I'm Russian, citizen of Russia, born in late USSR. I don't approve this radical and anti-scientific idea of "Orthodox science" (when uncomfortable theories are declined cause they go against Bible and other holy teachings). I don't approve the view that in a such multinational and multi-religious country Orthodox Christianity must be in some way or form a priority ideology even though I respect it highly. I have truly various neighbors and friends who all strongly patriotic and perceive themselves as Russian but who have very different origin and religion. We have a common denominator—culture and social values. Religious holidays are intertwined and well respected, e.g. it's actually pretty common to see Muslim children bringing colored eggs on Easter holidays celebrating it...
What I'm saying is that me nor my friends and family will support the radical opinion expressed in the translated essay. Even among the most devoted Christians I know.
Personality I'm like many Russians an agnostic but we really don't give much thought to it. And I live by, if it's appropriate to say about self, by high standards which I impose on myself not by religious views but by the moral standards. I mean to say I live by the truth but I don't need to glorify it as a following of a certain approved religion. I don't drink any alcohol, I don't eat animals (for almost two decades now, I found it unethical when became adult and read a lot including, yes, the very same Brothers Karamazovy by Dostoevsky mentioned in the essay!), I raise my children as good people with open hearths but don't impose them with my own standards and life choices as it's something they can only be guided to — not pushed. I don't need to be Orthodox to be a good men (by my own standards) and I don't need nor seek any approval of anyone else. And I know a lot of people like me. Most are not perfect but none are, we only strive to do the best. It doesn't help to become fanatical zealots or get some laws to enforce anything—it will be distorted and abused to only create the visibility of serving good, instead of being truly sincere. I guess we, the Russian people, if I can humbly speak for everyone or at least the majority, suffered enough of various distorted ideologies over so many years, that we would prefer to have freedom and sincerity. And good undistorted education, love to the nature with all its wonders, and healthy patriotism will do the rest.
Paul, I'm surprised this has been featured, at least without the inclusion of a counterpoint piece.
To me, it seems fundamentally confused, or perhaps more accurately obfuscates its core message with gestures towards keeping church and state separate.
That core message, if I've correctly understood it, is that Russia needs to infuse Orthodoxy into all aspects of life, law, education and the state itself. Passing lip service is paid to the many other religious faiths within Russia but Nikolaev clearly views them as inferior to Orthodoxy.
"Today, for some reason, even Orthodox Christians no longer talk about the need to teach the Law of God in schools. We talk about some sort of foundations of religious culture, ethics, the comparative characteristics of various teachings. All of which means that we are teaching our children to doubt their faith right from the start."
In other words, as essentially alien to Russian culture and its needs.
All of this seems profoundly antithetical to what I understand to be the core of Russia's long-standing harmonious and tolerant society.
Your questions, and reservations, deserve a less hurried response, but perhaps this will do as a start. There is no question but that the views here expressed are very unlike what is considered appropriate in the U.S. It is part of our mission to give Western readers a window onto Russian perspectives (that is, as long as they are set forth, as this essay is, intelligently and humanely). Regarding openness to other faiths in Russia, it is of course the case that the position of the Russian state is described, in this regard, in footnote 1, pt. 6, whereas Prof. Nikolaev is expressing his own view. At the same time, there is not a huge gulf between the two perspectives. Both view Orthodoxy has having a privileged position. And the Russian state, while it recognizes a number of faiths as having historical roots in Russia, it does not welcome all equally. As is often the case in Russia, hierarchy wins out over egalitarianism, and as a result the view that 'all faiths are the same,' or 'everyone has their own truth' is not the default position as it is in the U.S. This amounts to saying that Russia as a culture is not reducible to liberalism.
Having said all that, we are always interested in receiving thoughtful essays on themes such as this. It is unfortunate that they rarely come our way. But if more do, we will be interested. While, arguably, all genuine Russian philosophical thought embraces hierarchy, this does not mean all Russian philosophers would take the same position as Nikolaev with respect to other faiths. The position of the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1953 - 1900), for example, is closer to Simone Weil that to Prof. Nikolaev. The latter once wrote that wherever, in any religion, there can be found a spark of truth, to that same extent one encounters the spirit of Christ.
Thanks, Paul. Your reply will definitely do, and not only as a start.
I also don't disagree with any of it. In particular, placing Orthodoxy in a privileged position within Russia seems to me an entirely reasonable stance.
The only thing that prompted my comment was the sense that Nikolaev is trying to have it both ways, that he hasn't acknowledged (perhaps even accepted?) the consequences of his argument.
"The upshot is that if Orthodox teaching is understood as something other than law, then the law of the state (which justifies abortions) will be viewed as being on an ethically higher plane, even when, from the point of view of Christian believers, it is immoral."
Can this realistically be seen in any other way than as a call for the fusion of church and state? That underlying desire, it seems to me, is threaded throughout the piece.
It's not that I see such a wish as impermissible, simply that it's important to be honest about what one is saying.
P.S. Apologies for not being clearer in my first attempt. :-)
Paul (and Vlad K), Karl Sanchez's Substack post today included an essay (the first of two) which obliquely touches on some of the underlying themes of Nikolaev's essay in what I found a most interesting fashion.
I'm including two quotes that seem particularly pertinent, and the link, just in case you don't follow him. The first is from the essay, the second from a comment on it by Karl.
By the way, much, in many cases most, of this is new to me and probably old hat to both of you. So this is purely intended as an FYI, no need to reply.
"In Russia, each ethnic group was included as it was, and then it was only a matter of serving the common national interests of defense. Christianization was welcomed, but it was never a condition for public service."
[...]
"That Russians weren’t taught religious-based hatreds unlike Europe and its English-speaking colonies is also a very crucial difference. The short-lived period of Great Russian Chauvinism was destroyed by Revolutions and Wars, while constant existential pressure over the last 100+ years contributed greatly to Russian cohesion as a multinational people the West thought would be easy to exploit, which proved to be its greatest error, IMO.
My last observation is related to Russia and Law—that Law isn’t dependent on power, that Law is superior to Might Makes Right. That ought to help readers understand why the UN Charter is still held in high esteem by Putin, Lavrov, and other high ranking Russians despite the West ignoring it because they think their power is more consequential.
When we look at something very fundamental regarding Law like contract law and its basis in honesty and honor and the fact those are the only ways to build a business relationship, we can understand why Law is superior to force—force/power can wither and die while honesty and honor can be infinite."
I write these comments as an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian living in Canada, a far off observer and foreigner or guest to the topic of Russia.
I agree with Ingolf that the essay seems to send mixed messages. But if I may read it with the Orthodox mindset (phronema is the word, I believe), and, if I may try to be the bee, ...
The main idea, I think, is that Orthodoxy should be infused, more than it is now, into the state. I think the author understands something basic that most of us laymen do not, and that is that Secularism, Liberalism, and Modernism are not the "neutral territory" that they market themselves as to the masses. They are religions in their own right.
For example, a law increasing abortion privileges would be an example of the state incorporating the principles of Secularism into law. A law restricting abortion would be an example of the state preferring the principles of Orthodoxy over Secularism. Teaching Orthodoxy in public schools, vs teaching Liberalism, which is the foundation of standard comparative religions curricula, would be an example of the state preferring Orthodoxy to Secularism. Etc.
Given this, there is nothing a priori "wrong" with advancing the idea that in the competition for influence in the state, there should be more Orthodoxy and less Secularism. The author's last sentence illustrates this plainly and accurately.
But the Orthodox phronema is inward looking, introspective, never externalizing. "...we have plenty of filth of our own," writes the author. I have read often the Russian Orthodox observation that Marxism came to Russia because Russia forgot God. Basic spiritual law came into effect - when a people stray too far from God, diseases manifest. In recent years, I have also read repeatedly observations from clergy that in the relatively comfortable Russia of today, the spiritual hunger for God is far less than it was in the hard 1990's. Very straightforwardly Orthodox observations.
Orthodoxy believes that the only way to spread Orthodoxy - that is, to be more accurate - to spread God's love - is to be more perfectly Orthodox - that is, to be an example that will attract others. Law, guidance, social norms, preaching, persuasion, even rhetoric have their place, but can do nothing if we Orthodox are not shining lights. And often they can prevent us from becoming shining lights by distracting us from our inner work and further tempting us into pride and judgment. And this in turn will drive others away from us and away from Christ.
Orthodoxy also values meekness and discernment. So when we talk about state and law, the Orthodox will be mindful of the consequences of their opinions and actions, as well as whether these are motivated by pride and judgment or love of Christ. It is also Orthodox to evaluate whether one's spiritual state is such that one should be thinking about such matters or concentrating on getting one's own spiritual house in order. I would say that this is a reason why the essay seems to have mixed messages, because the author himself is trying to discern, and this is not a black and white task.
One last thing - the use of the word "law". Orthodoxy uses the word law ontologically, meaning this is the way things work in reality, not the way they should work. For example, we say abortion is wrong not because there is an external law that says so, but because it is bad for us. It goes against the basic nature with which and for which we were created, so it makes us sick in all dimensions, spiritually, physically, mentally. So the goal of an abortion law would be to minimize sickness, not to make people more moral or follow the rules. It would take a lot of discernment to determine how and when to craft such a law, a law that saves people, but at the same time does not break them.
I'm Russian, citizen of Russia, born in late USSR. I don't approve this radical and anti-scientific idea of "Orthodox science" (when uncomfortable theories are declined cause they go against Bible and other holy teachings). I don't approve the view that in a such multinational and multi-religious country Orthodox Christianity must be in some way or form a priority ideology even though I respect it highly. I have truly various neighbors and friends who all strongly patriotic and perceive themselves as Russian but who have very different origin and religion. We have a common denominator—culture and social values. Religious holidays are intertwined and well respected, e.g. it's actually pretty common to see Muslim children bringing colored eggs on Easter holidays celebrating it...
What I'm saying is that me nor my friends and family will support the radical opinion expressed in the translated essay. Even among the most devoted Christians I know.
Personality I'm like many Russians an agnostic but we really don't give much thought to it. And I live by, if it's appropriate to say about self, by high standards which I impose on myself not by religious views but by the moral standards. I mean to say I live by the truth but I don't need to glorify it as a following of a certain approved religion. I don't drink any alcohol, I don't eat animals (for almost two decades now, I found it unethical when became adult and read a lot including, yes, the very same Brothers Karamazovy by Dostoevsky mentioned in the essay!), I raise my children as good people with open hearths but don't impose them with my own standards and life choices as it's something they can only be guided to — not pushed. I don't need to be Orthodox to be a good men (by my own standards) and I don't need nor seek any approval of anyone else. And I know a lot of people like me. Most are not perfect but none are, we only strive to do the best. It doesn't help to become fanatical zealots or get some laws to enforce anything—it will be distorted and abused to only create the visibility of serving good, instead of being truly sincere. I guess we, the Russian people, if I can humbly speak for everyone or at least the majority, suffered enough of various distorted ideologies over so many years, that we would prefer to have freedom and sincerity. And good undistorted education, love to the nature with all its wonders, and healthy patriotism will do the rest.
Paul, I'm surprised this has been featured, at least without the inclusion of a counterpoint piece.
To me, it seems fundamentally confused, or perhaps more accurately obfuscates its core message with gestures towards keeping church and state separate.
That core message, if I've correctly understood it, is that Russia needs to infuse Orthodoxy into all aspects of life, law, education and the state itself. Passing lip service is paid to the many other religious faiths within Russia but Nikolaev clearly views them as inferior to Orthodoxy.
"Today, for some reason, even Orthodox Christians no longer talk about the need to teach the Law of God in schools. We talk about some sort of foundations of religious culture, ethics, the comparative characteristics of various teachings. All of which means that we are teaching our children to doubt their faith right from the start."
In other words, as essentially alien to Russian culture and its needs.
All of this seems profoundly antithetical to what I understand to be the core of Russia's long-standing harmonious and tolerant society.
All very strange . . .
Your questions, and reservations, deserve a less hurried response, but perhaps this will do as a start. There is no question but that the views here expressed are very unlike what is considered appropriate in the U.S. It is part of our mission to give Western readers a window onto Russian perspectives (that is, as long as they are set forth, as this essay is, intelligently and humanely). Regarding openness to other faiths in Russia, it is of course the case that the position of the Russian state is described, in this regard, in footnote 1, pt. 6, whereas Prof. Nikolaev is expressing his own view. At the same time, there is not a huge gulf between the two perspectives. Both view Orthodoxy has having a privileged position. And the Russian state, while it recognizes a number of faiths as having historical roots in Russia, it does not welcome all equally. As is often the case in Russia, hierarchy wins out over egalitarianism, and as a result the view that 'all faiths are the same,' or 'everyone has their own truth' is not the default position as it is in the U.S. This amounts to saying that Russia as a culture is not reducible to liberalism.
Having said all that, we are always interested in receiving thoughtful essays on themes such as this. It is unfortunate that they rarely come our way. But if more do, we will be interested. While, arguably, all genuine Russian philosophical thought embraces hierarchy, this does not mean all Russian philosophers would take the same position as Nikolaev with respect to other faiths. The position of the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1953 - 1900), for example, is closer to Simone Weil that to Prof. Nikolaev. The latter once wrote that wherever, in any religion, there can be found a spark of truth, to that same extent one encounters the spirit of Christ.
Thanks, Paul. Your reply will definitely do, and not only as a start.
I also don't disagree with any of it. In particular, placing Orthodoxy in a privileged position within Russia seems to me an entirely reasonable stance.
The only thing that prompted my comment was the sense that Nikolaev is trying to have it both ways, that he hasn't acknowledged (perhaps even accepted?) the consequences of his argument.
"The upshot is that if Orthodox teaching is understood as something other than law, then the law of the state (which justifies abortions) will be viewed as being on an ethically higher plane, even when, from the point of view of Christian believers, it is immoral."
Can this realistically be seen in any other way than as a call for the fusion of church and state? That underlying desire, it seems to me, is threaded throughout the piece.
It's not that I see such a wish as impermissible, simply that it's important to be honest about what one is saying.
P.S. Apologies for not being clearer in my first attempt. :-)
Paul (and Vlad K), Karl Sanchez's Substack post today included an essay (the first of two) which obliquely touches on some of the underlying themes of Nikolaev's essay in what I found a most interesting fashion.
I'm including two quotes that seem particularly pertinent, and the link, just in case you don't follow him. The first is from the essay, the second from a comment on it by Karl.
By the way, much, in many cases most, of this is new to me and probably old hat to both of you. So this is purely intended as an FYI, no need to reply.
"In Russia, each ethnic group was included as it was, and then it was only a matter of serving the common national interests of defense. Christianization was welcomed, but it was never a condition for public service."
[...]
"That Russians weren’t taught religious-based hatreds unlike Europe and its English-speaking colonies is also a very crucial difference. The short-lived period of Great Russian Chauvinism was destroyed by Revolutions and Wars, while constant existential pressure over the last 100+ years contributed greatly to Russian cohesion as a multinational people the West thought would be easy to exploit, which proved to be its greatest error, IMO.
My last observation is related to Russia and Law—that Law isn’t dependent on power, that Law is superior to Might Makes Right. That ought to help readers understand why the UN Charter is still held in high esteem by Putin, Lavrov, and other high ranking Russians despite the West ignoring it because they think their power is more consequential.
When we look at something very fundamental regarding Law like contract law and its basis in honesty and honor and the fact those are the only ways to build a business relationship, we can understand why Law is superior to force—force/power can wither and die while honesty and honor can be infinite."
https://open.substack.com/pub/karlof1/p/two-expertru-essays-and-rossiya-1s?r=1emdt&utm_medium=ios
I write these comments as an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian living in Canada, a far off observer and foreigner or guest to the topic of Russia.
I agree with Ingolf that the essay seems to send mixed messages. But if I may read it with the Orthodox mindset (phronema is the word, I believe), and, if I may try to be the bee, ...
The main idea, I think, is that Orthodoxy should be infused, more than it is now, into the state. I think the author understands something basic that most of us laymen do not, and that is that Secularism, Liberalism, and Modernism are not the "neutral territory" that they market themselves as to the masses. They are religions in their own right.
For example, a law increasing abortion privileges would be an example of the state incorporating the principles of Secularism into law. A law restricting abortion would be an example of the state preferring the principles of Orthodoxy over Secularism. Teaching Orthodoxy in public schools, vs teaching Liberalism, which is the foundation of standard comparative religions curricula, would be an example of the state preferring Orthodoxy to Secularism. Etc.
Given this, there is nothing a priori "wrong" with advancing the idea that in the competition for influence in the state, there should be more Orthodoxy and less Secularism. The author's last sentence illustrates this plainly and accurately.
But the Orthodox phronema is inward looking, introspective, never externalizing. "...we have plenty of filth of our own," writes the author. I have read often the Russian Orthodox observation that Marxism came to Russia because Russia forgot God. Basic spiritual law came into effect - when a people stray too far from God, diseases manifest. In recent years, I have also read repeatedly observations from clergy that in the relatively comfortable Russia of today, the spiritual hunger for God is far less than it was in the hard 1990's. Very straightforwardly Orthodox observations.
Orthodoxy believes that the only way to spread Orthodoxy - that is, to be more accurate - to spread God's love - is to be more perfectly Orthodox - that is, to be an example that will attract others. Law, guidance, social norms, preaching, persuasion, even rhetoric have their place, but can do nothing if we Orthodox are not shining lights. And often they can prevent us from becoming shining lights by distracting us from our inner work and further tempting us into pride and judgment. And this in turn will drive others away from us and away from Christ.
Orthodoxy also values meekness and discernment. So when we talk about state and law, the Orthodox will be mindful of the consequences of their opinions and actions, as well as whether these are motivated by pride and judgment or love of Christ. It is also Orthodox to evaluate whether one's spiritual state is such that one should be thinking about such matters or concentrating on getting one's own spiritual house in order. I would say that this is a reason why the essay seems to have mixed messages, because the author himself is trying to discern, and this is not a black and white task.
One last thing - the use of the word "law". Orthodoxy uses the word law ontologically, meaning this is the way things work in reality, not the way they should work. For example, we say abortion is wrong not because there is an external law that says so, but because it is bad for us. It goes against the basic nature with which and for which we were created, so it makes us sick in all dimensions, spiritually, physically, mentally. So the goal of an abortion law would be to minimize sickness, not to make people more moral or follow the rules. It would take a lot of discernment to determine how and when to craft such a law, a law that saves people, but at the same time does not break them.