The image of world in Vasiliy Rozanov's creativity

Akimov Oleg Yur'evich ORCID: 0000-0003-0941-7382 PhD in Philosophy Associate Researcher; Western Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and GS under the President of the Russian Federation 62, Artillery Street, Kaliningrad, 236016, Russia, Kaliningrad Region aktula1@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

The fundamental set of V.V. Rozanov's ideas is reduced to the relationship between God and the world, actualized as a single intuition. The thinker's work, complex and diverse in its nature and issues, aroused the interest of researchers from different generations. V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, G.V. Florovsky, A.D. Sinyavsky, and others emphasized its religious character. The peculiarity of Rozanov's texts was that he usually had one idea in dialogue with another, as noted by A.D. Sinyavsky: "Rozanov takes paired binomial combinations (for example, soul and body), and does not go from idea to idea"^{[1, p. 22]}. It seems possible to extrapolate A.D. Sinyavsky's remark to the main problem of V.V. Rozanov's religious quest — the relationship between God and the world.

We interpreted the interaction of God and the world in the thinker's work by isolating one of its aspects — the phenomenon of the world, which determines the specifics of Rozanov's later works, considering it in the context of the idea of the phenomenological type of A.F. Losev^{[2, p.453]}. Your vision of the world Rozanov defined in his later works through the image of fascination: "The world lives by great enchantments. The world in general is sorcery. Both the circles of history and the epicycles of the planets" ^{[3, p.369]}. Rozanov's speech is not about describing the world, but about its special image. The conceptual understanding of the image of the world was carried out, in particular, by the contemporary of the thinker G. Simmel, who defined philosophy as "... interpretation, coloring and individually choosing accentuation of reality"^{[4, p. 159]}. A similar emphasis on the real Rozanov created his own image of the world, embodied in the work of the thinker.

The purpose of our research is to reconstruct the image of the world in the works of V.V.Rozanova based on the intuitions of the thinker, embodied in "Fleeting", "Solitary", "Fallen leaves", "The Apocalypse of our time", revealed through consideration of: the reception of images of the world by V.V. Rozanov in special literature; the interaction of the idea, image and concept of the world; the image of the "enchanted" world in the works of V.V. Rozanov

Reception of V. V. Rozanov's images of the world in special literature.

The peculiarity of V.V. Rozanov's work is that the thinker demonstrates the intuition of the world not conceptually, but by creating its image. If we reconstruct the features of the image of the world found in Rozanov's texts (descriptions of everyday things often indicate metaphysical problems), it becomes obvious that we are talking not only about artistic images, but about symbols that create a single image of the world. The reconstruction of V.V. Rozanov's image of the world, carried out by researchers, makes the thinker's work an object not only of literary or artistic analysis, but also of philosophical reflection.

G. V. Florovsky, P.A. Florensky, V.V. Zenkovsky, A.F. Losev, V.V.Bibikhin in their works characterizing certain aspects of the image of the world Rozanova, emphasized the special character of the thinker's religious search. G.V. Florovsky defined this as religious naturalism: "Rozanov accepts the world as it is given" ^{[5, p.585]}. Rozanov's religious naturalism was also noted by V.V. Zenkovsky, who believed that the thinker "... cherishes existence before its transformation" ^{[6, p.204]}. The interpretation of G.V.Florovsky and V.V. Zenkovsky demonstrates the original purpose of Rozanov's vision (his religious orientation), defining Rozanov's world through connection with the beyond. G.V. Florovsky emphasized the specifics of Rozanov's work as "spiritual lack of abundance" ^{[5, p.585]}, noting that Rozanov had "... not a simple sense of everyday life, but admiring everyday life"^{[5, p.585]}. Lack of abundance becomes, as it were, the reverse side of admiring. The images of specific things that Rozanov considered when describing everyday life are an image of the world as a whole. Interpreting the whole, Florovsky understood by "lack of abundance" the lack of a foothold in Rozanov's world in the transcendent sphere. V.V. Zenkovsky, on the contrary, assumed that in Rozanov's world there is "direct contact with the transcendent divine sphere" ^{[7, p.445]}. The connection with the transcendent sphere "sheds light" on Rozanov's ambiguities and omissions, allowing to interpret them: "What am I going to say (in English) to God about what he sent me to see? ...B. will see that I am crying and silent, that my face sometimes smiles. But he won't hear anything from me" ^{[3, p.90]}. Rozanov, in our opinion, emphasized his connection with the transcendent, at the same time leaving the world the opportunity to be anything (imperfect, etc.). The interpretation of this fragment allows researchers to outline Rozanov's "complete" image of the world, which the thinker tried to avoid. Florovsky's mention of the connection between Rozanov's work and the transcendent sphere provides an opportunity for researchers to explain Rozanov's world. We assume that for Rozanov such an explanation contradicts his intuition of the initial indeterminacy of the world, which is emphasized in the treatise "On Understanding", therefore, the thinker's understanding is not focused on the ideal structure of the world "... the true goal of science is to understand what is"^{[8, p.259]}. Florovsky's earlier remark confirms that Rozanov accepted the world as it was given. From the point of view of V.V. Bibikhin, we are not talking about the reality of the world, but rather about the task of the thinker of the world as "... a presence with which a person deals" ^{[9, p.4]}.

Bibikhin's interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Rozanov sought to avoid the metaphysical or religious predestination of his position.: "And it tears me off from every place where I stood"^{[3, p.93]}. Rozanov sacralizes the perspective of his vision of the world, the peculiarity of which is that the world is viewed as an indefinable whole "... he left everything and did not come anywhere"^{[3, p.339]}. "Departure" from This can be interpreted as a lack of position. P. A. Florensky wrote about this: "... Vasily Vasilyevich, there is a ball that you can press down on — it will slip out, but which will not become part of the whole: it is on its own"^{[10, p.321]}. Florensky demonstrates an idea of the world as a whole, which Rozanov does not fit into. Rozanov's thoughts are for him the beginning of chaos, which is not subordinate to the order that opposes it. For P.A. Florensky, as for A.F. Losev, the intuition of the world is the order that prevails over chaos and enlightens it. A.F. Losev assumed that in the ancient tradition, the cosmos (world) is "... a different degree of illumination of being" ^{[11, p. 93]}. The semantic principle, the personification of which is light, unfolding in the world, believes nothing (darkness), which has the potential to become something as its boundary; therefore, A.F. Losev called darkness "the bosom of emerging ideality"^{[11, p.99]}, bringing eidos and meon closer.

It can be assumed that Rozanov also has a convergence of eidos and meon, an idea and the material side of a thing. The idea of the world appears in Rozanov's work as a multitude of things that "live" their own lives. He sees the meaning of ideas not eidetically, like A.F. Losev, but logically, that is, a concept rich in scope is poor in content, expressionless. The dialogue between Rozanov and Losev makes it possible to bring together the thinker's vision of the world and the ancient tradition. For Losev, eidos is "... the semantic face of a thing, contemplatively and mentally tactfully given"^{[11, p.69]}, and logos is "... the method of semantic design of a thing, the task of thinking a thing" ^{[11, p.69]}. Criticizing rationalistic metaphysics, he noted that "... rationalism hypostatizes logos, presenting concepts in the form of things" ^{[11, pp.73-74]}. Rozanov's position in this sense is ambiguous. There are fragments in the thinker's later works that testify to the closeness of his world to the intentions inherent in the ancient tradition "... things are just as necessary and alive" ^{[12, p.196]}. In Fallen Leaves, he noted: "I am sad that everything is imperfect, but not in the sense that things do not fulfill any purpose. It's the commandments, some kind of expectation from them" ^{[3, p.154]}. Rozanov describes feeling pain for things, feeling sorry for them. It can be assumed that Rozanov's intuition of things is eidetic in nature, allowing us to consider things as alive. The thinker does not explain the meaning of things in isolation, does not show how he likes them. That's why Rozanov's things look like they're hanging in the air, deprived of their own place in the world. At the same time, he emphasizes the specific signs of things "... a hole in the boot" ^{[3, p.93]}, which are thereby hypostatized, becoming abstract meanings of the world. For Rozanov, eidetic and logical vision are equivalent. This allows the thinker to combine the aspiration to the transcendent sphere (V.V.Zenkovsky) with immersion in the immanent, momentary (P.A. Florensky, G.V. Florovsky, V.V. Bibikhin), emphasizing the lack of clarity of the ontological foundations of the world.

Reception by researchers of Rozanov's work (A.D. Sinyavsky, G.V. Florovsky, P.A. Florensky, A.F. Losev, V.V. Bibikhin) She showed the possibility of interpreting Rozanov's image of the world both from the point of view of a predetermined foundation (metaphysical platform), and from the point of view of the problematic existence of such a foundation, its indeterminacy. Rozanov's work, thereby pointing to the world, explicates its immanent features, bringing the world together as an idea, image and concept.

V.V. Rozanov's world: idea, image, concept

In his later works, pointing to the image of the world as a whole, Rozanov describes it as elusive, changing, devoid of a point of support in metaphysical terms. Descriptions of specific images of the world (individual things) refer to its image as a whole, the feature of which is uncertainty: "Every definition is a narrowing (philosophy). And you don't need to define it. Let the world be uncertain. Let him be free"^{[13, p.95]}. Rozanov combines the idea of the metaphysical uncertainty of the world as a whole: "It's like that. It 's just bulging . "Who?" "A man." It's the perfume. Those are spiritualists. Vitalism. All sorts of nonsense. Science has no sweet spot" ^{[12, p. 209-210]} and the certainty of things "... things are the same, alive, necessary" ^{[12, p.196]}. In his imaginary dispute with Timiryazev, the thinker gives a paradoxically positivist description of the world as a whole. He emphasized that the world as a whole is inaccessible to a man of science and is given as a myth in which the idea of the world (what is seen in things as a holistic meaning) is inseparable from the image of the world (specific features of things).

The difficulty of receiving Rozanov's work lies in the fact that when reading the idea is separated from the image. This leads to the absolutization of one of the sides of the thinker's vision, whereas he emphasized the multivariance of his vision.: "It is necessary to have exactly a thousand points of view on the subject" ^{[12, p.527]}. Confirming this, G. V. Florovsky noted that in Rozanov "... there was no organic integrity, he was all in chaos in minutes"^{[5, p. 583]}. Describing himself, Rozanov emphasized the moment of dynamism, instability, and variability, speaking of "... the whirlwind of feelings that makes up his literature"^{[13, p.62]}. Rozanov's vision, representing the realization of the idea of "... what is seen in a thing" ^{[14, p. 175]}, demonstrates the transition of an idea into an image, dreams become a fact^{[3, pp.323-324]}. The thinker describes the result of this transition like the variability of the world, "... the planets themselves are moving, all deviating from a straight line, all retreating from yesterday's path"^{[3, p. 179]}.

It can be assumed that the idea that defines the creativity of a thinker is the idea of the potentiality underlying individual things. Rozanov's image of the world includes the unity of ideas (representations of the world as potency) and images (specific descriptions of things). The convergence of idea and image makes it possible to examine Rozanov's work on the basis of the dialectic of idea and thing, developed by A.F. Losev. The unity of a thing and its idea in Losev presupposes their difference, given both statically and dynamically ^{[15, p.310]}. For Rozanov, the connection of the idea of potentiality with the images of later works is static, that is, the thinker's work is reduced to this idea. At the same time, it is dynamic: the thinker's images complement the idea, making the realization of potency endless^{[16, p.42]}. This allows the thinker to bring together phenomena belonging to different spheres of culture, for example, God and gender: "The connection of gender with God is greater than the connection of mind with God, even than the connection of conscience with God"^{[3, p.59]}, "the fan" and "that light": "Is he really (a friend) will not hear a fan in the next world; ..."^[3,pp.78-79]; thus, Rozanov "paints" his own image of the world, calling it fascination "... the world lives by great enchantments"^{[3, pp.369-370]} A. F. Losev considered it as a metarational connection of parts and a whole that unfolds "... on top of the actual definitions of things" ^{[15, p. 308]}. He does not define the fascination of the world conceptually "... every definition is a narrowing, let the world be indefinite, let it be free" ^{[13, p.95]}.

In Rozanov's specific descriptions, the image of the world points to an idea that is incomprehensible to abstract knowledge, being a realized potency for the thinker. Pointing out in "On Understanding" the difference between definite and indefinite potentials ^{[16, p.39]}, Rozanov emphasized indefinite potencies, the ability of which to transition to real existence depends on additional conditions^{[16, p.51]}. V.V. Bibikhin, therefore, emphasized in Rozanov "... the concealment of permanent forms of nature and history in beloved, elusive"^{[17, p.11]}. It can be assumed that the potential character of the world is explicated in Rozanov's works as the interaction of an idea and an image — a synthesis of definite and indefinite potentials in reality, therefore, the intention of Rozanov's work remains the world as an indefinite whole expressed through images, the connection between which is not given directly. Rozanov's life correlates with the idea of the world that he defends at the moment.: "Combine Don Quixote and Sancho Pancho? ... All literary historians shrugged their shoulders. God said: It is possible and created Rozanov" ^{[12, p.294]}.

In his later works, Rozanov develops the intuition of the world as an idea (the visible, but not the human sense of what is happening), as an image (a realized idea) and as a concept (a logically meaningful idea). This is realized in the images of the philosopher as a personal experience — a myth about the world. as order, as chaos, and as their interaction.

Rozanov demonstrates the mythical vision of the world (cosmos) in "Solitary", noting that before meeting his second wife, "a friend", the world was for him "... not space, but an outrage, and, in desperate moments, just a Hole"^{[3, p. 139]}. Rozanov describes the world symbolically. The images he uses point to something that goes beyond specific events, revealing the world as a whole, which Rozanov demonstrates through the image of chaos, lies, etc. The thinker compares this to "stealing" the world from God "... here the mists (of the soul and the world) fluctuate, and I imagined all this stealing from people something that is under the secret protection of God" ^{[3, p.154]}, recognizing chaos in the world as necessary as order. Rozanov described the "lies" of the world: "And I... and the world… We all lie... p.h. we are beautiful... p.h. we are useless." ^{[13, p. 23]}. He thanks God for the incomprehensibility of the world, which is a mystery to man. Solving it is equivalent to the death of the world: "God took the ends of things and tied them into a knot, an unbreakable one. It is impossible to untangle, but to cut it, everything will die. And you have to say — blue, white, red. For everything is" ^{[3, pp.35-36]}.

Rozanov's image of the world retains its unexplained side "... well: let what is due remain due, and let it always be" ^{[13, p.26]}, therefore the world "... is eternally anxious and eternally alive"^{[3, p.104]}. Rozanov contrasts the "anxiety" of the world with human conceptions of it as an order realized in utopias.: "What nonsense is this Sunny city and Utopia: the essence of which is eternal happiness, i.e. the final stable balance. This is not the future, but death"^{[3, p.104]}. An additional connotation of Rozanov's image of the world is the idea of it as a living organism: it is unpredictable (chaotic) and at the same time obeys order. Rozanov defends the living world in a dispute with positivists, for whom ".. the world is a corpse" ^{[12, pp.209-210]}. Rozanov judged the world as a living organism based on its epiphanies (phenomena). Rational cognition (the transformation of an idea of the world given in an image into an abstract concept) is incomplete. The image of the world as a whole, linking the parts together, remains outside of them, so Rozanov criticizes the vision of positivists who claim to be the whole: "... positivists think like children. Who, seeing the wall, say: It's a wall. ... All this is true, but not enough"^{[12, p.198]}.

To describe the interaction of the image of the world as order and the image of the world as chaos, we extrapolated to Rozanov's later work the method proposed by A.F. Losev to characterize the pre-Socratic cosmos of "... thinking of one or many" ^{[18, p. 132]}. This allowed us to show that images of the world as order, chaos and how their interactions demonstrate the world as a whole, identifying it with reality.: "The most important thing is just reality" ^{[3, p.169]}. In the figurative series of the thinker, it is defined by the denotation "world", the connotations of which are the world as order, as chaos, or as their interaction. Chaos and order in the ineffable whole of the world balance each other. It's a balance. Rozanov shows, describing the interaction of monotheism and polytheism: "Peace is a chaste spouse,— says the monotheist.— The world is a girl whom no one has married yet... — says the polytheist"^{[12, p.527]}.

Isolating order or chaos leads to their contradiction, which is removed through the game of the world.: "God created the game of hide-and-seek"^{[13, p. 199]}; in it, "... chaos is as necessary as reason and conscience" ^{[13, p.96]}. Rozanov, thus, eliminates the tragic nature of the opposition of order and chaos, incomprehensible to man. Another interpretation is also possible, according to which the element of the game in the world is ontologically necessary. The thinker combines both options (chaos, order and their interaction as a game and as an ontological necessity). Chaos is predetermined, as is order, and the element of the game marks the transition from order to chaos and vice versa "... life is full of spiritualistic currents" ^{[13, p.189]}, so the game element in the proper sense of the word (playing for the sake of playing) is not interesting for Rozanov: "How was I born? But here's how: I love vaudeville, but I live in tragedy"^{[13, p. 164]}.

The images of the world as order and as chaos, as noted earlier, merge into each other, so the thinker connects in his later works themes that are opposite to each other: everyday life and metaphysical problems. This makes it possible to describe Rozanov's work metaphysically as a dependence between the supersensible and sensual aspects of the world ^{[2, p.40]}. Rozanov has a supersensible aspect of the world (a description of ideas and potential transitions between them) He is "underestimated" by getting involved in the earthly life of a thinker; it is about the uncontrollability of the world to man. The thinker points this out, urging his contemporaries to pay attention to "pseudonyms in nature ... the tricks of the world" ^{[13, p.199]}, bringing together the image of the world as order and chaos: "The real reality is just a policeman" ^{[12, p.302-303]}. Reality (the world), represented in the image of a policeman, expressing order, preserves chaos without interfering in the affairs of the street. Rozanov's order is the realized potency of the image of the world as a whole, the particular characteristics of which are human representations. The peculiarity of the philosopher's vision is that the street, despite its "independence," obeys the policeman. Submission is irrational, but if you abandon it, the order of the world will be disrupted. The thinker thus anticipates what V. will tell later.In Bibikhin on the world as a whole: "Before we think about the concept, we are already dealing with the world, not with the word, but with the thing itself"^{[19, p.3]}.

Rozanov's image of the world as a whole is shown through the description of specific things. Concreteness demonstrates a thing as unique, attracting the reader's attention. As we assume, the difference noted by A. F. Losev in Plato's dialogues in the use of the concepts of "eidos" and "idea", when eidos has a differential character and the idea has an integral character, is applicable to the images of things in the late Rozanov ^{[18, p.144]}. Rozanov's "thing" can be interpreted both as eidos (the transition from one side to the other) and as an idea (the convergence of individual sides as a whole, which was shown in one of our works ^{[20, p.33]}). Rozanov moves from one feature of a thing to another, "... collecting a single face of a thing, its living, unique picture" ^{[15, p.227]}.

Based on the difference between the eidetic and logical vision of a thing highlighted by A.F. Losev, which we cited earlier, it can be assumed that Rozanov describes the specifics of things not eidetically, but logically. A specific feature of a thing (an isolated meaning) is emphasized and contrasted with other meanings. For isolated things, there is a corresponding whole— the image of the world, about which the thinker writes "... the evasiveness of all things from defining their own, the evasiveness of all planets from a straight line ... maybe it's that the world wants to be buttoned up ... but if otherwise…What? I don't even want to say. I'm getting scared"^{[3, pp.316-317]}. It can be assumed that evasiveness means that the world is beyond the control of human knowledge, its incomprehensibility, described by V.S. Solovyov, S.L. Frank, A.F. Losev, and others. The unfathomability of the Rozanov world is based on something indefinable. The thinker demonstrates the "dark" side of the world "...I get scared"^{[3, pp.316-317]}; most likely, it is about the image of the world like chaos, which is inscribed in the human coordinate system of the world, determined by order.

We believe that Rozanov's image of the world "resembles" the ideas about the world of the ancient pre-Socratics, who proceeded from a holistic vision of the sensually material cosmos — from the myth of it ^{[11, p.110]}; a similar myth for Rozanov is the myth of industrial civilization of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, built on positivist science. The thinker rethinks the foundations that define the right of science to not only interpret the world, but also to master it. Rozanov demonstrates that the chaos of the world cannot be mastered.

Rozanov's image of the world has a touch of appophaticism — the affirmation of the world as a denial of human opinions about it based on rational knowledge "... apparently (a certain% of vulgarity is infused into history, into the planet), which cannot be belittled"^{[3, p.230]}. The thinker ontologizes vulgarity, correlating it with the metarational foundations of the world, so Rozanov is condescending to the manifestations of evil in human life: "Isn't the world full of horrors that we still don't know at all? Is it not because there is no complete knowledge, because the mind would not bear it, and especially the human heart would not bear it" ^{[3, p.161]}.

The vulgarity of the Rozanov world emphasizes the relative nature of its human definitions. Rozanov thus emphasizes the problematic nature of the transition from idea to image and from image to concept, demonstrating it through the images of later works. This explicates the constant of the thinker's creativity — the idea of potentiality as a personal experience of the world as order, chaos and their interaction, drawing the reader's attention to the image of the world as an ineffable whole.

The image of the "enchanted" world in the works of V.V. Rozanov

Rozanov's image of the enchanted world is a mystical experience of the whole and its parts, expressed in personal existence. Rozanova is his myth. This is due to the convergence of the ancient and Christian intuition of the cosmos in Rozanov's world. At the same time, the thinker, while remaining a traditionalist, develops an intuition of the world as a presence close to the intentions of M. By Heidegger.

Rozanov's image of the enchanted world suggests the variable nature of human knowledge about it. The option is predefined: This is a world open to human gaze: "I came into the world to see, not to commit" ^{[3, p.90]}. Along with the "eidetic" possibility of such a view, Rozanov also reveals its "logical" possibility ^{[11, p.69]}. If we proceed from the definition proposed by A.F. Losev, then for Rozanov the "semantic task" of the world is its uncertainty, mentioned both in the first work "On Understanding" and in later works. Logically understood, it presupposes the contradiction of one definition of a thing or phenomenon to another (we are talking about isolated meanings of the world, each of which is autonomous "... we are all with tails facing in different directions"^{[3, p.59]}).

The semantic task of Rozanov's work presupposes a multitude of human worlds "... the boundaries of judgments" ^{[3, p.59]}. Rozanov connects abstract meanings with specific personalities "... a person here, as everywhere, is before theory"^{[3, p.46]}. Rozanov's "Theory" means abstract knowledge that is not correlated with personality. Overcoming abstraction, the thinker shows how the personal projection of meaning ensures its endless concretization. The transition from the abstract to the concrete is manifested through a person (most often Rozanov himself) or by a group, class, or estate. Rozanov's sense of the world, transferred from the individual to the group, becomes an abstraction. The thinker removes the abstractness of meaning by relating it to an individual, a member of a group. Our point of view is confirmed by the fragment of the "Fleeting", in which the thinker contrasts the metaphysical picture of the world "... man has a soul, the world was created by God"^{[12, p.572]} to the positivist picture, for which "the world is a corpse" ^{[12, p.210]}.

Rozanov brings worldviews closer together by "banalizing" metaphysical postulates: "Humanity has the most ordinary thoughts. that it is the most ordinary humanity"^{[12, p. 571]}. Ordinariness is suitable for any personality (we are talking about logos as a pure sense, not correlated with any personality, but having the possibility of such correlation). The same applies to metaphysicians and positivists, with whose personalities the idea correlates. as a form of understanding. Its content depends on the personality of the person who understands. The semantic task determines the multiplicity of comprehension of the world "... you want to complicate humanity and throw it into logarithms ... but, believe me, then there would be many more madmen ..." ^{[12, p. 572]}. There is a paradox in Rozanov's work: the utilitarian criterion of convenience extends to metaphysical reality. The existence of God is perceived as an abstract meaning that forms the background of human life.

The contradiction between the positivist and the religious view of the world is removed by the world itself "... thinking is just like the air we breathe" ^{[12, p.572]}. Simplicity presupposes the indissolubility of the world into elements, that is, the world is given exactly as it really exists (like water, air, etc.). This feature of Rozanov's vision was emphasized by V.V.Bibikhin, speaking about its elementality, spontaneity ^{[17, p.22]}. He attributes to the peculiarities of Rozanov's vision the fact that the thinker extended to the world as a whole the impossibility of "removing" the existing state of affairs preceding thinking. Indecomposability into elements, therefore, presupposes that the whole has already been revealed, the world is open to man, bringing together the metaphysical and positivist view. Rozanov's two views are predetermined by the fact that the real world is a human interpretation of the existing state of things.

Rozanov assumed that reality, which a person is only approaching, cannot be changed ^{[3, p.169]}, thus, the state of things unknown to a person determines his attitude to the world. Human intervention and its efforts only complicate the situation and therefore it is detrimental to the world^{[3, p.94]}. This explains Rozanov's contradictions, when a phenomenon includes its opposite "... a positivist must notice something in a mystic" ^{[12, p.227]}. Rozanov, through the images of his later works, defends the integrity of the world, keeping its meaning a secret from man.

In order to preserve the mystery of the world, the thinker uses analogies taken from nature when describing complex phenomena, for example, the analogy of "idea" and "air" ^{[12, p. 572]}. Rozanov demonstrates that any meaning of the world found by man remains relative, rejoicing that: "God did not create the world according to a textbook"^{[13, p.81]} (by textbook, the thinker means the meaning of the world, grounded by man, hypostasis of concepts and their representation in the form of things, which A.F. Losev later called a characteristic of modern positivism oriented science^{[11, pp.73-74]}). For Rozanov, hypostasis of concepts involves the escape of things. The thinker emphasizes that the semantic task does not relate to things, but to human ideas about them.

Rozanov's work, assuming a variety of interpretation options, leaves open the question of what the world is like. You can answer it from different perspectives. V. V. Bibikhin's position is based on the fact that Rozanov's idea of the world can be extrapolated based on any image of early or late works ^{[17, p.9]}. As already mentioned, the world appears as a whole, given in the experience of a particular person in parts (religious, scientific and everyday knowledge), which is his "complication". Rozanov showed that complication is inevitable, as is the metaphysical victory of technology (printing) over the soul^{[3, p.43]}. In understanding the world, the transition from parts to the whole remains important for Rozanov. Using the terminology proposed by A.F. Losev, it can be assumed that Rozanov's transition is given as if from the side of the parts, when each part (meaning) determines other meanings addressed to the whole. The thinker, despite contradictory statements (for example, about Russia), remains true to his own intention, according to which "... every word I say is the truth in relation to the soul that said it" ^{[12, p.198]}. The thinker does not provide evidence, but only mentions them, showing that the meaning of the world can be actualized based on the transcendental principle. This is confirmed by V. V. Zenkovsky, emphasizing the religious component in Rozanov's work ^{[7, p.437]}.

The religious meaning of Rozanov's quest, therefore, turns out to be predetermined, becoming for the fragments of the thinker a "supra-contradictory meaning" ^{[21, p.130]}, a determinant that turns the fragments of the thinker into a whole, which determines its variable character. Rozanov's intention captures the ineffability of the phenomenon of the world cataphatically, setting its expression through everything. Rozanov is therefore both a religious man and a positivist. "... in plain sight, I am an all–worshipper; in myself (the subject)— we are absolutely not inclined..."^{[3, p.50]}. V.V. Bibikhin notes a similar attitude in Rozanov, pointing out that the thinker, having "selected"topics "About understanding" from the educational literature of his time, "... tries his scope on them" ^{[17, p.9]}. Scope provides an opportunity for the world to be any and Rozanov's aspiration to accept this world.

Touching the mystery of the enchanted world suggests the possibility of understanding it in the context of both ancient and Christian intuition of the cosmos. Ancient intuition is based on the ultimate nature of the material cosmos "... all movements in it are performed and completed in it" ^{[2, p.458]}. Rozanov's cosmos is limitless, as he focuses on the recurring moments of life associated with the birth cycle: "The body is more sacred than the spirit. I mean, more spiritual than the so—called soul" ^{[12, p.513]}. The thinker, therefore, opposes an abstract soul and a concrete body that can be touched.; he is talking about an animate body, perceived personally. We assume that Rozanov, in this way, brings together the ancient intuition of the body, according to which the soul is corporeal, and the Christian one, in the center of which is the animate body; the rapprochement is explicated by Rozanov as a contradiction. The thinker, idealizing physicality, nevertheless states: "The connection through birth does not yet absorb metaphysics" ^{[3, p.245]}. This contradiction is extrapolated by the thinker to the world as a whole. In a letter to E.F. Gollerbach, the thinker notes in himself "... a terrible spill of the feeling of cosmogonism: I am the world, and I am the world"^{[22, p. 354]}; Rozanov further focuses on the finiteness of human existence: "A person dies completely, in the full composition of the soul and body, with the exception of the sprout, the vivacious, the seed" ^{[22, p.359]}. Commenting on the thinker's intuition in the ancient context, it can be noted that death is rebirth and a return to the finite and repetitive world of birth. In the Christian context, individual death becomes the ontological end of a person. Rozanov does not believe in life beyond the grave, and, therefore, does not accept the possibility of a transformation of human existence: "If it were not for death, then Christ … But there is death"^{[13, p.53]}. In Rozanov's vision, the ancient and Christian intuition of the cosmos collide with each other, so the thinker does not have a complete picture of the existence of the world and man, Christian or pagan. The emphasis is shifted by the philosopher to images of the world that can be interpreted inside any of these paintings. The thinker demonstrates the limited nature of binary oppositions (Christianity and paganism, heaven and earth, soul and body), within which his work was considered by V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, N.D. Sinyavsky, G.V. Florovsky and others.

We assume that the philosopher's work, which cannot be reduced to binary oppositions, contains a hermeneutic moment. The interpretation of the mystery of the world is not to reveal it, but rather to emphasize its incomprehensibility. N.K. Bonetskaya's remark that "... Western hermeneutics replaced God with being" ^{[23, p.90]} is applicable to Rozanov as one of the forerunners of Russian hermeneutics ^{[23, p. 90]}. Rozanov implements what V.V. Bibikhin called the pursuit of thought for the missed whole world in relation to the work of M. Heidegger and the modern cultural situation, which is replaced by the human picture of the world ^{[9, p.12]}.

The whole of the world, according to V.V. Bibikhin, "... before the earliest thought, the clarity or ambiguity of what it is, the vastness, the light, the world" ^{[9, p. 6]}. Rozanov teaches the reader to look through this gap, so he is not interested in the picture of the world — his rational-logical scheme, but in the world, given to any definition, indefinite and free ^{[13, p.95]}. Rozanov intuitively refutes what M. Heidegger later called in relation to science "sketching a scheme of natural phenomena"^{[24, p.43]}, objectifying human knowledge about the world. Rozanov, intending the world as a whole, "devalues" the absolutization of knowledge, comparing "...moral people with made things" ^{[3, p.114]} ("made things" are people whose appearance and actions correspond to the outline scheme). Rozanov "removes" the scheme (template), what remains after removal (a person or a thing) turns out to be open to enlightenment (the world as a presence). The world seen outside the diagram ceases to be understandable, losing its point of support, therefore, Rozanov's understanding, which "... contains the solution to everything" ^{[16, p.15]}, is characterized by an element of uncertainty and spontaneity. It is no coincidence that S. V. Skorodumov interpreted the realized understanding as the end of history ^{[25, p.18]} (history, in this case, is something that is understood by a person, experienced, and therefore schematized). Modern researchers, reducing Rozanov's work to the main idea, continue the process of this schematization, in particular, A.V. Zolotarev, reviewing Rozanov's treatise On Understanding, notes that the thinker "... dissolves the human personality in the natural principle" ^{[26, p. 112]}. This can be accepted if Rozanov's natural principle is understood not as a material necessity (scheme), but as a world (being), in which a person is doomed to participate by his position in space. Justifying the special place of man, the thinker opposes "the disenchantment of the world, when the world can be mastered by calculation, and everything around obeys the scheme of production" ^{[27, p.714]}.

Rozanov's world is a living world, the image of which can be interpreted as a touch to its metarational essence, which was considered by us in another work ^{[28, p.4]}. The thinker focuses on the multiplicity of forms of the world, not on unity; on metaphysics, not on mysticism. In his work, he touches the mystery of the world, which "lives by great enchantments" ^{[3, pp.369-370]}, bringing together the whole and parts, subject and object, personality and society; however, the de facto resurrection of the enchanted world is an artistic and philosophical reconstruction of the cosmos, subordinated to a template, which is the tragedy of the philosopher's work.

Conclusion

V.V. Rozanov's vision of the world can be characterized as the world is uncertain and free, the world is limited, the world is relatively limited and relatively free, which implies the subordination of man to the world, which "... is eternally anxious and eternally lives" ^{[3, p.104]}. In Rozanov's work, submission is a fascination — the return of a person to the integrity of the world. The connection with it is not determined by the conditioning of a specific metaphysics, being evidence of a person's wholeness, which is not correlated with being (thinking) in its abstraction and is possible as a response to the presence of the world nearby: "It is good to truly think. Of course. But it's also good to think because it's good to think like that"^{[13, p.334]}.