Aesthetics of History: the example of Russia

. The article highlights the problem of studying historical time in terms of aesthetics and social ethics. The essence of history, according to the author, is not so much in retrospection or reflection, but in the gap between feeling and awareness. Guided by the apophatic method, the author analyzes the historiosophical views of domestic and foreign scholars and comes to the conclusion that the Soviet paradigm is true, where the only vector of human development is the liberation of labor in the name of creating a bright future for the sake of all people and for everyone


Introduction
If the Russian people are destined to receive value in the future destinies of mankind, then only as the bearer of great truth -the mutual complement of spiritual personalities, moral unity of all people.

N. Grot
History begins when we have transcended what had happened, evaluating and thereby recognizing it, because even when telling someone a story, a person transforms it with his own manner of narration.Consequently, objective historicism is impossible at all, and the subjectivism of historians is smoothed with their worldview, conscience and talent.Ever since the chronicles in Russia, defeats have been described in more detail than victories -probably, as an edification in what must be surpassed and what should not be repeated.It turns out that history and time exist as long as people do not know what they are doing.According to M. Pogodin, "the more humanity develops, the clearer its actions will be ... and, finally, History will be the present time itself, i.e. a Man will act and know his actions at the same time, or, it is better to say, there will be no History anymore " [1].Its essence, therefore, is not so much in retrospection or reflection, as in syncope, in the gap between meter and rhythm, feeling and awareness, between thought and action (that is why, probably, in the old days the historianchronicler was called the records-maker).
Nowadays, Tyutchev's line "in Russia we can only believe" is topical as never before.Two generations, fooled by anti-Soviet propagandists, are completely disoriented and trained in the atmosphere of their native history oblivion and contempt for the Russian culture.It is late and useless to appeal to documentary sources as truths of first instance because it is easy to present particular as general against a background of the abundance of information.
Rational arguments in the clip-like nano-consciousness of young people are mixed with scraps of memes, quotes from show sociologists, folk historians, political freaks and other populists and idle talkers.There is only one conclusion and way out: to take as a basis a paradigm based on common human values created in the USSR and to believe in the Soviet vision of the world and national history course.The Marxist base does not interfere with the belief, quite the contrary.Consciously professing the ideals of communism, one can conscientiously develop science, and not only from the standpoint of determinism (by the way, bourgeois theories are much more guilty of it).
During perestroika, people were lured out of the Russian world with promises of publicity and openness.However, the Russian world has never been closed, because it has always been internal!It is whole -that is what could not be forgiven.Moreover, just as the acquisition of the inner, spiritual world treasures makes external relations secondary, so the development of culture forms self-sufficiency.It is important to emphasize: isolation and selfsufficiency are not the same thing.The Orthodox, by its very nature, the Russian (and Soviet, of course) world did not know the "external", therefore the law of conservation acted specifically in it: the generously wasted energy of the Russians was diligently appropriated and kept by the sharp, practical neighbors.
While western researchers succeeded in the world cognoscibility problems (in fact, cognoscibility through speculative schemes devising), domestic thinkers were fond of the recognizability of Perfection in the manifestations of human existence.This category is providential.The aestheticization of the temporal is a national feature and a special form of our historical thinking.

It is ridiculous to see apotheosis, it is unfair to see only anathema
A. Herzen The stumbling block in the discourse of Russian history is European history, which, for some reason, is taken for reference simply because of its presence.It is all right for differential diagnostics, but it is unlikely fit for realization of the mission and the search for the Path.The fact that the national culture absorbs foreign experience with surprising speed proves only the user's orientation of the latter, its time-serving vector.Of course, technological delights are not bad, but they are just the optimization of various aspects of life in the plane of its convenience, while the issues of prospects (and, therefore, of meaning) are left without proper attention.Let us recall the lines of Yu.Ryashentsev: "it is not a thing to overcome the lack of roads, it is a challenge to work your way through".
Speaking of prospects and continuity, let us note: the excess of activity of one generation was harmonized by the excess of the feelings of the next one, which idealized the simplicity of the predecessors' practice, transforming it into the pathos of creation.In Russia, the amplitude of this affective-effective pendulum was so great that the domestic version could be characterized almost as a bipolar disorder of history [2].It was saved from such a diagnosis by the amazing integrity of the Russian people nature.The periods of power stability engendered the affected internal emigration, while the heroic moments brought forth the harsh "practitioners."The most touching legends are written in silence of stagnation, the most heroic ones -in the wilderness of timelessness.
The state has always tried to keep up with the century (such is the cross of sovereigntyto focus on external challenges and symptoms), that is why it was fatally late with transformations.But the intelligentsia is destined to be either desperately advanced, or hopelessly old-fashioned (which is, in fact, the same thing), that is why its time comes one way or another.It seems to us that the key to understanding the Russian "historical feeling" is in this desynchronization, derived from idiosyncrasy, intolerance of power: the bronzing stagnation stimulated the desire to comprehend your place in alien world.On the contrary, reforms contributed to the accumulation and assimilation of knowledge, least of all disposing to reflection and sentiment (more likely -to the criticism of reformers).
However, after hastily strapping up the political background to the Russian culture, we risk to understand nothing.Actually, politics was of no concern to anyone here, but the problem of social ethics was always painful (ethics of power, first of all).Of course, the history of Russia is largely determined by the history of its statehood.Even because the cream of the national culture are entirely the accusers of the ruling regime.Moreover, precisely those who placed special hopes on the state; who believed that the right power would lead people into the realm of justice.
The championship belongs to the one who runs faster; who, having got rid off all the unnecessary burden, even the very clothes, travels lightly and overtakes rivals, argued B. Chicherin [3].This is very accurate -about the bourgeois-positivist model of progress, which has thrown off unnecessary moral and cultural principles and perished in the supermarket of happiness technologies created by it.In Russia, philosophy developed primarily as an art, not a science, for it lived more with a talent than a method -"as a direction that frees Russian thought from spiritual slavery" (words by I. Aksakov [4]).From this point of view, it is hardly correct to debate about domestic universal-philosophical constructs -historiosophical problems were studied primarily (A.Khomyakov, P. Lavrov, L. Karsavin), social-ethical (A.Radishchev, N. Berdyaev, bro.Aksakovs) and aesthetic (Vl.Soloviev, K. Leontiev, A. Losev).However, these questions were never perceived as particular ones; a distinctive feature of the Russian worldview is striving for integrity (as by K. Balmont: "the whole world must be justified so that you can live").We believe that the specificity of national philosophy is in the scale of the personalities of thinkers who have suffered their views.Social ethics is the concern of people with a moral core, while unprincipled creatures crawl into politics.All sorts of constraints in the sphere of social activities perfectly contribute to the cultural and spiritual growth of thinking individuals, without lowering them to the kind of public people.
Our knights of the mind have their own "Holy Grail" -the search for answers to "cursed questions".As a result, the concept of social is usually ideological (and moreover, it is not at all ideologized).This is (in the words of V. Bibikhin) "not permitted and not prohibited state of philosophy in Russia" [5].Here they tried to turn the ideal into the real, in the West they cashed the ideal into the real [6].Russian restlessness originates from here, it is contrastingly noticeable against the background of a cozy Euro-life.The God-bearing people will not find a place for themselves until all people feel well (Chekhov's "we are unhappy, but all of humanity will be happy").Restlessness -is a kind of disorder in the first place; that is why we are building all the time, while others get settled in what we have built.Naturally, this is not about a place under the sun (there is a plenty of it in Russia), but about complacency.
Evolution (even in bio-format) is a way of shallowing, and the Russian soul is most distressed by shallowing: both scales and morals.Therefore, psychological techniques and management storyboards are not for us.The attempts of modern domestic (are they really domestic?)sociologists to formulate the "commandments of motivation", "ten habits that enrage the boss", "how to impress the interviewer" etc. look stupid, cynical and vacuous [7].In the American format, the fabrication of science from such trifles looks even cute in some ways and not so coarse, but such pettiness humiliates the researcher in the national tradition.
The angle of national culture descent is equal to the angle of bourgeois mass cult ascent.Therefore, eastern philosophy attracts the West not by its depth and antiquity, but by spiritual practices, i.e. again by tricks of enlightenment.Even Hinduism met the demands of consumers by mutating into cosplays for hippies and hare Krishnas.We believe that Russian philosophy will avoid such an unenviable fate and will never become an average-world-wide popular.This is not a localistic tendency, but the need for special cultural preparation and asceticism, without which approaching to the treasury of Russian thought is possible, but communicating is doubtful: it is too personal, unique thing that cannot be duplicated.
As they say, the darkest place is under the lamp: few book truths have taken root in national life, which is why the gap between the desired and the real in Russia is so dramatic.The notorious questions "what to do?" and "who is to blame?" were being solved by thinkers impractically, pretending to be "in the spirit".Hence the bitter disappointment in the degradation of ideals, and the peculiar "apocalyptic optimism" of Russian thought.Spiritual Russia was never preoccupied with the idea of "catching up and overtaking".Meanwhile, the state Russia was rushing around in the circle of reforms, now boasting of advanced positions, now wondering at its lagging behind others.No wonder: it is difficult to understand who is running away and who is catching up in the circle, and to distinguish the outsiders from the leaders.According to the tagged characteristic of G. Fedotov, Russian messianism is an extreme form of reaction to Western temptation, an extreme form of anti-Westernism, and, therefore, again the same Westernism [8].
Perhaps the well-known difference between foreign and Russian cultures lies in the very sense of reality.In Europe, for example, realism (as a direction in art) was quickly replaced by other, more tendentious, alternative "-isms" (impressionism, cubism, Fauvism etc.).In Russia, critical realism predominated for a long time (and it was not officially proclaimed at all) as a general line; in the USSR, socialist realism was especially revered.But, no matter how the unfortunate avant-garde and anti-Soviet propagandists ridiculed it, it turned out to be genuine and it was incomparably higher than the primitive-descriptive naturalism of the perestroikatime depressive things.The reason, apparently, is the point of view: the socialist realists preferred the promising one, while the artisans of noir and art house narrowed their horizons and "creative methods".As a result, their life observations degenerated, in the best case, into still lives (literally "dead nature") of everyday signs, and, at worst, into the mediocre protocol statement of the politicized topic of the day.
The passion of the West for Dostoevsky, Chekhov and Tolstoy is a phenomenon of the same order, explained quite simply: all three authors described ordinary people reliably.There is no need to explain that the mentioned classics are far from being simple descriptors that is why the understanding of their works "here and there" is so different.Nevertheless, foreign interpretations of Russian literature seldom went beyond the limits of illustrativeness, at best hopelessly resting on the "phenomenon of the mysterious Russian soul", which became (and rightly!) a synonym for a beautiful and insoluble paradox.So, Russian (in our opinion) is not an ethnic characteristic, but cultural affiliation, and it is innate at the same time.

Results
In nations developing distinctively, richness of content precedes perfection of form.
A. Khomyakov History paints its self-portrait with people as if with oil colors.But what a miracle -in general, the picture resembles each of us.There is its own, special, personal iconostasis in the temple of the soul.Nevertheless, as long as individuals form a society, then there will be images (for the most part) of the same saints -the conscience of the nation in such temples.However, this does not mean that the faces of all the icons will be displayed as standard.The canon and the template are incompatible things, and the inviolability of dogma in Russia is ensured by its beauty (such as, for example, separateness and inseparability).Russian thinking is speculation in colors (the term of E. Trubetskoy), but not in abstractions, because abstraction is nothing more than nude concrete thing.Therefore, it is attractive to immature minds, as every nudity to all immature ones.The beauty of Truth is in the image, but not in the formula.
N. Leskov subtly notes the essence of aesthetization in the immortal tale about the Russian Lefthander, shoeing a steel English flea [9].The dancing flea is a joke, a techno-Kunstwerk, but a shoed one is a witty artifact, and why should it dance in such a status?The pursuit of functionality turns art into design and mass culture.The competitive rush needed in flea search is hardly conducive to contemplative God-seeking.This is an answer to those who believe that the Russians have acquired technologies and philosophical theories in bulk from the West.Perhaps they adopted something, but how they assimilated and decorated those things, how much they transformed them!
We understand the aesthetics of history as a creative search for co-existential harmony.These researches are not similar either to criminalistics (detection, fixation and evaluation of evidence at the trial of history), or to the substitution of harmony with the dead symmetry of checks and balances.Aesthetization is a way of resolving the antithesis between love for near person and love for distant one, designated by F. Nietzsche and developed by S. Frank.Let us make a reservation: craving for beauty and justice in the Russian character has little in common with Nietzsche's "love for things and ghosts," since the materialization and the phantom of the ideal are equally disastrous for it.The ideal is not a standard, much less it is an illusion that hides or decorates improper realities.The irrational reality of the ideal comprehends reality.Such is the superation of history, when the next note adorns and justifies the previous one: if only because without the previous one it would be impossible, even in dissonance.Harmonization is an aesthetic interpretation rather than reconciliation, adaptation, compensation, or a formal alternative.
To find harmony means to grasp the consonances and resonances of the worldview with the universe; in this sense of rhythm, syncope is the root of the perception of history.Naturally, it is at a certain frequency; consequently, there are as many variations as there are frequencies -those details and circumstances around which, in agreement with which harmony is built.There is a subjective, very humane moment: which image we should consider as the key one; therefore ideology seems to us to be the aesthetic category, and creativity the ethical one.In a word, against the background of the principle of equality of all under ideals vulgarization law, distinctiveness is in the way the ideal of creativity is realized by one or another nation."The Russian man thinks like in the plastic art, not abstractly.He is an artist, an esthetician in religion too.A slight soaring over the heavy inertia of historical positivism is the most archaic feature, the first Christian one in Russian religiosity.Russians are modern Thessalonians, children of Paul," wrote A. Kartashev [10].We believe that the imaginative thinking of Russians is clearly manifested in the unique sense of subtexts, allegories and allusions, for there exist only those things that are not for real in the present.Moreover, it is no longer surprising why satire from all the literature in Russia is the genre, which is always up-to-date and prophetic; although (according to the logic of things) it should be the most "perishable" and tightly tied to a temporal context.
The golden rule of social mechanics says: we lose in politics -we win in conscience.Perhaps the legend about the Varangians invitation is not a statement of a specific fact (it doesn't matter, if it is distorted or not), but a witty idea when the people do not wait for the chance to be conquered, but determine for themselves those strangers who will remain alienated in power status forever.Russian statehood was not formed by a foreign conquest, but expanded by an internal conquest, fabricated according to an external scheme: for example, in the Petersburg period hereditary bureaucracy (the term of I. Aksakov) earnestly oppressed their own people.However, it is true enough that the fury of Peter's reforms is partially redeemed by the enlightenment of Russia (as in G. Gorin's bitter aphorism: "He was a great enlightener, flogged ruthlessly!") We emphasize: individuality creates history, i.e. inseparability (in literal translation from Latin).In masses, it manifests itself objectively, physically (solidarity, unity), in the personality -psychologically: the integrity of the great personality nature elevates proselytes spiritually, forcing to recall conciliar person.People inspired (and not motivated) by prophets and saints are transformed into the world, and led by leaders -into the nation.We believe that the dilemma of "personality or mass" in the creation of history issue is not so relevant.The historical role of the masses is in the revision and reduction of ideals.It is noteworthy that there are means in the Russian language that can unmistakably mark retirement from the scene: chaadaevschina -characteristic of Chaadaev (snobbish criticism), dostoyevschinacharacteristic of Dostoevsky (obsessive repentance), tarkovschina -characteristic of Tarkovsky (dull pretentiousness).This device emphasizes the typification, parodying the external forms of something originally extraordinary, personal, and sincere.
In this perspective, an associative circle that closes to domestic history is also extremely interesting.For example, Peter the Great is called the first Russian Bolshevik, and Count S. Witte -the first Commissar (respectively, People's Commissar of Finance G. Sokolnikov -is called "Soviet Witte").On the other hand, few people would think of correlating the personality of Ivan the Terrible with Henry VIII Tudor or Nero; a comparison with Stalin is much more adequate (at the same time, not Stalin with Hitler!).We deliberately made analogies in the field of politics, as its principles are simple and, therefore, universally similar.However, even here the parallels are artificial and strained.In the field of literature, this sounds utterly absurd: is it not ridiculous to call Lermontov -Russian Byron, and K. Leontiev -Russian Nietzsche, and talk about the identity of "War and Peace" with "Gone with the Wind"?As you can see, such comparisons are superficial at best, incorrect, irritate the eyes and grate upon the ears -in other words, they are ugly.Here, there is a decisive nuance, in this irrational but quite perceptible aesthetic feeling, it is obviously higher than factology and abstract logic.
However, there are indicative exceptions that support the rule.They quite rightly liken Gorbachev to Judah.It is precisely because Gorby is certainly an anti-Russian character, alien to Russian culture cosmopolitan (in general, traitors are the same and despicable everywhere).Moreover, the scale of his betrayal is truly universal.
The fact is that Brezhnev, along with Lenin, is one of the most consistent humanists of all time."Dear Leonid Ilyich", not possessing Lenin's gift as a theoretician, was remembered as endlessly touching person in his sincere desire to bring a bright future for millions of Soviet people, taking care of improving their life, education and, in general, social well-being.But the people, historically brought up by the atmosphere of solving a priori overwhelming tasks, were discouraged by the opportunity to stop, take a rest and experience a "feeling of deep satisfaction" with their deeds.Eternal dissatisfaction with the present situation manifested itself in the fact that the temporary halt was later called temporal stagnation.We emphasize that stagnation is a thoroughly false formulation -a propaganda stamp that claims to be the image of an era, but paradoxically sanctified by the people's memory.
The Hollywood history of Russia began with Perestroika, the era of popular colonial guignol.To discredit socialism, the overseas masters of Gorbachev told him where to get a "conscience of the nation" -among "Afghan" veterans and supposedly miraculously surviving "victims of Stalinist repressions" (for some reason lived quite safely until the end of the eighties, and even worked on a fat media field).It is significant that in Brezhnev's times, the supreme authority shied away from high life and was modest in behavior, although its representatives received numerous state awards.It was on the desire not to publicize their merits that demons of glasnost played, fanning the myths that the leaders of the stagnation era were not leaders at all, and the departed leaders were not leaders.In this low competition with the dead, Gorbachev was able to acquire cheap authority for a while and obtain the status of guarantor of perestroika.The following guarantors exploited the same know-how, destroying historical continuity, distorting the very idea of progress and the historical fate of the nation [11].
Thus, the vulgarization of the ideal begins when exceptions become rules, thereby losing their exclusivity.The current (initiated and provoked by the West) restoration of the Stalin's Empire-style ruins and the old-fashioned willful autocracy is nothing more than a wax figures show and an entertaining and distracting Disneyland style farce, fabricated on imperial tales and Soviet political jokes base.Oddly enough, a purely Russian tendency to self-denial, bitter self-irony of looking at themselves from the "beautiful far away", from the "impossible world" just helps the colonialists.But Russian kenotism also contains a powerful superational stimulus for development and improvement.It is not amazing that one of the most ridiculed Soviet idioms was the notorious "feeling of deep satisfaction", credo of the blessed Brezhnev's "stagnation".Only after a thirty-year-old post-perestroika wonderland, these words became clearer and closer to us, shining like stars that are always better seen from the bottom of the well.

Conclusion
Can one imagine history?What is its form?History can only be felt.The historian's task is to feel God.

M. Pogodin
History is written as a warning to posterity, living people need it, and it must certainly be alive in order to console, educate and teach.Its lessons are that it tends to repetition, calling for work on mistakes correction.History is not for the apology of the past, but for the sake of the justification of the living.
These are times when utilitarian "how?" and "why?" are not convenient any more, people are not satisfied with objective "why?", they ask -for what?The main thing in any history is to find out its ending; this tragic knowledge gives it special value in terms of research and gives a sense to aesthetization.Historical research is not an investigation experiment and it is not limited to reconstruction of events; it rather needs restoration of cultural memory (in a way, these are Gestalten of the national history, deduced from it as contents from content).The human mind and imagination will restore the lost fragments more delicately and more naturally than formally calculated interpolations and averaged bits and pixels.
Probably, our respected reader has noted that our text is replete with negative particles and antitheses.Firstly, thereby emphasizing its polemic nature (by the way, very characteristic of the traditions of Russian thought).Secondly, the apophatic character and method of presentation are indicated, because apophatics is the art of persuading without argument, therefore -fundamentally alien to confrontation.According to Val.Muravyov, "all changes in the world studied by science are a function of one or another multiplicity of elements" [12].It turns out that it is extremely difficult for a person to embrace unity, to think in timeless categories.Science is not capable of this, but religious and creative thinking has a chance.
Let us reject simplifications: humanity is not at all a statistical totality of "people", it is more correct to represent it in a way that should be in the future.Collective humanity will surpass the contradictions of any theories of progress: mystical, positivistic, and idealistic.Ultimately, the dispute between the two worlds (Soviet and bourgeois) is also rooted in the symbol of faith -the question of the possibility of building communism.Perhaps, it is because the Russian word "построение" paradoxically exists in the measurements of both the process and the result.Result-oriented ones mock, devotees, believing in the Path -build.We are convinced of the truth of the Soviet paradigm, where the only vector of human history is the liberation of labor in the name of creating a bright future for all and for everyone.
Undoubtedly, Russian history is unique, but it is by no means local, not isolated and not marked with the eternal Horde label of Eurasianism.If we consider the West and Russia in terms of power, there is an amazing synchronization of government forms: military democracy, early feudal monarchies, fragmentation, nation-states, estate-representative monarchies, enlightened absolutism, etc.When compared in the context of technological growth, the obvious lag of our country is revealed.Comparing the history of philosophy, we find rare statics, the inviolability of the Russian picture of the world ("a stopped watch at least twice a day shows the correct time"), especially against the background of a foreign worldview assortment.As a result, we can say that the three selected coordinate systems completely form an integral space of historical time for Russia, while bourgeois humanities often serve needs, adapting reality to obviousness, simplifying the eternal to relative.Hence, we have various forms of determinism, tolerance, quasi-concepts (modern, postmodern), nihilism and a lot of criticism, however, not always constructive.Naturally, we cannot live without criticism and comparisons, but our purpose is in transcending it, in superation.
Thus, Russia is indeed another planet, but together with the planet of the West it revolves in different orbits around common Christian ideals.Another question is that the West is permanently experimenting with the settings of the orbit radius and speed of rotation, planning to land on the Luminary and its closest appropriation (the dialectics of the proper and the existing, metaphysical and empirical), and Russia's attitude to the sacred Luminary is proper reverential, it does not change its orbit, and it will rather allow the apocalypse at home than the disappearance of a light source.
We may have allowed ourselves not quite academic imagery, and metaphorical presentation, but this is again in line with the national tradition.It seems to us that aesthetization is the path (of course, difficult) that does not cause people to quarrel and reminds them: there is a sense of beautiful in everyone; the mission of a man is a creative search for harmony in himself and in everything around him.There will always be both scientific and eventual novelty in such an approach.Russian aesthetics of history is unthinkable without paradoxism.