RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY ORYNBEK ARUZHAN SABIT ADILBEK A unique galaxy of thinkers of the turn of the XIX-XX centuries., V.S. Soloviev, S.N. Bulgakov, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank, L.P. Karsavin, P.A. Florensky, V.F. Ern, N.O. Lossky, who developed their concepts in the thick of the intellectual and political struggle of the era. They achieved outstanding results in understanding the spiritual essence of the events. Russian position in relation to religion and religiosity wholly determined by the fact that the identification of religion defined by cultic relations is illegitimately, since the phenomenon of religion, the most important attribute of any society, should be considered in a broader aspect, namely as a value system of other society, stipulating the goals of its development and the mediating activities of individuals and society in general in accordance with the goal-setting of this system. Religiousness, therefore, is above all, forms a conviction in the correctness and necessity of the goal, methods and means of development relying on a specific religious-value system, and this conviction cannot be fully rationalized, since it is based on unconditional faith in one or another authoritative sources. Under considering religion and religiosity in this aspect, it is permissible to assert their universality for any historical and modern communities, since a concrete developing society is difficult to imagine without an ideological justification of goals, ways and means of its development or by interpreting Aristotle, without a target reason mediating the cause, which contributes to the actual design of the social substrate. Therefore, in fact, any social philosophy can be attributed to religious philosophy. The peculiarity of Russian religious philosophy The Orthodox-ecclesiastical position, as follows from its name, is close to many of the ideas of philosophers of theological academies of the 19th and 20th centuries (V.D. Kudryavtsev, A.I. Brovkovich (Archbishop Nikanor), V.I. Nesmelov, M.I. Karinsky, M. M. Tareev and others), however, as V. V. Zenkovsky noted, the philosophers of the theological school thought "not about the" rapprochement " of Christianity and modernity, but about building a system of Christian philosophy that proceeds entirely from the foundations of Christianity, but free to build a system. Learning works of Russian religious philosophers reveals their common property: behind various phenomena and events of social life they reveal an inner spiritual meaning, which makes it possible to further deep analysis of social phenomena and to identify their spiritual potential on this basis. This is the essence of the approach of Russian religious philosophers to social life. The interpretation of social phenomena as carrying a certain objective meaning or idea were peculiar to Russian social philosophy practically since its inception. P.I. Chaadaev holds the idea that any historical event contains an idea: “The history of every nation represents not only a string of facts following each other, but also a chain of related ideas”. Every fact must be expressed by an idea; through events, a thought or principle should flow through the thread, striving to come true. This idea, as follows from Chaadaev’s further reflection, is not born in the head of any personality. Contrariwise, it is external to the individual, objective and acts in relation to him as a kind of call to action, a vocation. The search for the meaning of social phenomena, i.e their ideas, the inner spiritual content, is characteristic to Russian idealistic philosophy. The question of meaning-values is not posed by the theory of knowledge and goes beyond it, the philosopher considers. But, exactly knowledge of the meaning-values is able to lift the veil of secrets of being, including the social one. The fact is that the meaning-value coincides, according to E.N. Trubetskoy’s opinion, with the purpose of human life. It should be noted that goal-setting in general, as evidenced by all sociological thought, is a specifically human quality: among all natural creatures, only human can wonder about the meaning and meaning of being and set himself meaningful goals. However, this ability of a person introduces a fundamental contradiction into his existence, becoming a source of conflict between the individual and society. Nonsense reigns in the natural world, considers Trubetskoy, a vicious circle of aspirations that do not reach the goal, returning again and again to their beginning and endlessly repeating, is a bad infinity. A change of generations, a chaim of births and deaths, devouring each other by living beings is a demonstration of an unachieved goal, the destruction of illusion of the meaning of life. And the higher in its development the natural creature rose up, subjected to the law of a meaningless circle of being , the more tragic its subordination to the fateful necessity of nature. The highest point of this tragedy is in human existence, in particular, in the life of human societies. The philosopher considers himself the bearer of the meaning of the individual human spirit: “Belief in the meaning of life is inextricably linked with belief in human, as the carrier of this meaning, in the unconditional, royal dignity of human being.” Society for Trubetskoy is a part of nature, subjected to natural laws and contrary to the realization of higher personality needs. The contradiction between the human spirit, possessing the ability and the need to achieve meaningful goals, the bearer of the meaning of life, and the social existence of people dominated by natural, biological struggle for existence, is the main conflict, the tragedy of humanity, the philosopher believes. Semen Lyudvigovich Frank believes that a characteristic feature of social phenomena lies on their teleological nature, in that their participants set themselves total goals. The goal, according to Frank, is a category of spiritual life, a willful intention or ideal. Social knowledge aspires to understand social life, studying the volitional aspirations, the ideals of the people. To describe or to explain a historical event or process means to show what aspirations or beliefs had cetain individuls (groups) and how their interaction led to this result. Analyzing the nature of social phenomena, Frank, claims that they are not only genetically determined by teleological forces, but in their essence consisted of ideas and beliefs. “Social life is the concrete life of the human spirit,” he writes. Society, on the one hand, appears as a variety of phenomena that exist in a certain time and space, i.e. phenomena of material. On the other hand, it is a manifestation of the ideal beginning of the human spirit. Any social institutions and interactions, for example, family, state, economic system, group relations, forms of life, customs, are not just external facts. In their meaning lies the meaning given to them by people; they are the material expression, the crystallization of beliefs and ideas, the essence of this society. Hence the characteristic feature of the public knowledge in comparison with the natural sciences: it is the self-knowledge of the human spirit. The objective meaning of a social phenomenon, according to Frank, is connected with individual motives: it acts on the human will as a compulsory idea-force, which is transformed in the consciousness of the individual into the goal of his actions. According to his words, in social science, living knowledge is directed to human life in the supra-individually objective form of social being. To know a social phenomenon means, first of all, to grasp the objective idea underlying it, to understand its meaning, its ideological content. Since this idea acts on human will, it can only be understood by experiencing it sympathetically, by feeling this idea. In this respect, social science is in principle different from natural science: the natural sciences study the world of material nature alien to the human spirit, but social science is the self-consciousness of the human spirit. In connection with the above, the question arises about the relationship between the ideas of individual phenomena and the idea of society as a whole, as well as the question of the existence of the latter. In the work "The Spiritual Foundations of Society," Frank defines his position in this regard. In his opinion, any society has some internal basis or “idea”, which is at the same time a basic tendency of the internal development of this society. The historical life of the people, its development, in a certain sense, are predetermined by this circumstance. From this follows a series of consequences of a methodological nature. First, this kind of understanding of social life implies that the most profound explanation of the social phenomena of a given society is an explanation that reveals the religious orientation, the spiritual forces underlying them. Secondly, the scientific knowledge of the idea of society leads to an idea of what Frank called the normal state, the health of the social organism. In other words, the development of society should take place in accordance with its inner spiritual essence. Only such a correspondence will ensure a stable, harmonious social being. To clarify the ideas of Russian religious philosophers, it is necessary to consider the concept of faith - the central category for this area. Religious faith in their understanding is a necessary, essential social property of an individual and a society, which is, as it was, the “starting point” or “cornerstone” of the actions of the individual and social processes. The concept of religious faith is most fully developed in the works of S. N. Bulgakov. The basic principle laid by this thinker in the basis of the analysis of social phenomena is the need to understand the phenomenon not only in economic, political and other aspects, but also to see in it the phenomenon of a spiritual order. And that means to determine its religious nature, to find the “god” it serves. Bulgakov points out that in order to properly understand the actions and opinions of a participant in social events, it is necessary to identify its leading person, the religious center of the person, and his faith. The same applies to the collective participants in the social process, as well as to such social phenomena as ideologies. According to S.N. Bulgakov, faith is a certain way of comprehending the world, in which a person does not need rational proofs of his knowledge, clarifying for people those aspects of life that cannot be learned by reason, scientific or philosophical thinking. Comparing Bulgakov’s approach to the study of ideologies (a significant part of his work is devoted to this issue) with V. Pareto’s approach, I will note a number of important moments for the modern sociologist. Both scholars argue that the basis of any ideology is the irrational aspirations of its creators and adherents, covered with a network of external rational evidence masking its inner essence. But if Pareto has some “remnants” - semi-biological, instinctive, semi-rational (interests) impulses of human nature hidden in the depths of ideological constructions, for Bulgakov the basis of ideology is a purely human, although irrational, property, called faith. Hence the negative attitude of Pareto to ideologies and the balanced attitude towards him Bulgakov, who understands the need for humanity of certain ideologies, but is aware of the serious social consequences of the spreading ideologies based on false faith. Faith can be directed to different objects: spiritual and material, absolute and relative, positive and negative. However, for the results of both personal and social development, the orientation of faith is not indifferent. The fact is that religious faith can be both true and false. False faith is like an error of religious judgment, the substitution of real values with imaginary ones. It leads the individual and society to a dead end, to the pathologies of individual and social development. The thinker is convinced that socialism, as an economic and political phenomenon, does not cause serious doubts about the legality and validity. But as a manifestation of spiritual life (that is, actually social), is very complex and contradictory, because it can be inspired by a different spiritual attitude, a different faith, and, therefore, lead to different consequences in public life. Religious feeling, according to Bulgakov, is an internal property, an integral organic need of the human spirit. With the abolition or disappearance of specific forms of religious beliefs, religious feeling persists in a person and in this sense there are no non-religious people are exist. Atheism, nihilism, socialism, the cult of the superman F. Nietzsche or the theory of the unconscious E. Hartmann are, according to Bulgakov, a kind of religious faith. Man, by nature, cannot be guided only by reason; the personality also contains the deeper layers of the psyche (this is well known to modern science studying the subconscious mind). Religion, believes Bulgakov, establishes a connection between the mind and the heart of man. He gives her a definition: “religion is an active way out of the self, a living feeling of the connection of this finite and limited self with the infinite and supreme, the expansion of our feeling to infinity in the pursuit of unattainable perfection”. That is, one of the most important postulates of the social concept of S.N. Bulgakov is the statement of universality, the basicity of the concept of religious faith. Human always believes in something. Psychological need to believe - in nature and the individual and society as a whole. Truth of faith, indicates Bulgakov, distinguished by immediate evidence and indisputability. This determines their ability to bind the thought and will of a person into a single whole. Thus, continuing the analysis of Bulgakov, one can say that faith is one of the most powerful incentives or motives of human actions. In my opinion, the concept of faith should be used by modern sociology, because it makes it possible to characterize a person and society in their unity. However, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the sociological meaning of the concept of "religious faith" and everyday meaning, - faith in God, the absolute beginning of the world. Let us give an example of the use of the category of “religious faith” by Bulgakov in the analysis of social processes. The new time, he believes, is characterized by the emergence and spread in Europe of the so-called religion of mankind, anthropotheism, faith in God, replacing faith in human and society. The fact is striking, Bulgakov notes, that two completely different thinkers who hardly knew each other, O. Comte and L. Feuerbach, created surprisingly similar theories in which humanity as a whole was recognized as the highest being and object of religious worship. Religion as presented by Feuerbach became the philosophical basis of the materialistic understanding of the history of K. Marx and F. Engels. In addition to Marxism, it is present in many other teachings of the new and modern history of Europe, the meaning of which lies in the transition from Christianity to anthropotoism - faith in man, in his personal and collective abilities, abilities and reason. Democracy, individual freedom, dignity and self-worth of an individual become the values of this religion. Anthropotheism absolutizes humanity in its temporary, limited and full of evil, sin and suffering of being. He tries to preserve the highest values and moral guidelines, discarding the goals of creating a man "in the image and likeness of God." Among the most important philosophers, supporters of the radical statist position in Russian religious philosophy, we should highlight G. V. Plekhanov and A. A. Bogdanov (a pseudonym of A. M. Malinovsky). The first believed that the accession of freedom in humanity is possible only if the production will be subject to the will of man; denied the innateness of religious demands, understanding religious thinking as a phenomenon that manifests itself in the lower stages of cultural development, thereby separating the religious and moral spheres in the higher stages; but, unlike many Marxists, he defended freedom of conscience and did not allow contempt for religious matters. The second argued that the need for conscious human intervention in being, developed in connection with this idea "tectology" - the study of creative change of being through organizational processes. Conclusion The Russian position in relation to religion and religiosity as a whole is determined by the fact that the identification of religion and cult activity defined by cult relations is illegal, since the phenomenon of religion, the most important attribute of any society, should be considered in a broader aspect, namely as a value system of other society, stipulating the goals of its development and the mediating activities of individuals and society as a whole in accordance with the goal-setting of this system. Religiousness, therefore is above all, a conviction in the correctness and necessity of the goal, methods and means of development relying on a specific religious-value system, and this conviction cannot be fully rationalized, since it is based on unconditional faith in one or another authoritative sources. When considering religion and religiosity in this aspect, it is permissible to assert their universality for any historical and modern communities, since a concrete developing society is difficult to imagine without an ideological justification of goals, ways and means of its development or interpreting Aristotle, without a target reason mediating the cause, which contributes to the actual design of the social substrate. Therefore, in fact, any social philosophy can be attributed to religious philosophy.