Shestov insists that this truth is credible because it is absurd, and it is certain because it is impossible. However, rational people have so far scoffed at this statement. Therefore, shestov realized that trying to make the impossible possible was a crazy struggle-a struggle at the expense of tears, groans and curses. According to the Bible, this crazy struggle for possibility is faith. The truth of this belief is absurd to the laws of this world. However, this absurdity is the most credible. "Necessity" is an important philosophical concept, and many philosophical systems have relied on it since ancient times: the basic principle is based on it, the correctness of the system is based on it, and the power of thought is based on it. In the field of philosophy, people should pursue rationality: as far as things outside the system are concerned, only rationality can be recognized as having the right to exist; As far as the system is concerned, rationality is a convincing basic reason. This also determines the importance of inevitability; Necessity is the internal basis of rationality, and whether a thing is reasonable depends on whether it contains inevitability (Engels distinguished "reality" and "existence" on the basis of necessity when explaining Hegel's proposition that "all reality is reasonable and all rationality is reality"). See Chapter 4 of ludwig feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy). In addition, inevitability is the comprehensive support of universality. If there is no inevitability, universality cannot be established at all, and it is only external identity at most. In this way, from ancient Greek philosophy to Marxist philosophy, respecting and even worshiping inevitability has become the mainstream tradition of western philosophy.
Faced with such a stone wall of "not listening to advice" (in Aristotelian language), it is also a philosophical miracle that the Russian philosopher shestov dared to hit it with his head in the early 20th century.
Shestov pointed out that the inevitability regarded by the Greek philosophical tradition as the ultimate basis of truth and the ultimate standard of morality is not so sacred, because the so-called inevitability is actually just an understanding and explanation of reality, and this understanding and explanation is nothing but helplessness in the face of reality. In other words, inevitability is a kind of recognition and obedience to reality when people can't change it. This kind of recognition and obedience can soothe people's hearts and make them get theoretical compensation when they lose their freedom. Anyone who admits inevitability in a certain place, that is, where he no longer thinks, delves deeply and studies freely, is also a slave to inevitability there. From this point of view, inevitability is only a kind of examination of reality, so it is also used by rulers to examine their own rule: inevitability is an indestructible "stone wall", and since the real regime has inevitability, it is also an indestructible "stone wall". In this case, man "can't decide for himself, he knows that his decision is not under his control, and he will go to the road pointed out by necessity and get used to' calmly treating and enduring everything that fate brings him with supreme power'. All philosophies teach them that they are also against people's wishes, and the transition from exploring truth to preaching will inevitably lead us to this path. " (The Chinese version of Athens and Jerusalem, Lin Xue Publishing House, 2000, 1 18) Aristotle once said that contingency is not the object of scientific research, because it is totally accidental that a person who wants to plant trees may get a treasure or Pandora's box when digging. However, inevitability is the object of scientific research. Through scientific research, people can know inevitability, act according to it and succeed in reality. Shestov criticized Aristotle, saying that he completely denied human freedom, because in his view, people can neither grasp contingency, but also be slaves to contingency; "since it is accidental, science and thinking can do nothing here, but should only accept it" (ibid., p. 304); At the same time, people can't control inevitability, but obey it, because Aristotle "knows inevitability and doesn't listen to persuasion". Since inevitability cannot be overcome without persuasion, it may only be obeyed, no matter whether it is uncomfortable or painful, it should be obeyed and the futile struggle should be given up, that is, it must be stopped. "(ibid., page 4) In that case, where is human freedom? Later, Spinoza simply confused inevitability with freedom, claiming that freedom is the understanding of inevitability. What should we do after meeting? Obedience, of course So Spinoza further put people under the rule of necessity. This thought was affirmed by Hegel from the height of dialectics, which made it shine brilliantly. Even Nietzsche, who is famous for preaching that "God is dead" needs to "reassess all values", bowed his head in the face of inevitability. He said in "Look at that Man": "My formula for measuring the greatness of man is amorfati: don't change anything in the past, the future or even forever. You must not only endure inevitability-don't avoid it, … but also love it. " Shestov commented: "He didn't want to give in to anything and any authority, but when he saw the inevitability, his strength failed: he built an altar for it." (ibid., p. 137)
Shestov pointedly pointed out that the philosophers who gave such a lofty status to necessity hid an important problem from people, that is, necessity does not distinguish between good and evil, and it may benefit people or make people suffer. Whether in nature or in society, "reality" and "fact" defended by necessity do not always bring good news to people. Shestov pointed out that inevitability does not distinguish between good and evil, only cares about inevitability, and only defends the "inevitability" of reality. As for its consequences, it will not ask, nor will it be tempted. It is precisely because of its characteristics and compulsion that many philosophers not only pay attention to its inevitability and compulsion, but also regard obedience to inevitability as the greatest happiness when linking it with people's real life. For example, Spinoza is like this. Smith once said: "The utility of his theory is to teach us how to deal with things in fate or things beyond our power." ..... until we can calmly treat and endure the good and bad in fate with the same mood. "(Chinese translation of Ethics, Commercial Press, 1962, pp. 94-95) shestov pointed out that in Spinoza, knowledge with inevitability and universality is the highest knowledge. This kind of knowledge "does not admit everything about people, nor does it laugh, grieve or curse, but only needs what Spinoza said." (See "On the Balance of Job", Chinese translation, Sanlian Bookstore, 1988, page 9) What can people do in the face of this knowledge? The direct reality of daily experience or consciousness is the highest level of people's judgment on the question of truth: no matter what experience brings us, no matter what' reality' tells us, we all accept it and call it truth. In a world dominated by reason, it is obviously crazy to oppose' reality'. Man can cry and curse the truth that experience shows him, but he knows that no one can overcome these truths; They should be accepted. Philosophy goes further:' truth' should not only be accepted, but also praised. "(Athens and Jerusalem, page 164) shestov summed up this attitude as:" Don't cry, don't laugh, don't curse, just understand. "
It can be seen that inevitability not only ignores whether the consequences it brings are good or evil, but also is regarded as the greatest good by philosophers. The initiator of this matter is Socrates. It is he who endows inevitability with ethical significance, because he closely links "goodness" with "knowledge" and thinks that knowledge is good and "knowledge is virtue". Shestov pointed out: "Socrates' ignorance is not ignorance, but knowledge about ignorance, accompanied by a strong and unstoppable desire for knowledge. He regards knowledge as the only way to escape the consequences of his own depravity. "(ibid., p. 155); And knowing is of course inevitable knowledge. In this way, inevitability gains ethical significance. " All' you should' are closely related to the necessity of ruling the world. Because it wants to be unconditional, that is, as the gospels say, an uncreated person who is free from God. When it is inevitable to declare' impossible', the ethics society will use' you should' to help. The more absolutely invincible' impossible', the more dignified and ruthless' should'. "(The Call of the Wilderness (Kierkegaard and Philosophy of Being), Chinese translation, Huaxia Publishing House, 1999, p.11p.) Later philosophers all followed this path until human freedom was swallowed up by necessity. In the philosophy of history, this theory has the upper hand: as long as there are inevitable social forms, historical events and historical figures, they are all good. As for whether people are blessed or suffering under the rule of these historical figures in this social form and historical events, it is of no historical significance, because inevitability is supreme, history only knows the inevitable trend of development, and history does not care how many people are crushed under the wheel of history. Obviously, there is a question of who will announce the inevitability of things, events, reality and history. Here, shestov attaches importance to individual freedom and rights. He pointed out that such freedom and rights were deprived by the inevitability advocated by great men (politically and academically). According to shestov's thought, fundamentally speaking, people's salvation is also a question of realizing people's real freedom. He made a detailed analysis of this. First of all, freedom is not an understanding and grasp of inevitability, because human freedom is grasped by people themselves, and it embodies people's will. If the will is limited by necessity, then this will is not free; Secondly, freedom is not the ability to decide subtle things in the field of experience, but the choice of major issues of life and death. He said: "People have some freedom in the field of experience, but only some, which is equivalent to those freedoms that limited beings should have." "He can choose left or right, he can choose one of several identical objects, and he can even act according to his accidental willfulness on more important occasions. However, the more important the choice he faces, the more he loses the possibility of free action: man is doomed to choose good and evil and his own metaphysical destiny. When' contingency' took us to the abyss, after years of quiet and carefree life, we suddenly encountered a choice like Hamlet:' to be or not to be'. At this time, we began to feel that there was some new mysterious power, which might be kind or hostile, guiding us and determining our actions. " (See the Chinese translation of Job, page 2 1 1) Thirdly, freedom is not the ability of people to choose good and evil in the experience world. This choice has restricted our freedom between good and evil in advance, but we can't get the freedom to eradicate evil from the world. Shestov said: "Since we have to choose between good and evil, it means that we have lost our freedom: E came to earth and began to keep pace with God's goodness." (The Call of the Wilderness (Kierkegaard and Existentialism), p. 200)
So what is real freedom? Shestov pointed out that it is a "great freedom of another nature: not to choose between good and evil, but to liberate the world from evil". (In the same book, he explained this point based on his religious philosophy: "Freedom does not lie in the possibility of choosing good and evil, as we are destined to think now. Freedom is the power and power that does not allow evil to enter the world. God, the freest being, does not choose between good and evil; People created by God do not choose, because there is no choice: there is no evil in heaven. " (Athens and Jerusalem, page 170) That is to say, human freedom is endowed by God, which makes people omnipotent and happy like God, and has nothing to do with evil. However, human ancestors stole the fruit of the knowledge tree that God forbade them to eat. In this way, they lost their freedom while knowing good and evil. They were expelled from the paradise-the Garden of Eden, and began a long evil life, that is, a life driven by needs. If people want to regain their freedom, they must get rid of the bondage of inevitability, break through the cage of inevitability and devote themselves to the complete elimination of evil. To do this, we must rely on faith and use faith to overcome the knowledge that depends on necessity (because knowledge always tells people about necessity and makes people bow to it). This fundamental task also determines the characteristics of shestov's religious philosophy: "Religious philosophy does not seek eternal existence, unchanging existing structure and order, nor does it reflect, nor does it know the difference between good and evil. It promises false and deceptive peace to suffering human beings. Religious philosophy was born in a state of extreme tension. By rejecting knowledge and belief, it overcomes people's false fears in the face of unrestrained creator's will. This fear was brought to our ancestors by the tempter and passed on to all of us. In other words, religious philosophy is a great and final struggle against primitive freedom and the sacred' supreme goodness' contained in this freedom. " (Athens and Jerusalem, page 22) This shows shestov's special view on philosophy. He pointed out that the philosophy of the past was unified and eventually became a kind of preaching, and the purpose of this kind of preaching was only to make people obey inevitability and understand "reality", without caring about human suffering and tragedy, and it could not solve human suffering. Shestov wants to completely transform philosophy, which is based on the understanding of the characteristics and functions of philosophy: philosophy should no longer be a sermon to human beings, but should aim at eliminating human suffering, and its fundamental purpose is to enable human beings to finally overcome evil, return to God and regain the freedom endowed by God. This freedom is "the best".
Obviously, shestov's religious philosophy is irrational and mysterious. Theoretically speaking, he is absolutely opposed to faith and rationality, and is bound to oppose freedom. He places all his hopes for a better future of mankind on God and the mysterious paradise of returning to the Garden of Eden, which leads to many absurd conclusions in his religious philosophy that cannot be accepted by more people.
However, why is shestov's religious philosophy, which many people think is not worthy of attention, still valued by some great philosophers? Not only Husserl, Heidegger, etc. He has close contacts with Schell, but shestov and his religious philosophy are almost always mentioned in important monographs on the history of modern existentialism. In fact, as long as people don't just look at his philosophical conclusion, but delve into the specific content of this philosophy, they will find that this seemingly absurd and abstract religious philosophy contains very specific and rich content, and many questions it raises are really sharp and to the point. Since ancient times, the mainstream tradition of philosophy is the worship of necessity. No matter what the question is, as long as it can prove that an answer is inevitable, it is the end point, even tenable. Naturally, people will no longer doubt, oppose and get to the bottom of it. In life, I will act according to necessity and think that this is my freedom. Anyone who doubts inevitability will be regarded as a mental illness or even a madman. In fact, as shestov pointed out, inevitability is not the academic bottom line, let alone the standard that life must follow. What will happen if people follow all the "inevitability" taught by traditional philosophy, both academically and in life? The result is academic stagnation and resignation in survival. Euclidean geometry is inevitable, but if people are limited by it, will there be non-Euclidean geometry? Especially in the era of great social change, if people believe that the inevitability of reality is an unbreakable "stone wall", will there be social progress? Inevitability is the inevitable trend of the development of things, so people can only obey it, otherwise they will be hit hard. But in real life, the inevitability of things is changing, and people's understanding of inevitability is also changing. In this case, it is absurd to say that knowledge must be free. It is this so-called inevitability that shestov opposes, because this inevitability has brought people consequences that people can't grasp. It can be seen that if it is divorced from people's specific living conditions and life experiences, the explanation of inevitability will become completely abstract, not only meaningless, but also an unprincipled defense of reality.
Shestov is in an era of unprecedented changes in Russian society, and he has a keen sense of the role of inevitability in social life. The reactionary regime of the tsar is dying. While suppressing the progressive forces, it is also preaching its inevitability, its strength and its invincibility. When Berdyaev was in prison, the military police commander in Kiev once said to them, "You have gone too far. You are facing a wall!" " The "underground man" in Dostoevsky's basement notes also thinks that the inevitability of "reality" is a suffocating "stone wall". In this social atmosphere, shestov opposed the reckless inevitability of good and evil, and demanded real freedom to eliminate evil, which was completely a conclusion drawn from harsh real life. Because of this, he also resolutely opposed philosophical preaching divorced from people's living conditions and demanded that philosophy strive for the improvement of people's living conditions. It should be said that this is a philosophy actively involved in life and should not be considered absurd.