycs, social scicncc has its topic ol invcstigationthis is social
lilc in its divcrsity and scll-dctcrmination. !n many cascs thc
birth ol a ncw scicncc is immcdiatcly conncctcd with thc dis-
covcry ol an objcct inacccssiblc to quotidian obscrvation and
rcquiring cithcr spccial conditions (lor cxamplc, a laboratory
::, The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
2
o
f
3
5
8
cxpcrimcnt) or spccial instrumcnts that rcnc and sharpcn our
scnscssuch as thc microscopc, tclcscopc, or mcasuring instru-
mcnts. A similar discovcry ol an objcct lor social scicnccthc
social cnvironmcnt or social bodyoccurrcd whcn thc cxis-
tcncc ol a spccial supcrindividual or supraindividual cnviron-
mcnt, rclracting rays in its particular way and having its own
particular charactcristics and laws, was cstablishcd. Vc havc
still not lully gottcn ovcr thc amazcmcnt and cvcn shock that
grippcd Qutclct (and carlicr Smilch) on his discovcry ol thc
statistical rcgularitics ol social lilc, which sincc thcn havc bccn
dcdicatcdly studicd in thcir various manilcstations.
3
Political
cconomy camc upon a similar supraindividual cnvironmcnt
thc clcmcntal lorcc ol capitalism, inclining individuals livcs ac-
cording to its own rulcscvcn carlicr. Social tclcscopcs, micro-
scopcs, and mcasuring instrumcnts havc alrcady bccn dircctcd
on thc social body throughout a ccntury, and a multiplicity ol
social laboratorics in univcrsitics, scicntic institutcs, and sta-
tistical think tanks havc bccn working on its invcstigation. !t
would bc a wastc ol cort thcsc days to provc that thc social
body cxists and has a dcnitc construction and tcxturc, and il
this was not noticcd carlicr it was only lor thc samc rcason that
thc microscopic world was unknown bclorc thc invcntion ol
thc microscopc. Thcrc is a unity ol human actions that is largcr
than thcir individuality or thc mcchanical summation ol thcir
parts. Thcrc is somcthing likc a social organism (howcvcr ill-
uscd this analogy may bc, it is still ol somc valuc), and, though
this social body cannot bc apprchcndcd by our scnsory organs
and hidcs lrom thcm as il in a lourth dimcnsion, it can bc
locatcd by scicntic instrumcnts; thc clusivcncss ol this social
body is by no mcans an argumcnt against its cxistcncc. Sci-
cncc has bccomc accustomcd to dcaling with thc unsccn and
intangiblc and yct lully cmpirical world. Thus thc social organ-
ism too has a lully cmpirical, scicntically acccssiblc csscncc,
The Limits of Social Determinism ::
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
3
o
f
3
5
8
as opposcd to somc kind ol imagincd, mctacmpirical, or mcta-
physical unity ol humanity. !ts study is thc subjcct ol social
scicncc and its various branchcs.
Social scicncc is not intcrcstcd in human lilc in its immcdi-
atc and concrctc lorm as it cmcrgcs lrom thc particular volun-
tary and crcativc actions ol particular individuals; its attcntion
turns, instcad, to whatcvcr charactcrizcs a group ol individuals
as a wholc. vcrything individual is cxtinguishcd and dics bc-
lorc it rcachcs thc thrcshold ol social scicncc, and thc cchocs ol
lilc itscll dont cvcn rcach thcrc, lor thc air has bccn suckcd out
and thc spacc scalcd. Thc individual cxists mcrcly as a socio-
logical atom or ccll, rathcr than as a crcator ol lilc or as a micro-
cosm. For cxamplc, lor a statistician hc is mcrcly a unit cndowcd
with lcaturcs cxprcssing thc wholc ol which hc is a part, and
morcovcr thc potcntial subjcct ol, in turn, criminality, marriagc
ratcs, dcath ratcs, birth ratcs, and so on; lurthcr, lor an ccono-
mist hc is cithcr an cconomic man or a mcmbcr ol a givcn
class, lor a sociologist hc is a mcmbcr ol a givcn social group.
!n othcr words hc is trcatcd mcrcilcssly and without rcspcct in
social scicncc. !t sccs him only as a ccll ol thc social body just as
a mathcmatician sccs him only as a gcomctrical body, a mathc-
matical quantity. vcry scicncc stylizcs rcality in its own way,
and all scicntic conccpts arc products ol such intcntional and
conscious stylization; in lact thc modcl lor all such scicntism
is thc mathcmatical stylization ol rcality, which translorms it
into a world ol gcomctric bodics and mathcmatical quantitics.
A scicncc that constructs itscll critically and is conscious ol its
own naturc must ncccssarily bc awarc ol this stylc or (to usc
Kants cxprcssion) thc constitutivc lcaturcs ol its subjcct. !t
asks dcnitivcly and rcccivcs an cqually dcnitivc answcr. Just
as mathcmatical lormulac givc back only what has bccn put
in,
4
so scicnccs answcr only thcir own qucstions; thcy havc
powcr only within thcir particular sphcrc ol compctcncc, and
::o The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
4
o
f
3
5
8
thc insucicnt dcmarcation ol sphcrcs ol compctcncc, accom-
panicd by thc transgrcssion ol thcir boundarics, is a constant
sourcc ol irritation. Thc multiplicity ol scicnccs is dcpcndcnt
on a prccisc and clcar dcnition ol thc spccic compctcncc
ol cach scicncc, in lact is contingcnt on its conscious onc-
sidcdncss. !l, howcvcr, thc conclusions ol spccializcd scicnccs
arc applicd outsidc thcir intcndcd sphcrc, il thcy arc acccptcd
as absolutc truths about things and about lilc, thcy gcncratc
a wholc scrics ol thc pscudoscicntic nightmarcs that hovcr
abovc our timcs likc a thick cloud. nc ol thcsc nightmarcs,
which Carlylc hcatcdly but illogically tricd to sow in his litcrary
corts, is social dctcrminism as a particular casc ol mcchani-
cal latalism.
5
Thcrc is a tcndcncy to scc social scicnccs par-
ticular triumph in thc cxpcrimcntal prool ol thc unlrccdom ol
human will, ol thc mcchanical dctcrmination that likcns man
to all othcr things in thc cxtcrnal world. Thc notion ol man
as a mcchanical automaton, activatcd by social and othcr laws
(a contcmporary rcthinking ol Condillacs statuc or LaMct-
trics lhomme machine) apparcntly nds support lrom social sci-
cncc. Thc data ol Qutclcts moral statistics wcrc intcrprctcd
in this lashion in 8ucklcs lamous history ol civilization. Marx-
ism takcs up approximatcly thc samc position, with its latalism
on thc basis ol class psychology. Thc most bclicvablc ol such
conclusions arc ol coursc thc data providcd by statistics, which
givcs us a ycarly budgct ol criminality, suicidcs, marriagcs,
cvcn abscntmindcdncss (thc numbcr ol lcttcrs mailcd with-
out an addrcss), rathcr than thc dubioussomctimcs likcly and
somctimcs lantasticclaims ol sociology or ol political ccon-
omy. Thc law ol largc numbcrs plays thc rolc ol magic wand
hcrc bccausc it looks mathcmatically sound and is morcovcr in-
acccssiblc to nonmathcmaticians. Fortunatcly wc havc a scicn-
tic work that, in mathcmatically compctcnt lashion, clcars up
thc misundcrstanding that so lrcqucntly accompanics thc law
The Limits of Social Determinism ::,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
5
o
f
3
5
8
ol largc numbcrs and that lcads pcoplc to think, lalscly, that
statistical rcgularity has anything at all to do with thc prob-
lcm ol individuality and lrccdom or unlrccdom ol thc will. !
havc in mind A. A. Chuprovs insightlul study Ocherki po teorii
statistiki |ssays on thc thcory ol statistics| (.c), to which !
would rclcr thc intcrcstcd rcadcr. 8y analyzing various thcorics
ol probability and logically invcstigating thc problcms poscd
by social scicncc, Chuprov dctcrmincs that statistics dcals with
.holes as a spccial, indcpcndcnt phcnomcnon, whcrcas ncithcr
probability nor thc law ol largc numbcrs addrcss thc particular
casc (:c), and thcrclorc statistical corrcctncss says nothing
about thc mcchanisms ol will (:yc). Thc most limitlcss lrcc-
dom is pcrlcctly rcconcilablc with thc lactual pattcrn ol quanti-
tics in moral statistics (:y). Statistical rcgularity, cxprcsscd by
avcragc rcpctition, can lollow lrom radically dicrcnt individual
cvcnts. !l wc mix thc blackcst villains with thc purcst angclic
souls in a singlc mass lor thc purposcs ol statistical invcstiga-
tion, wc will arrivc at thc idcntical statistical picturc ol pattcrns
ol criminality as il all thc subjccts wcrc normal, gray pcoplc
(:y8). bjcctivc probability, which is what statistics and thc
law ol largc numbcrs dcal with, is by its vcry csscncc unrclatcd
to any particular singlc casc. !t dcscribcs thc conncction bc-
twccn gcncral causcs and thcir various conscqucnccs ().
Lcaving asidc thc particulars ol Chuprovs statistical modcl lor
studying wholcsa mcthod that obviously has a grcat luturc
not just in social scicnccs but in othcr branchcs ol knowl-
cdgc! cmphasizc hcrc thc csscntial conclusion ol his study:
thc claims ol statistics rclatc to an cntircly dicrcnt planc lrom
thc onc in which wc cncountcr thc concrctc and individual.
ocs that avcragc typc uscd by statistics, cxprcssing thc
rcgularitics ol thc wholc, actually cxist in naturc. !s thcrc a sub-
jcct posscssing avcragc vicc, avcragc marriagcability, an avcragc
birth ratc, avcragc abscntmindcdncss. r, pcrhaps, might this
::8 The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
6
o
f
3
5
8
avcragc bc thc cxprcssion ol a law ol naturc opcrating with
thc incvitability ol a physical or an imposcd juridical law. Ap-
parcntly not. !n my concrctc bcing, ! can bccomc a part ol
any statistical avcragc; ! can appcar as a unit lor catcgorical
calculation in any catcgory whatsocvcr and still rcmain my-
scll without drawing any closcr to thc various avcragc typcs.
My individuality and this statistical ction, that it is now so
lashionablc to portray through various drawings and diagrams,
cxist on dicrcnt lcvcls and do not intcrscct. Thc statistical
avcragc rcccts thc pattcrns ol my individual bchavior as littlc
as my wcight or hcight cxprcss my charactcr. ocs this mcan
that statistics is just a mind gamc or mcntal triviality. Not
at all. Statistical obscrvations rctain thcir lull signicancc as
a rcsponsc to a givcn, clcarly dcncd qucstion. Avcragc dcath
ratcs thcrclorc havc scrious and complctcly practical application
whcn wc arc dcaling with lilc insurancc just as avcragc rc ratcs
apply to rc insurancc or avcragc criminality lor prison im-
provcmcnt and thc politics ol criminal law. !n gcncral avcragcs
play an cnormous rolc in practical lilc, and rcgular pattcrns
ol statistical calculations, thcir tcndcncy to uctuatc lrom ycar
to ycar only within particular boundarics, is an cmpirically dc-
tcrmincd lact . . . this is onc ol thc lundamcntal though littlc
noticcd bascs ol contcmporary culturc (Chuprov, :). This
rcgularity, which can bc cxplaincd by thc rclativc stability ol thc
gcncral conditions ol lilc, is not at all mystcrious and is thc rc-
sult ol causcs that changc littlc or not at all. Thc rcgularity ol
statistical quantitics is thc rcsult ol thc conucncc ol a varicty
ol circumstanccs rathcr than a law dctcrmining thc dcvclop-
mcnt ol cvcnts.
6
8ut statistical avcragcs that charactcrizc thc
gcncral circumstanccs ol lilc must not bc applicd to individual
cascs. Thcir signicancc is just lor oricntation and is rclcvant
only in circumscribcd boundarics and lor a particular practical
goal; thcrclorc it would bc a colossal scicntic and philosophical
The Limits of Social Determinism ::,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
7
o
f
3
5
8
misundcrstanding, gcncratcd by thc pathctic idca ol conncct-
ing statistical rcgularity to thc problcm ol dctcrminism (Chu-
prov, xxxiii),to drawany mctaphysical conclusions rcgarding thc
qucstion ol lrcc will.
So-callcd sociological gcncralizations, which scck to com-
prcss logically thc grcatcst possiblc quantity ol individual lacts
into wholcs and thcn to lormulatc rclativcly simplc lormulas or
laws, arc logically similar to thc mcthod ol statistical avcr-
agcs. Although thc scicntic and practical valuc ol thc laws
thus lar advanccd by sociology is morc likcly to makc us qucs-
tion thc vcry cxistcncc ol this scicncc, noncthclcss thcsc laws
sccn lrom a lormally logical pcrspcctivc (Comtcs law ol thrcc
statcs, Spcnccrs cvolution, Marxs dcvclopmcnt ol capitalism)
rcprcscnt a typc ol abstraction, applicablc only to wholcs and
usclul only lor particular goals and within particular limits, that
rcminds us ol statistical avcragcs. Thcy can cxprcss ccrtain con-
stants ol individual lacts, but by no mcans can thcy dctcrminc
thc lacts thcmsclvcs. Thc basic conccpts ol sociology sharc this
supraindividual naturc by virtuc ol thcir logical structurc. Lct
us takc as an cxamplc thc conccpt ol class so bclovcd by Marxist
sociology. Vhat is class. !s it crcatcd by thc simplc summa-
tion ol individual psychologics, with cach individual cxprcssion
thc csscncc ol his class in its primary charactcristics. Vc could
hardly dclcnd such a dcnition ol class, in which thc part is
cquatcd to thc wholc, and thc individual to thc collcctivc, bc-
causc this would csscntially mcan no morc and no lcss than
to arm bclicl in thc rcality in thc avcragc statistical subjcct
and cquatc it with thc concrctc individual without lurthcr dis-
cussion. Apparcntly thc only possiblc undcrstanding ol class
is to conccivc it as an abstraction and also a sort ol avcragc
cxprcssing thc rcgularitics ol a givcn collcctivity. Class is dc-
ncd by class intcrcst, that is, by thc cxtcrnal productivc and
bchavioral stancc that lollows lrom it. Conscqucntly thcrc is
:c The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
8
o
f
3
5
8
no such thing as class psychology as individual, and il Marx-
ism constantly mixcs or cvcn idcntics thc two, although thc
sociological and psychological, cthical and cvcn mctaphysical
points ol vicw bccomc conatcd, this is thc lruit ol Marxisms
gcncral philosophical muddincss and incomplctcncss (comparc
chaptcr ). Thc conccpt ol class is a schcma ol social rclations;
actually it is a schcma that is usclul in its own sphcrc and lor
a particular purposc but loscs all scnsc and bccomcs a carica-
turc ol itscll outsidc its boundarics. Thc lrcqucntly rcpcatcd
asscrtion that no class in history has collcctivcly rcnounccd its
intcrcsts, whcrcas only individuals can bccomc dcclasscd
(although a singlc casc ol subvcrsion ol natural law is in prin-
ciplc sucicnt to disprovc it), is a charactcristic cxamplc ol thc
misundcrstanding ol thc conccpt ol class. thcrs in rcsponsc
wish to nd a casc in which a class would bchavc against its
own class intcrcsts. 8ut ncithcr thc proponcnts nor thc oppo-
ncnts ol this vicw pay sucicnt attcntion to thc truc mcaning
ol thc conccpts ol class and class intcrcst. !s thcrc such an
intcrcst as an a priori objcctivc norm lrom which onc might
dcpart or not. Vhat do this armation and this dcnial mcan.
For class, with all its attributcsclass intcrcst, class bchavior
cxists only in thc scnsc ol an avcragc pattcrn cxtrapolatcd lrom
thc bchavior ol individuals vicwcd as a social collcctivity. Thc
conccpt is a postcriori and cmpirical rathcr than a priori or
normativc; it rcprcscnts thc logical schcma ol a particular sci-
cntic stylc charactcrizcd by thc comprcssion ol a multiplicity
ol phcnomcna into a singlc unity, a collcctivity, and cxprcsscs
a ccrtain likcly cxpcctation (ceteris paribus, naturally) ol onc
particular bchavior as opposcd to anothcr. !t is lully analo-
gous to standard statistical lorccasting, though with ol coursc
much lcss prccision. Thcrclorc that prcdctcrmincd class bchav-
ior wc arc discussing simply docs not cxist; class intcrcst in
this scnsc is a logical lctish and a ction, thc asscrtion wc havc
The Limits of Social Determinism :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
3
9
o
f
3
5
8
bccn looking at is simply cmpty. Thc only thing that is truc is
that thc bchavior ol individuals may bc cxamincd both indi-
vidually and socially (in tcrms ol class, prolcssion, nation, statc,
humanity). 8ut to scll thcsc a postcriori schcmas, thcsc cmpiri-
cal gcncralizations, as a thcorctically cstablishcd law opcrating
with natural, incvitablc ncccssity would bc logically inconsis-
tcnt.How oltcn man bccomcs thc slavc ol lctishcs ol his own
crcation!
7
Social scicncc, particularly in its spccializcd branchcs such
as political cconomy, broadly applics anothcr mcthod ol com-
prcssing phcnomcna and stylizing rcality alongsidc thc sta-
tistical and sociological stylization that comprcsscs disparatc
phcnomcna into collcctiviticsnamcly, conscious abstraction
and isolation, thc intcntional simplication and hcncc mcthod-
ological pcrvcrsion ol which scicncc, in gcncral, is not alraid.
vcry scicncc simplics rcality, rcplacing concrctcncss with its
inacccssiblc complcxity and vagucncss with schcmatic conccpts.
Yct this schcmatism has dcgrccs and can lcad to obvious c-
tions (as in law, lor cxamplc), whcn thc dcgrcc ol abstraction is
vcry high. !n simplilying rcality, wc makc it acccssiblc to logi-
cal apprchcnsion by mcans ol conccpts (Rickcrt). For cxamplc,
abstract (or thcorctical) political cconomy applics cvcrywhcrc
thc mcthod ol dcduction lrom ccrtain simplc armations that
scrvc as axioms but actually rcprcscnt mcthodological ctions
or schcmas. A mcthodical logical construction (which itscll
allows lor crror) pcrmits clarication ol thc signicancc ol a
particular lactor submittcd to abstract invcstigation. nly
this isolating mcthod pcrmits thc cstablishmcnt ol thc pccu-
liar laws known to political cconomy (comparc chaptcr 8).
Vc cannot objcct in principlc to thc mcthod ol abstraction
and isolation as such. Lct political cconomy invcnt noncxistcnt
spinclcss pcoplc (as Ruskin objccts); this is acccptablc so long
as its practitioncrs arc awarc that this is what thcy arc doing
:: The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
0
o
f
3
5
8
and do not insist on passing judgmcnt on spincs in particular.
So bc it: thc uglicr thc bcttcr: lor mathcmatics abovc all clsc
distorts rcality, imagining lincs and gurcs that cxist nowhcrc
in purc lorm, translorming thc world into gcomctric bodics,
and yct this logical scll-dctcrmination is what givcs it its lorcc
within thc boundarics ol mathcmatical judgmcnt whcrcvcr it
pcnctratcs. Thcrc is no rcason lor thc political cconomist or
sociologist not to lollow thc cxamplc ol thc mathcmatician,
particularly bccausc it is typical ol scicncc gcncrally. nly onc
thing is ncccssary: to rcmcmbcr thc critical mass ol such con-
clusions and not to transccnd thcir compctcncc. For cxamplc,
cvcn thc ction ol an cconomic man, constructcd by politi-
cal cconomy, has somc valuc as an oricntational dcvicc in lilc,
but il wc usc it as a prism lor lilc and history it will yicld an
ugly and simply inaccuratc imagc. Thcn mattcrs will look as il
scicncc initially bccomcs abstractcd contingcntly and mcthodo-
logically lrom thc cxistcncc ol a spinc in human bcings but cnds
by dcnying it cntircly. Vc might say that drawing thc linc lor
abstraction is a mattcr ol scicntic or scicntic-acsthctic tact.
!!. Socioiocis: ~xb His:ovicis:
Thus thc social scicnccs opcratc, charactcristically, using mcth-
ods ol abstraction and logical isolation, conscious simplication
and stylization ol social rcality. All social scicnccs arc spccial-
izcd: thcrc arc no nonspccializcd scicnccs among thcm, and
this applics cqually to that gcncral rathcr than spccializcd sci-
cncc, sociology, which is morc lantasy than rcality, or clsc
scmiscicntic imitations and surrogatcs masqucrading as sci-
cncc. ach spccializcd scicncc cxamincs social lilc in its own
lashion, lrom a particular anglc, charting its particular curvc,
pcrhaps intcrsccting but ncvcr coinciding with anothcr, on thc
globc ol knowlcdgc. Likc scicncc in gcncral, thc social scicnccs
The Limits of Social Determinism :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
1
o
f
3
5
8
arc many and divcrsc, as arc thcrclorc thc laws and pattcrns
thcy dctcrminc. This mcans, howcvcr, that no onc ol thcm,
in cxprcssing somc particular aspcct ol social lilc, pcnctratcs
into its ultimatc dcpths or lully intcrprcts social rcality. !n con-
ccntrating on onc aspcct, cach social scicncc lcavcs asidc thc
rcst as irrclcvant; yct lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol lilc as a wholc
this distinction docs not cxist, and what is irrclcvant in onc
rcspcct may bc cntircly rclcvant in anothcr. Thc living wholc
ol social lilc docs not willingly submit to thc scalpcl ol sci-
cntic analysis, just as living naturc slips away lrom scicncc;
hcncc social scicnccs cvcry claim lully to pcnctratc social lilc
in its utmost dcpths, to dctcrminc its currcnts and its crcativc
cvolution scicntically, must bc rcjcctcd as illcgitimatc. Thc
dircctivcs rcgarding particular aspccts ol lilc that arc thc sphcrc
ol social scicncc and that, within this sphcrc, appcar as prcdic-
tions, arc quitc approximatc, though thcir practical signicancc
can somctimcs bc cnormous.
8
8y thc way, scicntic socialisms claims to prcdctcrminc
social lilc and cvcn human history in gcncral, to nd a law ol
social dcvclopmcnt, must bc rcjcctcd lor thc samc rcason, as
cntircly uncritical scll-aggrandizcmcnt: ne sutor ultra crepidam.
8ut morc on this latcr.
Thc possibility ol thc illusion that social scicncc can prc-
dctcrminc social lilc rcsts on a silcnt prcmisc that cstablishcs
thc distinction bctwccn history and sociology, namcly, thc
prcmisc ol ceteris paribus: thcsc laws and pattcrns rcmain in
lorcc only so long as nothing ncw, which would undcrminc
thc prcviously dctcrmincd law, matcrializcs in thc givcn com-
plcx ol phcnomcna and causcs. Types and la.s, whcthcr static
or dynamicthc rccognizcd constants in spacc and timcarc
dcpcndcnt on thc prcmisc that social scicncc posscsscs a basic
invcntory ol activc social lorccs, cxcluding thc irrclcvant, and
that rcality is unilorm and rcpcats itscll within ccrtain limits,
:, The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
2
o
f
3
5
8
and is thcrclorc subjcct to laws. Thc notion ol a social physics
or ol a natural-scicntic mcthod in thc social scicnccs stcms
lrom this mcthodological prcmisc; lorgctting this, sociology
lapscs into illcgitimatc claims. Thc rcgularitics ol social sci-
cncc arc mcthodologically crcatcd by sociological rcason rathcr
than discovcrcd in scicncc or in social rcality; thcy lorm thc
loundations ol sociological cognition. Kants statcmcnt with
rcspcct to scicncc in gcncral, that our rcason is thc lcgislator ol
naturc and cndows naturc with subscqucntly pcrccivcd rcgulari-
tics, is ol particular rclcvancc to social scicncc, which through
its a priori throws a nct ol mcchanism, immutability, and uni-
lormity ovcr social lilc, so that only what is caught in thc nct
can bc apprchcndcd in thc cognitivc proccss. 8ut wc cant mis-
takc thc nct itscll lor thc catch, triumphantly displaying it as a
scicntic discovcry or scicntic conqucst, whcrcas it is actually
only a tool or mcthod rathcr than an outcomc or rcsult. Thcrc-
lorc social determinism is not a conclusion of social science but a
methodological premise on which its vcry cxistcncc is contingcnt.
!t is natural that lrccdom and crcativity rcmain outsidc social
scicnccs sphcrc ol vision and that its cxponcnts, hypnotizcd by
thcir own mcthodology, lrcqucntly and complctcly rcjcct thcm.
Human lrccdom as crcativity brings somcthing cntircly ne.
and indi.idual to social lilc, undcrmining thc unilormity and
thc typicality ol social lilc postulatcd by sociology. !n rcality
both thc unilormity and thc typicality arc but a ction with no
rclation to concrctc rcality, so that social scicncc is in this scnsc
bascd on ction, although thc samc is truc ol othcr scicnccs
that adhcrc to thcir own mcthodological contingcncics. Social
rcality is that living crcation ol history that sociology cntircly
swccps asidc, rathcr than thc mcchanism sociology postulatcs.
Sociology and history rcpcl cach othcr logically, lor thcrc is
no history lor sociology and no sociology lor history. Yct at
thc samc timc history studics that samc social lilc as sociology,
The Limits of Social Determinism :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
3
o
f
3
5
8
though alrcady past or passing. Historical scicncc, turning cn-
tircly to a complctcd pasta nishcd productknows no lrcc-
dom and cxplains cvcrything according to thc law ol causality,
sccing cvcrything in thc light ol dctcrminism. Noncthclcss this
intcrprctation, insolar as it dcals with a singlc, discrctc, and
nonrcpctitivc past, still dicrs lrom a sociological undcrstand-
ing ol history, which would scc primarily what is unilorm and
typical in thc past, rathcr than thc individual and historical, and
thcrclorc thc sociological study ol history and so-callcd histori-
cal pragmatism, which cstablishcs concrctc causal links among
individual cvcnts, arc proloundly dicrcnt mcthodologically.
Thc concrctc crcation ol lilc in which living causality, that is,
causality through lrccdom, opcratcs is lor this rcason inacccs-
siblc to thc sociological mcthod and slips out ol its nct. Hcrcin
lics sociologys impcnctrablc limit. Thcrclorc thc idca ol his-
torical law or historical prcdiction is thc lruit ol a prolound
misundcrstanding; it mixcs incompatiblc conccpts.
9
For prac-
tical purposcs, in ordcr to oricnt oncscll in a particular task,
it might bc admissiblc or useful to cquatc history with a social
mcchanism: just as onc may without any grcat loss cquatc thc
carths surlacc at short distanccs with a horizontal planc, so
can individual dcparturcs bc dismisscd as irrclcvant; but it is
cqually obvious that although this dccision might bc acccptablc
lor todays prcdiction ol tomorrow, it will not work lor thc ncxt
day altcr that. Sociological oricntation works only within thc
boundarics ol a givcn sctup and only whilc it rcmains csscn-
tially unchangcd.
Living causality, or causality through lrccdom, is not a lorcc
that mcrcly dcccts cvcnts lrom thcir lincaravcragc or mc-
dianpath and can thcrclorc bc rclcgatcd to thc ranks ol acci-
dcntal causcs likc an illcgitimatc comct amongst calculatcd
stars, as Qutclct still thought.
10
Thc opposition ol lrccdom
and ncccssity cludcs thc opposition ol ncccssary causcs (thosc
:o The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
4
o
f
3
5
8
that corrcspond to a givcn pattcrn) and accidcntal causcs (that
to do not corrcspond to it). First ol all, accidcntal causcs
is a scll-contradictory cxprcssion and has nonc but a contin-
gcnt mcaning: thcrc arc no accidcntal causcs, lor thcy arc all
cqually ncccssary. Sccond, not only lrcc will but a wholc
scrics ol othcr, mcchanical and cntircly unlrcc, causcs would
silt through its cxccssivcly largc sicvc and havc to bc countcd
among thcsc accidcntal causcs in this contingcnt scnsc. Thc
opposition ol lrccdom and ncccssity addrcsscs thc vcry mcans
ol causalityin onc casc mcchanical, through ncccssity, and in
thc othcr crcativc, through lrccdomand not just a classica-
tion ol dicrcnt catcgorics ol causcs according to thcir rclation
to a givcn pattcrn. As has alrcady bccn claricd abovc, human
lrccdom has littlc in common with absolutc occasionalism or
nondctcrminism: it is dctcrmincd by thc particular lramcwork
(or tcrminal points) within which it opcratcs, although ncvcr
mcchanically, passivcly, in machinc-likc lashion, and thcrclorc
it is always accompanicd by an individual or crcativc coccicnt,
largc or small, but ncvcr cntircly abscnt. Vc nd thc rccc-
tion ol human will and activity in thc products ol lrcc will and
crcativity, in thc human actions studicd by social scicncc, bc-
causc thcy ripcn and dcvclop in particular circumstanccs rathcr
than in an airlcss spacc. 8ut wc could ncvcr say that only acci-
dcntal causcs or individual dcparturcs lrom thc norm arc lrcc
whcrcas thc othcrs arc subjcct to ncccssity: as actions thcy arc
all cqually lrcc, and as products thcy arc all cqually dctcrmincd.
8ut il social scicncc is constructcd on a ction, namcly, thc
obviously incorrcct proposition that thc individual is nonindi-
vidual and thc prcsumption ol thc typicality and rcgularity ol
what in its vcry csscncc dcnics thc typical and thc rcgular, thcn
its vcry cxistcncc bccomcs problcmatic. !ndccd, how is social
scicncc possiblc il its basic prcmiscs arc obviously hypothctical.
il its constructions arc so clcarly pragmatic and its objccts and
The Limits of Social Determinism :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
5
o
f
3
5
8
pattcrns so divcrsc. All wc can say is that social scicncc has no
worsc claims to lcgitimacy than othcr scicnccs. !ts raison dctrc
is practical utility. Social scicncc as a scicncc ol collcctivitics,
ol socicty as a wholc or ol a supraindividual organism, arosc in
an agc whcn applications that took collcctiviticssocial, cco-
nomic, and othcras thcir objcct wcrc particularly widcsprcad
and provokcd thc cmcrgcncc ol branchcs ol scicncc dcaling
with such collcctivitics. l coursc, practical nccd could not
alonc havc crcatcd a wholc scicncc il thcrc had bccn no basis in
thc naturc ol scicncc itscll and its rclation to bcing. Thc roots
ol scicncc lic in thc sophic naturc ol crcation, in that thc objcc-
tivc or transsubjcctivc intcrconncction ol things is logical and
acccssiblc to cognition and bccomcs known through thc law ol
causality. iscursivc knowlcdgc as it passcs lrom onc objcct to
anothcr is always contingcnt on its particular tasks; although it
makcs possiblc thc cognition ol intcrconncctions among things,
and this intcrconncction constitutcs thc objcctivc basis ol sci-
cntic cognition, it is not absolutc and multiplc by virtuc ol its
own naturc; it can only guarantcc that csscnccs arc truly apprc-
hcndcd through scicncc, il only in prismatic rclraction (as in
a lortunc-tcllcrs mirror), and that scicncc partakcs ol truth-
lulncss il not ol Truth. Thc problcm in social scicncc, as in any
spccializcd scicncc, is mcrcly how to achicvctaking dispa-
ratc, particular points ol dcparturc and opcrating in conditions
ol methodological contingcncyil not Truth, thcn its impcrlcct
rccction, truthlulncss. How can scicnccs pridc and strcngth,
mcthodologism, not lunction at thc samc timc as a lull and
conclusivc obstaclc to cognition ol csscnccs. Anothcr way to
posc this qucstion would bc: How can scicnccs obviously c-
tional mcthodological prcmiscs not gct in thc way ol prool
through practicc, its tcchnical capacitics and usclulncss in thc
rcal world. !n application to social scicncc thc qucstion is: Ho.
is politics possiblethat applicd social mcchanics bascd on social
:8 The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
6
o
f
3
5
8
scicncc, or thcorctical social mcchanics. As in othcr cascs, prac-
ticc bcars witncss in lavor ol this applicability and arms it. l
coursc thc guidclincs providcd by social scicncc arc by naturc
dicrcnt lrom thosc ol physical scicncc: thcy arc vagucr and
morc approximatc, lcaving room lor art and intuition. 8ut this
docs not changc thc gcncral problcm. Thc ontological roots ol
social scicncc as ol any scicncc lic in thc univcrsal conncctcd-
ncss ol bcing, tangiblc in dicrcnt loci and dicrcnt dircctions.
vcrything is in cvcrything clsc and conncctcd with cvcrything
clsc: this gcncral ontological loundation ol scicncc is truc ol
social scicncc as wcll.
!!!. Tnv Pvoniv: ov Soci~i Poii:ics
All scicncc givcs cxprcssion to a rccctivc momcnt in human
action, and social scicncc as wcll is a momcnt in social action:
it rcprcscnts a tool ol social tcchnology or, what is thc samc,
social politics. Vc alrcady know that scicncc is tcchnological and
tcchnology is scicntic, that is, action prcsumcs rccction and
rccction is a part ol action. Social politics is thc ncrvc ol social
scicncc and posscsscs thc kcys to all its buildings. l coursc
social scicncc cannot impart a grcatcr dcgrcc ol scicntic va-
lidity to social politics than it alrcady has, but it docs lcnd lull
support to that.
Thc potcntial scicntic validity ol social politics is in no
way undcrmincd by thc part that subjcctivism, hcrc as in cvcry
sphcrc ol activity dcncd by pragmatism, plays in it. Vc saw
abovc that cvcry activity, including social, rcprcscnts, as crc-
ativity, a synthcsis ol lrccdom and ncccssity. !n this casc lrcc-
dom is cxprcsscd prcciscly by subjcctivismby thc voluntary
intcntionality ol social activity, by thc momcnt ol cvaluation,
whcrcas ncccssity is cxprcsscd in scicntic dcpcndcncc on
mcans. Thcrc is not any morc dctcrminismthough many
The Limits of Social Determinism :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
7
o
f
3
5
8
imaginc itin social politics than in any othcr living activity;
thcrclorc il by scicntic validity wc mcan complctc dctcrmi-
nation, thcn wc must acknowlcdgc that thcrc is no such thing
as scicntic social politics just as thcrc is no scicntic activity
in gcncral, lor scicncc is inactivity and lrozcn rccctionthc
oppositc ol activity. n thc contrary, il wc dcnc scicntic va-
lidity as thc implcmcntation ol cxpcrimcntal data in dcsigning
a plan ol action, thcn social politics can indccd bc scicntic
and oltcn is in rcality.
11
Vhat is social politics sphcrc ol action, what is thc art that
uscs it as its tcchnology. As wc scc lrom thc prcccding cxpo-
sition, social politics has its particular sphcrc and its particular
objcct: action on collecti.ities, on thc social body. Thc sphcrc
ol this activity is constantly cxpanding: thc incrcasing social-
ization ol lilc and thc consciousncss ol this socialization, thc
socialism ol lilc and sociologism ol consciousncss in thc politi-
cal, sociocconomic, and cultural sphcrcs continually cxpand and
arm thc compctcncc ol social politics.
Thc rcsult is a constantly incrcasing mcchanization ol lilc,
thc prcvalcncc ol thc abstract and diminution ol thc concrctc in
human rclations. Social politics rcplaccs lovc, which is possiblc
only in rclation to an individual and not to a collcctivitybc
it party, class, or humanitywith loyalty to idcas (no wondcr
thc opposition ol lovc lor thosc closc to us, living and concrctc,
and sociological lovc lor thc distant has madc an appcarancc
in our agc).
12
Thc warmth ol human rclations is cdgcd out by
socially utilitarian rationalism, immcdiacy ol lccling rcplaccd
by thc inlamous adhcrcncc to principlc, so that thc succcsscs
ol socialism and thc growth ol social solidarity arc by no mcans
accompanicd by an incrcasc in lovc or cvcn sympathy and a
dccrcasc in cnmity among pcoplc. Rathcr, thc contrary: social-
ism can bc a mattcr ol simplc calculation and prot, intcrcst
rathcr than lovc, and socialism by itscll says nothing about
:,c The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
8
o
f
3
5
8
morc lovc among pcoplc. Social politics is a mcchanism that
can bc startcd up by dicrcnt impulscs: this is why it is possiblc
lor \ladimir Solovicvs Antichristthc ultimatc incarnation
ol human cvil and scll-lovcto bc thc apogcc ol socialism,
lor socialism docs not dcpcnd on lovc, although thcrc is also
no rcason why it should not bc compatiblc with socialism. A
socialism ol lovc is ol coursc also possiblc (how clsc could wc
dcnc what pcoplc such as Morrison, Charlcs Kingslcy, and
othcr nglish Christian socialists wcrc doing in thc .8cs.),
but, gcncrally spcaking, social politics as thc sphcrc ol scicn-
tic rationalism and thc sociological mcchanization ol human
rclations is lar indccd lrom immcdiatc lccling (which makcs it
unsurprising that such coryphaci ol socialist politics as Lassallc
and cspccially Marx arc distinguishcd by thcir dryncss and cvcn
harshncss ol charactcr, making thcm look lcast ol all likc phi-
lanthropists or lricnds ol humanity). Politics domination in
human lilc is incvitably accompanicd by a loss ol immcdiacy, a
rationalization and mcchanization ol lilc.
!t docs not lollow lrom thc possibility ol a scicntically valid
social politics that a singlc political systcm, thc only rcally sci-
cntic onc, will cmcrgc lrom a givcn sct ol scicntic prcmiscs.
To thc contrary, dicrcnt dircctions in social politics, cqually
loundcd in scicncc, can bc thc rcsult ol idcntical scicntic
givcns; in othcr words, thc givcn scicntic instrumcnt can bc
put to a varicty ol uscs. nly an incorrcct undcrstanding ol
thc naturc ol scicncc and ol thc boundarics ol social dctcr-
minism gcncratcs thc widcsprcad bclicl that only one scicntic
social politics is possiblc. Radical dctcrminism lorms thc loun-
dation ol so-callcd scicntic socialism, too. Abovc wc touchcd
on this thcory in conncction with thc limits ol social prcdic-
tion, but this misundcrstanding has takcn such dccp root in so
many circlcs that it rcquircs closcr cxamination. !n what scnsc
is socialism a scicncc, can it considcr itscll scicntic,
13
and in
The Limits of Social Determinism :,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
4
9
o
f
3
5
8
what scnsc is this conjunction ol words an oxymorona round
squarc, lricd iccor docs it rcscmblc such conccpts as scicntic
painting, scicntic music, scicntic bravcry.
Thc possiblc dcgrcc ol scicntic validity lor socialism and
socialist politics, spcaking in abstract and conccptual tcrms, is
idcnticalno morc and no lcssthan lor any othcr social poli-
tics, in thc scnsc that it can takc scicntic data into considcr-
ation and usc thcm in its plans (or, ol coursc, act contrary to
thcm). Socialist politics rcmains, likc any othcr, an art (txnh),
tcchnical; but likc anything tcchnical, it can bc groundcd in
scicncc: wc alrcady knowthat scicncc givcs tcchnology its loun-
dation whilc tcchnology, in turn, guarantccs scicncc. Social
politics as a tcchnical tool is, by virtuc ol its activc naturc, givcn
dircction by thc will: it scts thc idcals ol politics,
14
whcrcas sci-
cncc is mcrcly consultcd rcgarding mcans and not cnds. Politics
acquircs a socialist huc not bccausc scicncc dcmands this but
bccausc particular pcrsons or social groups .ant socialism and,
rightly or wrongly, scc in it a panacca lor all sociocconomic ills,
want it prior to and bcyond any scicncc bccausc it is dcsirablc
and not bccausc it is scicntic. Thc illusion ol scicntic social-
ism by which Marx and ngcls blindcd thcmsclvcs and thcir
docilc lollowcrs consists prcciscly in thc bclicl that scicncc can
scrvc not only as a support lor socialist politics, providing somc
backup lor socialist hopcs, but as thc vcry loundation ol thc
.ill to socialism itscll. vcn il wc acccpt that thc incvitability
ol a givcn dcvclopmcnt is scicntically lorcsccablc (which is ol
coursc in itscll complctcly impossiblc), this still docs not ncccs-
sarily gcncratc thc will to this dcvclopmcnt.
15
Unqucstionably,
will and laith, with a pcculiar rcligious coloring,
16
lic at thc
loundation ol socialism, and this ol coursc applics to Marx and
ngcls, too.
17
Vhcn pcoplc say that scicncc is lavorably disposcd to social-
ism or cvcn lorccasts its advcnt, this can mcan two things.
:,: The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
0
o
f
3
5
8
First it can mcan that ccrtain aspccts ol contcmporary cco-
nomic dcvclopmcnt, ccrtain ol its tcndcncics, would lcad to
socialism il cxtrapolatcd mcntally: thc lact ol a ccrtain natural
and incvitablc although signicantly cxaggcratcd conccntration
ol capitalist industry (though not agriculturc!) can scrvc as thc
scicntic point ol dcparturc lor socialist politics. Thc social
politician can makc usc ol it lor particular purposcs, analo-
gously to thc way in which thc practicc ol rc insurancc uscs thc
data ol rc statistics, that is, as a mcans ol scicntic oricntation.
This practical socialism can bc only partial (Stuckso.ialismus),
lor it cvcrything is in thc movcmcnt, not in thc nal goal
(8crnstcin). Sccond, thc thcory ol scicntic socialism can bc
associatcd with thc bclicl that thc advcnt ol an carthly paradisc,
thc idcal statc ol lilc lor both individuals and socicty, bring-
ing with it thc rcsolution ol all lilc qucstions and signilying
thc lcap lrom ncccssity into lrccdom (lrom !orgeschichte into
Geschichte), has a scicntic loundation. !n this scnsc socialism
has ol coursc as much in common with scicncc as do !slamic
imagcs ol paradisc.
8ut cvcn much morc modcst prcdictions can bc ascribcd to
social scicncc only with cxtrcmc caution: thc dcvclopmcntal
tcndcncics lavorablc to socialism that can bc cstablishcd by
scicncc havc vcry littlc in common with thc natural-scicntic
laws lor which Marx mistakcs thcm. Thcsc arc only cmpirical
laws, scicntic gcncralizations that mcrcly cxprcss thc cquilib-
rium ol a givcn statc ol aairs without making any claims to its
pcrmancncc or indccd that ol thc tcndcncics thcmsclvcs. Thcy
havc a complctcly dicrcnt logical makcup than, lor cxamplc,
thc laws ol mcchanics or ol mathcmatical natural scicncc; thcy
capturc thc gcncral rcgularitics ol a givcn collcctivity only with
rcspcct to conscqucnccs rathcr than gcncrativc causcs, which
limits thcir mcaninglulncss.
Vithin thc paramctcrs skctchcd abovc, howcvcr, social sci-
The Limits of Social Determinism :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
1
o
f
3
5
8
cncc not only can but must strivc to bc scicntic. !t must bcwarc
ol arbitrary lantasizing, quixoticism, or utopianism as much
as ol thc pcdantry ol imagincd scicntism; it must sobcrly listcn
to lilcs voicc, and scicncc can hclp with this. Truc scicncc is
hcrc thc synonym ol li.ing realism.
:,, The Limits of Social Determinism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
2
o
f
3
5
8
8
Thc Phcnomcnology ol conomy
!. Tnv T~sx ov Poii:ic~i coxo:v
Thc scnsc ol cconomy as an intcraction ol collcctivc humanity
and naturc, sophic in its loundations and cndowcd with cos-
mic mcaning, is not ol coursc prcscnt in thc minds ol par-
ticular cconomic actors as thcy go about thcir practical livcs.
Thcir attcntion, rivctcd to thc particular, rcmains ignorant ol
thc wholc. isparatc cognitivc acts arc addrcsscd only to a par-
ticular problcm rathcr than to knowlcdgc gcncrally, as an intcr-
action ol man and thc world, though ultimatcly thcy togcthcr
comprisc thc phcnomcnology ol knowlcdgc; disparatc housc-
holds, or disparatc cconomic acts, arc addrcsscd toward particu-
lar cconomic aims rathcr than thc ultimatc goals ol cconomy as
a wholc. conomy as thc unicd action ol thc transccndcntal
cconomic subjccts brcaks down into phenomena and has its own
phenomenology, wc can undcrstand its principlcs only lrom thc
pcrspcctivc ol a philosophy ol cconomy, though any givcn mo-
mcnt could bc thc objcct ol a particular scicntic invcstigation,
il only lrom a particular, spccializcd point ol vicw. conomy as
phcnomcnologyas it cxists in immcdiatc cmpirical rcality
is a voluntarily or involuntarily acknowlcdgcd ncccssity, im-
poscd on us lrom outsidc. Vc cxpcricncc it as thc scourgc ol
povcrty, as thc constraints ol a lilc constantly cxposcd to dan-
gcr. This is why cconomic activity looks likc a strugglc lor lilc,
and lor a givcn standard ol living in particular. vcn il wc
think ol cconomy in its crcativc dimcnsion as a synthcsis ol
lrccdom and ncccssity, in our immcdiatc apprchcnsion wc lccl
:,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
3
o
f
3
5
8
matcrial povcrty constantly cncroaching on us as a limitation
on our lrccdom, as a burdcnsomc ncccssity, incscapablc savc by
cscaping lilc itsclla dcstiny glooming ovcr lilc likc thc cursc
uttcrcd in Paradisc. l coursc, labor as crcativity is ncithcr a
cursc nor unlrccdom but thc cxprcssion ol mans cxaltcd ap-
pointmcnt as thc imagc ol God. 8ut labor, likc cvcrything in
tcmporal and discursivc lilc, is an antinomy, and labor in thc
swcat ol our lacc, as cconomic ncccssity, bcars thc stamp ol
slavcry to thc clcmcnts, ol banishmcnt lrom Paradisc, ol thc in-
ability to livc in harmony with crcation. vcn this lorccd labor
cannot climinatc human lrccdom, lor thc consciousncss ol un-
lrccdom and slavcry is itscll an attributc ol an csscntially lrcc
bcing who acknowlcdgcs, rcmcmbcrs, and valucs his lrccdom;
in lact, lrccdom and ncccssity prcsupposc and mutually dcnc
cach othcr, mirror cach othcr, as has bccn shown abovc. Vc
arc not cvcn conscious ol what is inhcrcnt in us and in our
lrccdom, although this lrccdom is thc prccondition both ol our
scnsc ol bcing constraincd by ncccssity and ol our cconomic
activity itscll; likcwisc thc suns rays lorm thc prccondition ol
thc hucs wc pcrccivc in particular objccts, although thcy havc
no color ol thcir own. !n contrast wc arc acutcly awarc ol any-
thing that constantly limits our lrccdom and thrcatcns our lilc,
sctting up obstaclcs to our will. conomic ncccssity is a lactor
ol this sort, lor no onc can bc naturally lrcc ol it, although it
may bc partially and tcmporarily ncutralizcd by particular social
conditions. Tcrms such as need, .ant, and po.erty, and thcir
corrcsponding oppositcs economic .ell-being, utility (consump-
tion valuc), and prosperity, arc thcrclorc appropriatc and natural
cxprcssions in which to inscribc cconomic lilc and its qucstions
and answcrs. Povcrty and want posc thc qucstions, and human
labor and utility shapc thc answcrs.
Thc lact that cconomic labor is ncvcr isolatcd or individual is
not in nccd ol prool. Man as part ol a gcnus partakcs ol thc rich
:,o The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
4
o
f
3
5
8
inhcritancc ol prcccding humanitys cconomic labor and him-
scll labors in constant awarcncss ol thc inucncc ol his contcm-
porarics; il collcctivc humanity is thc transccndcntal subjcct ol
cconomy, thcn cconomy, whatcvcr lorm it may takc, is a social
phcnomcnon lor thc individual, cmpirical man as wcll. Nonc-
thclcss hc may not bc awarc ol thc transccndcntally collcctivc
naturc ol labor, or that hc himscll bclongs to thc collcctivc cco-
nomic subjcct; on thc contrary, any givcn sociocconomic struc-
turc sccms to him a limitation on his will, a violcnt ncccssity
imposcd on him lrom outsidc. Hc nccds to takc it into account
as hc docs thc ncccssity ol naturc. This is why cconomic ncccs-
sity is always socioeconomic ncccssity to onc or anothcr dcgrcc;
man conlronts naturc as a mcmbcr ol human socicty, but his
lcllows arc his lcllow prisoncrs in labor and compctitors lor thc
division ol its spoils, rathcr than voluntary allics (though thcy
can bccomc thc lattcr). Thcsc spoils, whatcvcr thcy might bc
and whatcvcr nccds thcy might satisly, arc crcatcd by human
labor; thcy arc valucs and constitutc wcalth. Thc striving
to incrcasc wcalth and ovcrcomc povcrty scrvcs as a stimulus lor
cconomy. Yct wcalth and povcrty, cvcn il socially contingcnt,
noncthclcss constitutc a lact ol individual lilc. Thc csscncc ol
thc cconomic proccss as a wholc, and its transccndcntal prin-
ciplcs, arc almost complctcly ovcrshadowcd by this gcncral racc
lor wcaltha compctition that lragmcnts thc singlc, unicd
cconomic proccss into disparatc, lractional particlcs. Political
cconomythc scicntic phcnomcnology ol cconomyis ori-
cntcd prcciscly on this lact: wcalth (and its oppositc, povcrty)
as thc lot ol thc individual, cvcn il socially contingcnt; thc
individual urgc to acquirc wcalth and thc rcsulting compcti-
tion among individuals, groups, classcs, and nations. This point
ol dcparturc dcncs both thc stylc and thc sct ol problcms
addrcsscd by political cconomy. So-callcd mcrcantilismthc
cradlc and thc rst school ol scicntic political cconomyas
The Phenomenology of Economy :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
5
o
f
3
5
8
a lrank apology lor pcrsonal grccd, and thc cconomic man as
a scrmon lor commcrcialism, naivcly cxposc political cconomys
ccntral ncrvc and rcvcal thc locus ol its oricntation. Subscqucnt
schools ol political cconomy managc to obscurc thc unity and
immutability ol this initial oricntation through thcir polcmics:
thc physiocrats and Adam Smith, Ricardo and Malthus, lrcc-
tradcrs and protcctionists, dicr in thcir particular thcorics but
not in thc initial problcm. Political cconomy is thc scicncc ol
national prospcrity insolar as it can bccomc a pcrsonal pos-
scssion, or, convcrscly, ol pcrsonal cconomic gain insolar as it
dcpcnds on social conditions.
!n charactcrizing political cconomys scicntic stylc, wc nccd
to takc into account, on onc hand, thc vagucncss ol its subjcct
mattcr and, on thc othcr, thc shccr bulk ol thc raw dataob-
scrvations on various aspccts ol past and prcscnt cconomic lilc
that contcmporary cconomic scicncc is gathcring and ordcr-
ing with a considcrablc cxpcnditurc ol cncrgy. !l wc wish to
pinpoint cconomic scicnccs dcning charactcristics, wc invol-
untarily cnd up stylizing it, taking political cconomy not so
much as what it is right now as what it would likc to bc. Thc
rst obstaclc wc cncountcr is thc vagucncss ol its most basic
conccpt, wcalth, which is as amorphous and unclcar as most
rcal-lilc notions. Vc know that thc conccpt ol .ealth and thc
rclatcd notions ol producti.e and unproducti.e labor, forces of pro-
duction, production, arc dcncd dicrcntly in dicrcnt schools
ol political cconomy, ranging lrom thc carly cconomists nar-
row mcrcantilism and thc cqually narrow cconomic matcri-
alism ol thc physiocrats, Adam Smith, and thc socialists, to
Lists and thc historical schools broadcr dcnition, and nally
to John Ruskins complctc luzzincss. Vcalth is moncy, whosc
sourcc is commcrcc; wcalth is agricultural products, whosc
sourcc is agricultural labor; wcalth is thc matcrial products ol
all labor, whosc sourcc is thc work ol thc industrial or agricul-
:,8 The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
6
o
f
3
5
8
tural workcr;
1
wcalth is cvcrything that givcs joy and adorns
lilc, cvcrything that is usclul and plcasant: political cconomy
has tricd all thcsc and othcr dcnitions on lor sizc, locusing
altcrnatcly on onc or anothcr aspcct ol this conccpt. Any onc ol
thcsc dcnitions is ol coursc cqually valid, though also cqually
arbitrary. ur choicc is dictatcd by practical motivcs, and also
partly by historical conditions: it is quitc clcar to us why thc
mcrcantilists dcncd wcalth as moncy, thc physiocrats, as agri-
cultural products, thc lrcc-tradcrs, as industrial products, thc
socialists, as all matcrial goods, and Ruskin, as human lilc; cach
is right lrom his own rclativc point ol vicw, matching thc dc-
nition to thc givcn cnd. 8ut it is cqually dicult to x thc dc-
nition to any singlc attributc, howcvcr important and obvious,
cvcn, say, matcrial nccds, primarily bccausc it is impossiblc to
distinguish so clcarly bctwccn matcrial and idcal nccds. vcn
lood or clothing, lor cxamplc, which look likc thc most ma-
tcrial ol all nccds, turn out to havc an idcal aspcct, lor thcy
rccct mans gcncral spiritual or cultural stagc ol dcvclopmcnt.
Convcrscly, idcal pursuits such as litcraturc, art, or scicncc can
scrvc as a mcans ol satislying matcrial nccds. And what about
lighting. or mcans ol transportation. or shall wc classily clcc-
tricity as matcrial il it is in a rcstaurant and spiritual il it is in
a study or a school. ocs thc mail scrvc spiritual nccds whcn
it brings a book or a lcttcr and matcrial nccds whcn it carrics
a bill or an advcrtiscmcnt. !s a tclcphonc matcrial in a lactory
and spiritual in a monastcry. Man is spirit incarnatc and spiri-
tualizcd csha spiritual and matcrial bcing. This is why thcrc
is no distinct boundary bctwccn thc matcrial and thc spiritual
and why cvcrything has two sidcs; lrom this standpoint cvcry-
thing should bc includcd in thc scicncc ol cconomy. 8ut only
thc philosophy ol cconomy can takc a position ol this kind;
it would bc inappropriatc and unproductivc lor thc scicncc ol
cconomy, which is obligatcd to addrcss spccializcd problcms.
The Phenomenology of Economy :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
7
o
f
3
5
8
Vc cant cvcn makc labor into thc lundamcntal critcrion ol
wcalth, cvcn though it is thc loundation ol cconomic activity,
lor this dcnition, too, would bc complctcly vaguc. Labor is
thc basic condition ol all human activity, whcthcr it bc Kants
philosophizing or a pcasants plowing, and political cconomy
nccds to nd a way ol distinguishing thcsc two activiticsat
lcast on a practical lcvcl il not in thcir csscncc. Vc arc lorccd
to concludc that thc conccpt ol wcalth and all its subordinatc
conccpts arc dcncd arbitrarily and pragmatically, dcpcnding
on thc oricntation ol scicntic intcrcst, and arc ncithcr subjcct
to nor rcquirc logical consistcncy or closurc. !n lact, this vcry
vagucncss and shilting dcnition ol thc conccpts ol wcalth and
povcrty givc political cconomy thc cxibility and mutability it
nccds to adapt to historically changing tasks; it sustains thc
mcasurc ol cmpiricism and historicism ncccssary lor a scicncc
that dcals with history, that is, with changcs ovcr timc. Thc ob-
jcct ol political cconomy, howcvcr vaguc its logical dcnition,
is in practicc quitc clcar; it can bc dcncd somctimcs in onc
and somctimcs in anothcr paramctcr, cach timc dclincating a
corrcsponding logical prolc.
!!. Poii:ic~i coxo:vs Scivx:ivic S:viv
Political cconomys scicntic stylc is dcncd by thc sociologism
that it sccks to introducc into our undcrstanding ol concrctc
phcnomcna in lilc or in history. Ultimatcly, political cconomy
(cvcn whcn it is historically inclincd) is a sociological scicncc in
its dcsirc to cstablish la.s ol cconomic lilc; its contribution is
a sct ol particular, a priori mcthodological prcmiscs and, abovc
all, a charactcristic sociological dctcrminism (scc thc prcccd-
ing chaptcr). This dctcrminism cnablcs it to ncglcct individu-
ality and rcplacc it with groups and classcscollcctivitics in
which thc individual is lully ovcrshadowcd by thc typical, thus
:c The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
8
o
f
3
5
8
climinating lrccdom and crcativity and lcaving room only lor
rclcntlcss social rcgularity. This is how political cconomy as a
scicncc is constructcd, and this is how it stylizcs cconomic lilc.
Political (or social) cconomy is uttcrly unintcrcstcd in thc
phcnomcna ol individual cconomic lilc as such; it comprchcnds
and intcrprcts thcm only in rclation to othcr phcnomcna, as
social collcctivitics. Thc basic conccpts dcvclopcd by political
cconomy cannot cvcn bc applicd to an individual phcnomcnon,
lor thcy havc no rclcvancc to it and opcratc bcyond its bound-
arics. Thc individual cxists lor political cconomy only as thc
a.erage spccimcn ol a social typc: lor cxamplc, a givcn workcr,
!van Sidorov, cxists hcrc as a mcmbcr ol thc prolctarian class.
Anothcr way to put it is that thc individual cxists only as a lrac-
tional part ol somc collcctivity comprising a singlc wholc: lor
cxamplc, a givcn produccr rcprcscnts a lraction ol thc markct,
ol thc powcr ol supply and dcmand. This wholc cxists (logi-
cally) prior to its parts: it brcaks down into thcsc parts, making
room lor thcm, rathcr than bcing asscmblcd lrom thcm. This
pcculiar and as yct poorly undcrstood logic ol political ccon-
omys basic conccptsby mcans ol which multiplicity is com-
prcsscd into unity, isolating sclcctcd aspccts ol phcnomcna
is analogous to thc mcthod ol statistical collcctivitics but is at
thc samc timc signicantly dicrcnt; wc nccd to takc thcsc lca-
turcs into account il wc arc to undcrstand political cconomys
scicntic stylc. Political cconomys most basic conccptsthc
analyscs on which it particularly pridcs itscll, such as thc con-
ccpts ol capital and capitalismopcratc with prcciscly such
collcctivitics: thcy rcally cxist in thc aggrcgatc, but not in any
onc ol thcir constitucnt parts takcn scparatcly. Thc singlc indi-
vidual can obviously bc ncithcr a capitalist, nor a prolctarian,
nor a mcmbcr ol an cconomic class at all, il hc is takcn in
isolation; it is cqually obvious, howcvcr, that thcsc classica-
tions arc projcctcd onto him by thcsc collcctivitics, which locus
The Phenomenology of Economy :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
5
9
o
f
3
5
8
thcir colorcd lcnscs on him and suusc him with rst onc,
thcn anothcr huc. Thus wc might say that thc magnilying glass
ol political cconomy sccs both morc and lcss than thc nakcd
cyc; it noticcs what lor thc cyc is cntircly inacccssiblc but lails
to pcrccivc thc obvious; it ignorcs cvcrything conncctcd with
individuality whilc taking into account cvcrything that tran-
sccnds its boundarics and lorms class or group phcnomcna. !l
wc assumc thc standpoint strictly ol thc individual, wc can
say that, in rcality, thcrc arc no collcctivitics at all, thcy arc
mcrcly invcntions ol an idlc imagination: thcrc is no capitalism,
no capitalists or prolctarians, but only concrctc subjccts, living
pcoplc with namcs, last namcs, and biographics. Convcrscly, il
wc lollow thc mcthod ol collcctivitics, wc will nd no room lor
biographics or cvcn individual datcs, just as, sccn lrom a su-
cicnt hcight, scparatc houscs ow togcthcr into strccts, lorming
blocks and thcn thc gcncral imagc ol a city. !l wc bcgin lrom
thc individual, wc could conccivably arrivc at thc social and
collcctivc through thc most thorough rcscarch (not practically
possiblc) and managc along thc way to capturc all ol rcality as
wcll. Thcrc is, howcvcr, no dircct path lrom thc study ol thc
collcctivc to thc individual; thc transition can only bc madc by
a lcap. This is why thc individual and thc social arc in prac-
ticc distinct worldsan cxamplc ol how thc scicntic study ol
rcality, dcspitc its postulatcd univcrsal conncctcdncss, actually
dividcs rcality into disparatc, mutually unrclatcd worlds.
Thc ovcrwhclming signicancc ol statistical obscrvation in
political cconomy makcs scnsc in light ol its lascination with
collcctivitics, with thc gcncral, thc typical, thc avcragc. Statis-
ticsas a mcthod ol mass obscrvation and catcgorical cal-
culus, rathcr than lor its own sakchas naturally bccomc a
subordinatc branch ol political cconomy; as such it lrcqucntly
lapscs (in this it is not alonc) into a supcrstition ol numbcrs and
sccks in thcm what isnt thcrc. Yct political cconomy couldnt
:: The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
0
o
f
3
5
8
do without statistics lor its most basic task ol studying and
dcning social groups and social rclations; at thc vcry lcast
it would bc cxtrcmcly constraincd, limitcd to cxtracting dc-
ductivc propositionsso cmpty as to bc complctcly banal or
abstractlrom within itscll. (!n practicc so-callcd thcorctical
political cconomy rcally docs opcratc this way.) thcr mcth-
ods ol catcgorical dcscription ol rcality arc ol cqual valuc to
political cconomy as statistics, lor cxamplc, historical rcscarch
or sociological qucstionnaircs. Thcsc providc thc matcrial on
which it bascs its collcctivitics and thc laws or typcs ol
thcir dcvclopmcnt.
Thc mcthod ol collcctivitics, statistical or othcrwisc, dc-
stroys thc individual, rcplacing it with class masks, social maps,
and diagrams. vcn though phcnomcna such as cxchangc, pro-
duction, distribution, and consumption havc an individual di-
mcnsion, thc momcnt thcy bccomc thc objcct ol study lor
political cconomy thcy arc rcgardcd only as typcs or collcc-
tivitics. Political cconomy cxamincs thcsc individual manilcsta-
tions as an abstract avcragc, takcs up a pcrspcctivc lrom which
scparatc gurcs mcrgc and bccomc gcncral, typical, and uni-
lorm. cductivc political cconomy is complctcly constructcd
on a particular rcprcscntation ol a typical or avcragc lorm ol
bchavior, any dcparturc lrom which is sccn as accidcntal or ir-
rcgular. Thc inlamous cconomic manthat crucially instru-
mcntal conccpt ol political cconomy that wc can cithcr indig-
nantly dcny with Ruskin or Carlylc, as a slandcr ol rcality, or
judiciously apply so long as wc nd it ol practical usc, cvcr con-
scious ol its instrumcntal and contingcnt naturcis prcciscly
such a stylizcd collcctivc typc (rcminisccnt ol thc imagc wc gct
il wc photograph many laccs on thc samc lm). l coursc no
rcprcscntation ol thc typical corrcsponds to rcality, in which
cvcrything is individual and nothing is rcpcatcd; it is a pars pro
toto, whcrc just onc clcmcnt, only morc or lcss similar in its
The Phenomenology of Economy :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
1
o
f
3
5
8
various manilcstations, is isolatcd, only thcn to throw away thc
morc or lcss and cvcrything clsc and thus to arrivc at a logical
distillatcthc cconomic phcnomcnon in purc lorm. Political
cconomys basic principlc that the phenomena of economic life are
typical or repetiti.e lorms thc gcncral mcthodological prcmisc
ol cconomic rcgularity. Yct this statcmcnt obviously cxcludcs
not only thc individual but anything that is ncw or histori-
cal: nothing happcns in this political-cconomic world, as was
carlicr thc casc lor thc sociological onc; thcrc arc no cvcnts savc
a sort ol cconomic perpetuum mobile. !t is assumcd that thc cn-
tirc invcntory ol cconomic rcality and causality has alrcady bccn
accountcd lor and that bcyond that nothing can happcn. Truc,
thc laws ol political cconomy claim in principlc to dcal with
thc dynamics as wcll as thc statics ol phcnomcnathc ordcr
in which thcy lollow as wcll as thc phcnomcna thcmsclvcs. !t
is not dicult, howcvcr, to comc to thc conclusion that thcsc
dynamics arc as static and analytic as thc statics: thcy mcrcly
rcvcal and rcalizc cxisting possibilitics to thc cxclusion ol any
ncw or uncxpcctcd causcs. Hcncc thcy too takc as thcir point
ol dcparturc thc notion ol an cxhaustivc invcntory ol rcality or
assumc thc prcmisc ol ceteris paribus. Marxs prognosis con-
ccrning thc cvolution ol capitalism into socialism (dcscribcd in
thc prcccding chaptcr) is typical in this rcspcct: it is prcmiscd
cntircly on ceteris paribus and constitutcs a mcntal cxtrapolation
ol just onc tcndcncy, a gcncralization lrom isolatcd aspccts ol
contcmporary rcality.
2
Thc tcndcncics ol cconomic dcvclop-
mcnt cstablishcd by statistics and political cconomy arc con-
structcd on this samc modcl. Nothing ne.thc dcnial ol any-
thing historical or individualthus bccomcs thc war cry ol thc
cldcst daughtcr, political cconomy, as wcll as ol thc mothcr,
sociology.
Thc usc ol cconomic conccpts and pattcrns in application
to thc complctcd past dicrs somcwhat lrom thcir usc in thc
:, The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
2
o
f
3
5
8
still-opcn prcscnt and luturc. Thcy bccomc rcady-madc modcls
that hclp to gcncralizc about historical rcality. Vc mustnt
ol coursc dcny thc scicntic utility ol rcady-madc thcorctical
modcls within ccrtain limits. Such abstract conccpts, lor cx-
amplc, as natural cconomy or capitalism arc now widcly uscd
in rcscarching thc cconomic history ol countrics or pcriods
that might not thcmsclvcs havc provokcd thc construction ol
thcsc particular conccpts. Thc past is illuminatcd by thc pro-
jcctor ol thc prcscnts scicntic conccpts; actually wc always
scc thc past through contcmporary lcnscs. !t is noncthclcss
clcar that modcling and modcrnization, which to many consti-
tutc thc quintcsscncc ol thc scicntic approach, somctimcs ob-
scurc historical rcality in its colorlul individuality, cvcn though
thc stylization ol history according to thc tastcs ol contcm-
porary political cconomythc application ol rcady conccptual
schcmas and oricntationscan bc convcnicnt. Thc currcntly
lashionablc drcssing up ol Grccks and Romans, 8abylonians
and gyptians as modcrn capitalists and prolctarians can, how-
cvcr, bc as dangcrous as it is convcnicnt, and wc may onc
day bc lorccd to rid historical scicncc ol thcsc modcrnizing
wccds. vcn to thc dcgrcc that thcsc lormulas and modcls can
claim scicntic validity, thcy rcmain ncccssarily highly abstract
and schcmatic, which is why thcy arc usclul in thc rst placc.
Thcy arc thc rst tcntativc marks on a yct-undrawn map. 8-
chcrs (and carlicr Rodbcrtuss) historical modcls, and duard
Mcycrs and particularly Phlmanns opposing oncs (which go
lurthcst in thc modcrnization ol antiquity), arc all cxamplcs
ol this typc ol modcrnizing schcmatization in its positivc and
ncgativc dimcnsions.
Thus only thc static rathcr than thc dynamic aspccts ol
socicty arc actually acccssiblc to political cconomy as a branch
ol sociology; thcrc is room in this static scicncc lor making
thc dcvclopmcnt and lruition ol what alrcady cxists intclligiblc,
The Phenomenology of Economy :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
3
o
f
3
5
8
but not much lor thc ncw making ol history. This pcculiarity
is what rcsults in political cconomys ncglcct ol thc individual
pcrsonality and its dctcrministic dcnial ol human lrccdom,
its typical sociological dctcrminism. Political cconomy studics
man only in his opprcssion, catchcs him in thc statc ol ncccssary
scll-dclcnsc, instcad ol approaching him lrom thc pcrspcctivc
ol his lrcc crcativc rclation to lilc. !t rcplaccs thc individual pcr-
sonality as univcrsal actor, as thc living sourcc ol all that is ncw
in history, with thc economic machine postulatcd by 8cntham
and rcminisccnt ol thc contcmporary automatic dispcnscr: il
you dcposit a coin, it will producc a candy or a piccc ol soap,
but no morc. All constructions ol thc cconomic man, whcthcr
individual or collcctivc, arc in lact bascd on thc imagc ol an
cconomic machinc; hcncc political cconomys incvitablc and
total latalismthc obvcrsc sidc ol its mcthodological dctcr-
minism. Again, this works up to a point and lor ccrtain goals:
wc can bc contcnt in ccrtain limits with a machinc instcad ol
a pcrsonality. 8ut il wc lorgct about thc contingcnt, practical,
mcthodological naturc ol thcsc cconomic catcgorics, wc bcgin
to lapsc into cconomism, so widcsprcad in our day, with its ac-
companying latalism, which in turn gcncratcs onc ol thc most
horriblc nightmarcs ol modcrn lilc. Povcrty is nightmarish and
rcal cnough in itscll not to rcquirc thc addition ol a thcorctical
nightmarc in thc lorm ol immutablc and incvitablc laws ol
cconomic dcvclopmcnt or thc doom ol class psychology and
cconomic cgoism. !l all this wcrc truc, thcrc would havc bccn
no bcnign acts or cvcn good impulscs in history; in lact thcrc
would not cvcn havc bccn thc cconomic dcvclopmcnt that is
such a rm articlc ol laith lor modcrn prosclytizcrs ol cconomic
!slam. Thcy arc wrong to arm that thcrc is an iron law that is
thc samc and cqually incscapablc lor all. !t is on thc othcr hand
truc that thcrc is a ccrtain obligatory lramcwork lor action,
:o The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
4
o
f
3
5
8
but it simultancously crcatcs a spacc lor individual crcativity,
lcaving room lor manilcstations ol lrccdom.
As soon as political cconomy turns to concrctc historical
rcality and trics to undcrstand it as crcativity as wcll as mccha-
nism, thc signicancc ol thc individual pcrsonality as a crc-
ativc principlc ol cconomy and history bcgins to comc to thc
lorc.
3
Thus lar wc havc charactcrizcd political cconomy as a
sociological or nomographic disciplinc; howcvcr, thc abovc-
mcntioncd vagucncss ol its logical contours pcrmits us to ac-
knowlcdgc thc prcscncc ol purcly dcscriptivc clcmcntshis-
torical, idiographic scicncc. No scicncc can sustain systcmatic
and cxclusivc sociologism to thc cnd; thcrclorc no scicncc can
actually rcprcscnt its givcn logical typc in purc lorm. A constant
movcmcnt, asccnding and dcsccndingthc transition lrom thc
concrctc to thc abstract, to gcncralizcd conccpts or laws, and
thcn thc rcturn to rcality through scicntic mcanstakcs placc
in scicntic lilc. Scicnccs vcry pragmatism insurcs that nomo-
graphic clcmcnts, though thcy might prcscnt an important part
and cvcn thc logical locus ol scicncc, do not in thcmsclvcs
constitutc a goal; thcy arc nccdcd only as mcans to providc ori-
cntation, arc valuablc insolar as thcy arc usclul. Thc valuc ol
thc laws that political cconomy can, likc any othcr scicncc,
cstablish in any dcsircd quantity and dircction dcpcnds cn-
tircly on thcir practical utility. Pcrhaps laws with thc pathctic
dcstiny ol dccorating an amatcur scicntic muscum likc ovcr-
sizcd owcrs grown in a logical grccnhousc will bc discovcrcd
somcthing particularly possiblc in thc cld ol so-callcd thco-
rctical political cconomy. Thcorctically thcrc arc no limits to
thc proccss ol logical construction: only lilcs tasks and thc
pragmatism ol scicncc can cstablish thosc. Political cconomy
has long conccrncd itscll with thcorics ol valucunqucstion-
ably much morc than it should havcbut has not includcd
The Phenomenology of Economy :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
5
o
f
3
5
8
in its purvicw a problcm that is rcally important, namcly, thc
theory of .alue of economic theories, in which thc critcrion ol
utility (as wcll, ol coursc, as logical consistcncy) would bc ap-
plicd. Political cconomy was born undcr thc star ol commcr-
cialism, that is, ol complctcly practical motivcs, ol thc nccd to
gurc out thc complcxitics ol thc cconomic mcchanism. !t is
thc child ol capitalism and is in turn thc scicncc ol capitalism;
it providcs instructions lor propcr cconomic bchavior. Vhcthcr
opcnly or not, political cconomy rcsolvcs practical tasks, and
thcory is a mcans lor practicc; thcrclorc it must rcally bc di-
rcctly or indircctly usclul rathcr than bcing a mcrc logical toy.
bviously this utility docsnt always takc thc lorm ol immcdi-
atc practical usclulncss. For cxamplc, is thc gcncral thcory ol
capitalist cconomy, which studics thc collcctivity ol scpa-
ratc houscholds with a prctty signicant dcgrcc ol abstractncss,
rcally usclul lrom this standpoint. ! think it is, although thcrc
can bc no immcdiatc practical application: this thcory providcs
us with a gcncral picturc ol cvcrything that happcns in con-
tcmporary cconomic lilc and dcncs it as a typc. Howcvcr ab-
stract and constructcd it may bc, likc any othcr thcory, still it is
cmpirical in important ways and adhcrcs to cxpcricncc; it is a
shortcncd lormula lor an indcnitcly largc quantity ol lacts. n
thc othcr hand, can wc considcr thc various thcorics ol valuc,
prot, and capital that lorm thc contcnt ol so-callcd thcorctical
cconomy, with its cndlcss controvcrsics, to bc cqually valuablc.
! think not, howcvcr clcgant, sharp-wittcd, and gracclul somc
ol thcm may bc lrom thc logical and acsthctic point ol vicw
(prcciscly what dcccivcs and lcads us astray), bccausc thcy arc
not rcally cmpirical any morc, cvcn though thcy takc cmpiri-
cal lacts as thcir point ol dcparturc; thcy do not hclp us sort
out thcsc lacts and dont cvcn try to do so, choosing instcad to
invcstigatc somc kind ol proloundcr dcpths or to posc mcta-
cmpirical though also not mctaphysical problcms, thus rcsult-
:8 The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
6
o
f
3
5
8
ing in logical conlusion.
4
Thc possibilitics lor abstract thcoriz-
ing in scicncc in gcncral and in political cconomy in particular
arc cndlcss, which is why it should always bc undcr thc con-
trol ol conscious critical pragmatism which asks, cui prodest Thc
sort ol progrcssion lrom lact to thcory whcrc thcrc is no going
back is quitc possiblc. Thcory is thc product ol thc saturation
ol scicntic thought, thc crystallization ol scicncc; and this is
why no scicncc can do without thcory, although thc bridgc con-
nccting thc two shorcs should ncvcr bc rcmovcd. Nomography
rcmains a mcans lor idiography, or in othcr words thcory lor
practicc, which in thc cnd is always concrctc and historical.
Thc indiscriminatc accumulation ol cmpirical matcrial ol
dubious scicntic valucthc false empiricism ol thc pscudohis-
torical schoolis thc oppositc polc lrom uncontrollcd thcoriz-
ing. Now cvcrything that has any lacts in it, particularly in
thc cabbalistic lorm ol a statistical tablc, is mistakcn lor scicncc.
And yct cconomy ol thought and conscqucntly ol scicntic
mcthod is thc suprcmc rulc ol scicncc: logical acsthctics dc-
mands that thcrc bc nothing cxtra or usclcss. vcry scicncc, as
has bccn dcmonstratcd abovc, has to ask about somcthing; this
qucstion dctcrmincs thc rcscarchcrs intcrcsts and thus cstab-
lishcs in advancc thc lacts and choicc ol lacts and contains
thc kcrncl ol thc answcrthc scicntic thcory. Collccting lacts
with no guiding aim in mind is not scicncc at all but a mcrc sci-
cntic gamc. Scicnccs must bc constructcd, and scicntic rcgu-
laritics cstablishcd, using thc intcllcct; thcy cannot bc lound
by poking around in garbagc pilcs as il thcy wcrc old rags;
thus thcrc is no morc scicncc in lacts than is put thcrc by thc
scicntic intcllcct.
Thc history and thc contcmporary statc ol political cconomy
abound with cxamplcs ol onc or anothcr cxtrcmcol cxccssivc
thcorctical abstraction and ol unprinciplcd collcction ol lacts,
so prcvalcnt in contcmporary historicism. Thc path ol hcalthy
The Phenomenology of Economy :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
7
o
f
3
5
8
scicntic cmpiricism passcs in bctwccn both cxtrcmcs; in thc
cnd it is dctcrmincd by thc rcscarchcrs scicntic tact.
Likc social scicncc in gcncral, political cconomy compriscs a
unity ol cconomic thcory and cconomic politics. Thcory hclps
oricnt us in practical qucstions and providcs gcncral guidclincs
or prcmiscs yct, by virtuc ol its abstract naturc, ncvcr pro-
vidcs spccic dircctions conccrning thc concrctc, nal outcomc.
Thus it is not possiblc simply to inscrt numcrical quantitics,
pcrlorm ccrtain opcrations, and comc up with a nal rcsult.
Rathcr, thc guidclincs arc always providcd in gcncral and vaguc
lorm, assuming in addition a rolc lor intuition, crcativity, or
just sharpncss. This is why political cconomy by naturc is an
art, though a scicntic art. Political cconomy cannot tcll us
cxactly whcthcr wc should concludc a trcaty with Gcrmany, or
what typc ol workcrs insurancc wc should choosc, or whcthcr
a givcn strikc will bc productivc. vcry scicntic judgmcnt on
a concrctc issuc combincs gcncral and particular, nomographic
and idiographic conccpts; in cconomic politics this combina-
tion, bccausc ol thc complcxity ol thc objcctcconomic lilc
and thc conscqucntly rclativcly low scicntic lcvcl ol political
cconomy, bccomcs particularly conlusing. Thc path lrom thc
gcncral to thc particular is a logical lcaponc that, lurthcr-
morc, onc could makc in dicrcnt dircctionsrathcr than a
gradual progrcssion. This is why it is so dicult lor scicntists to
arrivc at any sort ol agrccmcnt cithcr about lacts or about what
conclusions to draw lrom thcmthus casting doubt on thc va-
lidity ol thc scicncc itscll, as il scicncc could havc somc kind
ol sccrct about how to approach lact. 8ccausc it is so abstract,
political cconomy has troublc answcring qucstions conccrning
collcctiviticsas by thc way do all scicnccsbut thc dicul-
tics multiply whcn it has to dcal with individual phcnomcna,
so that in thc cnd any scicntic judgmcnt bccomcs impossiblc.
How, lor cxamplc, could wc say whcthcr thc givcn industri-
:oc The Phenomenology of Economy
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
8
o
f
3
5
8
alist N will prospcr or go bankrupt, bascd on our knowlcdgc
ol criscs in gcncral and this crisis in particular. or whcthcr
a particular branch ol industry will win or losc. !snt it clcar
that political cconomy has to tcll thc industrialist that hc as
N docsnt rcally cxist at all, lor it acknowlcdgcs thc class ol
industrialists as a wholc rathcr than individual Ns. !n many
cascs thcsc abstract judgmcnts arc dcvalucd and bccomc mcrc
commonplaccs. !n such cascs scicntic prcmiscs can bc sup-
plcmcntcd by judgmcnts bascd on practical rcason, or common
scnsc, which, lcrtilizcd by thc data ol scicntic analysis, thcn
masqucradc as scicntically bascd conclusions. !t should thcn
not comc as a surprisc that morc disciplincd scicntic minds,
nurturcd on thc modcratc and quict, and hcncc lcss dctcctablc,
pragmatism ol thc natural scicnccsat lcast in comparison to
that which rcigns or cvcn ragcs in political cconomycan pcr-
mit thcmsclvcs to doubt thc scicntic validity ol political ccon-
omy and cvcn its right to scicntic cxistcncc, whcrcas morc
philosophically inclincd minds arc promptcd oncc again to posc
skcpticisms chastcning qucstion: Vhat is scicncc. Vcrc wc to
invcstigatc political cconomys logical structurc morc lully wc
would nccd to go into grcatcr dcpth and dctail, which ! cannot
claim to do hcrc; instcad, ! would likc to limit myscll to thcsc
lcw rcmarks, which clarily thc philosophy ol cconomys gcncral
approach to problcms ol phcnomcnology.
The Phenomenology of Economy :oz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
6
9
o
f
3
5
8

conomic Matcrialism as a
Philosophy ol conomy
!. coxo:ic M~:vvi~iis: ~s Pniiosovnv
~xb ~s Scivxcv
!t is vcry casy to criticizc so-callcd cconomic matcrialism, dcm-
onstrating its roughncss and incomplctcncss, its ugly onc-
sidcdncss. !t has too many aspccts that arc indclcnsiblc and
opcn to criticism. Among philosophcrs it cvokcs only disdain
lor its crudc dogmatism and naivc matcrialism, and this in-
adcquacy ol lorm prccludcs any dcsirc on thcir part to cxam-
inc its substancc. For thc cducatcd public, which sympathizcs
with all that is lolty and bcautilul and prizcs acsthctic cul-
turc abovc all clsc, cconomic matcrialism rccks too strongly ol
workcrs swcat and industrial smokc; to thcm it looks likc bar-
barism, incapablc ol apprcciating cultural valucs, and thcy
turn away with an air ol scll-satiscd lastidiousncss, rcjccting
it without rcally paying attcntion. Finally, thc widc ranks ol
its socialist supportcrs, having turncd it into a dogma ol pro-
lctarian catcchism, arc just as littlc capablc ol raising its sci-
cntic and philosophical prcstigc. !ndccd it might sccm that
thc philosophical rcscarchcr ol our day has no rcason to dcal
with cconomic matcrialism any morc than, lor cxamplc, with
thc matcrialism ol \ogt and Molcschott, and that it ought to
bc lclt in pcacc. All thc samc ! would suggcst that wc havc no
right to dcspisc cconomic matcrialism until wc havc scriously
dcalt with thc problem that it poscs. Thc impcrlcction and in-
complction ol its philosophical lorm, rclativcly accidcntal and
:o:
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
0
o
f
3
5
8
trivial, bclics thc vital signicancc ol thc problcm prcscntcd
by cconomic matcrialism, which rcmains unimpaircd by thc
unacccptability ol its philosophical prcmiscs. Ncithcr ncglcct
nor squcamishncss can diminish or dcstroy thc signicancc ol
this problcm, which continucs to attract thc attcntion ol lrcsh
minds, unhypnotizcd by criticism or acsthcticism. !t is insu-
cicnt simply to rcjcct cconomic matcrialism, as is incidcntally
truc lor cvcry thcory that poscs a signicant lilc problcm, by
turning away in impotcncc or lrom lack ol intcrcst; it must
bc o.ercome, and ovcrcomc only by positivc mcans, having ac-
knowlcdgcd its truth and undcrstood its motivc but dcclincd
its limitations and pcrvcrsions. Thc grim honcsty ol lilc cxpcri-
cncc spcaks in cconomic matcrialism; it dcvotcs its attcntion to
thc mcaning ol povcrty, to thc anxicty about a piccc ol daily
brcad that glooms ovcr most ol mankind. Yct it should occupy
its own uniquc placc in thc history ol philosophy by virtuc ol its
philosophical signicancc and not only bccausc ol thcsc cthical
charactcristics.
1
!t is thc rst cort to construct a philosophy ol
cconomy; it consciously poscs thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol
cconomy lor thc rst timc, and a ncw thcmc, ushcrcd in not
by armchair contcmplation but by living imprcssions ol rcality,
sounds in thc history ol idcas. ! bclicvc that this thcmc, bccausc
it is anchorcd in lilc, bcars witncss to thc philosophical au-
thcnticity and not mcrc lantasy ol cconomic matcrialisms main
mcssagc. Rcccntly it has rcccivcd anothcr boost: apprcciation
lor cconomic matcrialisms philosophical signicancc has bccn
incrcascd by thc succcsscs ol thc philosophy ol pragmatism,
which is in somc ways similar. Vc might cxprcss thc rclation
bctwccn thcm as lollows: cconomic matcrialism rcprcscnts a
variant ol pragmatism, a particular cxamplc ol it, and can hcncc
bc callcd cconomic pragmatism. This inucntial, though not
particularly prolound, philosophical thcory ol our day rcitcratcs
Economic Materialism :o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
1
o
f
3
5
8
thc signicancc and viability ol cconomic matcrialisms basic
thcmc lrom a ncw anglc.
2
conomic matcrialism as a philosophical thcory oricnts phi-
losophy on thc lact ol cconomy. Morcovcr, this is not, lor it,
mcrcly onc ol many possiblc philosophical oricntations, along-
sidc which othcrs arc also pcrmissiblc; rathcr, it is thc only
possiblc oricntation, and this philosophy ol cconomy sccs itscll
as csscntial truth (although thcrc arc no such cxprcssions in
thc discoursc ol cconomic matcrialism); it is philosophy kat'
jox~n, an absolutc philosophical systcm that attains thc mys-
tcry ol bcing and rcvcals it in a scicntic doctrinc. Hcrc wc
hcar an ccho ol Hcgcl with his claim to thc absolutcncss and
hcncc uniqucncss ol his systcm. Having lost many ol Hc-
gclianisms strong sidcs, cconomic matcrialism has rctaincd its
ambition and absolutism. !t also sharcs with Hcgclianism thc
cxtrcmc intcllcctualism that distinguishcs thc lattcr: howcvcr
irrational historys driving lorccnamcly, thc dcvclopmcnt ol
productivc lorccs, unlolding with blind mcchanical incvita-
bilitycconomic matcrialism ncvcr doubts thc adcquacy and
rationality with which it can cxprcss this irrational rcality, lur-
thcr conluscd by all sorts ol illusory idcologics; it admits ol
no dark, unrationalizablc rcsiduc and lcavcs no room lor mys-
tcry. Lilcs mystcry is complctcly rcvcalcd by cconomic ma-
tcrialism. Vhcrc Hcgclianisms intcllcctualism cquatcd con-
sciousncss with bcing, sccing thc rational as rcal and thc rcal
as rational, this othcr intcllcctualism, rcplacing panlogism with
pan-alogism, univcrsal blindncss, and irrationality, is burdcncd
with contradictions ol which Hcgcl kncw nothing. !ncidcntally,
cconomic matcrialism sharcs this trait with all matcrialism,
both prc- and post-Hcgclian.
Fundamcntally, cconomic matcrialism rcprcscnts a mcta-
physical or at lcast mcta-cmpirical philosophy ol history, somc-
thing likc a historical ontology. This is no lcss thc casc bccausc,
:o, Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
2
o
f
3
5
8
lollowing thc spirit ol thc timc with its rcaction to idcalism, and
strongly inucnccd by Fcucrbachs matcrialistically tintcd posi-
tivism, thc crcators ol cconomic matcrialism dcclarcd war on
any mctaphysics and bclicvcd thcy wcrc subvcrting it. Thcy bc-
licvcd that thcy wcrc uncovcring thc matcrial roots ol all mcta-
physics and thus cxposing its illusory, idcological naturc. !n
rcality, howcvcr, cconomic matcrialism, likc matcrialism gcncr-
ally, rcprcscnts mcrcly a naivc or dogmatic mctaphysics, igno-
rant ol its own naturc. Thc history ol philosophy is lull ol
cxamplcs ol such unconscious mctaphysics. conomic matcri-
alism poscs a problcm ol clcarly mctaphysical naturc, actually
cxactly thc samc onc that Hcgcl rcsolvcs in his consciously
mctaphysical philosophy ol history. Thc lamous turning Hcgcl
on his hcad (auf den Kopf stellen) that Marx ascribcs to him-
scll rclcrs only to thc content ol thc thcory: thc rolc ol absolutc
spirit is ascribcd to thc cconomic basc but not to its problem,
which rcmains cxactly thc samc. !n this rcspcct Marxism rcally
is Hcgclianism with a ncw lacc (only, ol coursc, in thc phi-
losophy ol history). !t succs to dclvc a bit dccpcr into thc
csscncc ol Hcgcls philosophy ol history to bccomc convinccd
ol thc cxtcnt ol this similarity and inucncc. Thc rst qucstion
Hcgcl poscs in thc philosophy ol history is: Vhat is thc mcan-
ing ol world history, what happcns in it or what is its rcsult. !n
kccping with thc gcncral contcnt ol his philosophy, according
to which thc univcrsal spirit achicvcs scll-consciousncss, rcal-
izing itscll through lrccdom, Hcgcl answcrs: Vorld history is
progrcss in thc consciousncss ol lrccdom. Marx and ngcls
borrow this idca, and cvcn this lormula, lrom him (purcly, ol
coursc, in an cxtcrnal scnsc), whcn thcy spcak ol a lcap lrom
thc kingdom ol ncccssity into thc kingdom ol lrccdom, whcrc
this last is idcnticd lor thcm with thc socialist luturc socicty.
cspitc all thcir dcnial ol historical tclcology and cort to prc-
scrvc a mcchanical (natural-scicntic, that is, purcly causal)
Economic Materialism :o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
3
o
f
3
5
8
undcrstanding ol history, its gcncral conccption hcrc also turns
out to bc immancnt and tclcological: history docs not play
itscll out in a void but lcads to a dcnitc, intcrnally cohcrcnt
goal. Thc sccond qucstion poscd by Hcgcl in thc philosophy
ol history is: How docs history happcn, by what mcans docs
it achicvc its goal. According to Hcgcl, human intcrcsts, par-
ticular nccds, various cgoistic motivcs, as wcll as movcmcnts
ol passion crcating historical actors, arc thc matcrial ol history.
Thc particular motivations, ol coursc, do not coincidc with thc
tasks ol history, and pcoplc do not know about thcm; only lor
grcat individuals do thcir privatc goals contain in thcmsclvcs
a substantivc clcmcnt, comprising thc will ol thc world spirit.
8ut thc world spirit uscs human dcsircs and intcrcsts lor its own
cnds; without bcing conscious ol it, pcoplc rcalizc its intcn-
tions, and this is thc cunning ol rcason (List der !ernunft) that
lorccs pcoplc to lulll its will without knowing it. This is an ob-
jcctivc, supracmpirical, mctaphysical rulc ol naturc. conomic
matcrialism assimilatcs this idca as lollows. (!t also arms that
history is a gamc ol passions and intcrcsts that in its totality
lorms a strugglc ol cconomic classcs.) A rcgularity bcyond thc
particular aims ol scparatc individuals or groups opcratcs in his-
tory, and this rcgularity is dctcrmincd by thc dcvclopmcnt ol
productivc lorccs, which gocs through stagcs analogous to thc
phascs ol thc univcrsal spirits scll-consciousncss. Hcrc it is thc
cunning not ol rcason but ol thc cconomic basc that opcr-
atcs. Marx, in conccntrating all his attcntion on thc distinction
in contcnt bctwccn his thcory and Hcgcls, impcrccptibly lor
himscll acccptcd without criticism what in Hcgcl is morc im-
portant than contcnt, namcly, thc metaphysical formulation ol
thc problcm cntircly in thc spirit ol Hcgcls ontologism, and
hcrc again his thcory is indistinguishablc lrom post-Hcgclian
matcrialism, which also stood Hcgclian idcalism on its hcad
and mcrcly providcd a ncw answcr to thc samc problcms. As a
:oo Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
4
o
f
3
5
8
philosophy ol history, cconomic matcrialism is not an cmpiri-
cal, scicntic, positivc thcory ol historical dcvclopmcnt; rathcr,
its ontological charactcr is its most distinctivc philosophical
lcaturc. As an ontological mctaphysics, it sharcs thc latc ol
all ontological systcms, whcthcr spiritualistic, matcrialistic, or
idcalistic. 8clorc thc tribunal ol cohcrcnt positivism or nco-
Kantian criticism it is as unacccptablc and unscicntic as
thc philosophy ol Schclling, Schopcnhaucr, Hcgcl, Solovicv,
Hartmann, lor it asks what cannot bc askcd with thc hopc
ol obtaining a scicntic answcr, namcly, what undcrlics his-
torical phcnomcna and constitutcs thcir mcta-cmpirical mcta-
physical basis. Thc problcm ol cconomic matcrialism is csscn-
tially thc lollowing: Vhat undcrlics thc apparcnt colorlulncss
and varicty ol historical phcnomcna. Vhat is thc single rcgu-
larity that connccts thc tanglcd multiplicity ol immcdiatc rca-
sons and constitutcs thcir loundation. This is not just a mcta-
physics ol history in gcncral but bclongs to a dcnitc, namcly
a monistic, typc: it inhcritcd this monism, in conjunction with
a dialcctical mcthod, lrom Hcgcl (although Hcgclian dialcc-
tics is hcrc naivcly takcn lor ordinary cvolutionism, howcvcr
littlc thcy havc in common), which is why it somctimcs calls
itscll dialcctical matcrialism. conomic matcrialisms ccn-
tral thcory ol thc basc and supcrstructurc answcrs prcciscly
this ontological problcm. According to this thcory all ol man-
kinds historical lilc in its cxtcrnal and intcrnal, political and
social, cultural and spiritual manilcstations is but a supcrstruc-
turc abovc thc cconomic basc and conscqucntly has no indc-
pcndcnt mctaphysical bcing, is only a rccx, is ontologically
contingcnt prcciscly in thc samc scnsc that all cmpirical histori-
cal cvcnts arc contingcnt lor Hcgcl on thc victorious march ol
thc univcrsal spirit, passing through various phascs ol its dcvcl-
opmcnt. 8y this statcmcnt ncithcr Marx nor Hcgcl dcnics thc
phcnomcnal bcing ol all that thcy do not acknowlcdgc as cxist-
Economic Materialism :o,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
5
o
f
3
5
8
ing indcpcndcntly in an ontological scnsc, or what is mcrcly a
rccx. vcrything that is supcrstructurcgovcrnmcnt, law,
rcligion, moralityall this is not proclaimcd by cconomic ma-
tcrialism not to cxist; instcad, cvcn lor Marx thc cmpirical
colorlulncss ol history cxists as it docs lor cvcryonc clsc, and
thc immcdiatc causal conncction ol historical cvcnts prcscnts
a picturc ol a multiplicity ol rcasons and a conlusion ol cvcnts
that cannot bc t into any monistic schcma. mpirical history
has its pragmatism ol cvcnts, which is cstablishcd by histori-
cal scicncc. Thc causality ol thc cconomic basc cxists only in
let.ter Instan. (in thc nal analysis), rathcr than lying on thc
surlacc. This can bc translatcd into philosophical languagc only
as lollows: it has metaphysical rather than empirical signicance,
it docs not immcdiatcly cstablish a conncction bctwccn phc-
nomcna but undcrlics thcm as thcir noumcnal basis. Thc rcla-
tion ol thc basc to thc supcrstructurc is similar to thc rclation ol
thc Ding an sich (thing in itscll ) and thc phcnomcnon in Kants
systcm or, still morc clcarly, in Schopcnhaucrs: thc cconomic
basc is thc noumcnon ol history; it lics at thc loundation ol all
its phcnomcna and gcncratcs thcm, and thc rclation bctwccn
thc noumcnon and phcnomcna, thc intclligiblc and cmpirical
world, cannot ol coursc bc cquatcd with cmpirical causality in
history; il wc charactcrizc this rclation, too, as causality, thcn
wc must add that ontological causality lics vcry dccp and wc
ought not thcrclorc to scck it on thc surlacc. Hcrc wc may
havc an cntircly dicrcnt picturc ol causality, onc that is varic-
gatcd and colorlul, disguising rathcr than rcvcaling thc singlc
truc, noumcnal causality that acts in let.ter Instan.. !n ordcr
to apprchcnd it, wc must know how to look into thc dcpths,
into thc inncr workings ol thc mcchanism, and only altcr wc
havc undcrstood this Ding an sich, by spcculativc or intuitivc
rathcr than scicntic-cmpirical mcans, its invisiblc brcath will
bc lclt in cmpirical rcality, too, and rcality will bccomc com-
:o8 Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
6
o
f
3
5
8
prchcnsiblc in its inncr mcaning. Systcms ol thc mctaphysics ol
history arc gcncrally constructcd in this manncr, lor cxamplc,
in Fichtc, Schclling, Hcgcl, Hartmann, Solovicv or, carlicr, in
Saint Augustinc, 8ossuct, Hcrdcr. Thc thcory ol cconomic ma-
tcrialism, or at lcast onc ol its aspccts, and in my opinion thc
most csscntial and charactcristic, also has such a mcaning. Yct,
bccausc ol thc lack ol philosophical clarity in thc lormulation
and subdivisions ol its problcm, wc can dctcct scvcral distinct
ordcrs ol thought, poorly rcconcilablc with cach othcr but con-
stantly intcrsccting, in thc thcory ol cconomic matcrialism cvcn
in Marx and ngcls (not to mcntion thcir lollowcrs). First ol
all this applics to thc scll-stylcd scientism ol cconomic matcri-
alism, on which it pridcs itscll, and which is so carclully undcr-
scorcd in thc chaotic idca ol scicntic socialism, or socialism
as a scicncc. conomic matcrialism as a scicncc, and consc-
qucntly as thc totality ol gcncralizations rcgarding thc lactual
dcvclopmcnt ol history, rcducing history primarily to cconomic
dcvclopmcnt, is somcthing cntircly distinct lrom cconomic ma-
tcrialism as mctaphysics, and thc conlusion ol thc scicntic
and mctaphysical thcorics that takcs placc hcrc lcads to cntircly
unrcsolvablc dicultics, primarily mcthodological in naturc. !l
cconomic matcrialism wishcs to bc a thcory ol historical dcvcl-
opmcnt, a scicntic cxplication ol lacts or thcir gcncralization,
thcn it is obvious that such a thcory, whatcvcr its contcnt, can-
not bc advanccd a priori, ante facta, but can bc dclcndcd only
post facta. !t is obtaincd as thc rcsult ol scicntic invcstiga-
tion and is valid only within thcsc boundarics. !t rctains thc
quality ol incomplctc induction, donec corrigetur, and thus
can always bc rclutcd by ncw lacts. !n principlc cvcn a singlc
lact contradicting thc thcory would succ, as it would succ
to dcstroy any ol thc most rmly anchorcd cmpirical laws ol
natural scicncc, such as thc law ol gravity. Clcarly, such a law
can ncvcr lay claim to such a priori univcrsal signicancc as that
Economic Materialism :o,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
7
o
f
3
5
8
to which cconomic matcrialism prctcndcd lrom thc vcry bcgin-
ning, and cvcn bclorc any invcstigation, on crcdit. !t will not
do to proclaim oncs scicntism whilc outing its most clcmcn-
tary rcquircmcnts. Thc univcrsality and ambition ol cconomic
matcrialism can bc undcrstood and in a scnsc justicd only il
wc scc in it a mctaphysics ol history, lor, as has bccn pointcd
out abovc, mctaphysical propositions do not rcst on a scicntic,
cmpirical basis; actually, thcy might cvcn cxplain thc cmpiri-
cal world in thcir own way. 8ut to insist on thc rights and
claims ol mctaphysics undcr thc banncr ol cxpcrimcntal scicncc
would bc at thc vcry lcast to succumb to misundcrstanding. !n
this point Marx rcally docs turn Hcgcl upsidc down and in a
much morc radical manncr than whcn hc rcplaccs thc univcr-
sal spirit with thc cconomic basc in thc mctaphysics ol history.
Thc translormation ol cconomic matcrialism into a scicntic,
cmpirical thcory, into a scicncc, incvitably lcd to thc dcgcn-
cration ol its original conccption. Transposcd in this tonc, it
lorlcits thc grand spirit it sharcd with Hcgcl and rcplaccs it
with thc lcss-than-grand spirit ol Jcrcmy 8cntham with his
moral arithmctic, togcthcr with thc mcrcantilc spirit ol clas-
sical political cconomy. !n cconomic matcrialism Hcgcls spirit
strugglcs with thc alicn spirits ol 8cntham and Ricardo; it is
thc lattcr who arc thc victors. 8ut this is what lcads cconomic
matcrialism to philosophical disintcgration, bccausc onc cannot
simultancously cxist in two plancs, trying to intcgratc irrccon-
cilablc charactcristics. conomic matcrialism is vulgarizcd in
8cnthamism and takcs on sharp, angular, and lrcqucntly carica-
tural lorm. !t dcgcncratcs into an cort to cxplain cvcrything by
grccd and pcrccivcs only an cconomic cxplanation lor thc grcat-
cst historical dcvclopmcnts: thc history ol thc Rclormation
turns into thc history ol pig larming and landholding in thc six-
tccnth ccntury, thc history ol carly Christianity into thc history
ol slavcry, latilundia, and thc prolctariat in thc Roman mpirc,
:,c Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
8
o
f
3
5
8
and so on. 8cntham taught that man is guidcd in his actions
solcly by considcrations ol gain and utility, though pcrhaps in
thc broadcst scnsc, and in thcm hc saw thc critcrion ol morality.
Hc was lurthcr convinccd that human motivcs arc subjcct to
prccisc calculation and undcrstood sociology as a moral arith-
mctic. Hcrc utilitarianism, as inspircd as cconomic matcrialism,
sought a univcrsal cxplanation ol all human aairs. Frcc-trading
political cconomy, hcadcd by Ricardo, translatcd thc 8cntham-
itc idca ol intcrcst as thc lundamcntal moving lorcc in human
psychology into its own languagc. Thc ction ol thc cconomic
man, a 8cnthamist in thc sphcrc ol cconomy, appcarcd, and
sincc political cconomy rcgardcd lilc only through thc glasscs ol
its spccializcd scicntic intcrcsts, lorgctting or ignoring cvcry-
thing clsc, thc imprcssion that cconomic man was lor it man in
gcncral, or that man was by naturc mcrcly an cconomic cgoist,
somctimcs rcsultcd.
3
conomic matcrialism as social 8cntham-
ism cxtcndcd this samc idca, without subjccting it to critical
invcstigation, lrom individuals to social groups, and bcgan to
spcak ol class rathcr than individual intcrcst. History, which
appcarcd to 8cntham as a strugglc among individual intcrcsts,
bccamc lor Marx a strugglc among class intcrcsts, and thc idca
ol class strugglc as an cxplanation ol thc historical proccss took
shapc. A mcthodological rulc lollows lrom this dogmatically
acccptcd prcmisc: to scck a basis lor cvcry historical phcnomc-
non in thc class strugglc and in thc cconomic basc and not
to rcst until it is discovcrcd in onc way or anothcr. And thus,
givcn thc clasticity and, not inlrcqucntly, scarcity ol histori-
cal data, onc can practically always scc that ol which onc is
convinccd in advancc: thc historical kitchcn is in this rcspcct
much morc cxiblc than thc natural-scicntic laboratory, and
hcncc wc havc an cntirc scrics ol cconomic cxplanations ol vari-
ous historical phcnomcnalaw, rcligion, scicncc, litcraturc, art.
Thc old ways ol Hcgclian mctaphysics, rcjcctcd aloud, arc alivc
Economic Materialism :,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
7
9
o
f
3
5
8
and wcll cvcn now, and thc prcscncc ol thc quasi-scicntic but
actually mctaphysical a priori ol cconomic matcrialism with its
dialcctical mcthod (that miraclc ol misundcrstanding) intro-
duccs a tcndcntiousncss into scicntic invcstigation lrom which
opcn, conscious mctaphysics and truc, cohcrcnt scicntic cm-
piricism arc cqually lrcc. 8ut, ol coursc, apart lrom cconomic
matcrialism as a monistic mctaphysics ol history with its social
8cnthamism, rcquiring a rcduction ol cvcrything to cconomic
intcrcsts and conducting a pcculiar sort ol policc scarch on his-
tory to nd thcm, thcrc also cxists a truly scicntic oricntation
in historiography that willingly pays particular attcntion to thc
cconomic sidc ol history. This historical cconomism docs not
prctcnd to bc an a priori monistic philosophy ol history. !t is
intcrcstcd in thc cconomic sidc ol history simply lrom motivcs
ol historical rcalism, givcn cconomys indisputablc living im-
portancc, but it bcars no rclation to mcthodological monism,
to thc strctching ol history at all costs into thc Procrustcan
bcd ol cconomic intcrcsts. !nstcad, it is casily rcconcilablc, or
ought to bc, with cmpirical pluralism, with thc acknowlcdg-
mcnt ol thc multiplicity ol historical rcasons or lactors and thcir
multilacctcd intcrrclation. Thc cconomic oricntation in history,
though oltcn conluscd with cconomic matcrialism, is actually
quitc dicrcnt lrom it, lor it rcmains cntircly within thc rcalm
ol historical pragmatism and docs not claim to bc a philoso-
phy ol history ol any kind. Prcciscly this oricntation, by dint
ol its scicntic lack ol prcjudicc, rcsults in valuablc scicntic
invcstigations, uncovcring thc rcal mcaning ol cconomy in his-
torical dcvclopmcnt and lacilitating thc advancc ol cconomic
history.
Thus cconomic matcrialism is a mctaphysics ol history that,
not rcalizing its truc naturc, considcrs itscll a scicncc but ncvcr
actually bccomcs onc or thc othcr. This duality contains thc kcy
to thc contradiction that corrodcs it. 8ut in this scnsc its latc
:,: Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
0
o
f
3
5
8
is instructivc lor any thcory ol thc historical proccss. !nsolar
as it is rcally scicntic, that is, cmpirical, it rcccts thc statc ol
knowlcdgc in a givcn pcriod and docs not havc thc authority
to claim morc gcncral knowlcdgc. vcry gcncral proposition
clcarly lcads bcyond thc boundarics ol thc strictly cmpirical
and must bc includcd with prcmiscs ol a morc gcncral naturc
that arc cstablishcd by philosophy. !n othcr words, any gcncral
thcory ol historical philosophy is alrcady a mctaphysics ol his-
torywhcthcr advanccd by Hcgcl or Comtc, Marx or Hcrdcr,
8ossuct or Lassallc. Vc should look at this with our cycs opcn.
4
!!. Tnv Cox:v~bic:ioxs ov coxo:ic M~:vvi~iis:
Thc basic idca ol cconomic matcrialism is that cconomy has
thc dcning rolc in history and in lilc, or that all ol culturc
is ol an cconomic naturc and bcars thc imprint ol cconomy.
!t apprchcnds thc world as a houschold. This idca is prolound
and mcaninglul in its csscncc, il lrccd lrom caricaturc and dis-
tortion; it is thcrclorc amcnablc to lurthcr dcvclopmcnt and
claboration. conomic matcrialism cxprcsscs bcings scnsc ol
unlrccdom and imprisonmcnt by thc clcmcnts in thc lcttcrs ol
cconomic ncccssity; it rcccts thc tragcdy ol mortal lilc, con-
dcmncd to a pcrpctual strugglc with dcath. Pcssimisms pccu-
liar and scvcrc honcsty, lcarlcss ol thc bittcr truth, is inhcrcnt
in cconomic matcrialism, although ncithcr its crcators nor thcir
lattcr-day lollowcrs arc conscious ol all thc pcssimism ol thcir
doctrinc (actually, thc sourcc ol thcir optimistic mood is lcss thc
truths ol cconomic matcrialism than thcir bclicl in its transccn-
sion in history by mcans ol a lcap lrom ncccssity to lrccdom,
that is, in that socialist cschatology that is only mcchanically
conncctcd with this doctrinc). conomy, thc dclcnsc and cx-
pansion ol lilc through labor, thc crcation ol lilc through labor,
is thc lot common to humanity; an cconomic rclation to thc
Economic Materialism :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
1
o
f
3
5
8
world is its primordial and most gcncral scll-dcnition. Man
docs not crcatc anything ancw that did not alrcady cxist in
naturc in hiddcn or potcntial lorm, but hc brings lilcs lorccs to
thc lorc, rcalizing its possibilitics through labor. Labor, dircctcd
both toward thc cxtcrnal world and toward man himscll, cx-
pcndcd on thc production both ol matcrial goods and spiritual
valucs, crcatcs somcthing that, in countcrposition to naturc,
thc primordially givcn, bcars thc namc ol culturc. Culturc is
hcwn lrom naturc only by mans labor; in this scnsc wc can say
togcthcr with cconomic matcrialism that all culturc is ccon-
omy. conomic labor, or mankinds cultural crcativity, is gcn-
cratcd and maintaincd by lilcs nccd lor scll-dclcnsc and scll-
cxpansion. Naturally, it dcvclops through various stagcs, and at
any givcn stagc ol dcvclopmcnt a gcncral social cohcrcncc or
social organization is charactcristic, as cconomic matcrialism
so aptly points out. To dctcrminc thc gcncral bascs ol thc cco-
nomic proccss is thc task ol thc philosophy ol cconomy with its
pcculiar problcms; to cstablish thc cohcrcncc and mutual dc-
pcndcncc ol various manilcstations ol cconomic labor or, what
is thc samc, ol dicrcnt aspccts ol culturc, is thc task ol cmpiri-
cal scicncc, ol concrctc history. !t is impossiblc hcrc to advancc
an a priori thcory, cxccpt as an cmpty banality, lor thc samc
rcason that history in gcncral cannot bc apprchcndcd a priori.
A wholc scrics ol conscqucnccs lollows lrom thc ncccssity and
univcrsality ol an cconomic rclation to thc world, whilc at thc
samc timc it also has a wholc scrics ol prcmiscs; both arc uncov-
crcd by thc philosophy ol cconomy. Having stumblcd on such
an important topic, howcvcr, cconomic matcrialism strays lrom
thc propcr path and passcs to a dicrcnt ordcr ol thought. !ts
blundcr is that, instcad ol placing thc problcm ol cconomy with
all its prcmiscs at thc ccntcr ol attcntion and providing an in-
dcpcndcnt philosophical analysis, cconomic matcrialism takcs
thc conccpt ol cconomy rcady-madc lrom a spccializcd scicncc,
:,, Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
2
o
f
3
5
8
namcly, political cconomy. Marx thc political cconomist hcrc
paralyzcs Marx thc philosophcr, somcthing that applics cvcn
morc to his lollowcrs. Thc contingcnt, scicntic, pragmatic
conccpt ol cconomy, ol cconomic labor and thc lorccs ol pro-
duction, that political cconomy uscs might bc good cnough lor
spccializcd purposcs, but it has mcaning only in thosc narrow
limits, lor a particular purposc, and not il wc wish to addrcss thc
problcm in its lull philosophical brcadth. !l philosophy is intcr-
cstcd in thc intcrconncctions ol phcnomcna with thc wholc,
spccializcd scicncc, which bcars thc mark ol scicntic prag-
matism, intcntionally locuscs on onc sidc ol things. Political
cconomy is satiscd with a dcnition ol labor likc thosc ol, lor
cxamplc, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Rodbcrtus, or Marx (comparc
chaptcr 8). Hcrc, cconomic labor is labor dircctcd toward thc
production ol only matcrial goods or cxchangc valucs (which
is why thc philosophy ol cconomy is without lurthcr rccc-
tion callcd cconomic materialism, although in rcality it is not at
all ncccssarily matcrialism, sincc cconomy itscll is a proccss as
much spiritual as matcrial). Political cconomy docsnt havc to
posc thc gcncral qucstion ol how labor is possiblc (just as cvcry
spccializcd scicncc docs not ask how cognition gcncrally is pos-
siblc), or what thc rclation ol man to naturc is and what gcn-
cral possibilitics cxist. Political cconomy rcmains distant lrom
philosophical anthropology and cvcn lurthcr rcmovcd lrom any
natural philosophy: naturc is rcgardcd without lurthcr discus-
sion as a workshop or storagc spacc lor raw matcrials, that is,
mcrcly as thc possibility ol cconomic labor. !t considcrs this
labor to bc thc main, pcrhaps cvcn thc only, lactor ol produc-
tion with signicancc lrom thc standpoint ol human cconomy:
hcncc thc Smithian dcnition ol wcalth as a ycars labor, hcncc
thc cxtraordinary tcnacity ol a priori labor thcorics ol valuc,
labor, capital, prot. Political cconomy hcrc rcasons as contin-
gcntly and pragmatically as thc agriculturalist who connccts
Economic Materialism :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
3
o
f
3
5
8
his harvcst only with his having sown thc grain, although it
is obvious how insucicnt this pcrccption is to undcrstanding
thc cntirc proccss ol thc grains growth.
conomic matcrialism looks at cconomy in a political-
cconomic scnsc and is thus rcally condcmncd to impcnctrablc
matcrialism. !ts task in this casc incvitably bccomcs not thc
invcstigation ol thc cconomic sidc ol lilc as a problcm ol thc
philosophy ol cconomy but thc strctching ol thc cvidcncc per
fas et nefas to show thc dcpcndcncc ol all lilc and all culturc
on cconomy in thc political-cconomic scnsc; cconomic scicncc
hcrc acquircs thc samc signicancc lor thc philosophy ol history
as logic lor Hcgcls philosophy that ol ontology.
5
Thc conccpt
ol modcs ol production rcplacing cach othcr at a givcn stagc ol
thc dcvclopmcnt ol productivc lorccs with dialcctical incvi-
tability was apparcntly workcd out in thc workshop ol political
cconomy lor its own purposcs, but now it has bccomc ncccs-
sary to attach humanitys cntirc spiritual history to it, cutting
history up into bits corrcsponding to thcsc political-cconomic
schcmas. 8ut ol coursc political cconomy docs not rcally havc
thc wcight ol historical ontology; it is mcrcly a spccializcd sci-
cncc likc any othcr, and this cort to translorm it into ontology
incvitably lcads to a scrics ol cxaggcrations, distortions, viola-
tions ol lact.
This illcgitimatc usc ol thc conccpts ol political cconomy as
cxhaustivc catcgorics ol thc philosophy ol cconomy complctcly
obscurcs thc logical horizons ol cconomic matcrialism. !t rc-
mains logically bound by thcm and sccs bclorc it rcady-madc
and cxhaustivc catcgorics whcrc thcrc should bc only qucstions.
!t is thus consigncd to logical immaturity and rcmains un-
workcd out and unnishcd (unfertig und nicht ausgedacht), as
Stammlcr alrcady charactcrizcd it.
6
8ut hc had in mind only
thc impcrlcction ol its critical lorm, its cpistcmological sidc,
whcrcas our judgmcnt also rclcrs to its substancc. Thc applica-
:,o Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
4
o
f
3
5
8
tion ol impropcr mcans, namcly, spccializcd scicntic conccpts,
to thc rcsolution ol problcms ol thc philosophy ol cconomy
has lcd cconomic matcrialism to pass ovcr thc rcal qucstions
without cvcn noticing thcm; instcad, it has crcatcd lor itscll
an cntirc scrics ol invcntcd, poorly lormulatcd, and hopclcssly
irrcsolvablc problcms, as it strivcs to rcprcscnt thc world as it
is whilc looking at it through colorcd glasscs. Such is thc ori-
gin ol various corts at an cconomic intcrprctation ol history.
conomic matcrialism is in this scnsc nothing othcr than a
philosophical dclusion ol grandcur on thc part ol a political
cconomy clcvating itscll to thc rank ol historical ontology. And
hcrc Hcgcl rcally has bccn stood on his hcad: lor him it was
logic that had such ontological signicancc, not as a spccializcd
scicncc as wc know it today, but as a thcory ol thc gcncral lorms
ol consciousness and being, lor Marx political cconomy mcrcly as
spccializcd scicncc has acquircd this samc signicancc.
conomic matcrialism wishcs to bc a philosophy ol history,
a matcrialistic intcrprctation ol history (materialistische Ge-
schichtsauassung), whcrcas by its logical structurc it is a socio-
logical rathcr than a historical doctrinc. !t strivcs, according to
Marxs idca, to translorm social scicncc, including history, into
natural scicncc, that is, to cstablish unilorm, immutablc laws
ol social lilc, according to which all that happcns in history
could bc dctcrmincd in advancc. Thcsc laws must bc cqually
applicablc to diagnosis and to prognosis; having comc upon thc
law ol dcvclopmcnt ol socicty, wc can scicntically prcdctcr-
minc its luturc; hcncc a dcvclopcd nation shows thc way ol
luturc dcvclopmcnt ol a backward nation. 8y natural scicncc
! ol coursc mcan a pcrccption ol cvcnts lrom thc standpoint
ol thcir similarity or typicality, and not lrom thc standpoint ol
thcir individuality and uniqucncss, which would stamp thcm
with thc brand ol historicism. 8ut historical and sociologi-
cal notions arc mutually cxclusivc and rcpcllcnt to cach othcr.
Economic Materialism :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
5
o
f
3
5
8
Vc can illuminatc particular aspccts ol history by sociological
mcans, approach an undcrstanding ol history through what rc-
pcats itscll or is typical, but to apprchcnd concrctc history wc
must ncccssarily dcsccnd to thc dcpths ol thc individual, his-
torical, and uniquc. 8ut thcn wc must cithcr complctcly rcjcct
or at lcast signicantly modily thc idca ol natural-scicntic
lawsthc logical pathos ol cconomic matcrialism, which con-
stantly wavcrs bctwccn an undcrstanding ol sociology as his-
tory and ol history as sociology. This is most clcarly cvidcnt
in thc tasks that it scts itscll: somctimcs it trics to intcrprct
thc most concrctc historical phcnomcna matcrialisticallynot,
lor cxamplc, Christian rcligion or thc mcdicval knighthood in
gcncral, but Shakcspcarcs or Pushkins poctry in particular; on
othcr occasions cconomic matcrialisms cxponcnts thcmsclvcs
objcct to such imbccilitics, and a pscudosociological, pscudo-
mctaphysical let.te Instan., in which thc cconomic lactor is
shyly hiding, comcs to thc lorc. conomic matcrialism, which
was originally a philosophy ol historya purcly mctaphysi-
cal thcory ol univcrsal historical rcgularityrctains this logi-
cal pcculiarity cvcn as it is translormcd into a scicntic doc-
trinc, but it rcplaccs mctaphysical with sociological, that is,
oncc again mctahistorical, rcgularity. nc way or anothcr, al-
though it rcally docsnt undcrstand truc, concrctc history, it
always sccks to cxplain it and to makc scicntic prcdictions.
This is why, ovcr timc, so many conlusions and contradictions
about cconomic matcrialism havc accumulatcd that wc arc prc-
vcntcd lrom dctcrmining its truc logical lacc: it is a chamc-
lcon, constantly changing its logical coloration dcpcnding on
circumstanccs.
conomic matcrialisms sociologismnowhcrc manilcsts itscll
so clcarly as whcn it ascribcs to itscll thc capacity lor scicntic
prcdiction, which constitutcs its ccntral cschatological ncrvc;
this is what makcs it into a historical philosophy ol social-
:,8 Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
6
o
f
3
5
8
ism. To what docs this prognosis apply, and how lar docs its
compctcncc cxtcnd. !s it mcrcly thc cxprcssion ol sociological
trcnds cstablishcd rst ol all ceteris paribus, assuming that ccr-
tain basic dcvclopmcnts rcmain constant (which is ncvcr truc in
history), and sccond, having rclcvancc only lor a givcn, clcarly
dcmarcatcd sphcrc ol social rclations within a givcn social col-
lcctivity, which is how statistics opcratcs. r arc wc rcally
talking about humanitys luturc life, that is, about luturc his-
tory, as is ccrtainly thc casc in socialism, which scicntically
prcdicts hcavcn on carth and thus inspircs and ignitcs cnthusi-
asm in mcns hcarts. Ncithcr onc, nor thc othcr, or onc and thc
othcr. Capitals tcndcncy to conccntration, which opcratcs only
within a particular social collcctivity and loscs all scnsc out-
sidc it, docs not providc adcquatc matcrial lrom which to carvc,
scicntically, an carthly paradisc; nor can wc scicntically
makc any conclusions conccrning thc lcap into thc kingdom ol
lrccdom and advcnt ol thc socialist clysium. Thcsc things arc
apparcntly possiblc only outsidc scicncc, although thc socio-
logical loundation makcs thcm look scicntic, giving thcm thc
air ol statistics or othcr largc-scalc prcdictions. Truly scicntic
clcmcnts arc hcrc dissolvcd in utopian oncs, but thc utopian arc
hiddcn bchind a mask ol scicntism; complctc conlusion rcsults.
Thcrc is anothcr rclatcd contradiction that corrodcs cco-
nomic matcrialism: on onc hand, it is radical sociological dc-
tcrminism, which rcgards cvcrything through thc prism ol an
incxorablc iron ncccssity; on thc othcr, it is no lcss radical prag-
matism, a philosophy ol action, which cannot but bc to a ccrtain
dcgrcc undctcrministic, lor which thc world is plastic and
nothing is complctcly prcdctcrmincd, incxorablc, incvitablc.
conomic matcrialism rcmains hclplcss bclorc thc antinomy ol
lrccdom and ncccssity that it carrics in itscll: likc Faust, it has
two souls striving in oppositc dircctions. This complication has
long bccn notcd in thc litcraturc.
7
As consistcnt sociologism,
Economic Materialism :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
7
o
f
3
5
8
cconomic matcrialism cntircly ignorcs thc individual, cquating
it with a zcro quantity, a quantite negligeable. !ndividuals arc
sccn not cvcn as Condillacs statucs but as wind-up dolls jcrkcd
around on thc string ol cconomic intcrcsts. Clcarly, this con-
ccption lcavcs room ncithcr lor lrccdom, nor crcativity, nor any
human pragmatism, and mcchanism rcigns ovcr cvcrything.
8ut at thc samc timc, cconomic matcrialism itscll was born ol
pragmatism; it is mcrcly a mcans ol oricntation with thc aim
ol social action. And this action, wc arc lurthcr told, will brcak
thc lorcc ol mcchanism and compcl it to submit to its tclcology.
8ut whcrc is this lrccdom and what is it. Vhcrc should wc put
it, whcrc is thcrc room lor it in this dcscrt ol all-powcrlul nc-
ccssity. For thc victory ol lrccdom ovcr ncccssity prcsupposcs as
a condition thc cxistcncc ol thcsc antinomics and thcir strugglc
and conscqucntly thc simultancous cxistcncc and compatibility,
to a dcgrcc, ol lrccdom and ncccssity; but in cconomic matcri-
alism thcrc is no room whatsocvcr lor lrccdom. Man, as hc is
hcrc portraycd, turns out to bc belo. thc antinomy ol lrccdom
and ncccssity, hc is an objcct ol ncccssity likc a rock, likc any
physical objcct, and thcrclorc thc possibility ol a strugglc with
ncccssity and victory ovcr it bccomcs cntircly incomprchcnsiblc.
This contradiction stands cxposcd in cconomic matcrialism
and, as ! notcd carlicr, contradictory vcrsions altcrnatc or cvcn
unitc dircctly in it. According to onc ol thcm, thc whccl ol his-
tory can bc ncithcr stoppcd nor turncd back, or childbirth, oncc
bcgun, cannot bc rcvcrscd; according to anothcr, it is possiblc
to soltcn thc pains ol childbirth (but to what dcgrcc.) and cvcn
to conqucr ncccssity by rccognizing it. Frccdom is thc rcc-
ognition ol ncccssity, cconomic matcrialism trustingly rcpcats
altcr Hcgcl, without noticing how lorcign and trcachcrous this
apparcnt ally is. 8ut cognition itscll is also action, committcd
with thc participation ol thc will; a lrcc act lics at thc lounda-
tion ol cognition. Cognition is thc idcal transccndcncc ol blind
:8c Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
8
o
f
3
5
8
ncccssity, and it is lollowcd by a rcal transccndcncc. Thus thc
lormula ol lrccdom as rccognizcd ncccssity is thoroughly prag-
matic; it makcs a brcach in thc stronghold ol dctcrminism so
that dclcnsc bccomcs impossiblc and it must capitulatc. Thc
indcnitcncss ol cconomic matcrialisms cthical thcory can also
bc cxplaincd by this wcakncss on thc issuc ol ncccssity. n onc
hand, cconomic matcrialism knows nothing ol cthics, both bc-
causc it dcnics thc authcnticity or at lcast thc indcpcndcncc ol
all that is not cconomic and bccausc cthics cannot bc unitcd
with consistcnt dctcrminism, and any cort at such a union is
scll-contradictory. thics and lrccdom, that is, indctcrminism,
which dcsignatc a spacc lor a dccision-making will, that is, lor
lrccdom ol will, arc incxtricably conncctcd to cach othcr. n
thc othcr hand, it is an irrclutablc lact that, in rcality, cco-
nomic matcrialism in its socialist intcrprctation is thoroughly
cthical, and this includcs Marxs own trcmcndous cthical tcm-
pcramcnt. Socialism, at lcast in onc ol its aspccts, is cntircly
an cthics ol cconomy, a thcory ol cconomic impcrativcs that
ol coursc turns to human will, that is, to lrccdom. conomic
matcrialism barcly trics to cscapc lrom thcsc contradictions and
unitcs in practicc what is philosophically irrcconcilablc. Thc
most vulncrablc spot in this cld, howcvcr, is not thc cthics
but thc cpistcmology ol cconomic matcrialism. Although this
last docsnt dcal with cpistcmology and cvcn cxplicitly rcjccts
it (alrcady in ngclss nti-Duhring and yct morc in thc rcccnt
litcraturc), cpistcmology docs not pcrmit ol such casy dismissal
and holds on with its tcnacious claws, dcmanding critical scll-
accountability. conomic matcrialism rcquircs no morc, no
lcss, than an cxplanation ol thc possibility ol its own cxistcncc.
How is such scll-rccction possiblc, such scll-consciousncss or
scll-rcvclation ol naturc as wc havc in cconomic matcrialism,
il thc world is only a mcchanism and man is complctcly sub-
jcct to cconomic laws, and cvcrything hc docs or thinks, cvcn
Economic Materialism :8z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
8
9
o
f
3
5
8
il it sccms to him to havc indcpcndcnt cxistcncc or mcaning,
is in thc last count mcrcly a supcrstructurc or idcology, and
conscqucntly actually a sort ol scll-dcccption or illusion. How
can clay know what thc pottcr is doing with it, or a machinc bc
conscious ol its own mcchanism. ocs not this alrcady mcan
to risc abovc this mcchanism, that is, to stop bcing mcrcly
a machinc. !n this casc thc thcory that proclaims thc prin-
ciplc ol univcrsal machincncss is apparcntly incorrcct, lor it
itscll is alrcady abovc machincncss and conscqucntly makcs a
brcach in univcrsal machincncss. Apparcntly, a similar cloud ol
doubt gathcrcd lor thc crcators ol cconomic matcrialism, too,
and thcn thcy sought to dispcnsc with it, thinking up cxplana-
tions lor cconomic matcrialisms scll-consciousncss: according
to thcir thcory, pcoplcs cycs opcn to univcrsal cconomic dcpcn-
dcncc at a particular stagc ol cconomic dcvclopmcnt, namcly,
that ol commodity capitalist production, thus doing away with
thc idcological intcrprctation ol history. Maybc so, but in rca-
soning in this way wc placc cconomic matcrialism no highcr
than all othcr rcjcctcd and dcspiscd idcologics: likc thcm, it
is cqually ncccssary lor its timc and rcprcscnts thc idcological
rccx ol a particular cconomic lormation. And that is all. 8ut
its truth or untruth is not at all cstablishcd by this, lor cvcry-
thing is cqually ncccssary in its own placc and in its own timc,
idcalism as wcll as matcrialism, and thcy arc indistinguishablc
with rcspcct to thcir truth or lalschood lrom thc standpoint ol
cntircly consistcnt dctcrminism. Vc could, ol coursc, go lur-
thcr and cxaminc thc thcory ol dctcrminism, too, as a product
ol ncccssity, as a historical rccxand so on ad innitum. Vc
bccomc mircd hcrc in thc bog ol skcpticism, whcncc wc cxtract
rst onc, thcn thc othcr lcg in turn, yct can ncvcr withdraw
both simultancously, can ncvcr arm thc truthlulncss ol this
thcory nor rcjcct it cntircly. !n any casc onc thing is clcar: cco-
:8: Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
0
o
f
3
5
8
nomic matcrialism as a thcory laying claim to scicntic truth
is incxplicablc within thc boundarics ol cconomic matcrialism
itscll; it is incapablc ol thcorctically dcmonstrating its own pos-
sibility, not to spcak ol its ncccssity, and powcrlcssly capitu-
latcs to skcpticism. !l it docs not do this, thcn this is bccausc,
apart lrom thc cconomic basc, it is in lact bascd on thc bclicl
in human gcniusnot, ol coursc, ol all pcoplc, but ol ccrtain
pcoplc who havc bccn dctcrmincd and canonizcd by thc social-
ist church. Karl Marx, as a scicntic rcscarchcr, is placcd by thc
cconomic matcrialists outsidc thc sphcrc ol inucncc ol cco-
nomic matcrialism and, actually, hc docs thc samc himscll. !t
thus bccomcs translormcd lrom thc scicntic thcory it wishcs
to bc into a rcvclation, whosc organs arc thc choscn prophcts.
Abovc, ! dcscribcd cconomic matcrialism as thc most arrogant
rationalism combincd with an irrational mctaphysics. Now wc
must supplcmcnt this dcscription with thc trait wc havc just
cstablishcd: this rationalism is bascd not on rcason spillcd into
thc worldlor thc world as a mcchanism is not rationalbut
solcly on thc gcnius ol a particular individual or individuals,
prophctic soothsaycrs amidst this uttcr darkncss. This thcory
uncxpcctcdly cnds as it bcgan, with a radical hcro cult that
actually cndows individuals with divinc attributcs and thc ca-
pacity lor highcr, supcrnatural knowlcdgc, and this dcspitc its
cort to cxilc thc individual and conccntratc its attcntion only
on thc masscs and thcir movcmcnts. Belief in authoritythis is
thc cpistcmology and thc logical loundation ol cconomic ma-
tcrialism. This is how thc logical structurc ol cconomic matcri-
alism looks on closcr cxamination. bviously wc cannot dwcll
on it lor long givcn a ccrtain philosophical sophistication, lor it
is burdcncd with contradictions that nccd to bc ovcrcomc oncc
thcy arc acknowlcdgcd, and it is rilc with conlusions that nccd
to bc clcarcd up. Vc might cvcn say that cconomic matcrial-
Economic Materialism :8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
1
o
f
3
5
8
ism docs not cxist, and has ncvcr cxistcd, as a philosophical
systcm. Yct this docs not diminish its signicancc in thc his-
tory ol idcas. As wc havc sccn, it is a rst stab at a philosophy
ol cconomy; it brings to thc surlacc a ncw and, ! bclicvc, orc-
rich vcin. !t cxprcsscs a vivid thought, poscs a novcl problcm,
and stimulatcs a ncw philosophical cxcitcmcnt. Marxs rolc is
somcthing likc Malthuss was in rclation to thc issuc ol popu-
lation. \irtually nothing rcmains ol Malthuss thcory, yct thc
problcm ol population is ctcrnally linkcd to his namc bccausc
hc brought it to public attcntion; thc samc is truc lor thc prob-
lcm ol thc philosophy ol cconomy, which was rst poscd in
cconomic matcrialism and that will naturally outlivc it.
8cyond this philosophical valuc, though, cconomic matcri-
alism also cxprcsscs a particular lilc truthpractical and moral
rathcr than thcorctical. !t might not always bc noticcablc to
abstract thcorizing, or acccssiblc to its haughty impcrious-
ncss, which cconomic matcrialism in its own languagc taunts
as bourgcois. Undcr thc guisc ol cold rational and thcorctical
rigidity it conccals mans sorrow about himscll, thc pain ol thc
king ol naturc imprisoncd by thc clcmcnts ol this samc indil-
lcrcnt and cvcn hostilc naturc. Thc cconomic tragcdy ol human
lilc has lound cxprcssion in this sorrowlul thcory, and its pcs-
simism contains prolound sinccrity and truthlulncss. A cursc
glooms ovcr man, says cconomic matcrialism, lor what il not
a cursc is this unlrccdom ol rcasonablc bcing in thc hands ol
dcathly, mindlcss, alicn naturc, this ctcrnal dangcr ol hungcr,
povcrty, and dcath. Thc cursc ol dcpcndcncc on naturc gcn-
cratcs anothcr, morc cvil curscthc cconomic slavcry ol man
to man, thc ctcrnal strugglc among pcoplc bccausc ol wcalth.
This is thc pain wc glimpsc in cconomic matcrialism, and this
is thc truth rcvcalcd in its scicntic hicroglyphics. This is thc
truth cxprcsscd in thc vcry rst pagcs ol thc book ol thc gcncsis
:8, Economic Materialism
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
2
o
f
3
5
8
ol thc human racc, as thc word ol Gods wrath and Gods judg-
mcnt on sinlul man and all crcation: Curscd is thc ground lor
thy sakc; in sorrow shalt thou cat ol it all thc days ol thy lilc;
thorns also and thistlcs shall it bring lorth to thcc. . . . !n thc
swcat ol thy lacc shalt thou cat brcad, till thou rcturn unto thc
ground; lor out ol it wast thou takcn (Gcn. :.y.).
Economic Materialism :8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
3
o
f
3
5
8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
4
o
f
3
5
8
No:vs
!ntroduction
.. For a bricl synthctic skctch ol thc Silvcr Agc, scc Gcorgcs Florovsky, Puti
russkogo bogoslo.iia (Paris, .y) |!ays of Fussian theology, trans. Robcrt
Nichols (8clmont, Mass., .y)|, ch. 8; parts ol Marc Rac, nticc-
mcnts and Rilts: Gcorgcs Florovsky as Russian !ntcllcctual Historian, in
Georges Floro.sky: Fussian IntellectualOrthodox Churchman, cd. Andrcw
8lanc (Crcstwood, N.Y., .); and thc introduction (Thc Silvcr Agc as
History) to Cathcrinc vtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgako.
and the Fate of Fussian Feligious Philosophy (!thaca, .y). n artistic
currcnts in particular, Camilla Gray, The Fussian Experiment in rt,
z8oz,:: (London, .6:), still makcs lor cxccllcnt rcading.
:. Rcccnt studics ol thcsc gurcs includc Philip Swoboda, Thc Philo-
sophical Thought ol S. L. Frank, .c:..: A Study ol thc Mctaphysical
!mpulsc in arly Twcnticth-Ccntury Russia (Ph.. diss., Columbia
Univcrsity, .:); 8rian Horowitz, M. . Gcrshcnzon and thc !ntcllcc-
tual Lilc ol Russias Silvcr Agc (Ph.. diss., Univcrsity ol Calilornia,
8crkclcy, .); and Randall Poolc, Thc Moscow Psychological Socicty,
.88.::: Nco-!dcalism and thc Scarch lor Philosophic Consciousncss
in Russias Silvcr Agc (Ph.. diss., Univcrsity ol Notrc amc, .).
Somc important rcccnt translations arc Scmn Frank, Mans Soul, trans.
8oris Jakim (Athcns, hio, .); Pavcl Florcnsky, The Pillar and Ground
of the Truth, trans. 8oris Jakim (Princcton, .y); Marshall Shatz and
Judith Zimmcrman, cds., !ekhi - Landmarks: Collection of rticles bout
the Fussian Intelligentsia (Armonk, N.Y., .); and Problems of Idealism
(lorthcoming in Russian Litcraturc and Thought). For lurthcr biblio-
graphical matcrial on Russian rcligious philosophy, scc Judith Kornblatt
and Richard Gustalson, cds., Fussian Feligious Thought (Madison, .6).
. No monograph has yct bccn publishcd in nglish on 8ulgakovs Pari-
sian pcriod, though Lcv Zandcr, Bog i mir |God and thc world| (Paris,
.8)a two-volumc work by 8ulgakovs disciplclocuscs on thcsc
ycars. 8ulgakovs thcology and its rclation to modcrn civilization havc
:8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
5
o
f
3
5
8
bccn addrcsscd in Paul \allirc, Bulgako. (unpublishcd manuscript),
and \allirc, Sophiology as thc ialoguc ol rthodoxy with Modcrn
Civilization, in Kornblatt and Gustalson, Fussian Feligious Thought.
. H. Stuart Hughcs, Consciousness and Society: The Feorientation of European
Social Thought, z8,cz,c (Ncw York, .yy).
. Scrgci 8ulgakov, Philosophy of Economy, p. .., this cdition.
6. Thc notion ol Sophia had bccn introduccd into thc cultural consciousncss
ol thc Silvcr Agc with particular lorcc by thc poctry and philosophy ol
\ladimir Solovicv, lor whom Sophia was a major thcmc. !n thc Lectures on
Godmanhood, Solovicv conccivcd ol Christ as having a malc and a lcmalc
componcntthc Logos and Sophia. A collcction ol Solovicvs writings
was publishcd in nglish by Scmn Frank ( Solo.ie. nthology |Ncw
York, .c|).
y. Scrgci 8ulgakov, Osno.nye moti.y losoi kho.iaist.a . platoni.me i
rannem khristianst.e (Moscow, ..6), p. ..
8. For morc on thc sophic cconomy, and on 8ulgakovs intcllcctual cvo-
lution in thc contcxt ol thc Silvcr Agc in gcncral, scc vtuhov, Cross and
Sickle, cspccially chs. 8.
. Hcnri 8crgson, Creati.e E.olution, trans. Arthur Mitchcll (Ncw York,
.), p. :.c.
.c. Hughcs, Consciousness and Society, p. .6.
... This, again, is Hughcss cxprcssion. !bid., p. :.
.:. 8ulgakov, Philosophy of Economy, p. .
.. !bid.
.. !bid., p. .
.. !bid., p. .
.6. !bid., p. .
.y. !bid., p. .
.8. Quotcd in !saiah 8crlin, Fussian Thinkers (Harmondsworth, .y8), p. .:.
.. !. \. Kirccvsky, ncobkhodimosti i vozmozhnosti novykh nachal dlia
losoi |n thc ncccssity and possibility ol ncw principlcs in philoso-
phy|, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii |Collcctcd works| (Moscow, .86.),
.::8:.
:c. For a discussion ol Schcllings importancc in thc ninctccnth ccntury, scc
thc introduction to N. \. Riasanovsky, Fussia and the !est in the Teachings
of the Sla.ophiles (Cambridgc, Mass., .:); scc also \scvolod Sctchkarcv,
Schellings Einu in der russischen Literatur der :cer und cer Jahre des XIX
Jahrhunderts (8crlin, .).
:.. For a contcmporary vcrsion ol this argumcnt, scc \. \. Kolcsovs intro-
:88 Notes to Pages ,:
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
6
o
f
3
5
8
duction, omostroi bcz domostrocvshchiny, to thc sixtccnth-ccntury
manual lor thc conduct ol daily lilc, Domostroi (Moscow, .c).
::. Scc N. \. Riasanovsky, Khomiakov on Sobornost, in Continuity and
Change in Fussian and So.iet Thought, cd. rncst J. Simmons (Cam-
bridgc, Mass., .), pp. .86.
:. 8ulgakov, Philosophy of Economy, p. .c.
:. A. S. Khomiakov, !van \asilcvich Kirccvsky, in Polnoe sobranie sochi-
nenii |Collcctcd works| (Moscow, .cc..), 8 vols., ::c.
:. For lurthcr discussion, scc Riasanovsky, Khomiakov.
:6. Konstantin Aksakov, 8ricl Skctch ol thc Zcmskic Sobory, in Sochi-
neniia istoricheskie (Moscow, .86.), pp. :.:.
:y. 8crnicc Roscnthal has writtcn about thc importancc ol labor in 8ul-
gakovs thought (!n Scarch ol an rthodox Vork thic, in Bet.een
Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late
Imperial Fussia, cd. dith Clowcs, Samucl Kassow, and Jamcs Vcst
|Princcton, ..|, pp. yy)though ! would arguc that 8ulgakov was
articulating an cxisting attitudc in rthodoxy, rathcr than scarching.
:8. To citc but onc cxamplc, 8ulgakov spcaks ol a union ol thc logical and
a-logical as indivisiblc yct discrctc (nera.delno i nesliianno)thc
dcscription ol thc union ol divinc and human naturcs in thc hypostasis ol
thc Son. 8ulgakov, Philosophy of Economy, p. ...
:. Scc !rina Papcrno, Chernyshe.sky and the ge of Fealism: Study in the
Semiotics of Beha.ior (Stanlord, .88). n thc Silvcr Agc inhcritancc
lrom populism, scc Papcrno and Joan Grossman, cds., Creating Life: The
esthetic Utopic of Fussian Modernism (Stanlord, .88).
c. This occurrcd most notably in thc philosophy ol \ladimir Solovicv and
N. F. Fcdorov. Scc Andrzcj Valicki, History of Fussian Thought (Stan-
lord, .y), ch. .y; !rcnc Masing-clic, bolishing Death: Sal.ation
Myth of Fussian T.entieth-Century Literature (Stanlord, .:).
Prclacc
.. Scc gcncrally Scrgci 8ulgakov, Ot marksi.ma k ideali.mu |From Marxism
to idcalism| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c), and thc introduction to 8ulgakov,
Kratkii ocherk politicheskoi ekonomii |A bricl outlinc ol political cconomy|
(Moscow, .c6). Scc also 8ulgakov, D.a grada |Two citics| (Mos-
cow, ...), and 8ulgakov, Priroda v losoi \l. Solovcva |Naturc in
\ladimir Solovicvs philosophy|, in O !ladimire Solo.e.e |n \ladimir
Solovicv| (Moscow, ...).
Notes to Pages :, :8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
7
o
f
3
5
8
:. Hcrc ! am applying \ladimir Solovicvs wcll-known cxprcssion to Chris-
tian ontology.
cn~v:vv .
Thc Problcm ol thc Philosophy ol conomy
.. This is bccausc it isnt rcally possiblc to considcr thc cclcctic, philosophi-
cally unprinciplcd hodgcpodgc ol cthics (rcccntly, Kantian) and cconomic
matcrialism that wc scc in thc historical-cthical currcnt in political ccon-
omy to bc any bcttcr than cconomic matcrialism itscll. isrcgarding
all prcvcntivc mcasurcs on thc part ol cthics, thc rcprcscntativcs ol this
school, with thcir vcilcd cconomic matcrialism (thc school ol Schmollcr,
8rcntano, 8chcr, and all thc major contcmporary Gcrman cconomists)
in lact lacilitatcd thc sprcad ol cconomism morc than thc most militant
Marxists, lor in rcality it was thcy who applicd thc principlcs that thc
Marxists mcrcly prcachcd.
:. This qucstion was poscd with particular lorcc in Rickcrts tclcological
criticism, as wcll as in Lask. Scc mil Lask, Fichtes Idealismus und die
Geschichte |Fichtcs idcalism and history| (Tbingcn, .c:), and cspccially
Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre |Thc logic ol philosophy
and thc thcory ol catcgorics| (Tbingcn, ...).
. ! am awarc that thc tcrminology ! havc choscn is somcwhat inconvcnicnt,
lor it bcars traccs ol psychologism. 8ut othcr oppositions that might con-
stitutc appropriatc altcrnativcs, such as rationalism-antirationalism and
logism-antilogism, arc cqually susccptiblc to potcntial misundcrstandings.
!t sccms to mc cxccssivc to introducc ncologisms lor this purposc.
. cscartcss statcmcnt Cogito ergo sum sucrs lrom a basic lack ol clarity.
!n its most straightlorward scnsc it can bc undcrstood as a claim ol thc
most unbridlcd rationalism, in accordancc with which bcing is cstablishcd
and conditioncd by thought, and thcrclorc thought prcccdcs bcing, is
prior to it. Vc havc this Kanticizcd Cartcsianism in contcmporary nco-
Kantianism, particularly in Hcrmann Cohcn, Logik der reinen Erkentniss
|Thcory ol purc cognition| (8crlin, .c:), in which bcing is consigncd to
a placc (dcnitcly not thc rst) in a scrics ol catcgorics whilc all alogical
or supcrlogical givcns arc complctcly cxcludcd (in thc thcory ol reiner
Ursprung |purc origins|). This is thc simplcst and clcarcst intcrprctation
ol cscartcss statcmcnt. Yct hc himscll not only provcd unablc to hold
to it but blurrcd its radicalism by issuing a scrics ol lurthcr commcntarics
(similarly, Kant, in thc sccond cdition ol thc Critique of Pure Feason,
blurrcd thc radicalism ol thc idcas in thc rst cdition). Thcrclorc wc can
:,c Notes to Pages 8,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
8
o
f
3
5
8
nd othcr intcrprctations ol his thcsis in cscartcs himscll; thcy trans-
lorm it lrom a syllogism to an idcntity and dcprivc it ol its raison dctrc:
Cogito ergo sum in this scnsc mcans Sum cogitans ergo sum, or cvcn morc
bricy, Sum ergo suma lormula that bcgins to rcmind us ol Fichtcs Ich
bin Ich. (cscartcs addrcsscs this issuc in his rcsponscs to thc objcctions
to thc Discourse on Method.) Finally, in thc Principles of Philosophy, cs-
cartcs providcs yct a third intcrprctation ol his thcsis that dcprivcs it ol all
spccicity: by thc word, to think, ! mcan cvcrything that occurs in us in
such a manncr that wc arc conscious ol it immcdiatcly within oursclvcs.
Thcrclorc not only to undcrstand, to wish, to imaginc constitutc thought,
but to lccl also mcans to think (pt. ., scc. ). !n this intcrprctation cs-
cartcss thcsis is dcprivcd ol its sharpncss as an idca, and hcncc also loscs
its historical signicancc.
. !n Fichtcs philosophical work only thc rst pcriod, up to about .8cc,
is charactcrizcd by a prcdominant intcllcctualism, which makcs him a
prcdcccssor to Hcgcl; latcr hc bccomcs morc likc Jacobi and in somc rc-
spccts likc Schclling and Schopcnhaucr. (mil Lask notcs thcsc pcriods
in Fichtes Idealismus, pp. y.y: and clscwhcrc, cspccially pp. .y6.) 8ut
cvcn in that rst pcriod Fichtcs philosophy can bc intcrprctcd as absolutc
idcalism and thcrclorc as complctcly intcllcctualist only through a onc-
sidcd rcading. Thc csscntial idca ol Fichtcs thcory ol scicncc is that thc
scll as action, as an act ol lrccdom and scll-crcativity, lorms thc basis ol
cognition. Thcrclorc thc law ol idcntity, which strcngthcns knowlcdgc
and rcsts on thc idcntity ol thc !, has its basis outsidc thc boundarics ol
knowlcdgc. Knowlcdgc or thought, howcvcr purc, cannot suspcnd itscll
in thc air by a ropc cast up into thc sky: scll-gcncrating, scll-containcd
thought, bc it in Hcgcl or in Cohcn, is cqually lar lrom this idcalistic
pragmatism that rcvcals philosophys incvitablc hiatus. !n ordcr lor
thc rcal lilc ol thc ! to bccomc possiblc, an additional push through thc
non-! is ncccssarywhich in lact bccomcs thc condition lor thc vcry
cxistcncc ol thc !, or rathcr its activation, lor its cxistcncc consists in
activity. . . . Thc thcory ol scicncc is thcrclorc rcalistic. . . . !n thc idcal
cvcrything dcpcnds on thc !, but lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol rcality thc ! itscll
is dcpcndcnt (J. G. Fichtc, Grundlage der gesammten !issenschaftslehre
|Foundations ol a gcncral thcory ol scicncc| (.y), in !erke |Vorks|
(.86; rcpr. 8crlin, .y.), .::y8c). Thcrc is no dcath, no lilclcss
mattcr, but lilc, spirit, and intcllcct all around: thc kingdom ol thc spirits,
no morc, no lcss. To thc contrary, all knowlcdgc, il only it is knowlcdgc,
is bcing. . . . Mattcr is incvitably spiritual, spirit is incvitably matcrial.
Thcrc is no mattcr without lilc and soul, thcrc is no lilc outsidc mattcr
Note to Page ,, :,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
2
9
9
o
f
3
5
8
(Fichtc, Darstellung der !issenschaftslehre aus dem Jahre z8cz |Rcprcscn-
tation ol thc thcory ol scicncc lrom .8c.|, in !erke, ::, ::.cc).This is
I-ness, subjcct-objcctncss, and nothing morc; thc positing ol thc subjcc-
tivc and its objcctivc, thc consciousncss and its conscious, as onc wholc;
and dccidcdly nothing morc bcsidcs this idcntity (Fichtc, Sonnenklarer
Bericht an das grssere Publikum uber das eigentliche !esen der neuesten Phi-
losophie |A brilliantly clcar rcport to thc gcncral public on thc truc statc
ol contcmporary philosophy|, in !erke, ::6:6). Thc primacy ol lilc is
dcclarcd in thc Sonnenklarer Bericht (.8c.). Hcrc !issenschaftslehre |thcory
ol scicncc| as idcas about idcas or scicncc is opposcd to rcal lilc, and
its prctcnsions to bcing a Lebens.eisheit |lilc wisdom| or !elt.eisheit
|worldly wisdom|prctcnsions ol which othcr systcms arc accuscdarc
rcjcctcd. !n Fichtcs last pcriod, in thc popular philosophical writings,
this pragmatism bccomcs a dcning charactcristic. Yct in constructing his
systcm Fichtc wcnt lurthcr than ncccssary in thc dircction ol intcllcctu-
alism and idcalism and was undcrstood in prcciscly this scnsc. Most ol all
Fichtc can bc laultcd lor dcstroying naturc, translorming it into a mcrc
non-! and auerer nsto |cxtcrnal impulsc| lor thc !, thus rclcgating all
lilc rcality to thc rcalm ol thc !. Thc lattcr thus acquircs divinc attributcs,
and thc limitcd, crcatcd scll is translormcd into a univcrsal, absolutc ! lor
which naturc is mcrcly a scll-positing, a non-!. Thc philosophy ol God-
manhood lcads to acosmism and illusionism. n thc othcr hand, in thc
sccond pcriod thc idca ol thc primacy ol laith ovcr knowlcdgc and ol lilc
ovcr consciousncss sounds with incrcasing condcncc and cntircly crowds
out thc unhcalthy subjcctivism ol thc rst pcriod. Thc lollowing dcclara-
tion, lor cxamplc, sounds cntircly Schcllingian: Such is thc truc mcaning
ol transccndcntal idcalism: all bcing is knowlcdgc. Thc loundation ol thc
univcrsal is spirit itscll, rathcr than soullcssncss [UngeistJ or thc oppositc
ol thc soul [!idergeistJ, which would bc impossiblc to conccivc as unitcd
with thc spirit (Fichtc, Darstellung, p. ).
6. Comparc S. N. Trubctskoys charactcrization ol Hcgclian panlogism and
cxplanation ol its onc-sidcdncss and inadcquacy cvcn as intcllcctualism
(though using othcr tcrminology), in Scrgci Trubctskoy, snovaniia
idcalizma |Fundamcntals ol idcalism|, in Sobranie sochinenii |Collcctcd
works| (Moscow, .cy.:), 6 vols., ::.8c6.
y. !e begin .ith thought. Thought cannot havc any sourcc outsidc its
own scll. . . . Purc thought in itscll, cxclusivcly, must bccomc thc thcory
ol thought or thc thcory ol cognition. Vc scck to construct logic as a
thcory ol thought, which is in lact a thcory ol cognition (Hcrmann
Cohcn, Logik der reinen Erkenntniss, p. .:). Logical thought is scientic
:,: Notes to Page c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
0
o
f
3
5
8
thought . . . . Thc qucstion ol thc rclation ol thc sciences is the question of
the relation of their methods (ibid., cmphasis in original). Cohcn dcvclops
this program ol scicntic philosophy in thc spirit ol radical idcalism
in his carlicr works as wcll; scc cspccially Kants Theorie der Erfahrung
|Kants thcory ol cxpcricncc|, :d cd. (8crlin, .88), and Das Prin.ip der
Innitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte |Thc principlc ol thc mcthod ol
innitcsimals and its history| (8crlin, .88). Scc thc clcar lormulation ol
thc Marburg schools idcas in Paul Natorp, Philosophie, ihr Problem und
ihre Probleme: Einfuhrung in den kritischen idealismus |Philosophy, its task
and its problcms: An introduction to critical idcalism| (Gttingcn, ...).
!t is intcrcsting to juxtaposc Hcgcls gcncral point ol vicw hcrc, as cx-
prcsscd in thc lamous introduction to thc Phenomenology of Spirit, writtcn
in thc contcxt ol his sharp polcmics with Schclling. Hcrc wc rcad: Thc
truc shapc in which truth cxists can only bc thc scicntic systcm ol such
truth. To hclp bring philosophy closcr to thc lorm ol Scicncc, to thc goal
whcrc it can lay asidc thc titlc lo.e ol knowing and bc actual knowing
that is what ! havc sct myscll to do. Thc inncr ncccssity that knowing
should bc Scicncc lics in its naturc. . . . Now is thc timc lor philosophy
to bc raiscd to thc status ol a Scicncc . . . to lay down that thc truc shapc
ol truth is scicntic. G. V. F. Hcgcl, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans.
A. \. Millcr (xlord, .yy), pp. , cmphasis in original. \. Jakovcnko
suggcstcd a similarity bctwccn Hcgclianism and Cohcnism in his Tco-
rctichcskaia losoia G. Kogcna |H. Cohcns thcorctical philosophy|,
Logos . (..c): .:.
8. Vc will cncountcr this limitation bclow, in thc nal chaptcr, whcn wc
discuss cconomic matcrialism.
. ! am using thc cxprcssion ol Johanncs \olkclt, Erfahrung und Denken:
Kritische Grundlegung der Erkenntnisstheorie |xpcricncc and thought:
Critical loundation ol thc thcory ol cognition| (Hamburg, .886).
.c. Scc \. S. Solovicv in his rst cpistcmology and S. N. Trubctskoy in various
works but most systcmatically in thc snovaniia idcalizma.
... nc might objcct to this intcrprctation ol Hcgclianism that it is prc-
ciscly rcality which, lor Hcgcl, must constitutc thc contcnt ol philosophy:
rcality is thc contcnt ol philosophy. Hcgcl, En.yklopadie der philoso-
phischen !issenschaften im Grundrisse |ncyclopcdia ol thc philosophical
scicnccs in outlinc| (.8c), in !erke |Vorks| (Franklurt am Main, .y),
:c vols., vol. 8, pt. ., ic Visscnschalt dcr Logik |Thc scicncc ol
logic|. Yct wc nccd only apprcciatc how Hcgcl undcrstands rcality: lor
him only what is rational is actual (Philosophy of Fight, trans. T. M.
Knox |xlord, .:|, p. ..), whcrcas an accidcntal cxistcncc cannot
Notes to Pages :, :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
1
o
f
3
5
8
carn thc cmphatic namc ol rcal;thc accidcntal is an cxistcncc that has
no highcr valuc than thc possiblc, and that can just as wcll not be as bc
(Visscnschalt dcr Logik, p. 8). Rcality in Hcgcls scnsc is thc oppositc
ol immcdiatc, concrctc lilc; it is ol an idcal and mctaphysical naturc.
.:. Thc history ol philosophy is thc history ol thc discovcry ol ideas about
thc absolutc that is its objcct. Hcgcl, lorcword to thc sccond cdition
(.8:y), Visscnschalt dcr Logik, p. ::, cmphasis in original.
.. n this scc chap. , Thc Naturc ol Scicncc.
.. S. N. Trubctskoy dcncs metaphysics (coinciding with our conccpt ol gcn-
cral philosophy) as thc critical scicncc ol csscnccs or systematic ideology of
essences (snovaniia idcalizma, p. :c:, cmphasis in original). Thc only
thing ol substancc to add to this dcnition is an important cavcat: this
systcmatic idcology may bc constructcd dicrcntly dcpcnding on initial
oricntation.
.. This is cxactly likc thc currcnt disputcs ovcr who propcrly posscsscs thc
logos, disputcs in which ol coursc cach sidc considcrs itscll thc gcnuinc
organ ol thc divinc logos and thc opposition a usurpcr. Fortunatcly thc
logos has not issucd a patcnt on itscll to any ol thc logocists, nor has
thc ratio bcstowcd thc lilclong titlc ol critically thinking individual on
any ol thc rationalists.
.6. This is thc cxprcssion ol Mclchior Palgyi, Die Logik auf dem Scheide.ege
|Logic at a crossroads| (8crlin, .c). Thcrc is a sharp critiquc ol Kants
cpistcmology, as wcll as ol Kants mcthod ol abstraction and disscction in
application to thc living and indivisiblc unity ol cognition, in thc rst part
ol this work.
.y. !n his sccond pcriod Fichtc contrasts this immcdiacy ol lilc, which dis-
tinguishcs cognition, with thc mcdiation ol rccction, its sccondary and
dcrivcd naturc, with particular clarity. Scc, c.g., Fichtc, Sonnenklarer
Bericht, pp. 8 . Thc philosophcr as such is not a lull-cdgcd pcr-
son, but onc in thc statc ol abstraction, and it is impossiblc lor anyonc
to bc only a philosophcr. Fichtc, Fuckerinnerungen, nt.orten, Frage
|Rcmcmbranccs, answcrs, qucstions|, in !erke, :8.
.8. Fichtc, Sonnenklarer Bericht, pp. .
.. !bid., p. 6.
:c. Hcgcl, En.yklopadie, pt. ., scc. .c (cmphasis in original). Comparc \ol-
kclt, Erfahrung und Denken, p. :. Lotzc also points to thc incvitability ol
a logical circlc in rcsolving cpistcmological problcms in Hcrmann Lotzc,
Logik |Logic|, :d cd. (Lcipzig, .88c), pp. . . Comparc Lotzc with
\olkclt, p. :6. Lotzc ironically comparcs thc critiquc ol cognition with
thc sharpcning ol a knilc, which bccomcs dull il thcrc is nothing to cut,
:,, Notes to Pages ozoo
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
2
o
f
3
5
8
and also with tuning an instrumcnt bclorc a conccrt. Lotzc, Metaphysik
|Mctaphysics|, :d cd. (Lcipzig, .88), pp. ..6. n this point scc Cohcn,
Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, p. 8:.
:.. mil Lask trics to dcatc this argumcnt conccrning thc rcgrcssus in
innitum ol his lorms ol lorms in his own way: Lask, Logik der Philoso-
phie, pp. c, ..:.
::. Economy, as thc scicncc ol political cconomy usually dcncs it, is planncd
activity ol man dircctcd toward thc satislaction ol his matcrial nccds.
This dcnition ts niccly in ours, which dcscribcs cconomy lrom thc
pcrspcctivc ol thc proprictor and thc subjcct.
:. Carl Rodbcrtus-Jagctzow, Zur Beleuchtung der so.ialen Frage |Towards an
clucidation ol thc social qucstion|, :d cd. (8crlin, .8), p. .c.
cn~v:vv :
Thc Natural-Philosophical 8ascs ol thc Thcory ol conomy
.. !n Marxs thcscs on Fcucrbach lrom .8 (appcndcd to ngclss brochurc
Lud.ig Feuerbach und der usgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie
|Ludwig Fcucrbach and thc dcclinc ol classic Gcrman philosophy|, :d cd.
|Stuttgart, .8|),which arc rcmarkablc lor thcir implicd rclcrcnccs to thc
contcmporary thcory ol pragmatism, wc rcad: .. Thc chicl dclcct ol all
hithcrto cxisting matcrialism . . . is that thc thing |Gegenstand|, rcality,
scnsuousncss, is conccivcd only in thc lorm ol thc object |Objekt| or ol con-
templation |nschauung|, but not as human sensuous acti.ity, practice, not
subjcctivcly. Hcncc it happcncd that thc acti.e sidc, in contradistinction
to matcrialism, was dcvclopcd by idcalismbut only abstractly, sincc,
ol coursc, idcalism docs not know rcal, scnsuous activity as such. . . . :.
Thc qucstion whcthcr objcctivc | gegenstandliche| truth can bc attributcd
to human thinking is not a qucstion ol thcory but is a practical qucs-
tion. !n practicc man must provc thc truth, that is, thc rcality and powcr,
thc this-sidcdncss |Diesseitigkeit| ol his thinking. Thc disputc ovcr thc
rcality or non-rcality ol thinking which is isolatcd lrom practicc is a
purcly scholastic qucstion. . . . ... Thc philosophcrs havc only interpreted
thc world, in various ways; thc point, howcvcr, is to change it. Marx,
Thcscs on Fcucrbach, in Karl Marx and Fricdrich ngcls, Selected !orks
(Ncw York, .68), pp. :8c, cmphasis in original. Thcsc thcscs posc,
dcnitivcly il succinctly, thc problcm ol thc philosophy ol cconomy.
:. Mcchanism in thc scnsc ol causality, rcsulting lrom thc naturc and at-
tributcs ol things, is by no mcans climinatcd by thc idca ol tclcology.
Tclcology ccrtainly docs not mcan abscncc ol causality or, morc prcciscly,
Notes to Pages oo,8 :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
3
o
f
3
5
8
abscncc ol a dcning naturc, which would do away with thc charactcris-
tics propcr to things. Mcchanism, as opposcd to tclcology, mcrcly signics
its alicnation lrom human purposcs or its actual inacccssibility lor human
intcntion. !n gcncral mcchanism is only a mcans ol action, its ho. rathcr
than its .hat. !t is possiblc lor it to opcratc with a rcal or apparcnt lack
ol purposc, or in dircct opposition to human purposcs, but this docs not
mcan that it contradicts thc notion ol tclcology in principlc. Rathcr, it
can bc sccn as a conccpt coordinatcd with thc conccpt ol a goal: cvcry
cnd rcquircs a mcans, so that mcchanism cntcrs into thc rcalization ol
thc goal. At thc samc timc not only can goals dicr, but so can thc dc-
grcc ol thcir coordination ol causal mcchanisms. Vc might go lurthcr
to say that thc conccpt ol absolutc mcchanism, rcgardlcss ol any goal-
oricntation, is unthinkablc, lor in actuality wc always think tclcologically,
and consciously or unconsciously proposc onc or anothcr goal ol naturc,
and cvcn cxplain thc mcchanism in thcsc tcrms. !n this scnsc all natural
scicncc is tclcologicalthc arwinian strugglc ol thc ttcst, thc thcory
ol thc origin ol spccics, and so on. All ol political cconomy is (uncon-
sciously) tclcological cvcn in its most objcctivc manilcstations (c.g., in
cconomic matcrialism). n thc qucstion ol thc cnds ol cconomy scc
Rudoll Stolzmann, Der Z.eck in der !olks.irtschaft: Die !olks.irtschaft
als social-ethisches Z.eckgebilde |Purposc in thc national cconomy: Thc
national cconomy as a social and cthical construction| (8crlin, .c).
. ngcls (and probably also Marx) objccts to Kantian subjcctivc idcalism
with a rclcrcncc to thc lact ol tcchnology, in thc Anti-hring. (Com-
parc also Marxs abovc-citcd thcscs on Fcucrbach.) Just as this rclcrcncc
sccms to orthodox, uncritical Marxists to conqucr and dcstroy, so in
Kantian circlcs this argumcnt is gcncrally rcgardcd with condcsccnsion
as philosophically naivc. !n lact ncithcr is corrcct. l coursc thc rcl-
crcncc to tcchnology, as with any othcr lact ol our cxpcricncc, cannot
rclutc Kants armation that cvcry rcsult ol cxpcricncc prcsupposcs a
particular a priorithc prcscncc ol ccrtain lorms ol cognition through
which it can bc apprchcndcd. !n this scnsc thc lact ol tcchnology is not
in principlc distinguishcd lrom any othcr lactan cclipsc ol thc moon,
thc motion ol hcavcnly bodics, and so on. As a fact of cognition tcchnology
docs not transccnd Kant with his thcory ol thc lorms ol cognition and
ol thc cpistcmological subjcct. 8ut as a fact of action tcchnology rcally
docs not t into Kants cognitivc and mcrcly rccctivc schcmas, lor it
would rcquirc a dicrcnt typc ol schcma, totally outsidc Kants disposal,
in ordcr to bc comprchcnsiblc. 8ut thc thcorctical importancc ngcls
ascribcs to tcchnology clcarly bclongs, by virtuc ol its rcmarkablc suc-
:,o Note to Page ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
4
o
f
3
5
8
ccsscs, to any cconomic actno morc to thc most complcx machinc than
to thc dircctcd blow ol a simplc axc. Kant cannot ol coursc bc rclutcd by
thc lact ol cconomy or tcchnology, but at thc samc timc hc cannot ac-
count lor thcm lrom his rccctivc, thcorctical position. !ts just that this
lormulation ol thc problcm docs not t into his schcma.
. F. V. J. Schclling, System des trans.endentalen Idealismus, in !erke: us-
.ahl in drei Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), ::.c |System of
Transcendental Idealism, trans. Pctcr Hcath (Charlottcsvillc, .y8), p. y|.
. This is not contradictcd by thc lact that Kant turns out at thc samc
timc to bc thc lathcr ol scientic pragmatism in his thcory ol scicntic
knowlcdgc or in thc critiquc ol purc rcason. Comparc chap. 6.
6. n Fichtc cl. chap. .., n. .
y. Hcrc arc Schcllings rcmarkablc words, cnunciatcd lrom a lcctcrn at
thc Univcrsity ol Munich (citcd by Kuno Fischcr, Geschichte der neueren
Philosophie |History ol contcmporary philosophy| |Munich, .8y|,
y::c): Vhcn ! rst bccamc cngagcd in philosophical activity somc
c ycars ago, thcrc rcigncd in this cld a systcm ol philosophy that was
powcrlul in itscll and intcrnally lully viablc, but vcry distant lrom any
rcality. Vho would havc bclicvcd at thc timc that an obscurc tcachcr,
still a youth in ycars, could mastcr a powcrlul philosophical systcm that,
howcvcr cmpty and abstract, noncthclcss was linkcd to many bclovcd
currcnts. And yct this is what happcncd, not ol coursc bccausc ol his in-
hcrcnt virtucs or dcscrts, but by thc naturc ol things, by thc lorcc ol that
unconqucrablc rcality containcd in all things; and hc will ncvcr lorgct thc
gratitudc and joylul acknowlcdgmcnt cxprcsscd by thc bcst rcprcscnta-
tivcs ol thc nations spiritual lilc, although in our timc lcw rcmcmbcr thc
barricrs and obstaclcs lrom which philosophy nccdcd to bc lrccd, lor it
was thcn ncccssary to brcak into thc lrcc tcrritory ol objcctivc scicncc that
is now opcn to all, and to win thc lrccdom and cncrgy ol thought whosc
rcsults arc now cnjoycd by all. ocsnt this pcriod bclorc Schcllings
appcarancc rcmind us ol thc contcmporary statc ol things in philosophy.
8. Thc only cxccption to this is \ladimir Solovicvs philosophical systcm.
His thcory ol thc world soulto which hc rclcrs in his poctry as thc
tcrnal Fcminincgavc ncw philosophical cxprcssion to thc thcorics ol
thc classical philosophcrs, thc lathcrs ol thc astcrn church, and Vcstcrn
mystics (in particular 8hmc and 8aadcr). n this scc Scrgci 8ulga-
kov, Priroda v losoi \l. Solovcva |Naturc in \ladimir Solovicvs
philosophy|, !oprosy losoi i psikhologii |Qucstions ol Philosophy and
Psychology| (..c), and also in O !ladimire Solo.e.e (Moscow, ...).
. Comparc Fischcr, Geschichte, vol. , and 6:.
Notes to Pages 8c8 :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
5
o
f
3
5
8
.c. Schclling, Ideen .ur Philosophie der Natur |Toward a philosophy ol naturc|,
in !erke, .:.:.
... Schclling, System, in !erke, ::.. (Hcath, p. 6).
.:. Thc twcnty-thrcc-ycar-old Schclling writcs in thc prclacc to thc rst cdi-
tion ol !on der !eltseele: Eine Hypothese der hheren Physik .ur Erklarung
des allgemeinen Organismus |n thc world soul: A hypothcsis ol highcr
physics rcgarding thc univcrsal organism|, publishcd in .y8: At lcast a
stcp towards thc cxplanation (ol organization and lilc) would bc takcn
il wc could show that progression [StufenfolgeJ of all organic beings came
about through the gradual de.elopment of a single organi.ation. Thc lact
that our cxpcricncc did not tcll us about thc translormation ol naturc and
about thc progrcssion lrom onc lorm to anothcr is not prool that such
a thing is impossiblc; lor its dclcndcr could objcct that thc changcs to
which organic as wcll as inorganic naturc arc subjcct can occur ovcr an
incrcasingly long pcriod ol timc, lor which short pcriods will ccasc to bc
signicant and which arc so long that wc havc not to this point had an
opportunity to cxpcricncc thcm (Lcipzig, ..., pp. ), cmphasis
in original. Thc most ardcnt arwinist could borrow thcsc argumcnts in
dclcnsc ol translormism lrom Schclling.
.. Schclling, Ideen .ur Philosophie der Natur, in !erke, .:.:.
.. Schclling, Philosophie der Kunst |Philosophy ol art|, in !erke, :..
.. Comparc 8ulgakov, Priroda v losoi \l. Solovcva.
.6. !ncidcntally, mattcr, which is to a ccrtain cxtcnt analogous to Schcllings
naturc, is charactcristically dcsignatcd in Platos Timaeus as a mothcr or
wct-nursc (m~thr, tiy~nh), and also as an csscncc dcprivcd ol lorm but
capablc ol assuming various oncs (kmageon). Plato, Timaeus, X\!!!,
A, c , . A.
.y. Schclling, Einleitung .u dem Ent.urf eines System der Philosophie |!ntro-
duction to thc projcct ol a philosophical systcm|, in !erke, .:6..
.8. !bid., p. 688.
.. Schclling, Die allgemeine Deduction des dynamischen Pro.esses |Univcrsal
dcduction ol thc dynamic proccss|, in !erke, .:8..
:c. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen uber das !esen der menschlichen
Freiheit (Lcipzig, .:), p. 8 |Of human freedom, trans. Jamcs Gutmann
(Chicago, .6), p. 8|.
:.. Schclling, Einleitung .u dem Ent.urf, in !erke, .:yc. Thc commcntary
rcads: a travclcr in !taly might obscrvc that all ol world history can bc
dcpictcd on a grcat Roman obclisk as on any product ol naturc. vcry
mincral body is a lragmcnt ol thc history ol thc carth. 8ut what is thc
carth. !ts history is intcrtwincd with thc history ol all ol naturc, thus
:,8 Notes to Pages 8,c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
6
o
f
3
5
8
thc chain strctchcs lrom mincrals through all ol inorganic and organic
naturc to thc history ol thc univcrsc. This insight is partially charactcris-
tic ol Lcibnizs Monadology as wcll: 6 . . . cach portion ol mattcr is not
only innitcly divisiblc, as thc ancicnts obscrvcd, but is also actually sub-
dividcd without cnd, cach part into lurthcr parts, ol which cach has somc
motion ol its own; othcrwisc it would bc impossiblc lor cach portion ol
mattcr to cxprcss thc wholc univcrsc. 66. Vhcncc it appcars that in thc
smallcst particlc ol mattcr thcrc is a world ol crcaturcs, living bcings, ani-
mals, cntclcchics. G. \. Lcibniz, The Monadology and Other Philosophical
!ritings, trans. Robcrt Latta (Ncw York, .8), pp. :6.
::. For thc pcculiarity ol naturc rcsts upon this, that in its mcchanism, and
although itscll nothing but a blind mcchanism, it is noncthclcss pur-
posivc. !l ! takc away thc mcchanism, ! takc away naturc itscll. All thc
magic which surrounds organic naturc . . . rcsts upon thc contradiction,
that although this naturc is a product ol blind natural lorccs, it is ncvcr-
thclcss purposivc through and through. Schclling, System, in !erke,
:::8: (Hcath, p. :.).
:. As Schclling says in onc ol his latcst and most prolound works (ic
arstcllung dcs philosophischcn mpirismus |xposition ol philosophi-
cal cmpiricism|, in !erke, :.y.8), thc gcncsis ol all ol naturc rcsts
cxclusivcly on thc wcight that thc subjcct gradually acquircs in rclation to
thc objcct to thc point that thc objcct cntircly bccomcs thc subjcct in thc
human consciousncss. Anything positcd outside consciousncss is in csscncc
thc samc as what is positcd within it. All ol naturc lorms a single continu-
ous [.usammenhangendeJ linc that in onc dircction lcads to thc prcvalcncc
ol thc objcct and in thc othcr to thc clcar prcvalcncc ol thc subjcctivc ovcr
thc objcctivc, though not in a way that in thc last casc thc objcct would bc
complctcly dcstroycd and annihilatcd; on thc contrary, it always rcmains
in csscncc cvcn whcn complctcly convcrtcd into subjcctivity, but only in
such a manncr that thc objcctivc passcs into a hiddcn statc with rcspcct
to thc subjcctivc, bccomcs so to spcak latcnt, just as in a clcar body dark
mattcr docs not disappcar but changcs into clarity (cmphasis in original).
:. Schclling, System, in !erke, :::y:8 (Hcath, p. .8c).
:. !bid., :::8c (Hcath, pp. :..), cmphasis in original.
:6. !bid., ::: (Hcath, p. ::), cmphasis in original: Pcrlcction is possiblc
only though gcnius, which, lor that vcry rcason, is lor thc acsthctic what
thc scll is lor philosophy.
:y. !bid., ::c.: (Hcath, p. :.). Schclling continucs: Art is paramount to
thc philosophcr, prcciscly bccausc it opcns to him, as it wcrc, thc Holy ol
Holics, whcrc burns in ctcrnal and original unity, as il in a singlc amc,
Notes to Pages ,c,: :,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
7
o
f
3
5
8
that which in naturc and history is rcnt asundcr, and in lilc and action,
no lcss than in thought, must lorcvcr y apart. Thc vicw ol naturc, which
thc philosophcr lramcs articially, is lor art thc original and natural onc.
Vhat wc spcak ol as naturc is a pocm lying pcnt in a mystcrious and
wondcrlul script. Yct thc riddlc could rcvcal itscll, wcrc wc to rccognizc
in it thc odyssey of the spirit, which, marvclously dcludcd, sccks itscll, and
in sccking ics lrom itscll; lor through thc world ol scnsc thcrc glimmcrs,
as il through words thc mcaning, as il through dissolving mists thc land
ol lantasy, ol which wc arc in scarch. ach splcndid painting owcs, as
it wcrc, its gcncsis to a rcmoval ol thc invisiblc barricr dividing thc rcal
lrom thc idcal world, and is no morc than thc gatcway, through which
comc lorth complctcly thc shapcs and sccncs ol that world ol lantasy
which glcams but impcrlcctly through thc rcal. !bid., ::c: (Hcath, pp.
:.:), cmphasis in original.
:8. Comparc duard von Hartmann, Schellings philosophisches System
|Schcllings philosophical systcm| (Lcipzig, .8y).
:. Comparc at lcast Arthur rcwss prclacc to Schcllings collcctcd works in
thrcc volumcs: Schclling, !erke, vol. ..
c. This rclation bccomcs clcarcst il wc juxtaposc a trcatisc such as thc
Darstellung with Solovicvs youthlul works.
.. Scc 8ulgakov, Priroda v losoi \l. Solovcva.
cn~v:vv
Thc Signicancc ol thc 8asic conomic Functions
.. Scicntic practiccwhich by virtuc ol its pragmatic naturc and lor rca-
sons ol cxpcdicncy cstablishcs an indcnitc multiplicity ol causalitics cor-
rcsponding to thc multiplicity ol scicncc itscllin no way contradicts thc
truth ol this philosophical statcmcnt, which, in a ccrtain scnsc, rcprcscnts
thc a priori ol cosmology. This is how wc should, lor cxamplc, undcrstand
thc words ol Cournot, who rcccts this idca ol scicntic pragmatism: no
onc would takc scriously thc proposition that, by stomping oncs loot, onc
can inucncc thc movcmcnt ol a ship plying thc watcrs ol thc oppositc
hcmisphcrc, or disturb Jupitcrs planctary systcm; in any casc thc inu-
cncc would bc so minutc that it would not bc cvidcnt in any apprchcnsiblc
action, and wc arc right not to takc it into account. !t is not impossiblc
lor an cvcnt in China or Japan to bc rccctcd in what is to happcn in Paris
or London; but in gcncral, unqucstionably, thc manncr in which a Pari-
sian dcnizcn ordcrs his day is in no mcasurc dcpcndcnt on what happcns
cc Notes to Pages ,,o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
8
o
f
3
5
8
in somc Chincsc city whcrc uropcans havc ncvcr pcnctratcd. Thcsc arc
as it wcrc two not-so-largc worlds, cach ol which contains its own chain
ol causcs and cccts; and thcsc chains dcvclop simultancously without
intcrsccting and without cxcrcising thc lcast noticcablc ccct upon cach
othcr. Antoinc Cournot, Essai sur les fondements de nos connaissances et
sur les caractres de la critique philosophique |ssay on thc loundations ol
knowlcdgc and on thc naturc ol philosophical cricitism| (Paris, .8.),
: vols., .:.:. For scicncc thcrc arc not just two such worlds but an in-
dcnitc numbcr (n), which lollows logically lrom its naturc (scc chap.
bclow); but this practicc ol scicncc rcinlorccs rathcr than undcrmincs thc
philosophical idca ol thc unity ol thc univcrsc and, hcncc, thc continuity
ol causal conncctions.
:. F. V. J. Schclling, System des trans.endentalen Idealismus, in !erke: us-
.ahl in drei Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), ::.666 |System of
Transcendental Idealism, trans. Pctcr Hcath (Charlottcsvillc, .y8), pp. .::,
.:|: That which constitutcs thc univcrsc lor it is mcrcly thc grosscr and
rcmotcr organ ol scll-consciousncss, just as thc individual organism is thc
ncr and morc immcdiatc organ thcrcol ; rganization in gcncral is
thcrclorc nothing but a diminishcd and as it wcrc condcnscd picturc ol
thc univcrsc.
. nc is involuntarily rcmindcd ol Paracclsuss lormula: Should you cat
a piccc ol brcad, you will tastc hcavcn and carth and all thc stars in it.
Citcd by Johanncs Claasscn, Jakob Bhme: Sein Leben und seine theoso-
phischen !erke in geordneten us.uge mit Einleitungen und Erlauterungen
| Jakob 8hmc: His lilc and his thcosophical works, cxccrptcd and with
introduction and commcntary| (Stuttgart, .88), .:.. Thc communism
ol bcing, which crascs thc boundary bctwccn man and thc world, is onc
ol thc lundamcntal idcas ol Gcrmanys grcatcst mystic, Jakob 8hmc,
as wcll as ol his ninctccnth-ccntury lollowcr, Franz v. 8aadcr. Thc
human body |wc rcad in 8hmc| is an cxtraction ol thc bcing ol all
bcings; or clsc it could not bc callcd a likcncss or imagc ol God (Claas-
scn, Bhme, ::.6c). Man in this scnsc is not only a microcosm but also a
micro-thcos. Thc samc idca is in 8aadcr: All thc stars and clcmcnts
arc imprintcd, morc or lcss lully, in cvcry organism as a microcosm, i.c.,
cach is and lunctions rcprcscntativcly ol how thc macrocosm is and lunc-
tions. Johanncs Claasscn, Fran. .. Baaders Leben und theosophische !erke
als Inbegri christlicher Philosophie |Franz v. 8aadcrs lilc and thcosophical
works as a conccpt ol Christian philosophy| (Stuttgart, .8868y), ::6:.
Vhat is usually callcd dcvouring and digcstion ol lood is, as a momcnt
Notes to Pages zcczc cz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
0
9
o
f
3
5
8
ol assimilation, but a momcnt ol thc univcrsal nourishing, incarnating,
body-crcating proccss, as opposcd to thc cqually univcrsal proccss ol
dcstruction ol thc body. Claasscn, Baader, ::6.
. S. N. Trubctskoy has a good dcscription ol this in Meta.ika . dre.nei
Gretsii |Mctaphysics in ancicnt Grcccc|. !n partaking ol thc mystcrics
(through grain and winc), thc Grcck achicvcd thc sacramcnts ol natu-
ralism: hc partook immcdiatcly ol thc productivc lorcc ol naturc, hc
bclicvcd immcdiatcly in thc gods of bread and .ine and bclicvcd hc would
livc and bc rcsurrcctcd through thcir inncr powcr . . . Christianity docs
not acknowlcdgc thc pagan mystcrics: through its idca it precedes thcm
likc all immcdiatc and natural things. Scrgci Trubctskoy, Sobranie sochi-
nenii |Collcctcd works| (Moscow, .cy.:), 6 vols., :.::, cmphasis in
original. n thc Grcck mystcrics scc rwin Rohdc, Psyche: Seelencult und
Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen |Psychc: Thc soul and immortality in
Grcck philosophy|, d cd. (Tbingcn, .c), .::y .
. As Schclling says: Thc highcst consummation ol natural scicncc would
bc thc complctc spiritualizing ol all natural laws into laws ol intuition and
thought. Thc phcnomcna (thc mattcr) must wholly disappcar, and only
thc laws (thc lorm) rcmain. Hcncc it is that thc morc lawlulncss cmcrgcs
in naturc itscll, thc morc thc husk disappcars, thc phcnomcna thcmsclvcs
bccomc morc mcntal, and at lcngth vanish cntircly. . . . Thc complctcd
thcory ol naturc would bc that whcrcby thc wholc ol naturc was rcsolvcd
into an intclligcncc. Schclling, System, in !erke, ::. (Hcath, p. 6).
6. S. N. Trubctskoy rightly says: The subject comes out of himself metaphysi-
cally and generally in each act of his life, in e.ery relation. No empiricism can
contradict this. Trubctskoy, Meta.ika, p. . (cmphasis in original).
y. Schclling, System, in !erke, :::. (Hcath, p. .8:).
8. Thc most pcnctrating ol thc idcalists, Schopcnhaucr, adds to thc dcni-
tion ol thc world as rcprcscntation, also will. 8ut will and rcprcscntation
arc lor him cntircly alicn, mutually rcpcllcnt, and not mutually pcnctrat-
ing principlcs; thc will rcmains blind and rcprcscntation illusory, which is
why thc practical conscqucncc ol Schopcnhaucrs philosophy turns out to
bc quictism with thc idcal ol nirvana.
. Thc idcas ! am proposing hcrc wcrc thought through and skctchcd out
bclorc ! kncw 8crgsons philosophy and wcrc lormulatcd in thc contcxt ol
problcms lorcign to 8crgson. 8ut this docs not diminish thcir closcncss to
ccrtain aspccts ol 8crgsons worldvicw.
.c. Fichtc alrcady lccls thc lalscncss ol Kantianism prcciscly in thc passivity
ol consciousncss and proposcs an activc ! instcad ol a passivcly contcm-
plativc onc. Yct hc is dcaling only with an abstract and hcncc lilclcss
c: Notes to Pages zczzo
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
0
o
f
3
5
8
subjcct that posits thc non-! solcly as its own boundary, but docs not livc
a lilc in common with it. This is a world in pockct lormat, as Schclling
acidly but rightly notcd, a world as thc objcct ol thc scll s cpistcmological
cxcrciscs. This is why Fichtcs Tathandlung |action| too rcmains thc idcal-
istic posturc ol thc abstract subjcct and ncvcr bccomcs living Tatigkeit
|activity|. Thc principlc ol labor as thc living conncction bctwccn subjcct
and objcct, lorming thc basis lor thc worlds objcctivity, turns out to bc
as proloundly alicn to thc Fichtcan conccpt as to thc Kantian. This is
why Fichtcs absolut Tat |absolutc activity| is usclcss and is incapablc
ol rcsolving thc solipsism ol thc cnchantcd cnclosurc ol subjcctivism, in
which thc scll can drcam, rccct, stand bclorc thc mirror in thc posc ol
an activc scll, likc Liudmilla in Chcrnomors castlc. !n thc popular phi-
losophy ol his last pcriod (Die Bestimmung des Menschen |Thc vocation
ol man (.8cc)|, Die Grund.uge des gegen.artigen Zeitalters |Charactcris-
tics ol thc prcscnt agc (.8c)|, Uber die Bestimmung des Gelehrten |n
thc scicntists vocation (.8.:)|), Fichtc cxpounds a thcory ol historical
dcvclopmcnt that includcs thc philosophy ol cconomy, but it has no con-
ncction with his rst systcm, which lclt thc dccpcst mark on thc history
ol philosophy. !ncidcntally, a minor spccch ol .ybcr dic Vrdc
dcs Mcnschcn |n thc dignity ol man|, in !erke |Vorks| (rcpr. 8crlin,
.y.), .:.:.6stands out in his carly pcriod as a classic monumcnt ol
idcalistic mangodhood. Hcrc wc can pcrccivc lully Schcllingian idcas.
Man awakcns naturc (p. .), is capablc ol rccciving morc complctc
crcation lrom it, instructs rough mattcr to organizc itscll according to
its idcal (ibid.); all mattcr must rcccivc thc stamp ol its action upon it
(p. .). This spccch concludcs with thc statcmcnt that all individuals
arc containcd in a singlc grcat unity ol purc spirit (thc world soul.).
cn~v:vv
n thc Transccndcntal Subjcct ol conomy
.. Comparc chap. 8, Thc Phcnomcnology ol conomy.
:. Schclling says, Thcrc can only bc a history ol such bcings as havc an idcal
bclorc thcm, which can ncvcr bc carricd out by thc individual, but only
by thc spccics. And lor this it is nccdlul that cvcry succccding individual
should start in at thc vcry point whcrc thc prcccding onc lclt o, and
thus that continuity should bc possiblc bctwccn succccding individuals,
and, il that which is to bc rcalizcd in thc progrcss ol history is somcthing
attainablc only through rcason and lrccdom, that thcrc should also bc
thc possibility ol tradition and transmission |Uberlieferung|. F. V. J.
Notes to Pages z:z: c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
1
o
f
3
5
8
Schclling, System des trans.endentalen Idealismus, in !erke: us.ahl in drei
Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), :::6 |System of Transcendental
Idealism, trans. Pctcr Hcath (Charlottcsvillc, .y8), p. :cc|.
. Thc polis is prior in thc ordcr ol naturc to thc lamily and thc individual.
Thc rcason lor this is that thc wholc is ncccssarily prior to thc part. !l thc
wholc body bc dcstroycd, thcrc will not bc a loot or a hand, cxccpt in that
ambiguous scnsc in which onc uscs thc samc word to indicatc a dicrcnt
thing, as whcn onc spcaks ol a hand madc ol stonc. . . . Vc thus scc that
thc polis cxists by naturc and that it is prior to thc individual. Aristotlc,
Politics, trans. rncst 8arkcr (.6; rcprint, London, .y), bk. ., ch. :,
.:., p. 6.
. Schclling says lurthcr: Nothing whatcvcr can bc an objcct ol history
which procccds according to a dctcrminatc mcchanism, or whosc thcory
is a priori. Thcory and history arc totally opposcd. Man has a history
only bccausc what hc will do is incapablc ol bcing calculatcd in advancc
according to any thcory. Choicc is to that cxtcnt thc goddcss ol history
|Die !illkur ist Gttin der Geschichte|. Schclling, System, in !erke, :::6
(Hcath, p. :cc). !n thcsc words Schclling cxprcsscs thc basic idca dc-
vclopcd by Hcinrich Rickcrt, Die Gren.en der natur.issenschaftlichen
Begrisbildung |Thc limits ol conccpt lormation in natural scicncc|
(Tbingcn, .c:; trans. Guy akcs, Cambridgc, U.K.,.86).
. This distinction bctwccn causality and subjcction to univcrsal laws is
clcarly cxplaincd in Rickcrts abovc-citcd mcthodological tract, as wcll as
in Schcllings thought (cl. n. ).
6. !n pt. . ol !ntroduction to thc thcory ol knowlcdgc, N. . Lossky cor-
rcctly points to this problcm: Lossky, !.edenie . losoiu |!ntroduction to
philosophy| (St. Pctcrsburg, ...), pp. .6, .8.
y. Hcrc, in thc lorm ol philosophical consciousncss, Kant rcccts thc lun-
damcntal sin ol Protcstantism: its anticcclcsiastical individualism, which
brcaks up humanitythc singlc body ol Christinto atoms. Kant was
a product ol Luthcr and thc othcr rclormcrs, who sct up individual will
and individual consciousncss in opposition to thc church and dcnicd thc
rcality ol humanitys supraindividual unity. This mystical misstcp, which
occurrcd in thc dcpths ol rcligious bcing, continucs to bcar lruit in con-
sciousncss and in action, in philosophy and in culturc. Anothcr sourcc
ol nco-Kantianism is undoubtcdly Judaism, or morc particularly Jcw-
ish modcrnism, which approachcs contcmporary Protcstantism closcly
in its dogmatic bascs (Jcsuanism). xtrcmcly typical in this rcgard
is thc spccch (at thc Filth Congrcss ol Frcc Christianity in 8crlin in
..c) in which Cohcn cxprcsscd thc ccntral thcmc ol his philosophizing:
c, Notes to Pages z:z:8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
2
o
f
3
5
8
Hcrmann Cohcn, Die Bedeutung des Judentums fur den religisen Fortschritt
|Thc signicancc ol Judaism lor rcligious progrcss| (8crlin, ..c). !n thc
cld ol cthics thc juxtaposition ol Protcstantism (namcly Puritanism) and
Judaism is proposcd by Vcrncr Sombart, Juden und das !irtschaftsleben
| Jcws and modcrn capitalism| (Lcipzig, ...).
8. Vith rcspcct to his philosophy comparc Scrgci 8ulgakov, D.a grada |Two
citics| (Moscow, ...), vol. :.
. This is what N. F. Fcdorov mcans whcn hc calls his philosophy thc
philosophy ol thc common task.
.c. Comparc chap. , Thc Naturc ol Scicncc.
... This idca is ccntral to N. F. Fcdorovs philosophy.
.:. Angclus Silcsius, Der Cherubinische !andersmann (Munich, .6c), bk. .,
vcrsc .c8, p. ; bk. :, vcrsc .8:, p. yy.
.. Comparc . Kautsch, cd., Die Heilige Schrift des lten Testaments, d cd.
(Tbingcn, ..c), :::6:, n. c. Thcrc is an altcrnativc rcading hcrcas
an artist instcad ol as onc brought up with himbut this is ol no
signicancc lor our purposcs.
.. Hcrc wc also rcad, about wisdom: Shc guardcd to thc cnd thc rst
lormcd lathcr ol thc world, that was crcatcd alonc, and dclivcrcd him
out ol his transgrcssion, and gavc him strcngth to gct dominion ovcr all
things (Visd. ol Sol. .c:.:). For Hc hath givcn mc |says thc author
about himscll | an uncrring knowlcdgc ol thc things that arc, to know thc
constitution ol thc world, and thc opcration ol thc clcmcnts; thc bcgin-
ning and cnd and middlc ol timcs, thc altcrnations ol thc solsticcs and
thc changcs ol scasons, thc circuits ol ycars and thc positions ol stars; thc
naturcs ol living crcaturcs and thc ragings ol wild bcasts, thc powcrs ol
spirits and thc thoughts ol mcn, thc divcrsitics ol plants and thc virtucs
ol roots: all things that arc cithcr sccrct or manilcst ! lcarncd, lor She .ho
is the articer of all things taught me, e.en !isdom (y:.y:.). This tcxt
clcarly cxprcsscs thc notion ol scicnccs sophic naturc. Morc on this: 8ut
il richcs arc a dcsircd posscssion in lilc, what is richcr than wisdom, which
workcth all things. And il a man longcth cvcn lor much cxpcricncc, Shc
knowcth thc things ol old, and divincth thc things to comc: Shc undcr-
standcth subtiltics ol spccchcs and intcrprctations ol dark sayings: Shc
lorcsccth signs and wondcrs, and thc issucs ol scasons and timcs (8:, 8).
About wisdom itscll: For wisdom is morc mobilc than any motion;
yca, shc pcrvadcth and pcnctratcth all things by rcason ol hcr purcncss.
For shc is a brcath ol thc powcr ol God, and a clcar cucncc ol thc glory
ol thc Almighty . . . shc is an culgcncc lrom cvcrlasting light and an
unspottcd mirror ol thc working ol God, and an imagc ol his goodncss.
Notes to Pages zcz8 c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
3
o
f
3
5
8
And shc, though but onc, hath powcr to do all things; and rcmaining in
hcrscll, rcncwcth all things. . . . For shc is laircr than thc sun, and abovc
all thc constcllations ol thc stars: bcing comparcd with light, shc is lound
to bc bclorc it (y:::). For shc is initiatcd into thc knowlcdgc ol
God, and shc chooscth out lor him his works (8:).
.. Silcsius, Cherubinische !andersmann, bk. ., vcrsc .6, p. .
.6. !bid., bk. :, vcrsc .68, p. y.
.y. !bid., bk. ., vcrsc 68, p. .
.8. !n this scnsc man is, according to Schclling, thc rcdccmcr ol naturc, thc
lulllmcnt ol all thc prototypcs containcd in hcr. Thc !ord, which lullls
itscll in man, cxists in naturc as a dark, prophctic word, still partially
unsaid. This is thc sourcc ol thosc hints which nd cxplanation not in
naturc, but only in man. This also cxplains thc nality ol causcs, comprc-
hcnsiblc only lrom this point ol vicw. F. V. J. Schclling, Philosophische
Untersuchungen uber das !esen der menschlichen Freiheit (Lcipzig, .:),
p. 8 |Of Human Freedom, trans. Jamcs Gutmann (Chicago, .6), p. :|.
.. Schclling, as wc know, also calls knowlcdgc rcmcmbrancc in anothcr
scnsc, i.c., as thc conscious rcproduction in us ol thc unconscious activitics
ol naturc outsidc ol us. Hcrc thcrc is no contradiction bctwccn Schclling
and Plato, lor in this casc it is also a qucstion ol rcmcmbcring that which
is ctcrnally, that which was givcn in naturc but not yct rccognizcd. !n this
scnsc naturc is a book ol rcvclation containing thc ctcrnal idcas that arc to
bc rcmcmbcrcd.
:c. Thc natural is oltcn contrastcd with thc articial, and onc is thcn
prclcrrcd to thc othcr. Vhcrc Sophia shincs with primordial immcdiacy,
whcrc thc initial pcrlcction ol crcation is prcscrvcd, thcrc this natural
bccomcs highcr than all that is articial: How, lor cxamplc, could wc
possibly comparc anything lrom thc impcrlcct articial world with thc
absolutc pcrlcction ol a owcr swaying in thc sun. n thc othcr hand,
whcrc thc natural cxprcsscs thc currcnt statc ol naturc, alicnatcd lrom
its sophic bcing, it has thc oppositc mcaning: lor barbarism, povcrty,
plaguc, cholcra, and nally dcath itscll arc all natural, though dcath is
also thc limit ol thc unnatural in anothcr scnsc ol thc word. !n thc rst
casc natural mcans morc sophic, in thc sccond, a grcatcr alicnation lrom
Sophia.
:.. 8ccausc God madc not dcath; ncithcr dclightcth Hc whcn thc living
pcrish: lor hc crcatcd all things that thcy might havc bcing: and thc prod-
ucts ol thc world arc hcalthsomc, and thcrc is no poison ol dcstruction
in thcm: nor hath Hadcs royal dominion upon carth. . . . God crcatcd
man lor incorruption, and madc him an imagc ol His own propcr bcing;
co Notes to Pages z,z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
4
o
f
3
5
8
but by thc cnvy ol thc dcvil dcath cntcrcd into thc world, and thcy that
bclong to his rcalm cxpcricncc it. Visd. ol Sol. .:..; ::::.
::. Silcsius, Cherubinischer !andersmann, bk.:, vcrsc :cy, p. y.
:. Nikolai Fcdorov, Filosoia obshchego dela |Thc philosophy ol thc common
task|, vol. .. (Moscow, .8:). Comparc \. A. Kozhcvnikov, N. F. Fedoro.
(Moscow, .c8), pt. ..
:. Comparc 8ulgakov, D.a grada, lorcword.
:. This is how thc origin ol thc world-historical proccss is dcscribcd in
Schclling: All thc powcr ol thc dark principlc, as wcll as all thc powcr ol
light, arc containcd in man. 8oth local points arc in him: thc uttcrmost
dcpths ol thc pit as wcll as thc highcst limit ol thc sky. . . . 8ccausc man
cmcrgcs primordially (is crcatcd), hc contains in himscll a principlc that is
rclativcly indcpcndcnt lrom God; but sincc this principlc is translormcd
into light (without ccasing to bc dark in its loundations), thcrc ariscs in
man somcthing highcr, namcly, thc spirit. For thc ctcrnal spirit, saying
thc .ord, introduccs unity into naturc. Thc (rcal) uttcrcd word cxists
only in a unity ol light and darkncss (vowcls and consonants). 8oth ol
thcsc principlcs, it is truc, cxist in all things, but not in pcrlcct harmony
bccausc ol thc impcrlcction ol what primordially cmcrgcd. Thc .ord,
always lcss than lully rcalizcd and impcrlcct in othcr things, achicvcs
lullncss ol cxprcssion only in man. Thc spirit, i.c., God as a rcally cxist-
ing actu, is rcvcalcd in thc uttcrcd .ord. Thc soul as thc living idcntity
ol both principlcs is spirit, and spirit is in God. 8ut il thc idcntity ol
thc two principlcs wcrc cqually indivisiblc in mans spirit as it is in God,
thcrc would bc no distinction bctwccn man and God, i.c., God would
not bc rcvcalcd as spirit. Thcrclorc thc unity that is indivisiblc in God
must bc discrctc in manthis is prcciscly what constitutcs thc possi-
bility ol good and cvil. . . . Thc principlc, rootcd in thc loundations ol
naturc, that dividcs man lrom God, is scllncss in man; but thc unity ol
this scllncss with thc idcal principlc translorms it into spirit. Scllncss
as such is spirit, i.c., man is spirit, as a distinct crcaturc (scparatcd lrom
God) pcrmcatcd with scllncss; this is indccd thc csscncc ol individu-
ality. 8ut as spirit, scllncss by thc samc tokcn asccnds lrom thc statc ol
crcatcdncss to supcrcrcatcdncss; it is will contcmplating itscll in absolutc
lrccdom,it is no longcr thc tool ol univcrsal will opcrating in naturc,
but riscs abovc and outsidc naturc. Asccnding in naturc abovc thc unity
ol light and dark principlcs, thc spirit is abovc light. Conscqucntly, as
spirit, scllncss is lrcc lrom both ol thcsc principlcs. . . . 8ccausc it con-
tains spirit, rcigning ovcr light and darkncss, in itscll, scllncss canil
this spirit is not thc spirit ol ctcrnal lovcscparatc lrom light or, in othcr
Notes to Pages z,,zc c,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
5
o
f
3
5
8
words, willlulncss can strivc to bccomc, on its own, as a particular will,
what it should bc only in its idcntity with univcrsal will: bccausc it is only
insolar as it rcmains a nuclcus, it wishcs also to bc as a pcriphcry or as
somcthing crcatcd. Thus, a division bctwccn scllncss-bccomc-spirit on
onc hand, and light on thc othcr, takcs shapc, i.c., a rupturc bctwccn prin-
ciplcs indivisiblc in God. Vill, cmcrging lrom its supcrnatural statc in
ordcr to makc itscll as univcrsal will simultancously particular and crcatcd
will, strivcs to altcr thc rclation ol principlcs, to put loundations abovc
rcasons, to usc spirit, which is supposcd to locus and conccntratc, against
this purposc and against crcation; thc rcsult is discordancc both intcrnal
and cxtcrnal to thc will. Mans will is thc conncction ol univcrsal lorccs;
whilc it rcmains in its unity with univcrsal will thcsc lorccs also rcmain
in divinc proportion and cquilibrium. 8ut thc momcnt that willlulncss
tcars itscll away lrom its locus as its dcsignatcd placc, thc conncction
ol lorccs tcars as wcll; instcad, mcrc particular will conqucrs, no longcr
posscssing thc powcr, likc thc original will, to unily thcsc lorccs undcr
its acgis and thcrclorc ncccssarily striving to lorm its own scparatc lilc
lrom thcsc disparatc lorccs, lrom this unruly army ol dcsircs and longings
(cach scparatc lorcc is a particular dcsirc, a particular lust); thc crcation ol
such lilc is possiblc insolar as, cvcn in cvil, thcrc still rcmains thc original
conncction ol lorccs, thc basis ol naturc. 8ut bccausc this lilc cannot bc
truc and authcntic lilc, which could cxist only givcn thc original rclation
ol principlcs, thcrc ariscs a lalsc, il indcpcndcnt, lilc, a lilc ol lics, thc
princcdom ol disturbancc and dcstruction. !t would bc most accuratc to
comparc this lilc with illncss. . . . vcry illncss that cmbraccs thc univcrsc
is thc rcsult ol thc rcvolt ol thc original hiddcn lorccs: it cmcrgcs whcn
thc irritatcd principlc, which should havc rcmaincd in thc quict ol thc
dcpths, as thc sacrcd inncr conncction ol lorccs, actuatcs itscll, i.c., whcn
thc arouscd sagc abandons his calm dwclling in thc ccntcr and cntcrs into
thc cnvironmcnt ol thc pcriphcry. . . . !llncss ol thc particular also ariscs
only bccausc what has lrccdom or lilc only whilc rcmaining in thc wholc
strivcs to cxist on its own. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, pp.
8 (Gutmann pp. 8:), cmphasis in original. Thc comparison ol thc
world proccss with an illncss bclongs to 8aadcr.
:6. Sophia has many aspccts, but hcrc ! am paying attcntion only to onc,
namcly, thc cosmic onc. This is important to kccp in mind so that wc do
not mistakc this singlc aspcct lor thc wholc. 8ut, bccausc ! am intcrcstcd
only in thc problcm ol cconomy and thc dcnition ol its sophic basis, !
lccl justicd in not cxploring thc manilold othcr sidcs ol Sophia. Com-
parc on this subjcct P. A. Florcnsky, Stolp i ut.er.hdenie istiny |Thc pillar
c8 Note to Page zc
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
6
o
f
3
5
8
and ground ol thc truth| (Moscow, ..:; trans. 8oris Jakim, Princcton,
.y), thc chaptcr on Sophia.
:y. For rcligion, this cvcnt is Adams sin in paradisc. vcn putting asidc thc
many allcgorical intcrprctations ol this talc, howcvcr, wc must rcmcmbcr
that timc bclorc thc original sin was ontologically dicrcnt than altcr
it, whcn our discursivc timc rcally bcgan. This qucstion ol thc rclation
bctwccn thc mctaphysical Fall ol thc soul ol thc world and thc sin ol thc
rst man is onc ol thc most dicult lor rcligious-mctaphysical spccula-
tion (it rcmains unclcar both lor Schclling and lor \ladimir Solovicv).
This qucstion docs not havc indcpcndcnt or dccisivc signicancc lor thc
prcscnt discussion; thcrclorc ! prclcr to lcavc it asidc.
:8. Man, though born in timc, is crcatcd at thc bcginning ol crcation (as its
local point). Thc act which dcncs his lilc in timc is itscll outsidc timc
and bclongs to ctcrnity: it prcccdcs lilc not in timc, but stands outsidc
thc ow ol timc itscll, and as an act ctcrnal by naturc, cannot bc includcd
in timc. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, p. 8 (Gutmann, pp.
66).
:. !bid., p. 6 (Gutmann, p. c).
c. Activatcd scllncss is ncccssary lor lilcs sharpncss; without it thcrc would
bc nothing but dcath, but thc drcamincss ol goodncss; lor whcrc thcrc is
no strugglc thcrc is no lilc. Thus what is rcquircd is mcrcly thc awakcning
ol lilc rathcr than cvil itscll. . . . Goodncss itscll without activc scllncss is
inactivc goodncss. !bid., p. y (Gutmann, pp. y8c).
.. Thc lollowing prolound statcmcnt about lrccdom as thc basis ol world
history, which Kuno Fischcr justly says contains purc truth (Geschichte
der neueren Philosophie |History ol contcmporary philosophy| |Munich,
.8y|, 6:8c6), bclongs to Schclling: Vhy is all dcvclopmcnt so slow.
Vhy cvcn in thc usual coursc ol things do cvcr ncw obstaclcs arisc thc
momcnt thc goal sccms within rcach, thus dclaying rcsolution indc-
nitcly. Thcrc is only one answcr to this: thc world has primordially bccn
sct up so that cvcrything is rcalizcd complctcly voluntarily. Nothing must
bc brought about through lorcc alonc. !n thc cnd cvcrything must takc
shapc through thc intcrplay ol opposing lorccs, and thcy must thcrclorc
rctain thcir o.n will up to thc vcry momcnt ol cxhaustion. Vhatcvcr
changcs may comc about in thcsc opposing lorccs must arisc lrom within,
rathcr than through cxtcrnal lorcc; thcy must bc congurcd so that thcy
can cvcntually surrcndcr voluntarily. . . . Mcasurcd and gradual ovcr-
coming ol thcsc lorccs rcvcals a particular lawthat Providcncc that
prcsidcs ovcr this movcmcnt, as wcll. Furthcr, Thc truc luturc can only
bc thc common product ol dcstructivc and protcctivc lorccs. This is why
Notes to Pages zczz c,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
7
o
f
3
5
8
thc truc luturc can only bc crcatcd by strong charactcrs, cqually attachcd
to thc past, rathcr than by wcak minds subjcct abovc all to any ncw tcs-
tamcnt invcntcd by modcrn timcs. Schclling, Philosophie der Oenbarung
|Philosophy ol rcvclation|, pp. :6:6, :8, cmphasis in original. Citcd in
Fischcr.
Vhy docs thc world continuc to cxist altcr Christs incarnation, whcn
scllncss is alrcady brokcn at thc root. Vc could say, answcrs Schclling,
that Gods highcst law is to preser.e this opposing principle, lor it is prc-
ciscly on thc basis ol this principlc (il it is thoroughly subjugatcd) that thc
highcr armation ol thc divinity and glory ol God is constructcd. Vho-
cvcr knows this law has lound thc kcy to thc mystcrics ol thc ordcr ol
things; this opposing principlc cvcrywhcrc slows down thc dcvclopmcnt
ol thc divinc world ordcr. Philosophie der Oenbarung, p. ., cmphasis in
original.
:. This notion lics at thc loundation ol Charlcs Rcnouvicrs mctaphysical
cosmology, which constitutcs a dcvclopmcnt ol Lcibnizs monadology
and is cxpoundcd in his tract Le personnalisme |Pcrsonalism| (Paris, .c).
. Thc lact that thc lilc ol all organic crcaturcs cnds in dccay cannot bc
considcrcd a mattcr ol primordial ncccssity; thc intcrconncction ol lorccs
that constitutcs lilc could cqually, by its naturc, havc bccn indcstructiblc.
!l thcrc is anything assigncd to bccomc a pcrpctuum mobilc, thcn this is
obviously that crcativity which supplcmcnts whatcvcr shortcomings may
havc ariscn with its own lorccs. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen,
pp. 8 (Gutmann, pp. ). Contcmporary natural scicncc cxprcsscs
thc samc thought, at any ratc in thc works ol ccrtain ol its cxponcnts
(Mcchnikov).
. This is thc point ol dcparturc ol thcorics about thc intcrrclation bctwccn
cconomy and art, about thc cconomic aspccts ol art and thc artistic as-
pccts ol cconomy. Art is thc goal and limit ol cconomic activity; thc
cconomy must rcturn to its prototypc, must bccomc translormcd into art.
cn~v:vv
Thc Naturc ol Scicncc
.. Hcnri Poincar, La science et lhypothse |Scicncc and hypothcsis| (Paris,
.c), p. .y.
:. Thc qucstion ol thc intcrrclation ol scicnccs is thc qucstion ol thc
intcrrclation ol thcir mcthods. Hcrmann Cohcn, Die Logik der reinen
Erkenntniss |Thc logic ol purc cognition| (8crlin, .c:), p. .y.
. !n Cohcn, Kants Theorie der Erfahrung |Kants thcory ol cxpcricncc|, :d
zc Notes to Pages z:zo,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
8
o
f
3
5
8
cd. (8crlin, .88), and Das Prin.ip der Innitesimal-Methode und seine
Geschichte |Thc principlc ol thc mcthod ol innitcsimals and its history|
(8crlin, .88).
. Thc lundamcntal idca ol Fichtcs Theory of Science (alrcady in .y and
cvcn morc so in thc latcr stagcs) is thc primacy ol thc practical ovcr thc
thcorctical scll, which in turn lorms thc basis lor thc principlc ol scicntic
pragmatism with its dcnial ol a singlc prccstablishcd path lor scicntic
dcvclopmcnt. Fichtc spcaks on onc hand ol thc subordination ol thcory
to practicc . . . all theoretical laws arc bascd on practical oncs; on thc othcr,
lrom hcrc lollows absolutc lrccdom ol rccction and abstraction in thc
thcorctical dimcnsion as wcll. . . . Fatalism, bascd on thc assumption that
action and will arc dcpcndcnt on thc complcx ol our rcprcscntations, will
also bc thoroughly dcstroycd, lor it will bccomc clcar that, on thc con-
trary, thc complcx ol our rcprcscntations is dcpcndcnt on our urgcs and
intcntions. J. G. Fichtc, Grundlage der gesamten !issenschaftslehre (.y),
in !erke |Vorks| (.86; rcprint, 8crlin, .y.), .::, cmphasis in
original.
. Vc rcad in 8crgson: All knowlcdgc, propcrly so callcd, is thcn oricntcd
in a ccrtain dircction or takcn lrom a ccrtain point ol vicw. !t is truc that
our intcrcst is oltcn complcx. This is why it happcns that our knowl-
cdgc ol thc samc objcct may lacc scvcral succcssivc dircctions and may
bc takcn lrom various points ol vicw. Hcnri 8crgson, n Introduction to
Metaphysics (.c; trans. T. . Hulmc |!ndianapolis, .|), p. .
6. For cxamplc, thc notion that such abstract scicntic gcncralizations as thc
principlc ol conscrvation ol cncrgy rcprcscnt purcly lormal constructions,
without which physics could not cxist, and that thcir truth is conditioncd
by thcir cognitivc utility, is a pcrlcctly pragmatic notion.
y. Thc dclcndcr ol purc logic, Husscrl, lully acknowlcdgcs thc cco-
nomic naturc ol tcchniqucs ol scicntic thinking whcn hc says: All thc
arts which bclong hcrc, and which arc gcncrally had in mind whcn thcrc
is talk ol mcthod in a ccrtain pointcd scnsc, havc thc charactcr ol dcviccs
which cconomizc thought. Thcy arisc in history, and in thc individual
casc, out ol ccrtain natural processes of thought-economy. dmund Husscrl,
Logical In.estigations, trans. J. N. Findlay (London, .yc), pp. :c.c:,
cmphasis in original; cl. p. :c.
8. !n this scnsc thc objcct ol any scicncc is dcncd by its rclation to valucs.
vcry scicncc is living and practical and thcrclorc historical. This is
why ! would considcr Rickcrts clcvcr classication ol scicnccs into thc
historical and thc natural-scicntic to lall short ol its goal. Rickcrts
achicvcmcnt was to point out thc mcthods ol abstraction and ol indi-
Notes to Pages zoz,c zz
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
1
9
o
f
3
5
8
viduation as momcnts clcarly prcscnt in all scicnccs, and to show that thc
two arc distinct lrom onc anothcr. 8ut to kccp dividing thcm up and to
dcducc a classication ol thc scicnccs lrom this division is scnsclcss and
lcads nowhcrc. For Rickcrt himscll this is intcrcsting bccausc it opcns up
pcrspcctivcs lor his tclcological criticism, which contains thc conccpt ol
culturc (a mask lor pragmatism); but lor undcrstanding thc naturc ol
scicncc this distinction conluscs morc than it illuminatcs. ! rcpcat: cvcry
scicncc is born ol intcrcst and constitutcd through thc rclation to valucs
(which Rickcrt considcrs to bc a pcculiarity only ol historical scicnccs),
but cvcry scicncc uscs conccpts ol both a natural-scicntic and a historical
naturc (in Rickcrts scnsc).
. Poincar, Science et lhypothse, pp. 666y, cmphasis in original.
.c. Thc currcnt in contcmporary logic rcprcscntcd by Husscrl dcscrvcs crcdit
lor thc cstablishmcnt ol this objcctivc logical conncction, in dclcnsc ol
thc purc logic that manilcsts itscll in human thought: To thc cxtcnt
that no scicncc is possiblc without groundcd cxplanation, i.c., without
thcory, purc logic covcrs thc idcal conditions ol thc possibility ol science in
general in the most general manner. Husscrl, Logical In.estigations, p. :6,
cmphasis in original.
... Thc law ol causality is a univcrsal objcctivc truth and rcprcscnts thc
unwavcring dclcnsc ol thc objcctivity ol our knowlcdgc and thc in-
nitc cxpansc ol what is acccssiblc to our cognition. L. M. Lopatin,
Polo.hitelnye .adachi losoi |Positivc principlcs ol philosophy| (Moscow,
.8.), pt. :, p. :..
.:. Not only our immcdiatc knowlcdgc but all human knowlcdgc in gcncral
nds its ultimatc cxprcssion in action. Thc most abstract ol such idcas
thc conccpt ol bcingcontains thc notion ol acti.ity in its most abstract
lorm and yct in all its logical momcnts. !bid., cmphasis in original.
.. Thc distinguishing trait ol Cohcns critical idcalism is that lor it things
do not cxist cxccpt in thought and lrom thought, and hc rclics in gcncral
not on scnsual consciousncss but on scicncc, in which all things arc givcn
and acccssiblc to philosophical qucstions; thc stars arc givcn not in thc
sky but in thc scicncc ol astronomy, and wc dcsignatc thosc objccts as
givcn which wc distinguish lrom products and constructions ol think-
ing as abstractcd lrom scnsual cxpcricncc. Scnsuality is in thc raisons dc
lastronomic rathcr than in thc cyc. Cohcn, Prin.ip der Innitesimal-
Methode, p. .:y. Cohcns idcalism achicvcs it most straincd momcnt in thc
Logik der reinen Erkenntniss.
.. Comparc thc scction on production in chap. .
.. Being is cvidcntly not a rcal prcdicatc, or a conccpt ol somcthing that can
z: Notes to Pages z,z,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
0
o
f
3
5
8
bc addcd to thc conccpt ol a thing. !t is mcrcly |.!S.8.| thc admission
ol a thing, and ol ccrtain dctcrminations in it. Logically, it is mcrcly thc
copula ol a judgmcnt. . . . And thus thc rcal docs not contain morc than
thc possiblc. A hundrcd rcal dollars do not contain a pcnny morc than a
hundrcd possiblc dollars. For as thc lattcr signily thc conccpt, thc lormcr
thc objcct and its position by itscll, it is clcar that, in casc thc lormcr
containcd morc than thc lattcr, my conccpt would not cxprcss thc wholc
objcct, and would not thcrclorc bc its adcquatc conccpt. !n my nancial
position no doubt thcrc cxists morc by onc hundrcd rcal dollars, than by
thcir conccpt only (that is, thcir possibility), bccausc in rcality thc objcct
is not only containcd analytically in my conccpt, but is addcd to my con-
ccpt (which is a dctcrmination ol my statc) synthctically |.S.8.|; but
thc conccivcd hundrcd dollars arc not in thc lcast incrcascd through thc
cxistcncc which is outsidc my conccpt. . . . Vhatcvcr, thcrclorc, our con-
ccpt ol an objcct may contain, wc must always stcp outsidc it |.S.8.|,
in ordcr to attributc to it cxistcncc |.S.8.|. !mmanucl Kant, Critique of
Pure Feason, trans. F. Max Mllcr (Ncw York, .66), pp. c. (pt. :, div.
:, bk. :, ch. , scc. ol Elementarlehre |lcmcnts ol transccndcntalism|).
This discussion is quitc charactcristic ol thc gcncral thcorctical naturc
ol Kants philosophy, lor which conccpts arc somcthing primordial and
immcdiatc and to which thc accidcnt ol cxistcncc is mcrcly appcndcd
and lrom which onc must cxit in ordcr to achicvc bcing: armchair
philosophy thinking ol itscll as Copcrnicanism!
.6. Kants thcory ol knowlcdgc docs not crcatc a basis lor thc rcality ol
thc transsubjcctivc world: thc cxtcrnal world, as a phcnomcnon, is ac-
cording to his thcory only thc sum total ol thc incvitablc rcprcscntations
ol thc subjcct cngagcd in cognition. N. . Lossky, !.edenie . losoiu
|!ntroduction to philosophy| (St. Pctcrsburg, ...), .::cy.
.y. Scc thc rclutation ol idcalism in Kant, Critique of Pure Feason, pp.
.yyy, pt. :, div. ., bk. :, ch. :, scc. ol Elementarlehre.
.8. Kant rcturns rcpcatcdly to thc qucstion ol how thc apprchcnsion ol thc
laws ol naturc is possiblc through thc a priori catcgorics ol rcason, or ol
how it is possiblc to achicvc rcality through thc prism ol subjcctivity, but
his answcrs arc always hazy, lacking in cohcrcncc, and subjcct to a mul-
tiplicity ol intcrprctations. Scc cspccially in thc Critique of Pure Feason,
pp. .., .c:, .yyy, .8y88, :66, :66, 6y, yyy8. Hcrc arc two
or thrcc cxamplcs ol his discussion ol this qucstion. !n Supplcmcnt !!! to
thc Critique of Pure Feason wc rcad: Catcgorics arc conccpts that wc at-
tributc to phcnomcna and also to naturc, as thc totality ol all phcnomcna
|natura materialiter spectata|, thcy arc a priori laws; and now wc ask: sincc
Notes to Pages z,,z8c z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
1
o
f
3
5
8
thcy arc not dcduccd lrom naturc, and not copicd lrom naturc (lor othcr-
wisc thcy would bc mcrcly cmpirical), how can wc undcrstand that naturc
must bc guidcd |sich richten| by thcm, i.c., how can thcy dctcrminc naturc
a priori il thcy arc not takcn lrom it. Hcrc is thc rcsolution ol this riddlc.
!t is not a bit morc bizarrc that thc laws ol phcnomcna in naturc coincidc
with rcason and its a priori lormsi.c., its capability to conncct divcrsc
thingsthan that phcnomcna thcmsclvcs can coincidc with thc lorms ol
scnsual pcrccption a priori. For laws cxist only in rclation to thc subjcct in
which phcnomcna arc inhcrcnt, rathcr than in thc phcnomcna thcmsclvcs,
and only insolar as thcy arc rational; thcsc laws cxist only in rclation to thc
scnsual bcing rathcr than as phcnomcna in thcmsclvcs. Rcgularity would
bc inhcrcnt in things in thcmsclvcs outsidc thc rcason to whosc cognition
thcy arc subjcct. 8ut phcnomcna arc mcrcly rcprcscntations ol things that
arc unknowablc in thcmsclvcs. As simplc |blosse| rcprcscntations, thcy
arc subjcct to no unilying law cxccpt thc onc that unics. . . . All natural
phcnomcna, in thcir intcrconncctcdncss, can bc placcd in catcgorics upon
which naturc (rcgardcd simply as naturc in gcncral) is dcpcndcnt bccausc
it is thc loundation ol its incvitablc rcgularity |as natura formaliter spec-
tata|. Rcason lacks thc capacity to attributc a priori laws to phcnomcna
lor any largcr numbcr ol laws than thosc on which nature in general is
loundcd, and which cstablish thc rcgularity ol phcnomcna in timc and
spacc. Thc spccial laws that dcal with thc cmpirical dctcrmination ol
phcnomcna cannot bc dcduccd lrom this cvcn though thcy arc dcpcn-
dcnt on thcm |stehen unter ihnen|. !n ordcr to apprchcnd thcm at all,
cxpcricncc has to bc addcd; but cxclusivcly thcsc a priori laws can tcach
us anything about this cxpcricncc in gcncral or, lor that mattcr, about
anything that is subjcct to cognition through cxpcricncc. !mmanucl
Kant, Kritik der reinen !ernunft, cd. Karl Kchrbach (Lcipzig, .8yy), pp.
68c8., cmphasis in original. !snt it obvious that this riddlc rcmains
unrcsolvcd hcrc too, il wc scc thc diculty prcciscly in thc qucstion ol
thc rcality and transsubjcctivity ol cognition, ol thc conncction ol natura
materialiter and formaliter spectata Kant mcrcly rcpcats his dcnitions
an cxtra timc hcrc, showing clcarly that thc problcm ol tcchnology and
cconomy docs not t into thcm. Thc samc happcns in thc Prolegomena as
wcll, whcrc thc lundamcntal diculty lor Kantian apriorism stands out
pcrhaps cvcn morc clcarly by virtuc ol thc grcatcr conciscncss and clarity
ol cxposition, csp. in scc. 6, !ie ist die Natur mglich |How is naturc
possiblc.|: How is naturc in thc matcrial scnsc, that is, as to intuition,
or considcrcd as thc totality ol appcaranccs, possiblc. . . . 8y mcans ol
thc constitution ol our scnsibility, according to which it is in its own way
z, Note to Page z8c
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
2
o
f
3
5
8
acctcd by objccts which arc in thcmsclvcs unknown |.S.8.| to it and
totally distinct |.S.8.| lrom thosc appcaranccs. Kant, Prolegomena to
ny Future Metaphysics (Ncw York, .c), p. 6. (Contradiction is hcrc
pilcd on contradiction: although thc objccts arc unknown, yct wc know
that thcy acct scnsuality and that thcy arc distinct lrom phcnomcna).
Thc possibility ol cxpcricncc in gcncral is thcrclorc at thc samc timc thc
univcrsal law ol naturc, and thc principlcs ol cxpcricncc arc thc vcry laws
ol naturc. For wc know naturc only as thc totality ol appcaranccs, that is,
ol rcprcscntations in us; and hcncc wc can only dcrivc thc laws ol thcir
conncction lrom thc principlcs ol thcir conncction in us, that is, lrom thc
conditions ol thcir ncccssary union in onc consciousncss which consti-
tutcs thc possibility ol cxpcricncc (pp. 666). Thc highcst lcgislation
ol naturc must lic in oursclvcs, that is, in our undcrstanding (p. 66).
Hcrc Kant is no longcr conlronting himscll with thc dclicatc qucstion ol
whcthcr hc will bc ablc to distinguish, on thc basis ol this rcason, bctwccn
idcal and rcal talcrs and rcal lrom imaginary naturc. !s thcrc an cxit or a
passagc lrom onc to thc othcr. Cohcn too noticcs this diculty and trics
to rcsolvc it: Cohcn, Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, pp. ....
.. Likc ordinary knowlcdgc, in dcaling with things scicncc is conccrncd
only with thc aspcct ol repetition. Though thc wholc bc original, sci-
cncc will always managc to analyzc it into clcmcnts or aspccts which arc
approximatcly a rcproduction ol thc past. Hcnri 8crgson, Creati.e E.o-
lution (...; trans. Arthur Mitchcll |Ncw York, .|), p. , cmphasis
in original. Thc csscncc ol mcchanical cxplanation, in lact, is to rcgard
thc luturc and thc past as calculablc lunctions ol thc prcscnt, and thus
to claim that all is gi.en. n this hypothcsis, past, prcscnt and luturc
would bc opcn at a glancc to a supcrhuman intcllcct capablc ol making
thc calculation. !bid., p. , cmphasis in original.
:c. Citcd in ibid., p. .
:.. Laplacc says: An intcllcct which at a givcn instant kncw all thc lorccs
with which naturc is animatcd, and thc rcspcctivc situations ol thc bcings
that composc naturcsupposing thc said intcllcct wcrc vast cnough to
subjcct thcsc data to analysiswould cmbracc in thc samc lormula thc
motions ol thc grcatcst bodics in thc univcrsc and thosc ol thc slightcst
atom: nothing would bc unccrtain lor it, and thc luturc, likc thc past,
would bc prcscnt to its cycs. Picrrc Laplacc, introduction to Theorie
analytique des probabilites |Thc analytical thcory ol probability|, citcd by
8crgson, pp. . Huxlcy cxprcsscd this samc idca in morc concrctc
lorm: !l thc lundamcntal proposition ol cvolution is truc, that thc cntirc
world, living and not living, is thc rcsult ol thc mutual intcraction, ac-
Notes to Page z8 z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
3
o
f
3
5
8
cording to dcnitc laws, ol thc lorccs posscsscd by thc molcculcs ol which
thc primitivc ncbulosity ol thc univcrsc was composcd, it is no lcss ccrtain
that thc cxisting world lay, potcntially, in thc cosmic vapor, and that a
sucicnt intcllcct could, lrom knowlcdgc ol thc propcrtics ol thc molc-
culcs ol that vapor, havc prcdictcd, say thc statc ol thc Fauna ol Grcat
8ritain in .86, with as much ccrtainty as onc can say what will happcn to
thc vapor ol thc brcath in a cold wintcrs day. !bid., p. .
::. Modcrn, likc ancicnt, scicncc procccds according to thc cincmatographi-
cal mcthod. !t cannot do othcrwisc; all scicncc is subjcct to this law. For
it is ol thc csscncc ol scicncc to handlc signs, which it substitutcs lor thc
objccts thcmsclvcs. !bid., p. y. l immobility alonc docs thc intcllcct
lorm a clcar idca. !bid., p. .y.. Vc arc at casc only in thc discontinuous,
in thc immobilc, in thc dcad. Thc intcllcct is charactcrizcd by a natural
inability to comprchcnd lilc. !bid., p. .8:.
:. Vcrncr Sombart, Der Moderne Kapitalismus: Historisch-systematische
Darstellung des gesamt-europaischen !irtschaftsleben .on seinen nfangen bis
.ur Gegen.art |Contcmporary capitalism: A historical and systcmatic dc-
scription ol uropcan cconomic lilc lrom its bcginnings to thc prcscnt|,
:d cd. (Munich and Lcipzig, ..6), vols. .:, and also in Juden und das
!irtschaftsleben | Jcws and modcrn capitalism| (Lcipzig, ...).
:. Schclling has intcrcsting things to say about this: Vhat is this mccha-
nism with which you lrightcn yoursclvcs as with a ghost. !s mcchanism
somcthing that cxists ol itscll | fur sich| or is it rathcr but thc ncgativc
sidc |das Negati.e| ol thc organism. Shouldnt thc organism bc prior to
thc mcchanismpositivc bclorc ncgativc. !l in gcncral thc positivc is
assumcd to bc ncgativc and not vicc vcrsa, thc rst to bc sccond, thcn our
philosophy cannot procccd lrom thc organism as positivc, and thcrclorc
thc rst cannot bc cxplaincd procccding lrom thc sccond, lor it is itscll
bcttcr cxplaincd by thc rst. F. V. J. Schclling, !on der !eltseele . . . ,
in !erke: us.ahl in drei Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), .:.
Thc organism cxists not whcrc thcrc is no mcchanism; to thc contrary,
whcrc thcrc is no organism thcrc is mcchanism (ibid.).
:. !n his carlicst philosophical work, \om !ch als Prinzip dcr Philosophic,
with its still Fichtcan coloring, thc twcnty-ycar-old Schclling says, cn-
tircly in thc spirit ol his latcr natural philosophy: thc ultimatc cnd ol thc
! is to makc thc laws ol lrccdom into thc laws ol naturc, and thc laws ol
naturc into thc laws ol lrccdom, to rcproducc naturc in thc ! and thc !
in naturc (!erke, .:c). Mans highcst calling is to rccrcatc thc unity
ol cnds in thc world as a mcchanism, and to makc thc mcchanism into a
unity ol cnds (.:).
zo Notes to Pages z8z8,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
4
o
f
3
5
8
:6. F. V. J. Schclling, System des trans.endentalen Idealismus, in !erke: :::
|System of Transcendental Idealism, trans. Pctcr Hcath (Charlottcsvillc,
.y8), p. .86|.
:y. Fichtc rightly rcmarks about this that assuming a continuous univcrsality
|Gultigkeit| ol thc mcchanism ol causcs and cccts, thcy contradict cach
othcr in thc most immcdiatc scnsc; what thcy say and what thcy do is
contradictory. Namcly, in cstablishing a mcchanism, thcy risc abovc it;
thcir thinking about it is somcthing lying outsidc it. Mcchanism cannot
comprchcnd itscll prcciscly bccausc it is mcchanism. nly lrcc con-
sciousncss can comprchcnd itscll. J. G. Fichtc, Z.eite Einleitung in die
!issenschaftslehre |Sccond introduction to thc thcory ol scicncc|, in !erke
|Vorks| (rcpr. 8crlin, .y.), .:c.c.
:8. As Schclling says: Thc highcst consummation ol natural scicncc would
bc thc complctc spiritualizing |!ergeistigung| ol all natural laws into laws
ol intuition ol thought. Thc phcnomcna (thc mattcr) must wholly dis-
appcar, and only thc laws (thc lorm) rcmain. Hcncc it is, that thc morc
lawlulncss cmcrgcs in naturc itscll, thc morc thc husk disappcars, thc
phcnomcna thcmsclvcs bccomc morc mcntal, and at lcngth vanish cn-
tircly. . . . Thc complctcd thcory ol naturc would bc that whcrcby thc
wholc ol naturc was rcsolvcd into an intclligcncc. Schclling, System, in
!erke, ::. (Hcath, p. 6).
cn~v:vv 6
conomy as a Synthcsis ol Frccdom and Ncccssity
.. Schopcnhaucr laid thc philosophical loundations lor this point ol vicw in
Arthur Schopcnhaucr, Uber die .ierfache !ur.el des Sat.es .om .ureichen-
den Grunde |n thc lourlold root ol thc principlc ol sucicnt rcason|
(Lcipzig, .86).
:. This dualism is climinatcd in mctaphysics, lor thc loundation ol thc world
and hcncc ol thc world mcchanism is lrccdom, but in its prcscnt statc it is
cxprcsscd in this bilurcation.
. Thc qucstion ol lrcc will has somcthing in common with anothcr ol phi-
losophys vcxcd qucstionson thc rcality ol thc cxtcrnal world (scc
chap. ). Howcvcr this qucstion may bc rcsolvcd in scholastic systcms,
naivc rcalism as a lact ol living, immcdiatc consciousncss rcmains in
lull lorcc and at lcast rcquircs philosophical intcrprctation. Likcwisc wc
cxpcricncc lrccdom ol thc will indcpcndcntly ol any thcorctical rccctions
about it, and our laith in it, as a lact, rcquircs cxplanation.
. This idca, supportcd by Hcnri Poincar and by somc mathcmaticians con-
Notes to Pages z,c:cz z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
5
o
f
3
5
8
ccrncd with thc thcory ol probability, is cxtcnsivcly cxpoundcd in A. A.
Chuprov, Ocherki po teorii statistiki |ssays on thc thcory ol statistics| (St.
Pctcrsburg, .c).
. Naturc cnjoys itscll only in thc richncss ol lorms and (in thc grcat pocts
cxprcssion) arbitrariness rcjoiccs cvcn in spaccs that arc dcad and rotting.
A singlc law ol gravity, to which cvcn thc most mystcrious phcnomcna ol
thc hcavcns arc ultimatcly rcduciblc, not only pcrmits but actually pro-
vokcs world bodics to hampcr cach othcrs movcmcnts; this is why thcrc
is a maximum ol disordcr in thc most pcrlcct ordcr ol thc hcavcns. Thus
naturc dctcrmincd thc immcnsc spaccs that arc protcctcd by ctcrnal and
immutablc laws broadly cnough that thc human spirit can cnjoy thc ap-
pcarancc ol lawlcssncss within thcm. F. V. J. Schclling, !on der !eltseele,
in !erke: us.ahl in drei Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), .:.
6. vcn in thc crcation ol thc prchuman world, thc crcativc let there be only
arouscd naturcs crcativc lorccs instcad ol manulacturing rcady products:
lct thc carth bring lorth grass, lct thc watcrs bring lorth abundantly
thc moving crcaturc that hath lilc, lct thc carth bring lorth thc living
crcaturc.
y. vcn thc continual cxistcncc (ol crcaturcs) is but a constantly rcncwcd
act ol crcation in which a singlc crcaturc is brought into bcing prcciscly
as a givcn, dcnitc, discrctc bcing, cndowcd with thcsc and not othcr
idcas, aims, and actions, rathcr than as somc kind ol vaguc and ill-dcncd
gcncral crcaturc. Schclling, !on der !eltseele, in !erke, .:.c.
8. Hcrc arc Schcllings prolound obscrvations on this topic: !n ordcr lor
thc intclligiblc bcing to bc ablc to dcnc itscll, it must rst bc dctcrmincd
in itscllnot ol coursc lrom outsidc (which would contradict its naturc)
and not through somc kind ol inncr, accidcntal, or cmpirical ncccssity,
but on its own: it must dctcrminc itscll as its own csscncc, its own naturc.
This is thc dcnitc, intclligiblc csscncc ol a givcn individual pcrson, not
somcthing gcncral and indcnitc. . . . Howcvcr lrcc and uncontingcnt
thc actions ol thc intclligiblc bcing, it cannot act cxccpt according to its
inncr naturc or, what is thc samc, any givcn act can lollow lrom its inncr
naturc only in accordancc with thc law ol idcntity and absolutc ncccs-
sitywhich is at thc samc timc absolutc lrccdom; lor only that which
acts in accordancc with its own particular csscncc, undctcrmincd by any-
thing clsc insidc or outsidc it, is lrcc. . . . Thc inncrmost ncccssity ol thc
intclligiblc bcing is in lact lrccdom; mans csscncc is his o.n creation, nc-
ccssity and lrccdom cocxist onc in thc othcr as onc csscncc, appcaring as
onc and thcn thc othcr only whcn lookcd at lrom dicrcnt pcrspcctivcs;
in itscll it is lrccdom, whilc in its lormal aspcct it is ncccssity. Thc !, says
z8 Notes to Pages :cz:c,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
6
o
f
3
5
8
Fichtc, is its own crcation; consciousncss is scll-positing, and thc ! is
idcntical to, rathcr than distinct lrom, it. 8ut consciousncss, bccausc it is
imagincd only as thc !s scll-dcnition or scll-consciousncss, is not pri-
mordial and, likc cvcrything clsc that is only consciousncss, assumcs bcing
in thc propcr scnsc. This bcing, on which consciousncss is prcmiscd, is
not rcally, howcvcr, bcing, unlcss it is also consciousncss; conscqucntly,
it is rcal scll-positing: that initial, basic dcsirc that cndows itscll with
dcnition in its cxistcncc, and that constitutcs thc loundation and basis ol
all csscncc. . . . This rcsolution cannot arisc in timc; it is outsidc all timc
and thcrclorc coincidcs with thc primordial act ol crcation (although it
dicrs lrom it as an act). Man, although born in timc, is crcatcd as thc
origin ol crcation (as its local point). Thc act that dcncs his lilc in timc
is itscll outsidc timc and bclongs to ctcrnity: it prcccdcs lilc not in timc,
but in thc proccss ol all timc, and cannot bc includcd in timc bccausc it is
ctcrnal in its naturc. Through this mcans human lilc communicatcs with
thc bcginning ol crcation; bccausc ol this act man cxists outsidc all that is
crcatcd; bccausc ol it hc is lrcc and bccomcs himscll an ctcrnal bcginning.
Howcvcr incomprchcnsiblc this idca might bc to ordinary thought, cvcry
man has thc corrcsponding lccling that hc has bccn what hc is lrom thc
bcginning ol timc, and that hc did not originatc in timc. . . . l coursc a
lrcc act, whcn it bccomcs ncccssity, nds no room in our consciousncss,
lor thc lattcr is only idcal, and is only rcally scll-consciousncss; lor thc
act prcccdcs this consciousncss as it docs cvcrything clsc and produccs
it; but this docsnt mcan that no consciousncss ol this act rcmains in
man. . . . Thc most suprcmc conncctcdncss rcigns in crcation; thcrc is
not that division and scqucncing in timc that wc takc lor grantcd; yct
thc subscqucnt is containcd in thc prcvious, and cvcrything that happcns
takcs placc simultancously in onc magical act. This is why man, too, ap-
pcaring complctc and dctcrmincd in our lilc, chosc this particular imagc
in thc initial act ol crcation and is born thc samc as hc is in all ctcrnity,
lor this act outsidc timc dcncs cvcn thc charactcristics ol thc bodily
lorm hc takcs on. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen uber das !esen
der menschlichen Freiheit (Lcipzig, .:), pp. 6. |Of Human Freedom,
trans. Jamcs Gutmann (Chicago, .6), pp. 6:6, cmphasis in original|.
God is thc God ol thc living and not thc dcad. !t is unthinkablc lor thc
most pcrlcct bcing to cxpcricncc ccstasy in a machinc, cvcn thc most
pcrlcct machinc. Howcvcr wc may imaginc thc progrcssion ol bcings
procccding lrom God, wc cannot in any casc imaginc it as mcchanical,
as a simplc positing or pcrlormancc, in which thc crcatcd or produccd is
nothing in itscll; likcwisc wc cannot imaginc it as an cmanation lor which
Note to Page :c, z,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
7
o
f
3
5
8
what ows out rcmains idcntical to its sourcc, i.c., is not indcpcndcnt or
individual. Thc progrcssion ol things lrom God is Gods scll-rcvclation.
8ut God can rcvcal Himscll only in what is likc Himin bcings that arc
lrcc and scll-dctcrmining; thcir bcing has no othcr basis than God, but
thcy cxist just as much as God docs. Hc says, and thcy arc. . . . God con-
tcmplatcs things as thcy cxist in thcmsclvcs. nly thc ctcrnal, on which
will and lrccdom rcst, cxists in itscll. Thc notion ol a contingcnt absolutc
or divinity is in no way scll-contradictory; on thc contrary, it is a ccntral
conccpt lor all ol philosophy. This divinity is csscntial to naturc. Frccdom
and immancncc in God arc not mutually contradictory; rathcr, thc lrcc, as
lrcc, cxists in God, whilc only thc unlrcc, as unlrcc, ncccssarily cxists out-
sidc God. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, pp. .y.8 (Gutmann,
pp. .:c).
. vcrything lollows lrom Gods naturc with absolutc ncccssity; and
cvcrything that is possiblc by virtuc ol this naturc must by thc samc tokcn
bc rcal, whilc what is not rcal must bc morally impossiblc . . . all conclu-
sions rcjccting thc unity ol possibility and rcality in God arc bascd on a
purcly lormal intcrprctation ol possibility, according to which cvcrything
that is not scll-contradictory is possiblc. Thc lamiliar objcction that, il
wc acknowlcdgc thc idcntity ol possibility and rcality, wc must acknowl-
cdgc all rcasonably told novcls as an account ol rcal cvcnts, can scrvc as
an cxamplc. . . . !l this kind ol cmpty possibility is sucicnt lor lrccdom,
thcn wc could agrcc that, lormally, i.c., in abstraction lrom divinc csscncc,
our possibilitics wcrc and rcmain innitc. Yct this would mcan to basc
divinc lrccdom on an intcrnally lalsc conccpt, possiblc only in our imagi-
nation and not in God, lor whom abstraction lrom His csscncc and His
pcrlcction is unthinkablc. . . . Thcrc is only onc possiblc world, as thcrc is
only onc God, within divinc rcason itscll as thc original wisdom, in which
God rcalizcs Himscll idcally or primordially. Schclling, Philosophische
Untersuchungen, p. yc (Gutmann, pp. y6yy).
.c. A scnsc ol strcngth is thc principlc ol lilc, thc transition lrom dcath to
lilc. Fichtc, Grundlage der gesammten !issenschaftslehre |Foundations ol a
gcncral thcory ol scicncc| (.y), !erke, .::6.
... F. V. J. Schclling, System des trans.endentalen Idealismus, in !erke: us-
.ahl in drei Banden, cd. tto Vciss (Lcipzig, .cy), :::y6 |System of
Transcendental Idealism, trans. Pctcr Hcath (Charlottcsvillc, .y8), p. :c|.
Schclling lormulatcd thc conccpt ol history so wcll in this rcspcct that wc
havc only to citc his dcnitions: An absolutcly lawlcss scrics ol cvcnts is
no morc cntitlcd to thc namc ol history than an absolutcly law-abiding
onc; whcncc it is apparcnt: (a) that thc idca ol progrcss implicit in all
:c Notes to Pages :c,:zo
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
8
o
f
3
5
8
history pcrmits no conlormity to law such as would limit lrcc activity to
a dctcrminatc and constantly rccursivc succcssion ol acts; (b) that noth-
ing whatcvcr can bc an objcct ol history which procccds according to a
dctcrminatc mcchanism, or whosc thcory is a priori. Thcory and history
arc totally opposcd. . . . |Scc abovc, chap. , n. .| (c) that ncithcr absolutc
lawlcssncss, nor a scrics ol cvcnts without aim or purposc, dcscrvcs thc
namc ol history, and that its truc naturc is constitutcd only by lrccdom
and lawlulncss in conjunction, or by thc gradual rcalization, on thc part
ol a wholc spccics ol bcings, ol an idcal that thcy havc ncvcr wholly lost.
Schclling, System, in !erke, :::66 (Hcath, p. :cc).
.:. Schclling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, pp. 6yc, arguing with Lcibniz,
arms that God has no choicc among dicrcnt worlds and possibilitics
and acts in absolutc ncccssity, which lor God is cquivalcnt to absolutc
lrccdom. 8ut human lrccdom and prcsumably thc multiplicity ol dctcr-
minants or ways ol attaining thc samc rcsult (which Poincar addrcsscs)
arc alrcady includcd in this plan.
.. Scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, Narodnoc khoziaistvo i rcligioznaia lichnost
|National cconomy and thc rcligious pcrsonality|, in D.a grada |Two
citics| (Moscow, ...). Scc also Scrgci 8ulgakov, Ocherki po istorii ekono-
micheskikh uchenii |ssays on thc history ol cconomic thcory| (Moscow,
..).
.. Giovanni Pico dclla Mirandola, De hominis dignitate |On the dignity of
man, trans. Charlcs Vallis (!ndianapolis, .6), p. |: Man |wc rcad
hcrc| is thc connccting link in all ol naturc and thc csscncc composcd ol
all its juiccs. Thcrclorc who knows himscll knows cvcrything in himscll.
cn~v:vv y
Thc Limits ol Social ctcrminism
.. l coursc wc cncountcr social dctcrminism in othcr thinkcrs as wcll;
think lor cxamplc ol Robcrt wcn (scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, Sotsialnaia
losoia R. ucna |R. wcns social philosophy|, !oprosy losoi i psi-
khologii |Qucstions ol philosophy and psychology| no. .cy (...): .6y8.
!n gcncral it is quitc prcvalcnt in thc spiritual atmosphcrc ol our timc.
:. Thc qucstion ol lrccdom and ncccssity was poscd in lull lorcc lor thc
author ol thcsc lincs in thc timc ol his lascination with Marxism, and it
pokcd thc rst holc in it. Comparc, in conncction with Rudoll Stamm-
lcrs cpistcmological idcalism and thc polcmics with Pctr Struvc, Scrgci
8ulgakov, zakonomcrnosti sotsialnykh iavlcnii |n thc rcgularity
ol social phcnomcna| and Svoboda i ncobkhodimost chclovcchcskikh
Notes to Pages :zo:: :z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
2
9
o
f
3
5
8
dcistvii |Frccdom and ncccssity in human actions|, in Ot marksi.ma k
ideali.mu |From Marxism to idcalism| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c).
. n this social physiology Qutclct notcs with cnthusiasm: This
grcat body cxists by virtuc ol thc principlcs ol scll-prcscrvation, just likc
cvcrything clsc that comcs lrom thc hands ol thc Crcator; it has its own
physiology just likc thc lowcst ol organic crcaturcs. Having asccndcd to
thc highcst rung ol thc laddcr wc nd laws cvcrywhcrc that arc as irrclut-
ablc as thc laws govcrning thc hcavcnly bodics; wc cntcr into thc rcalm ol
physical phcnomcna in which mans lrcc will vanishcs dccisivcly, giving
way to thc sovcrcignty ol ivinc crcation. Thcsc laws, which cxist outsidc
timc, outsidc human whim, togcthcr constitutc a scicncc ol its own which
! would call social physics. Lettres S..F. le duc rgnant de Saxe-Coburg et
Gotha sur la theorie des probabilites, applique aux sciences morales et politiques
|Lcttcrs to thc dukc ol Saxc-Coburg and Gotha on thc thcory ol proba-
bility in application to thc moral and political scicnccs| (8russcls, .86),
p. :6.
. Joscph 8crtrand, Calcul des probabilites (Paris, .88), citcd in A. A. Chu-
prov, Ocherki po teorii statistiki |ssays on thc thcory ol statistics| (St.
Pctcrsburg, .c), p. .. Karl Pcarson in The Grammar of Science (Lon-
don, .8) charactcristically calls mcchanism a logical stcnography,
which ol coursc is dicrcnt lor cach scicncc.
. Scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, sotsialnom moralizmc (T. Karlcil) |n social
moralism (T. Carlylc)|, in D.a grada |Two citics| (Moscow, ...), : vols.,
vol. ..
6. Vilhclm H. R. A. Lcxis, bhandlungen .ur Theorie der Be.lkerungs- und
Moralstatistik |Papcrs on thc thcory ol population and moral statistics|
(Jcna, .c), p. ::y.
y. !t would also bc possiblc to intcrprct class intcrcst as a bchavioral norm, as
a moral rulc: act socially rathcr than individualistically, but socially only in
such a way that lurthcrs thc class idcal. This is what Lassallc, lor cxamplc,
advocatcd, and it is also thc cthics ol social dcmocracy. Thc statcmcnt cx-
amincd in thc tcxt has a complctcly dicrcnt mcaning, howcvcr, bccausc
it is conccrncd with bcing rathcr than obligation.
8. Vhat Chuprov says about thc rcal-lilc signicancc ol thc pcrmancncc ol
statistical rcsults applics to sociological avcragcs in gcncral: Faith in thc
limitcd mutability ol statistical rcsults lorms thc basis ol any calculation
in thc sphcrc ol social cxistcncc. . . . This constancy is thc loundation ol
accountability in both thc privatc and thc collcctivc houschold. !t con-
stitutcs thc conditio sine qua non ol thc cntirc contcmporary cconomic
ordcr, which is bascd on thc broad division ol labor and cxchangc ol prod-
:: Notes to Pages :::,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
0
o
f
3
5
8
ucts that arc produccd lor an indcnitc markct rathcr than lor oncscll or
to lulll an ordcr. !l thc numbcrs cxprcssing thc summation ol nccd ol
individual pcrsons wcrc subjcct to unlimitcd arbitrary uctuations lrom
ycar to ycar, thc mcchanism ol thc national cconomy would not survivc.
Chuprov, Ocherki, pp. :c.
. Thc qucstion ol thc possibility ol historical prcdiction, poscd so sharply
in Marxism and morc gcncrally in scicntic socialism, has always bccn
troubling lor mc, and thc apprchcnsion ol its impossibility bccamc a
signicant brcach in my Marxism. Scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, Kapitali.m i
.emledelie |Capitalism and agriculturc| (St. Pctcrsburg, .cc), : vols.,
::y8: Marx considcrcd it possiblc to mcasurc and prcdctcrminc thc
luturc by rclcrring to thc past and thc prcscnt, whcrcas actually cvcry agc
introduccs ncw lacts and ncw lorccs ol historical dcvclopmcnthistorical
crcativity docs not diminish. Thcrclorc cvcry prognosis about thc luturc,
il it is bascd on data lrom thc prcscnt, is incvitably lalsc. Thc scrious
scholar hcrc takcs on thc rolc ol prophct or soothsaycr, lcaving bchind thc
solid tcrritory ol lact. Thcrclorc with rcgard to prcdictions ol thc luturc !
prclcr an honcst ignoramus to social wizardry and charlatanism. ur cur-
rcnt sun illuminatcs only thc prcscnt, with obliquc rccctions ol thc past.
This is cnough lor us and lor our lilc, lor thc prcssing issucs and intcrcsts
ol our day. 8ut in vain do wc x our cycs on thc horizon bcyond which
our waning sun is sctting, igniting thc ncw dawn ol a coming unknown
day. ! could add much now to thcsc words, writtcn twclvc ycars ago, but
! would subtract nothing.
Comparc Rickcrts obscrvations on thc possibility ol social prcdiction:
Hcinrich Rickcrt, Die Gren.en der natur.issenschaftlichen Begrisbildung
|Thc limits ol conccpt lormation in natural scicncc| (.c:; trans. Guy
akcs, Cambridgc, U.K., .86), pp. :.
.c. Should wc dcny human lrcc will. ! dont think so. ! think only that thc
activitics ol this lrcc will arc cncloscd in cxccssivcly narrow boundarics
and play mcrcly thc rolc ol an accidental causc in social phcnomcna. Hcncc
it lollows that, il wc pay no attcntion to individuals, but instcad locus on
things lrom a gcncral point ol vicw, thc cccts ol all accidcntal causcs
will bc paralyzcd and mutually dcstructivc, so that only thc truc causcs
through which socicty cxists and is maintaincd will rcmain. Thc wisdom
ol thc highcr bcing cstablishcd limits lor our moral as wcll as physical
qualitics; it did not plcasc him to allow man to usurp his ctcrnal laws.
Adolphc Qutclct, Du systme social et des lois qui le regissent (Paris, .88),
pp. 6yc.
... Thcrc was an apt scnsc in Russian subjcctivc sociology that a ccrtain
Notes to Pages :o:,c :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
1
o
f
3
5
8
subjcctivismwill rathcr than cognitionhas inucncc in thc construc-
tion ol thc social idcal. 8ut it incorrcctly rclcgatcd this subjcctivism to
scicntic rcscarch, prcciscly thc placc whcrc it should havc bccn climi-
natcd il wc do not wish to dcvaluc scicntic work.
.:. Hcrc is thc admission ol a sociological man: ! could ncvcr undcr-
stand |says !van Karamazov to Alcsha| how it is possiblc to lovc oncs
ncighbors. !t is prcciscly thosc who arc closc to us whom it is impossiblc
to lovc, il anyonc pcrhaps it is thosc who arc morc distant. . . . !n ordcr
to lovc a pcrson hc has to bc hiddcn, and as soon as hc shows his lacc thc
lovc vanishcs. F. M. ostocvsky, The Brothers Karama.o., bk. , ch. ,
Rcbcllion.
.. Thc striving lor scicntic socialism is just onc ol thc manilcstations
chronologically thc carlicstol thc all-cmbracing urgc to scicntism
ol our agc, ol this mania ol scicncc: alongsidc scicntic socialism wc
havc scicntic philosophy, scicntic cthics, cvcn scicntic rcligion (in
contcmporary Protcstantism); thc only thing missing is scicntic art.
.. This is why, cvcn il it is appropriatc to spcak ol thc rcgularity ol social
politics, this is only in thc scnsc ol rcgularity ol thc will, as, lor cx-
amplc, thc Marburg schoolRudoll Stammlcr, Hcrmann Cohcn, Paul
Natorpdocs.
.. Similarly, thc scicntically dctcrmincd ncccssity ol thc dcvclopmcnt ol
capitalism in Russia did not bring about a will to capitalism in Russian
Marxists; to thc contrary, thcir will was dircctcd outsidc its limits to that
social ordcr which might transpirc altcr thc muzhik gcts boilcd in thc
lactory cauldron.
.6. ! havc pointcd this out on many occasions in 8ulgakov, Ot marksi.ma k
ideali.mu and D.a grada (an invcstigation ol thc naturc ol social idcals).
.y. Vc can scc this cvcn in thc history ol Marxisms litcrary dcvclopmcnt:
Marx positivcly rcsolvcd thc qucstion ol socialism in .8, and thc systcm
ol scicntic socialism was complctc in thc Communist Manifesto ol .88,
thus prcccding all scicntic idcas containcd in Capital, although Marxs
scicntic rcscarch in thc cld ol political cconomy, cvcn according to his
own account, datcs only to his ycars in London in thc cs and 6cs.
cn~v:vv 8
Thc Phcnomcnology ol conomy
.. Thc matcrialistic dcnition ol wcalth as thc totality ol matcrial products,
or scnsually apprchcnsiblc objccts, no longcr corrcsponds to thc contcm-
porary statc ol production, howcvcr: ncithcr thc clcctric industry, nor thc
:, Notes to Pages :,c:,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
2
o
f
3
5
8
chcmical, nor transportation, nor thc tclcgraph, nor thc tclcphonc ts into
Smiths dcnitioncvcn matcrial goods havc bccomc dcmatcrializcd.
:. Howcvcr, knowlcdgc ol quantitics and thc lact ol thcir grcatcr or lcsscr
stability ovcr cvcn an indcnitc scgmcnt ol timc is insucicnt to con-
struct plans lor thc luturc. Thc stability ol statistical quantitics is thc
rcsult ol thc conucncc ol a multiplicity ol circumstanccs rathcr than a
law dcning thc coursc ol cvcnts (Lcxis). A. A. Chuprov, Ocherki po
teorii statistiki |ssays on thc thcory ol statistics| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c),
p. y.
. Scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, Narodnoc khoziaistvo i rcligioznaia lichnost
|National cconomy and rcligious pcrsonality|, in D.a grada |Two citics|
(Moscow, ...), vol. .. Comparc also Max Vcbcrs major work on Prot-
cstantism and thc spirit ol capitalism (whosc csscntial conclusions arc
adduccd in thc citcd chaptcr), as wcll as Vcrncr Sombarts ncwcst study,
Juden und das !irtschaftsleben | Jcws and modcrn capitalism| (Lcipzig,
...).
. Actually, motivcs ol a practical naturc, rclcvant only through shccr his-
torical association, cntcr into thcsc quasi-thcorctical dcbatcs as wcll (c.g.,
thc quasi-socialist naturc ol thc labor thcory ol valuc and thc quasi-
antisocialism ol nonlabor thcorics). This typc ol conncction ol thcory
and practicc, or lalsc pragmatism, is nothing othcr than scicntic tcn-
dcntiousncss ol thc worst sort. ! rst proposcd thc intcrprctation ol thc
scicntic valuc ol cconomic thcorics adduccd hcrc in Scrgci 8ulgakov, Ot
marksi.ma k ideali.mu |From Marxism to idcalism| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c)
(cl. cspccially Zadachi politichcskoi ckonomii |Thc tasks ol politi-
cal cconomy|); it is thc lruit ol immcdiatc pcrsonal cxpcricnccmany
ycars ol studying cconomic thcoryas wcll as mcthodological rccction.
Thcory bccomcs most dcbatablc and complicatcd whcrc thcrc is in lact no
problcm or clsc it is unsatislactorily poscd and poorly undcrstood.
cn~v:vv
conomic Matcrialism as a Philosophy ol conomy
.. Howcvcr lar lrom cconomism hc may havc bccn in gcncral, \ladi-
mir Solovicv with his philosophical univcrsalism noncthclcss lclt thc
truth ol cconomic matcrialism and graspcd its pcculiar motivation,
though hc cxprcsscd this in slightly mocking lorm in thc articlc !dcia
svcrkhchclovcka |Thc idca ol thc supcrman|, in Sobranie sochinenii |Col-
lcctcd works| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c..c), 8 vols., 8:.c . vcry idca is
by itscll but a mcntal window. !n thc window ol cconomic matcrialism
Notes to Pages :,:o :
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
3
o
f
3
5
8
wc scc only thc rcar or, as thc Frcnch say, lowcr courtyard (la basse cour) ol
history and ol thc contcmporary world. Thcsc lricndly mocking words,
howcvcr, acknowlcdgc thc particular truth ol cconomic matcrialism and
its pcculiar philosophical motivation in a way that thc idcalist philoso-
phcrs do not. 8ut cvcn Solovicv was ol coursc wrong in prcsuming that
thc idca ol cconomic matcrialism turns its attcntion only towards thc
currcnt and prcscnt rathcr than toward thc luturc (ibid.); hcrc hc might
havc lcarncd much lrom thc thinkcr who inucnccd him so much, N. F.
Fcdorov, whosc worldvicw indisputably sharcs ccrtain philosophical clc-
mcnts with cconomic matcrialism (comparc Scrgci 8ulgakov, D.a grada
|Two citics| (Moscow, ...), vol. :.
:. Thc kinship ol pragmatism and cconomic matcrialism that bccomcs ap-
parcnt on juxtaposing thc loundations ol both thcorics attains its clcarcst
cxprcssion in Marxs lamous thcscs on Fcucrbach. Scc abovc, chap. :, n. ..
. Adam Smith distinguishcd mans sympathctic or altruistic sidc lrom thc
cgoistic or cconomic. Hc studics thc rst in thc Theory of Moral Senti-
ments and thc sccond in thc !ealth of Nations. His lollowcrs complctcly
lorgot about this division (though it too is ol coursc highly dcbatablc),
and, with 8cnthams hclp, turncd thc mcthodological prcmisc ol thc
!ealth of Nations into a gcncral thcory ol mankind.
. Scc Scrgci 8ulgakov, snovnyc problcmy tcorii progrcssa |Thc csscntial
problcms ol thc thcory ol progrcss|, in Problemy ideali.ma |Problcms ol
idcalism|, cd. P. !. Novgorodtscv (Moscow, .c), and Scrgci 8ulgakov,
Ot marksi.ma k ideali.mu |From Marxism to idcalism| (St. Pctcrsburg,
.c).
. Vc havc a typical cxamplc ol such an application ol political-cconomic
conccpts as a kcy that is supposcd to opcn thc doors to all locks ol his-
tory in Marxs lamous judgmcnt conccrning thc rclation ol cconomy to
rcligion and on Christianity as a rcligion ol production ol goods. For a
socicty ol commodity produccrs, whosc gcncral social rclation ol produc-
tion consists in thc lact that thcy trcat thcir products as commoditics,
hcncc as valucs, and in this matcrial |sachlich| lorm bring thcir individual,
privatc labors into rclation with cach othcr as homogcncous human labor,
Christianity with its rcligious cult ol man in thc abstract, morc particu-
larly in its bourgcois dcvclopmcnt, i.c., in Protcstantism, cism, ctc., is
thc most tting lorm ol rcligion. Karl Marx, Capital, trans. 8cn Fowkcs
(Ncw York, .yy), .:.y:. !n this paradox Marx actually caricaturcs him-
scll, although his lollowcrs unlortunatcly not only did not noticc this
unintcntional lampoon but amplicd it.
6. Rudoll Stammlcr, !irtschaft und Fecht nach der materialistischen Ge-
:o Notes to Pages :o,:,o
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
4
o
f
3
5
8
schichtsauassung |conomy and law according to thc matcrialist vicw ol
history| (Lcipzig, .86).
y. Stammlcrs wcll-known study !irtschaft und Fecht is ol grcat signicancc
hcrc. Comparc 8ulgakov, Ot marksi.ma k ideali.mu, and Pctr Struvc, Na
ra.nye temy (z8,z,cz gg.): Sbornik statei |n various thcmcs (.8.c.):
A collcction ol articlcs| (St. Pctcrsburg, .c:).
Note to Page :,, :,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
5
o
f
3
5
8
Gioss~vv ov Gvvvx Tvv:s
Grcck tcrms uscd in ordcr ol appcarancc:
yaumzv: thc surprisc or wondcr that marks thc bcginning ol philoso-
phy (p. y)
ka t fw n t skot fanei: and thc light shincth in darkncss (p. 8)
ntvw n: implying real cxistcncc (ntvw - rcally, actually) (p. c)
m| n, or mcon: m| - not, thc ncgativc ol .ill and thought, as o ol
fact and statement; m| rcjccts, o dcnics; m| is rclativc, o absolutc; m|
subjcctivc, o objcctivc. Thus lor 8ulgakov thc opposition ol m| n v.
ok n is an opposition ol rclativc v. complctc ncgation. (pp. y, 6, )
ok n: scc m| n
M~thr zvw: thc mothcr ol lilc (p. )
frmakn tw yanasaw: thc mcdicinc ol immortality (p. .c)
zon mayhmatikn: mathcmatical animal or bcing (p. .66)
n ka pn: onc and all (p. .8)
ksmow nohtw: thc intclligiblc cosmos (nohtw - lalling within thc
provincc ol now, mcntal ) (p. :c)
troxw tw gensevw: whccl ol bcing (p. :.)
txnh: art or cralt, i.c. a sct ol rulcs, systcm, or mcthod ol making or
doing, whcthcr ol thc usclul arts, or nc arts (p. ::)
kat' jox~n: par cxccllcncc (p. :6)
tiy~nh: wct-nursc (p. :8nzo)
kmageon: substancc that can bc shapcd or moldcd (p. :8nzo)
H. G. Liddcll and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (xlord, .8; rcpr.
.68).
:8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
6
o
f
3
5
8
Gioss~vv ov N~:vs
ngelus Silesius (thc angcl ol Silcsia) is thc pscudonym ol Johanncs
Schccr (.6:.6yy), a physician and scholar who convcrtcd to
Catholicism in .6, taking pricstly ordcrs and bccoming a mystical
poct in thc tradition ol 8hmc, Paracclsus, Mcistcr ckhart, and his
own tcachcr, Abraham von Franckcnbcrg. His most important work is
Der Cherubinische !andersmann (.6y), although hc was also thc author
ol numcrous cssays and thcological tracts.
thanasius (c. :y), bishop ol Alcxandria, spcnt much ol his tcnurc
struggling against thc Arian hcrcsy; hc was a participant in thc Coun-
cil ol Nicca (:) and convcncr ol thc local Council ol Alcxandria
(6:). His thcological writings locuscd particularly on thc dogma ol
rcdcmption and claboration ol thc trinitarian doctrinc lormulatcd at
Nicca.
Fichard .enarius (.8.86) is known primarily as thc loundcr, togcthcr
with rnst Mach, ol thc positivist and hypcrmatcrialist philosophical
doctrinc ol cmpiriocriticism. Cognition, lor Avcnarius, was a lorm ol
biological bchavior, and all ol bcing could bc rcduccd to cxpcricncc in
which scll and objcct arc prcscnt on cqual tcrms. Avcnarius and Mach
wcrc widcly rcad by and inucntial lor Russian Marxists, including
Lcnin, in thc .8cs.
Fran. Xa.ier .on Baader (.y6.8.), Gcrman Catholic mystic and physi-
cian, updatcd and disscminatcd mcdicval mystical doctrinc (8hmc
in particular) through philosophy and poctry. His idcas cnjoycd widc
popularity in Russia during thc rcign ol Alcxandcr ! (.8c..8:), as
wcll as inucncing F. V. J. Schclling and thc dcvclopmcnt ol Roman-
ticism.
George Berkeley (.68.y) was an !rish bishop whosc systcm ol spiritual-
ist philosophy was lormulatcd partly in rcsponsc to rcigning rcalist and
matcrialist idcas and partly undcr thc inucncc ol John Lockcs scn-
sualism. For Kant, 8crkclcy scrvcd as a rcprcscntativc ol dogmatic
(as opposcd to critical) idcalism.
Eduard Bernstein (.8c.:), Gcrman Social cmocrat, lormulatcd
:,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
7
o
f
3
5
8
somc ol thc csscntial tcncts ol Marxist rcvisionism in thc highly in-
ucntial collcction ol articlcs Problems of Socialism in thc latc .8cs.
8crnstcin bccamc convinccd that capitalism was not doomcd to lailurc
and argucd that gradual social rclorm, parliamcntary participation, and
coopcration with libcralism wcrc lcgitimatc lorms ol political action
lor socialists.
Jakob Bhme (.y.6:), Gcrman mystic and shocmakcrand thc rst
philosophcr to writc in Gcrmansaw thc opposition ol good and cvil
as itscll a manilcstation ol God, thc ctcrnal stillncss. A major inucncc
on Hamann, Schclling, Novalis, Hcgcl, 8aadcr, and, carlicr, Angclus
Silcsius, 8hmc cnjoycd a ncw wavc ol popularity in Russia in thc
rcign ol Alcxandcr ! and again during thc Silvcr Agc.
Jacques Bossuet (.6:y.y:), Frcnch Catholic thcologian, prosclytizcr, and
historian, was bishop ol Mctz, Condom, and Mcaux. A prolic writcr,
hc was thc author ol a plcthora ol scrmons, spccchcs, and thcological
tracts as wcll as works ol history. nc ol thc thcmcs ol his historical
writings was thc dccisivc inucncc ol Judaism on thc culturc ol Grcccc
and Romc.
Paul Bourget (.8:.) was a Frcnch litcrary critic and psychologi-
cal novclist whosc books cnjoycd popularity throughout uropc and
in Russia. Hc was dccply inucnccd by 8audclairc, Stcndahl, and
ostocvsky, among othcrs. Le Disciple (.88)a novcl about thc pas-
sions ol lovcalso cxamincd thc rcsponsibility ol scicntists lor thc
moral conscqucnccs ol thcir thcorics and warncd against cxccssivc
skcpticism.
Lujo Brentano (.8..), Gcrman political cconomist, was also a his-
torian ol thc workcrs movcmcnt who, although siding with thc
Kathederso.ialisten against lrcc-tradcrs, latcr joincd Gustav Schmollcr,
within thc Union lor Social Politics, in opposing statc socialism.
Karl Bucher (.8y.c) was a Gcrman political cconomist who wrotc
about such issucs as thc woman qucstion in thc Middlc Agcs, carly
modcrn urban population statistics, qucstions ol tax policy, and Rus-
sian labor laws.
Henry Thomas Buckles (.8::.86:) History of Ci.ili.ation in England,
though now lorgottcn, was onc ol thc most inucntial works ol his-
tory in thc ninctccnth ccntury. 8ucklc bclicvcd that history could bc
studicd according to thc mcthods ol thc natural scicnccs and hcncc
that human actions in historical dcvclopmcnt wcrc subjcct to obscrv-
ablc laws. Thc 8ritish historian and cmpiricist, himscll inucnccd
by Hcrdcr and Comtc, bccamc an important point ol rclcrcncc lor
c Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
8
o
f
3
5
8
thc Russian writcr and radical Nikolai Chcrnyshcvsky (!hat Is to Be
Done, .86).
leksandr leksandro.ich Chupro. (.8y.:6) was a statistician and
cconomist in St. Pctcrsburg and thcn rcsdcn who bccamc known as
a lcadcr ol thc Contincntal school ol mathcmatical statistics. Chuprov
wrotc a numbcr ol works on thc gcncral thcory ol statistics and thc
thcory ol corrclation in particular. His lathcr, Alcksandr !vanovich
Chuprov, was 8ulgakovs tcachcr in thc cld ol political cconomy and
coauthor with A. S. Posnikov ol thc politically cxplosivc cssay \liianic
urozhacv i khlcbnykh tscn na nckotoryc storony russkogo narodnogo
khoziaistvo |Thc inucncc ol harvcsts and brcad priccs on aspccts ol
thc Russian national cconomy| (.8y).
Hermann Cohen (.8:..8), Gcrman philosophcr, was onc ol thc lcad-
ing cxponcnts ol nco-Kantianism and a loundcr, togcthcr with Paul
Natorp, ol thc Marburg school. !nitially conccrncd with building
on Kants philosophy to account lor thc dualism ol obscrvation and
thought, appcarancc and thing in itscll, hc latcr workcd in thc cld
ol rcligious philosophy bascd on ld Tcstamcnt Judaism.
uguste Comte (.y8.8y) was thc loundcr ol positivism and author ol
Cours de philosophie positi.e (.8c.8:) and Systme de politique positi.e
(.8..8).
Etienne, abbe de Condillac (.y..y8c), Frcnch philosophcr and brothcr ol
thc cqually distinguishcd abb dc Mably, was at onc point a mcmbcr
ol thc circlc ol ncyclopcdists and tutor to Louis X\s grandson. His
bcst-known work, thc Trait dcs Scnsations, analyzcd thc human
scnscs and rccxcs by proposing thc modcl ol a living but inanimatc
statuc, which would gradually bc cndowcd with onc, thcn anothcr,
ol thc vc scnscs, so that thc indcpcndcnt cccts ol cach could bc
invcstigatcd.
ntoine-uguste Cournot (.8c..8yy) was thc rst succcsslully to apply
mathcmatical modcls to political cconomy, carclully limiting his invcs-
tigations to quantiablc phcnomcna such as priccs and prots. nc ol
thc most cngaging ol his studics conccrncd thc rolc ol chancc in causal
chains ol phcnomcna. Cournot was thc author ol numcrous works on
cconomics, philosophy, and thc history ol idcas.
Dionysius the reopagite, rst-ccntury Athcnian, was onc ol St. Pauls
convcrts to Christianity and an carly Christian philosophcr. His works,
including thosc on thc hcavcnly hicrarchy, thc church hicrarchy, and
thc namc ol God, bccamc an important loundation lor mcdicval mys-
tical thcology, dcspitc thcir disputcd authorship (hc was lrcqucntly
Glossary of Names z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
3
9
o
f
3
5
8
conluscd with thc Christian prosclytizcr ionysius ol Gaul). Somc
ol his writings wcrc uscd by thc monophysitcs in thc disputc with thc
rthodox () that lollowcd thc Council ol Chalccdon.
Emil Dubois-Feymond (.8.8.86), Gcrman physiologist, was particu-
larly intcrcstcd in thc physical and chcmical proccsscs in thc human
organism. Togcthcr with 8rckc, Hclmholtz, and Ludwig, hc was
rcsponsiblc lor thc rcjcction ol thc thcory ol vitalism. Apart lrom his
cxpcrimcntal work, thc most signicant ol which is thc In.estigation of
nimal Electricity (.88), hc also lccturcd on thc history and philosophy
ol scicncc.
John Scotus Erigena, ninth-ccntury philosophcr and a nativc ol !rcland,
lound a homc at thc court ol Carl thc 8ald and, latcr, in ngland. His
translations lrom Grcck into Latin (ionysius thc Arcopagitc, Maxim
thc Conlcssor) bccamc thc main sourcc lor mcdicval mystics and scho-
lastic philosophcrs. Thc main intcrcst ol his thcological systcm propcr
lics in its synthcsis ol Grcck and Latin (Augustinian) traditions. ri-
gcna was rcdiscovcrcd in thc carly ninctccnth ccntury bccausc ol thc
similaritics ol somc ol his vicws with thosc ol thc Gcrman idcalists.
Nikolai Fedoro. (.8:.c), Russian philosophcr and thc ccccntric and
phcnomcnally cruditc librarian ol thc Rumiantscv Muscum (subsc-
qucntly thc Lcnin Library) in Moscow, gathcrcd his writings in a
work callcd thc Philosophy of the Common Task. Hcrc hc advocatcd, in
a positivism so cxtrcmc that it mcrgcs with rcligion, thc cosmic rcgu-
lation ol naturc including spacc ight and thc production ol articial
rain through cxplosivc dcviccs; thc prcscrvation ol all human activity
in natural-historical muscums; and nally thc rcsurrcction ol thc
lathcrsby which hc mcant bringing our anccstors back to lilc in-
stcad ol cngaging in rcproduction. His idcas provcd highly productivc
lor Silvcr Agc pocts and writcrs.
Kuno Fischer (.8:.c), Gcrman historian ol philosophy, was prolcssor
at Jcna and Hcidclbcrg and a brilliant lccturcr whosc intcrprctation ol
Kant laid somc ol thc loundations lor nco-Kantianism. His Geschichte
der neueren Philosophie |History ol modcrn philosophy| (.8:.8)
sccs thc history ol philosophy as thc unlolding scll-consciousncss ol
thc human spirit. !t discusscs thc thought ol cscartcs, Spinoza, and
Lcibniz; Kant; Kants lollowcrs and Fichtc; Schopcnhaucr; Schclling;
and Hcgcl.
Pa.el Florensky (.88:ca. .y) was a Russian mathcmatician, philosophcr,
and thcologian whosc thought was ccntral to thc Silvcr Agc and has
cnjoycd a rcsurgcncc ol popularity in thc .cs. His Pillar and Ground
: Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
0
o
f
3
5
8
of the Truth (..:) contains onc ol thc most comprchcnsivc cxpositions
ol thc conccpt ol Sophia, thc divinc Visdom (lcttcr .c).
Gregory (ca. :ca. ), thcologian and lathcr ol thc astcrn church,
bishop ol Nyssus, was thc youngcr brothcr ol 8asil thc Grcat and his
hclpcr in thc strugglc against thc Arian hcrcsy. Somc ol thc thcmcs ol
his work, which was inucnccd abovc all by rigcn, includc man in his
rclation to naturcas thc link bctwccn hcavcnly and carthly; thc dis-
harmony in naturc produccd by thc Fall; and thc possiblc divinization
ol man.
Ernst Hackel (.8..), zoologist, was onc ol thc rst Gcrman arwin-
ists. !n his scicntic work, much ol which was latcr supcrscdcd, hc was
particularly conccrncd with thc origins ol thc animal kingdom and thc
rclation ol individual dcvclopmcnt (ontogcncsis) to thc origins ol thc
spccics (philogcncsis). Hylo.oism rclcrs to thc philosophical pcrspcc-
tivc that would cndow matcrial naturc with animatc charactcristics,
thus lailing to distinguish bctwccn mcchanical and spiritual or organic
dcnitions ol bcing.
Eduard .on Hartmanns (.8:.c6) mctaphysical philosophy was im-
mcnscly popular in his own timc. His main work, Philosophie des
Unbe.uten |Philosophy ol thc unconscious|, writtcn whcn hc was
twcnty-six, took Schopcnhaucrs discussion ol will and rcprcscntation
as its point ol dcparturc, claiming thc primacy ol rcprcscntation and
thc unconscious.
Thomas Huxley (.8:.8y) was an nglish zoologist whosc achicvcmcnts
lay primarily in thc clds ol cmbryology and comparativc anatomy. Hc
madc a splash in thc popular consciousncss with Mans Place in Nature
(.86; translatcd into Russian undcr thc dircction ol A. 8ckctov),
which argucd that thc anatomical dicrcnccs bctwccn man and thc
highcr apcs wcrc lcss than thosc bctwccn highcr and lowcr apcs.
Charles Kingsley (.8..8y), an nglish parson inspircd by Carlylc and
Morris, was onc ol thc rst Christian Socialists. His scrmon Thc
Mcssagc ol thc Church to thc Laboring Man won him a loyal lol-
lowing among workcrs whilc almost costing him his pricsthood. His
novcls lton Locke and Yeast (.8) portraycd thc hardships ol rural and
working-class lilc; thc cqually lamous Hypatia (.8; translatcd into
Russian) was about carly Christianity.
Julien-Oray de LaMettrie (.yc.y.), Frcnch physician and philoso-
phcr, was traincd as a thcologian. Hc bccamc known as thc loundcr
ol scnsualism (arguing that thc soul mcrcly rcactcd to scnsual im-
prcssions) and thc originator ol ninctccnth-ccntury matcrialism. His
Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
1
o
f
3
5
8
LHomme-machine (.y8) was publicly burncd lor its matcrialist and
athcist contcnt.
Pierre Laplace (.y.8:y), Frcnch mathcmatician and physicist, chartcd
thc movcmcnt ol arths moon and plancts in thc solar systcm. His
Celestial Mechanics (.y.8:) and Exposition du systme du monde (ol
which a Russian cdition was publishcd in .86.) cnjoycd widc popu-
larity. Thc thcory ol Kant and Laplacc rclcrs to two dicrcnt cos-
mogonics ol thc solar systcm: Kant proposcd, in .y, that sun and
plancts alikc lormcd, undcr thc inucncc ol gravity, lrom a cloud ol
lrccly moving particlcs; Laplacc, in .y6, suggcstcd that rings had pro-
grcssivcly scparatcd out lrom a rotating gascous mass to lorm plancts.
Emil Lask (.8y..), prolcssor ol philosophy at Hcidclbcrg, dcvclopcd
thc idcas ol Rickcrt and Vindclband in his writings on thc thcory ol
cognition and ol valuc.
Ferdinand Lassalle (.8:.86), Gcrman socialist, was a philosophcr, law-
ycr, and cconomist as wcll as organizcr ol a pan-Gcrman workcrs
union. His political program bccamc thc objcct ol Marxs vcnomous
polcmics in thc Critiquc ol thc Gotha Program.
Friedrich List (.y8.86) was a Gcrman cconomist and publicist who,
in thc Nationale System der Politischen Okonomie (.8.) in particular,
argucd lor a national cconomy as opposcd to cconomic individualism.
His advocacy ol railroads and protcctionist taris was instrumcntal in
thc proccss ol Gcrman unication.
Nikolai Lobache.sky (.y.86), Russian mathcmatician and rcctor ol
Kazan Univcrsity, rclutcd uclids clcvcnth axiom, which hcld that
only onc parallcl could bc drawn to a linc through a givcn point, pro-
posing a typc ol spacc hc callcd thc pscudosphcrc and cstablishing a
non-uclidcan (nonplanar) gcomctry.
Le. Lopatin (.8.:c), Russian philosophcr and psychologist, was
a proponcnt ol spcculativc philosophy; his most important work is
Polo.hitelnye .adachi losoi |Positivc tasks ol philosophy| (.886.8.).
Nikolai Lossky (.8yc.6), Russian cmigr philosophcr, an intuitionist,
taught at St. Pctcrsburg, Praguc, and Ncw York.
Hermann Lot.es (.8.y.88.) philosophy and his most inucntial work,
thc Mikrokosmos (.86.86) in particular, lound an original cqui-
librium bctwccn idcalism and rcalism. Lotzcs thought was onc ol
thc antcccdcnts ol thc movcmcnt back to Kant at thc cnd ol thc
ninctccnth ccntury.
Ernst Mach (.88..6), prolcssor ol physics at Praguc Univcrsity, hcld
thc philosophical vicw that complcxcs ol scnsations mcrgcd to lorm
, Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
2
o
f
3
5
8
bodics, rathcr than bodics producing scnsations; thus thcrc was no
opposition ol thc ! and thc world.
Maxim the Confessor (8:66:) was onc ol thc most powcrlul thcologians
ol thc astcrn church and a scholar ol Plato, Aristotlc, and nco-
Platonism. His lilc was spcnt largcly in a strugglc with thc monothclitc
hcrcsy (a soltcr vcrsion ol monophysitism, which acknowlcdgcd
Christs two naturcsdivinc and humanbut only onc will or cncrgy).
His tonguc and right hand wcrc cut o lor political trcason (6), but
his vicws prcvailcd at thc Sixth cumcnical Council at Constantinoplc
(68c). His commcntarics on ionysius thc Arcopagitc wcrc studicd by
J. Scotus rigcna, thus lorming a link to mcdicval Vcstcrn philosophy.
Ilya Mechniko. (.8..6) studicd thc cccts ol inlcctious discascs on
thc human organism; lor this work hc rcccivcd thc Nobcl Prizc in
physiology and mcdicinc in .c8.
Eduard Meyer (.8.c) was a Gcrman historian ol antiquity and onc
ol thc loundcrs ol thc historical study ol ancicnt Grcccc. His approach
to historical mcthodology scrvcd as a loil lor Max Vcbcrs Critical
Studics in thc Logic ol thc Cultural Scicnccs.
Jakob Moleschott (.8::.8), utch physiologist and physician, livcd and
workcd in Utrccht, Hcidclbcrg, Zurich, Turin, and Romc. Hc had to
lcavc his position at Hcidclbcrg in .8, whcn hc rcccivcd a govcrn-
mcnt admonition lor cxccssivc matcrialism. Thc most signicant ol his
many works was Physiologie der Nahrungsmittel |Physiology ol nutri-
tion|(.8c). xtrcmcly popular in Russia in thc .86cs, Molcschott, in
association with Ludwig 8chncr, camc to stand lor thc dcvclopmcnt
and disscmination ol a matcrialist worldvicw.
Paul Natorp (.88..6), loundcr with Hcrmann Cohcn ol thc Marburg
school ol nco-Kantianism, gavc thc cpistcmological oricntation ol thc
natural scicnccs a practical twist. Thc individual, according to Natorp,
acquircd his humanity by working lor thc good ol socicty.
Friedrich Niet.sche (.8.cc) is barcly mcntioncd in 8ulgakovs tcxt, yct
his philosophy is a crucial subtcxt on scvcral occasions. Most notably,
whcn 8ulgakov spcaks ol Apollo and ionysus hc is rclcrring to
Nictzschcs cssay Thc 8irth ol Tragcdy, which was trcmcndously
popular during thc Silvcr Agc and inucnccd in particular such pocts
and writcrs as \iachcslav !vanov and Andrci 8cly. 8ulgakov also has
Nictzschc in mind whcn hc dismisscs out ol hand thc notion ol man
molding himscll into a ncw spccics, or supcrman (chaptcr ).
Fobert O.en (.yy..88), nglish social rclormcr and tcxtilc manulac-
turcr, cxpcrimcntcd with lactory organization, utopian colonics in thc
Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
3
o
f
3
5
8
Unitcd Statcs, and a markct lor thc cxchangc ol labor. Hc rcbucd thc
ocr ol Nicholas ! (at that timc hcir to thc Russian thronc) to bring
his lactorics to Russia.
Melchior Palgyi (.88.:) was a Hungarian philosophcr whosc Neue
Theorie des Faumes und der Zeit |Ncw thcory ol spacc and timc| (.c.)
providcd somc ol thc philosophical loundations lor thc thcory ol
rclativity.
Gio.anni Pico della Mirandola (.6.), !talian Rcnaissancc humanist,
was distinguishcd by his cxtraordinary crudition (twcnty-two lan-
guagcs including Chaldcan, Hcbrcw, and Arabic) and his prccocious
oratorical abilitics.
Fobert .on Phlmann (.8:..), a Gcrman historian, applicd thc mcth-
ods ol social and cconomic history to his study ol ancicnt Grcccc and
Romc; his intcrcsts includcd urban dcmography and thc history ol
socialism.
Jules-Henri Poincare (.8..:), Frcnch mathcmatician, in addition to his
work in purc and applicd mathcmatics also wrotc about thc philosophy
ol scicncc: La Science et lhypothse (.c), La !aleur de la science (.c),
and Science et methode (.c8).
dolphe Quetelet (.y6.8y), 8clgian mathcmatician and statistician, was
considcrcd by carly twcnticth-ccntury social scicntists to bc thc lathcr
ol statistics. Qutclct proposcd thc application ol prccisc scicntic
mcthods to thc study ol human bchavior, loundcd thc disciplinc ol
moral statistics, and introduccd thc notion ol an avcragc man whosc
typc could bc dcduccd lrom statistical data. Among his most signi-
cant works arc Physique sociale, ou essai sur le de.eloppement des facultes
de lhomme (.8; :d cd. .86), Lettres sur la theorie des probabilites
(.86), and Du systme social et des lois qui le regissent (.88).
Charles Fenou.ier (.8..c) was a loundcr ol nco-Kantianism in Francc
and propoundcd an antimctaphysical cthical pcrsonalism. His Uchronie
(.8y6) traccs thc idcal dcvclopmcnt ol rationalism and antimysticism
lrom latc Roman to his own timcs.
Heinrich Fickert (.86.6), togcthcr with Vilhclm Vindclband,
loundcd thc southwcstcrn (8adcn) school ol nco-Kantianism. nc ol
his conccrns was distinguishing bctwccn valuc and rcality; his Limits
of Concept Formation in the Natural Sciences cstablishcd kcy dicrcnccs
bctwccn thc rcspcctivc mcthodologics ol thc natural and thc historical
(human) scicnccs.
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Fiemann (.8:6.866), Gcrman mathcmatician
and physicist, showcd thc possibility ol non-uclidcan gcomctry by
o Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
4
o
f
3
5
8
applying thc principlcs ol intcgral calculus, lor whosc modcrn vcrsion
hc is largcly rcsponsiblc. Thc spacc crcatcd by innitcsimally small
trianglcs turns out to bc curvcd and allows thc possibility that thc
shortcst distancc bctwccn two points may not bc a straight linc. Con-
scqucntly, thc sum ol thc anglcs ol a trianglc constructcd lrom such
lincs will bc dicrcnt lrom thc sum ol two right anglcs.
Johann-Karl Fodbertus-Jaget.o. (.8c.8y), Prussian cconomist, histo-
rian, and parliamcntarian, bclicvcd in gradualism (Kontinuitat) and
social cquality, thus initially combining monarchism, nationalism, and
socialism. His cconomic thcorics, cmphasizing thc importancc ol labor
in dctcrmining valuc, brought him cvcntually to alliancc with Social
cmocracy.
John Fuskin (.8..cc), nglish cssayist, art historian, and social critic,
was thc objcct ol 8ulgakovs attcntion in a .c articlc, Ruskins
Social Philosophy, in !oprosy losoi i psikhologii |Qucstions ol phi-
losophy and psychology|. Ruskin was thc main thcorctician ol thc
prc-Raphaclitc movcmcnt in art; his rcligious-cthical pcrspcctivc on
art and socicty attractcd a broad lollowing and inucnccd thc acsthctic
and practical program ol Villiam Morris and othcrs.
Gusta. .on Schmoller (.88..y), Gcrman political cconomist, proposcd a
notion ol thc national cconomy in opposition to individualism (Man-
chcstcr school). An adhcrcnt ol cmpirical inductivism, Schmollcr
supportcd protcctionist taris and was closc to thc oricntation ol statc
socialism.
Ernst !erner .on Siemens (.8.6.8:), Gcrman cnginccr, invcntor, and
industrialist, installcd Russias rst tclcgraph nctwork in .8. Thc
multinational industrial cmpirc hc cstablishcd has madc Sicmcns into
a houschold namc cvcn today.
Georg Simmel (.88..y), Gcrman philosophcr and sociologist, undcr-
wcnt a shilt lrom biological cvolutionism (arwin and Spcnccr) to
mctaphysical idcalism. His attcntion to thc thcory ol valuc in history
brought him closc to thc southwcstcrn nco-Kantians; subscqucntly, hc
bccamc an adhcrcnt ol lilc-oricntcd 8crgsonian mctaphysics. Thc Phi-
losophy of Money (.cc) proposcd to substitutc moncy (valuc) itscll lor
thc national cconomy as thc point ol dcparturc lor a social philosophy.
!erner Sombart (.86..), Gcrman political cconomist and sociolo-
gist, dcvclopcd a thcorctical systcm that dcncd cconomycconomic
oricntation, organization, and tcchnologyas a largcr cultural rcality.
Fudolf Stammler (.8:.c), Gcrman lcgal philosophcr, was a lcading
proponcnt ol a rcturn to thc principlcs ol natural law. His thcorics
Glossary of Names ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
5
o
f
3
5
8
about causality and tclcology in thc social and historical proccss, which
sought to prcscrvc a placc lor lrcc will and planncd action, provokcd
a hcatcd polcmical rcsponsc lrom writcrs in Gcrmany and Russia
including Max Vcbcr, Pctr Struvc, and 8ulgakov.
Petr Stru.e (.8yc.), a promincnt Vcstcrn-stylc libcral politician and
publicist, undcrwcnt an cvolution (somcwhat parallcl to 8ulgakovs)
lrom lcgal Marxism to idcalism; hc was onc ol thc kcy participants
in thc volumcs ol articlcs Problemy ideali.ma |Problcms ol idcalism|
(.c:), !ekhi |Landmarks| (.c), and I. glubiny |From thc dcpths|
(..8).
Johann-Peter Sumilch (.ycy.y6y) was a Gcrman Luthcran pastor whosc
pionccring corts to apply mathcmatics to thc cld ol statistics antici-
patcd thc mcthods ol Adolphc Qutclct (to whom hc was, apparcntly,
unknown) a ccntury latcr. Hc was primarily intcrcstcd in invcstigat-
ing laws ol population growth, in which hc saw cvidcncc ol divinc
providcncc.
Sergei Trubetskoy (.86:.c) was onc ol a distinguishcd aristocratic
lamily ol philosophcrs, diplomats, and linguists. His philosophy was
cxtrcmcly inucntial lor thc idcalist oricntation in thc Silvcr Agc. His
Uchenie o Logose |Thcory ol thc Logos| (.cc) in particular traccd
conccpts ol Christs naturcs to thcir roots in Judaic and Hcllcnic
philosophy.
Karl !ogt (.8.y.8), Gcrman naturalist, madc his mark in thc cld ol
zoology. A arwinist and a matcrialist, \ogt was also a popularizcr ol
scicncc whosc Physiological Letters, Zoological Letters, and Lectures on
Man, among othcrs, wcrc widcly rcad.
Johannes !olkelt (.88.c), prolcssor ol philosophy at 8ascl and Lcipzig,
sought to rcintroducc mctaphysics into Kantian philosophy in his two
most important works, Kants Erkenntnisstheorie |Kants thcory ol cog-
nition| (.8y6) and Erfahrung und Denken |xpcricncc and thought|
(.886).
James !att (.y6.8.), Scottish cnginccr and invcntor, is bcst known lor
his pcrlcction ol thc stcam cnginc. !n .yy hc dcclincd an invitation
lrom thc Russian govcrnmcnt to movc to Russia.
!ilhelm !indelband (.88..), prolcssor at Zurich, Strasbourg,
and Hcidclbcrg, was, with Hcinrich Rickcrt, a loundcr ol nco-
Kantianisms southwcstcrn school. Hc proposcd distinguishing thc
natural lrom thc human scicnccs, calling thc lormcr nomothctic
(subjcct to gcncral laws), thc lattcr idiographic (individualizing
and dcscriptivc).
8 Glossary of Names
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
6
o
f
3
5
8
!xbvx
Adlcr, Fricdrich,
Aksakov, Konstantin, :
Angclus Silcsius, :; poctry ol,
.y, ., .c, .y
Aristotlc, .:, .:y, .8, cn
Art, ., ., ., ., .y:, :c,
::, :6c; naturc as a work ol,
:; rclation to cconomy, .c8,
., ., .6y, .cn,
Artist, ., .66, ., :.
Ascism (scll-dctcrmination),
..6, ., :c., :c:, :.., :.:, :.
Athanasius ol Alcxandria, y, :
Augustinc, :6
Avcnarius, Richard, .6y, :
8aadcr, Franz, 8, 88, 8, .c, :c,
:yn8, c.c:n, c8n:, :
8acon, Francis, .8, .8y
8azarov, .y, .8
8cbcl, August,
8cing, y, 8, , , 6, 68, 8, 6,
.cc, .:, .:, ., .6, .y, :c,
:c, :., :y. See also Non-bcing
8cntham, Jcrcmy, :y, :6, :ycy:,
:6n
8crdiacv, Nikolai, :, 8, c
8crgson, Hcnri, ., :, .., .66,
.8, .8, c:n,, ..n, .nz,:z
8crkclcy, Gcorgc, .y, :
8crnstcin, duard, :, :c
8ody, y8, , 6, 8, , .cc, .c:,
.c, .c, .c6, .cy, .:., ., .,
., ::c; social, ::, :c
8hmc, Jakob, 8, 8, 88, 8, .c,
:c, :yn8, c.n, c
8ossuct, Jacqucs, :6, :y, c
8ourgct, Paul, .6, c
8rahmins, .6
8rcntano, Lujo, :cnz, c
8ucklc, Hcnry Thomas, ::y,
c.
8uddhism, .:, .6
8chcr, Karl, :, :cnz, c
Capitalism, ::, :c, :, :., ::,
:, :, :8, :
Carlylc, Thomas, ::y, :
Causality, y., ., 6, ..c, .:6, .:,
., .8, .8, .8, ., :cc, :c.,
:c6, :., :., :.6, :.8, :6, :y,
:8, :68, :n:
Chcrnyshcvsky, Nikolai, , :y, :8
Christ, 88, .c, .c, .., .., .6,
:cy, ::., :88, c, .c
Christian philosophy, :y, y, :c
Christian Socialism, :, 6
Christianity, ., , 8, 8y88, .c, .6;
rthodox, , 6, y, .:, :, :, :,
:; as loundation ol philosophy
ol cconomy, .., ., :, :6, :y, :,
y; and Marxism, ., :6n
,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
7
o
f
3
5
8
Chuprov, Alcxandcr, , ::8, ::,
:c, .8n,, ::n8, :n8, :n:,
.
Church Council, All-Russian
rthodox, :,
Class, :c, :., ::, :.
Class strugglc, , :y.
Cognition, , ..6, ..y, .:, .:y,
.:, .c, ., ., .66, .y8, .8c,
.8y, .c, .6, :8c
Cohcn, Hcrmann, c, , 6,
y, 6, .:8, ., .6:, .6, .6,
.6, .66, .y, .y8, .y, .8., .8y,
:cn,, :.n, ::n,, c
cn,, .c..n, .:nz, .nz8,
:nz,, .. See also Marburg
school, Nco-Kantianism
Collcctivity, :6, :, :., :8, :c,
:, :y, :c, :., ::, :, :8
Communc, :
Communion, .c
Comtc, Augustc, :y, .8, ., .6,
::, :c, :y, .
Condillac, abb ticnnc dc, ..c,
::y, :8c, .
Consciousncss, .., ..6, ..y, .:.,
.:, .c, ., ., .y, .8, :cc,
:c:, :c, :cy, :6, :yy, ::,
.n8
Constitutional cmocratic
(Kadct) party, 6
Consumption, , .c, .c6
Cournot, Antoinc, ccc.nz, .
Crcation, y, .c, :c., :., :8, :8,
.8n,, .n8
Crcativity, c, 6c, y6, :, .:6, .:,
.y, ., .c, ., :c, :.
.8, ::, :, :y, :., :y, :y,
:8c
Criticism, ., 66y, .8. See also
idcalism
Crocc, 8cncdctto, 8
Culturc, 8, , y6, .:, ., .,
., :6:, :y, :y6; and naturc,
.y
arwinism, 8, ., :, , yc, 86,
:6n:, :8nz:
cath, c, 68y, 8., 8, 8, 88, 6,
y, 8, .ccc6 passim, .:, .,
.:, ., ., .6, .y, .8, .:,
., ., .yy, .8, .c, ..:,
., ., :8, c6n:z
cmiurgc, .:, ., .
cscartcs, Rcn, , 8, :c.n,
ctcrminism, .8, .y, .8, :cc,
:c., :c, :., :., :.6, ::, ::y,
:, :, :., :c, :y, :8:
Ding an sich, ., y, , 8., :68
ionysius thc Arcopagitc, 8, .c,
:c, .:
obroliubov, Alcxandcr,
ostocvsky, Fcdor, 8, , .6,
:nz:
ubois-Rcymond, mil, .8, :
uma, Sccond, :, 6
urkhcim, mil, .6
conomic man, :, :8, :,
:6, :y.
conomic matcrialism, ., , 8,
, :, 6., yy, , , .., .y.,
.8y, :8, :6:8, ::6nz
conomic rcalism, ..8, .8c
conomy, .8., c, ., y:, ...,
.:, .:, .:6, .:y, .., .:, .,
., .6, .c, ., .c, .8c, .8.,
.6, :c6, :.y, :.8, :, :y, :y6,
:8., :n::
,c Index
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
8
o
f
3
5
8
dcnic cconomy, .c, .
lcts (rcl provincc),
Empndung (scnsation), ., y
ngcls, Fricdrich, ::, :6, :6,
:8., :6n
nlightcnmcnt, .y, :c, ::, 6., .8,
.8y
pistcmology (thcory ol knowl-
cdgc), , , 6y, .cy, .c, ..,
..8, .:8, .6, .y8, .y, .8c, :y6,
:8.
Erfahrung (cxpcricncc), y
rigcna, J. Scotus, 8, .c, :c, :
ros, .y6
schatology, 8, .6, .:, :c, :y
tcrnal Fcmininc, :yn8
volution, , 86, .c
Fall, .c.., ., c, .., .c, ..,
., :.6, cn:,. See also Rcsur-
rcction
Family, .:, .6
Faust, 8c, 8., :y
Fcdorov, Nikolai, ., :8nc,
cnzz, cyn:, :6nz, :
Fcucrbach, Ludwig, y, :, :6
Fichtc, J. G., :., , 6, , ., ,
6, y, 6, 6, 8., 8:, 8, 8, .c,
.:, :.c, :.., :.:, :., :6, :.
:n, :nz,, c:cnzc, ..n,
.6n:, .yn:,, .n8, :cnzc
Fischcr, Kuno, :, :
Florcnsky, Pavcl, :, c, c8n:o,
:
Food, y., .c.c, ., :
Frank, Scmn, :, 8, c
Frcc will, .6, .8, :., :y, .yn,
:nzc
Frccdom, 8, yc, y., c, ., .c,
., .c, :c, :c, :c6, :cy, :.,
:., ::8, :, :., :y, :yy, cn:,
.6n:, .yn:, :cn,, :.nz:. See
also Ncccssity
Frciburg school, 6. See also Nco-
Kantianism
Frcud, Sigmund, 8
Gardcn ol dcn, .., ., ::., :6.
See also dcnic cconomy
Gcnius, :, .:, ., ., :8
Gcomctry, 8, .6., .86; non-
uclidcan, .y. See also Mathc-
matics
Gcrshcnzon, Mikhail, :, c
Gnosticism, .:
God, 6, y, , y, 8:, 88, .c, .,
.y, .8, ., .c, .., ., .8y,
:c:, :c, :c, :c8, :c, :.c,
::., :6, :8, c6n:z, .:cn8,
:cn,, thc Vord, .c; Crcator,
.6, .:, :cy, :c
Gocthc, Johann Vollgang von, ..
Grcgory ol Nyssus, y, 8, .c,
:c,
Hartmann, duard von, y, ,
:6y, :6,
Hckcl, rnst, :, 8, 8y, 8, .8y,

Hcgcl, G. V. F., ::, :, , 6,

c, ., 6, y, , 6c, 6., 6, 88,
, ., .8, :6, :6, :66, :6y,
:6, :yc, :y., :y, :y6, :yy, :8c,
::no, :n,, :nzz
Hcidcggcr, Martin, .
Hcinc, Hcinrich, .6
Hcrdcr, Johann Gottlricd, :6,
:y
Index ,z
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
4
9
o
f
3
5
8
Hcrzcn, Alcxandcr, , :.
History, 8, ., ., c, 8, , .:6,
.., .:, ., .6, .c, ., .8,
., .c, ., ., ., .y, .6.,
.y:, :c., :c, :., :.6, :.y,
::, :., :6, :c, :, :,
:6, :y, :6, :6, :66y, :y6,
:yyy, cn:, ..n,, :c:.nzz
Houschold, .8, .68, ::n8, world
as, y, :y
Hughcs, H. Stuart, y
Human dignity, :, .:, :, c
Humanity, .::, .:6, .:, .c, .:,
., ., .6, ., .c, .., .,
., .y, .c, .., ., ., .6:,
.6, .c, :cy, :., :.6, ::., :
Humc, avid, .., .8y
Husscrl, dmund, .6, .8., ..n,,
.:nzc
Huxlcy, Thomas, .8, ..6n:z,

Hylozoism, :, 8, 8y, 8,
! and non-!, :., , 8., 8:, 8, ..c,
..., .., ..y, :cc, :.c, :...:,
:., ::c, :., ::, c
!dcalism, , 8, .8, 6, 8, ., 6,
, c, , 8y, 88, 8, c, :,
.6, .66, .y, .8c, ::., :6, :66,
::n, .:nz, :6nz, transccn-
dcntal, :., .; critical, 6, y;
absolutc, , 6c, 6.; subjcctivc,
y, 8., 8:, c, .., .., .8c
!dcntity, .c, .cy, ..y, .:., .
!ndividual, :, :6, .:8, .:, .,
.6, ., .c, .., ., ., .6,
:cc, :c:, :c, :c, :.:, :.,
:.6, ::6, ::, :, :y, :6, :8c,
.8n8. See also Collcctivity
!ndividual rights, .:, :. See also
Libcralism
!ndividualism, 6c, .:y, .c
!ndividuality, :cc, :c., :c6, :cy,
:c8, :.., ::8
!nncr spirit, c
!ntcllcct, c, .
!ntcllcctualism, .y, :, , c, .,
, , 6, :6, ::n.
!ntclligcntsia, :y
!ntcntionality, yc
!rrationalism, 8.
!slam, .:, :, :6
Jacobi, Fricdrich, :.n
Judaism, .:, ccn,
Kant, !mmanucl, ., :c, 6, y, 6,
c., :, y, , 6, 6y, y, y8
8., 8, 88, .c., .c.c, ..:, ..,
.:8:, ., .y, .6, .6, .y8
8., .8, .86, .8y, ., .y, .8,
., :cc, :c., :c, :., ::6, :,
:c, :6y, :68, :cn,, :nzo,
:6yn, c:cnzc, cn,,
.:.nz, ..nz8
Kapitali.m i .emledelie (Capitalism
and Agriculturc),
Kautsky, Karl,
Khomiakov, Alcxci, :
Kho.iain. See Proprictor
Kho.iaist.o. See conomy, Housc-
hold.
Kingslcy, Charlcs, :.,
Kirccvsky, !van, ::, :
Kistiakovsky, 8ogdan, :
Labor, ., .8:c, :y, :8, , y
y6, yy, ..:., .:, .., ., .y,
,: Index
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
0
o
f
3
5
8
., ., .6yyc, .y:, .8., .,
:., :.y, :., :6y, :8, :c,
:yy
Labor thcory ol valuc, :6, y, y,
..8:c, :y, :8, :y
LaMcttric, Julicn-ray dc, ::y,

Laplacc, Picrrc, .8, .86, ., :cc,

:c., .,
Lask, mil, .6, :c, :., :,
Lassallc, Fcrdinand dc, :., :y,
::,
Lc8on, Gustavc, .6
Lcibniz, ..6, :c6, :, .c, :.
Lcnin, \ladimir, :8
Lcxis, Vilhclm, ::no, :n:
Libcralism, :, .:, .
Lilc, ., 68, y, 6c, 6., 6:,
68yc, y:, y, y6, 8y, y, , .c,
.c, .cy, .., .6, .y, .:
, ., .6:, .68, .6, .yc, .y:,
.yy, .8.8, .88c, :., :., :.y,
:.8., :6, :c, :, :yy,
:y6, ::n, c8n:, cnc
List, Fricdrich, :8,
Livny (rcl provincc),
Lobachcvsky, Nikolai, .y,
Lockc, John, .c, .8y
Logos, 8, , , .c, ., ., ..,
.:, ., :cy, :88, :
Lopatin, L. M., .:nzz,
Lossky, N. ., cno, .nzo,
Lotzc, Hcrmann, :n:c,
Lovc, ., :c, :c, :.
Luthcr, Martin, cn,
Mach, rnst, .6y,
Magic, ::c, ::.
Malthus, Thomas Robcrt, :8, :8
Mangodhood, ., ::
Marburg school, c, 6, .6, .y,
:n,, :nz,. See also Nco-
Kantianism
Marx, Karl, ., 6, y, yy, , ..8,
.., :c, :., ::, :, :, :6,
:66, :6y, :68, :6, :yc, :y., :y,
:y, :yy, :8., :8, :8, :, :6,
:, :, :6
Marxism, . passim, ., ., :6,
:, c, ., .8y, ::., ::, ::y, :c,
:., :cnz, :6n, :.n:, :n,,
:nz, :nz,, lcgal, ., . See
also Labor thcory ol valuc
Matcrialism, y, 8, y, 8, 8y, c,
8, .., :6:, :6, :y, :y6, :,
:6, :66; Christian, 8; dialcc-
tical, :6y. See also conomic
matcrialism
Mathcmatics, .cy, .8, ., .6.,
.6:, .y., .y, .y, .yy, ::6, ::.
See also Gcomctry
Maxim thc Conlcssor, 8, .c, :c,

Mcchanism, y, .6, yc, y., y:, y8,

c, .c., .c, ., .:, ., .8
86, .88, .y, .8, :cc, :..,
:., :.y, ::., ::, :, :8c, :8.,
:8:, :6n:, :n::, .yn:,.
See also rganism
Mcchnikov, !lya, .c,
Mcon, c, 68, , .c., ., .6
Mcrcantilism, y, :y, :
Mcrczhkovsky, mitri, 8
Mctaphysics, :6
Mcycr, duard, :,
Mill, John Stuart, :y, .8y
Modcrnism, .:, .6, .y, :
Molcschott, Jakob, .8y, :6:,
Monism, 8y, 8, :6y, :68
Moscow Commcrcial !nstitutc,
Index ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
1
o
f
3
5
8
Moscow Rcligious-Philosophical
Socicty, :,
Moscow Tcchnical !nstitutc,
Moscow Univcrsity, ,
Natorp, Paul, 6, .6, .6, .66,
:n,, :nz,, . See also Mar-
burg school, Nco-Kantianism
Natura naturans[natura naturata,
86, 8y, 88, .c6, .cy, .::, .c, .:,
., ., ., .8, .:, ., .y,
.:, .
Naturalism, y, .
Naturc, .., .8, :., :, , 68, yc,
y:, y6, y8, y, 8c, , .ccy,
..., .., .:c:., .:, ., .,
.88, .c, .., .y, :c8, ::c,
:, :y, :y, ::n, man and,
., :c, , .c8, .., .:c:.,
., .:, ., .6, ., .,
.66, :cy; rcsurrcction ol, .,
., .; in Schclling, 8:,
:8nz:, :n::, :n:, cyn:,
.6n:,, .8n, in Kant, .y88c,
..nz8
Ncccssity, y, yc, y., y, 8., .c,
.., .6:c:, :c8.:, :., :.6
:., ::, :6, :y, :, :, :,
:6, :6, :y, :y, :8c, :8.,
.8n8, :.n:. See also Frccdom
Nco-Kantianism, , 8, :y, :, 6,
6, c, 6, y, :, ..:, .., .y,
.6, .8y, cn,
Nco-Romanticism, .. See also
Romanticism
Ncw pcoplc, :8
Nictzschc, Fricdrich, :,
Non-bcing, 68, .c., .:, ., .6,
.. See also 8cing, cath
Nourishmcnt. See Food
O rynkakh pri kapitalisticheskom
proi..odst.e (n Markcts in
Capitalist Production),
bjcctivity, .8:, .8
ntology, .c, ., .86, :6, :6y,
:y6, :yy
rganic, 68, .c, .8; organicism,
:c, yc
rganism, y., y:, y, 8, 8, .cc,
.c:, .cy, .:, .:, ., .8, .88,
.8, .., ., ., ::c, .6n:,.
See also Mcchanism
rigcn, :c
riginal sin, .
Os.obo.hdenie (Libcration), 6
wcn, Robcrt, :.nz, 6
Palgyi, Mclchior, :nzo, 6
Paracclsus, c.n
Paradisc. See Gardcn ol dcn
Parcto, \illrcdo, .6
Pcarson, Karl, ::n,
Phcnomcnology, 6, :
Phcnomcnon, .y8, .y, :68
Philosophical oricntation, ., ,
6, y, 6, 8, 6., ..:, .., .6y
Philosophy ol cconomy, , , ,
6., 6:, y, , ..c, .c, :, :,
:6., :6, :y, :y, :yy, :8
Philosophy ol idcntity, 8c, ,
.c
Philosophy ol scicncc, .y:
Physiocrats, y, :8, :
Pico dclla Mirandola, Giovanni,
:::, :., 6
Pisarcv, mitri, :y
Plato, 8, 8, 8, .c, .., .8, .,
.., .6y, :c, :8nzo, c6nz,
Platonism, .:, 88
Platonov, Andrci, .
,, Index
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
2
o
f
3
5
8
Play, .yc
Plotinus, 6, 8, 8, .c, ., .6,
:c
Poincar, Hcnri, .6, .66, .y, .c,
.:, .y, :., 6
Political cconomy, .8, ., 6, .,
:, , , 6:, y, , .., ..,
..8, .:, .:y, .y, :.y, ::, ::y,
::, :, :y, :86. passim, :y.,
:y, :y6, :yy, :
Populism, :8n:,
Positivism, y, 8, , ., ., ., .6, .y,
.6, .8
Povcrty, ., ::c, :, :6, :y, :c,
:6, :6, :8
Phlmann, Robcrt von, :, 6
Pragmatism, .., .6c, .6., .6, .66,
.y, .y, .y8, .8., :, :, :6,
:8c
Problemy ideali.ma (Problcms ol
!dcalism), .
Proccss, ., :y
Production, , .c8, .c, .., ..y,
.68, :8, :y
Progrcss, 6c, .y, .y6, :c; thcory
ol, 8, , ., .y, .
Proprictor, ., ., y:, yy, .:, .66,
.6y, .:, ::c
Protcstantism, cc, :
Pscudodionysius. See ionysius thc
Arcopagitc
Psychologism, 66, :c6, :cn
Qutclct, Adolphc, ::, ::y, :6,
::n, :nzc, 6; Qutclct-
ism, :, ::
Rationalism, .6, .y, ::, :, :, 6,
, c, , 8., .8y, .88, .8, :c,
:., :8
Rcalism, .y, :.8, :; naivc,
.yn
Rcason, ., :, 6c, c, ..., ..:, .,
.:, .y8, .y, .8c, .86, ., :.,
:, cn:, .nz8
Rcligious rclormation, 6
Rcnouvicr, Charlcs, .cn:, 6
Rcsurrcction, .., .:, ., c, .c:,
.c, ., .:
Rcvclation, .
Rcvolution ol .c, :
Ricardo, avid, .., :8, :yc, :y.,
:y
Rickcrt, Hcinrich, 6, .6, .6,
.66, ::, :cn:, cn,, ..
.:n8, :n,, 6
Ricmann, G. F. 8., .y, 6y
Rodbcrtus-Jagctzow, J.-K., y, ..,
:, :y, :n:, y
Romanticism, .y, :c:. See also
Nco-Romanticism
Rousscau, Jcan-Jacqucs, .c
Ruskin, John, ::, :8, :, :,
y
Satan, .6, ::.
Saussurc, Fcrdinand dc, 8
Schclling, F. V. J., .:, 8, c,
., , y, y., y, 8c, 8, 8,
.cc, .c, ..c, .:., .c, ., .c,
.., ., .8c, :c, :c, :., :6y,
:6, :.:n, :n,, :yn,,
:8nz:, :n:, :ccn:,,
cnzc, cn:, cn,, cn,
c6nz8, cy.c, .6:.
Schmollcr, Gustav, :cnz, y
Schopcnhaucr, Arthur, c, ., y,
:, .c, .8, :c, :6y, :68, :.n,
c:n8, .ynz
Index ,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
3
o
f
3
5
8
Scicncc, , , 6., 6:, y, .c,
.c6, .cy, .c8, .:, .:, .., .,
., ., .y, .y, ::c, ::.,
::y, ::, :, :8, :c, :., :,
:y, :, :6., :6, :yc, :yy, :y,
::n, :n,, ...:n8, .yn:8
Scicntism, .8, :6, :yc
Shchapov, Alanasii,
Shcstov, Lcv, c
Sicmcns, rnst Vcrncr von, .8y,
y
Silcsius, Angclus. See Angclus
Silcsius
Silvcr Agc, ., , c, :8ynz, :88no,
:88n8, :8n:,
Simmcl, Gcorg, , :, y
Slavophilcs, .y, :c, :::6
Smith, Adam, y, .., ..8, :8,
:y, :nz, :6n
Sobornost, ::6
Social contract, .c
Social dcmocracy, , .
Social politics, :, :c, :., ::
Social scicncc, y, .y., :::6,
::, :, :, :, :y, :8, :,
:, :6c, :yy
Socialism, y, .., .:6, :c, :.,
::, :, :8, :, :6:, :6, :6,
:y, :8., :nz
Sociology, :c, :6, :, :,
:yy, :y8, :y
Socratcs, .6
Solovicv, \ladimir, .y, 8, , 8,
.c, ., .8, .c, .., :c, :.,
:6y, :6, :88no, :8nc, :cn:,
:nzc, :yn8, cn:,, ::6nz
Sombart, Vcrncr, .8y, :.y, cn,,
.6n:, :n, y
Sophia (thc ivinc Visdom), y,
.c., :, .c, .., .y8, .c,
.6, .y6, ., ., :c, :cy,
:8, :88no, c6n:c, c8cn:o
Sophic cconomy, .:, ., ., ., .6,
.y, ., ., ., :
Sorcl, Gcorgcs, 8, .6
Spacc and timc, 6, .:, .:, .
Spcnccr, Hcrbcrt, .8, :c
Spinoza, 8aruch, 8
Stammlcr, Rudoll, :y6, :., :,
:6:y, y8
Statc ol Naturc, .c
Statistics, .6, :, ::, ::6, ::y, ::8,
::, ::, :, :, :y, ::n8,
:n:
Stoics, .c
Stolypin, Pctr, 6
Struvc, Pctr, 8, :., :y, 8
Subjcct[objcct, .8, :c::, yy, y
c, .c., .c8.:., .:8, ., .,
.:, ., .y, .y6, .8., .8:, .8,
.86, .88, .c, .:, ., .6, .8,
:c6, :.c., :., ::c, ::n
Supcrman, ., :nz
Smilch, Johann-Pctcr, ::, 8
S.et ne.echernii (Thc Unlading
Light), .., .:
Tcchnology, .., .:c, .y., .y:, .yy,
.8c, :, :yn
Tclcology, y., y, y8, c, 8, .c8,
.c, .:., ., .68, .8, :6, :66,
:8c, :6n:
Thcory ol knowlcdgc. See pistc-
mology
Tiutchcv, Fcdor, yc
Transccndcntal subjcct, .:, :6, 6,
8c, 88, .:6:, ., .6, ., .6:,
.6, .c, :., :y
Transccndcntalism, .6, .66, .8..
See also !dcalism
,o Index
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
4
o
f
3
5
8
Trinity, ..
Trubctskoy, Scrgci, :, 8, , 6,
.c, ::no, :nzc, :nz,,
c:n,, c:no, 8
Truth, ., .6, ., ., .6, .y,
.8, .6c, .6., .y, .y6, :8
Turgcncv, !van, .y, .yy
Unconscious, ..y, .c
Union ol Libcration, 6
Univcrsal spirit, :6y, :yc
Univcrsc, , , .c., .c, .
Utilitarianism, :y.
!ekhi (Landmarks), :
\ogt, Karl, :6:, 8
\olkclt, Johanncs, :n,, 8
Vatt, Jamcs, .., .8y, 8
Vcalth, ., ::c, :y, :8, :, :c,
:8
Vcbcr, Max, , :.y, :n
Vill, ., :, ., ..6, ., .c, .86,
.8, :cc, :cy, :.c, :., ::y,
c8n:
Vindclband, Vilhclm, 6, .6,
8
Visdom, cc6nz,. See also
Sophia
Vorld soul, .:, 88, .::, .c, ..,
.:, ., ., .6, ., .c, :.6,
:yn8
Yogism (Hindu), .6
Index ,,
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
5
o
f
3
5
8
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
6
o
f
3
5
8
Russian Litcraturc and Thought
Gary Saul Morson, Series Editor
thcr availablc books in thc scrics
The Little Tragedies
Alcxandcr Pushkin
Translatcd, with Critical ssays, by Nancy K. Andcrson
See No E.il: Literary Co.er-Ups and Disco.eries of the So.iet
Camp Experience
ariusz Tolczyk
Fereading Fussian Poetry
ditcd by Stcphanic Sandlcr
!ie. from the Other Shore: Essays on Her.en, Chekho.,
and Bakhtin
Ailccn M. Kclly
Pushkins Historical Imagination
Svctlana vdokimova
Liberty, Equality, and the Market: Essays by B. N. Chicherin
ditcd and translatcd by G. M. Hamburg
To.ard nother Shore: Fussian Thinkers Bet.een Necessity
and Chance
Ailccn M. Kclly
Dostoe.sky and Solo.ie.: The rt of Integral !ision
Marina Kostalcvsky
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
7
o
f
3
5
8
bram Tert. and the Poetics of Crime
Catharinc Thcimcr Ncpomnyashchy
Untimely Thoughts: Essays on Fe.olution, Culture, and the
Bolshe.iks, z,z,z,z8
Maxim Gorky
!oice from the Chorus
Abram Tcrtz (Andrci Sinyavsky)
Strolls .ith Pushkin
Abram Tcrtz (Andrci Sinyavsky)
z,:c Diary
!saac 8abcl
T
s
e
n
g

2
0
0
0
.
3
.
1

1
0
:
3
2
5
9
7
2

B
u
l
g
a
k
o
v
/
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
O
F
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

/

s
h
e
e
t
3
5
8
o
f
3
5
8