at a certain moment of the world's movement, only to be extinguished again in the eternal night of the unconscious, or is it a reflection of the higher, eternal light, the infinity of which it reflects in its formal-logical universality? Is reason the beginning and the end of the world, or is it a mere epiphenomenon of an insignificant part of the world's movement, an insignificant and accidental episode of an unconscious and senseless, mechanical process? It is clear that this is not a simple question of speculation, but a vital question about the fate of man and all mankind.

In the midst of the growing unbelief of our day, we find few consistent and unconditional atheists. If believers recognize the existing, pre-eternal Deity, then the majority of modern atheists consciously or unconsciously believe in man or in humanity as a Deity becoming. Many modern thinkers, German and French, have openly expressed such a belief; others, which is the same thing, believe in the coming kingdom of God of the unreal God; The majority believes in progress, i.e., not in evolution alone, but in the progressive movement of mankind towards one supreme rational goal, towards the ultimate ideal of the good. Without the recognition of such a goal, it is impossible to speak of a forward movement, of the progress of mankind, and the recognition of such a supreme and universal intelligent force presupposes a kind of faith in Providence. In fact, what is this supreme goal, unconditionally worthy of universal desire, atoning for all the sacrifices, all the sufferings of history? This is either an objective providential goal set for man by the will of the Creator, or it is a goal that man himself sets for himself and for his neighbors: but in the latter case, where is the guarantee that this goal is true, worthy of the desire of all people, where is the guarantee that it is attainable and that in it is the redemption and justification of history? Perhaps, however, this goal is both objective and subjective, not only posited of man, but also pre-laid in him, in his spirit or reason. Such a synthesis is also possible: there are thinkers who recognize both the existing, the becoming Divinity and see the meaning of the world in the incarnation of the Being in the Becoming, in the Incarnation of God and God-manhood. But whatever may be the ultimate goal of man and mankind, the human mind cannot grasp it, and consequently

–  12  –

nor can he understand the existence of progress beyond the contemplation of the very nature and significance of reason.

There is an area in which progress is indubitable, the realm of reason and knowledge; here mankind is moving towards one definite and clear, worthy goal – the truth, and knowledge gives it more and more power over nature; spreading among the masses, it enlightens, elevates, liberates them, unites humanity in a single culture. But can science be the ultimate goal of mankind? Can it in itself give man the fullness of spiritual and bodily good, transform man and completely subordinate nature to him? If not, then it is not the highest goal of humanity.

Man cannot conceive of his fate independently of the fate of mankind, of that higher collective whole in which he lives and in which the full meaning of life is revealed to him.

Of course, the very intercourse of people presupposes in them (potential) reasonableness, the ability to understand each other; but real, actual reason is formed only in society and through communication. Therefore, society cannot be considered as an accidental sum or external aggregate of human personalities. Its members mutually presuppose each other, and if there were no social whole, then these members could not exist as rational persons, only the animal individuals of the human species. But at the same time, society is not a simple natural organism in which the parts are united according to unconscious physical, chemical, and biological laws: it is the product of "supra-organic," rational development. On the one hand, it contains the organic, generic basis of personal life, and on the other hand, it is a supra-personal, rational, moral whole, a product of collective reason. At the lowest levels of social

–  13  –

development, the unconscious, generic principle predominates, and at the higher levels, social relations are more and more subordinate to conscious rational norms. Thus, the evolution of the individual and society and their rational progress mutually condition each other. What is the purpose of this progress?

From an empirical point of view, the visible goal of history is the creation of a perfect society; Social unions, which appear from the beginning, enter into a mutual clash, into a common struggle for existence, in which the most solid, strong, viable organizations, the most solidary, rational and cultured survive. And in this way states arise. For many thinkers, a perfect cultural state, a legal, rational union of people, is the highest ideal goal of humanity. The state is a supra-personal moral being, the embodiment of objective, collective reason: it is Hobbes's Leviathan, the earthly deity of Hegel. For others, the state is only a stepping stone in the unification or gathering of humanity into a single whole, a single "Great Being," le Grand Etre, as Comte called it. The rational goal of mankind cannot be the endless generation of warring, warring states, monstrous leviathans competing in size and destructive power and devouring each other. The Great Being of the future, the true earthly deity or divine society, must embrace all mankind and realize the kingdom of reason, peace and freedom. It alone can serve as the ultimate goal of mankind in its entirety, and the peoples are moving towards it in the general cultural work of their states, in their wars, alliances, revolutions and reforms, in their industry, technology, arts and science. Even now mankind has ceased to be an abstraction and has become a real quantity, all parts of which are in mutual dependence, in more and more active economic and political interaction with each other; even now no people is confined to the narrow framework of national existence, but lives and acts in one world political arena; Already now one pan-European culture is asserting its indivisible

–  14  –