The Inauthenticity Problem of Human Being in Russian Philosophy

The study discusses the problem of inauthentic human being (existence) in modern world based on Russian religious philosophy works included in the curriculum. The study uses a comparative and analytical approach, on the basis of which the ideas of European philosophy are compared with the thoughts of Russian authors. This comparison helps to create a discussion field where the problem of human inauthenticity can be clarified and verified. According to Russian philosophers, there are certain provisions in Western philosophy, which state that the perception of a human as a separate kind of being among other beings leads to the loss of traits that are decisive in many aspects of the human existence. The study aims to justify these provisions. The study presents all stages of comparing Russian and Western philosophy’s understanding of a human, which are related to the formation of a concept that underlies the anthropology of idealrealism. This concept establishes in great detail that human can be considered only from the standpoint of an organic worldview and outside of an abstract approach that exaggerates one of the aspects of human being. The research results are novel and have a practical significance for a detailed analysis of human being and the inauthenticity problem. The study defines the problem, its semantic boundaries, and the set of concepts and categories, within which the problem is outlined. The study also determines that the problem can be solved at the level of statements and intuitions. The statement of the purpose is heuristic and may contain forecasts and perspective conclusions based on the analysis of human being, the relevance of which today is all too clear. The identification of the human being’s essential features will help us understand why many concepts interpret the existence one-sidedly, abstractly, without considering other important aspects.


Introduction
In Europe and Russia, the problem of the human being inauthenticity was addressed in different ways. Edmund Husserl believed that the crisis of sciences in the beginning of the 20 th century was an expression of the European humanity's radical life crisis (Husserl, 2000). Consequently, this crisis affected two aspects of the Western thought that have a causal relationship, life and science. Science discovered serious paradoxes in its structure despite the fact that mathematical science --which was at the center of the scientific worldview --has always been a bastion of accuracy and consistency of science and guaranteed a stable structure in terms of existence. Such a situation forced society to look at science through the prism of criticism of the general cultural attitudes that have been originating in the modern era and affecting the activities of the scientific sphere.
In the process of life, European humanity has discovered the antinomy of science. At the turn of the 20 th century, despite the fact that it was a product of human activity, science has shown that human is imperfect. Self-reflection and various emotional experiences have led people to believe in the loss of essence, the idea of which was formulated in German classical philosophy and in other schools of thought. In the end, it has been concluded that human being has become inauthentic. As a result, various means of philosophical analysis have appeared to overcome these conclusions. The work that the neo-Kantian schools of normative and ethical rationalism have done in this field led to the creation of a fundamental ontology, which sought to introduce new features into the typicality and averaging of the human image and allow us to move from the "they" category to the "I" category (Heidegger, 1993), to get back from the being of an object to actual being, as it was in ancient Greece, the birthplace of science and philosophy. Science has come to be understood as a dominant feature in the European worldview (Husserl, 2000) and European destiny as metaphysics.

Literature Review and Methodology
Particular attention was paid to the methodology of overcoming the subject-object dichotomy, which divided the organic and obvious single world into such parts as human and natural, external and internal, material and spiritual. The accuracy in determining the methodology for studying human directly affects the images of the human being inauthenticity, which depend on science and its foundation, metaphysics. The methodological constructions presented here were dictated by classical rationalism, according to which a change in thinking was a consequence of a change in the concept of being as a global existence, and the main error consisted in the way of thinking and in the methods of dementalization and objectification.
The methodology of this study is based on comparative and dialectical methods. The comparative method allows to conduct a comparative analysis of the various statements, and the dialectical method provides the basis for multilateral consideration of the study subject (Kiejzik, 2018).
The conclusion that the crisis of the concept of reason leads to borderline phenomena in reality was not new to the methodology of Russian religious philosophy (Oborsky et al., 2018). The dialogue with European schools was very important and --in some cases --crucial. Throughout the 19th century, Russian philosophy was under the direct influence of the European philosophical schools (Gaisin, 2018), and only in the 20 th century, Russian thought attitudes began to gain independence in understanding and conclusions (Rojek, 2019). This led to the creation of numerous original works that substantiated original approaches and methods (Pylaev, 2018).
Solovyov questioned classical rationalism  and the positivist answer to it . While the options for avoiding the Cartesian foundations of classical rationality were discussed at the theological and philosophical faculties throughout Europe (mainly in Germany), the Russian philosopher wrote that the scientific world has practiced Descartes' extensive and thinking substances, not suspecting that these were ostensible values . A number of Russian thinkers had joined the world of philosophy already familiar with these conclusions and insights. However, this created an even more intense field for discussion and meditation (Inishev, 2018). Comprehension of one's own original sources of thinking provided independence in philosophical work but did not ease the tension in the intellectual pan-European field surrounding the question of the human being authenticity, which --along with the recognized spiritual crisis --remained the basis for disagreement (Tenace, 2019). In accordance with the term's semantics, the inauthenticity of human being meant the absence of the fundamental guidelines in reality and was not reduced only to the balance of life and science, and their place in human being.
Along with science, philosophy provided many definitions of human essence. However, the question was posed differently in Russian thought, which non-traditionally interpreted the essence of philosophy itself. According to this interpretation, a philosopher is --first of all --a human, who encounters a form of his/her existence, which generates special requirements, sets aside abstract reasons for thinking, and instead communicates the subjects of free and creative forces. It is not only an abstract human of our time who is in crisis and at a crossroads; it is a human who exists as a philosopher.
The most important milestones of the research done in the field of the Silver Age Russian philosophy were discussed at numerous conferences on philosophy and pedagogy at the Yelets State University n.a. Bunin, as well as in magazines, such as "Philosophical Sciences," "Person. Culture. Society," and "Religious Studies." The following books provided the study material: "The Self and the World of Objects" (Berdyaev, 2007), "The Meaning of the Creativity Act" (Berdyaev, 1989), and "The Destiny of Man. An Essay in Paradoxical Ethics" (Berdyaev, 2003), "Axioms of Religious Experience" (Ilyin, 2002), "The Foundation of Intuition", "The World as an Organic Whole" and "Freedom of Will" . When discussing the question of human being and the main problematics of the 20 th century, these works are considered classics.

Results
The study material points to the logical conclusion that at the turn of the 20th century it became clear that the human being inauthenticity is not a temporary phenomenon that passes over time but a real systemic crisis that penetrated all sciences, and its dramatic nature is explained by the blurring of the semantic structures of human being. The reason could not answer the questions posed by time and failed, giving way to irrational philosophizing.

Scientific and Theoretical Results
The ideas that Berdyaev presented in his first works became the foundation for the subject of research. To describe the state of affairs of his time, the philosopher wrote: "The creative audacity is drying up in the dominating consciousness of the modern age. People are thinking about something, writing about something, but there were days when they were thinking and writing something… It may be that our age is so "scientific" because science is speaking about something and not telling something" (Berdyaev, 2000). Berdyaev believed that the general trend in European philosophy became epistemological, which means that a human person cognizes the process of cognition and misses the true structures of his/her being, simultaneously erasing the fundamental elements. "At the beginning of the 21 th century --as was a century ago --it is possible to speak about Russia, which undergoes the transition to a new social culture. After all, the country is going through not only social but spiritual transformation" (Grober and Bodrov, 2015).
Cognition is an attribute of being but not being itself, that's why inauthenticity came into its own, fixing all the efforts and audacity of thinkers on itself, causing the subjectivism doctrine to reappear with renewed vigor (Hughes, 2014).
Berdyaev's work in this field is multifaceted and can be divided into several stages. While he was an emigrant, he developed the provisions, according to which the disintegration and inauthenticity of human being as a philosophical subject evolved from the status of temporary phenomenon and pan-European manifestation to a fundamental foundation. The philosopher summarized that the inauthenticity of being is the main quality of the human presence in the created world. This was the subject of his book "The Meaning of the Creativity Act" (1916).
In his book "The Philosophy of Inequality" (1923) and in later works, such as "The Destiny of Man" (1931) and "Slavery and Freedom" (1939), Berdyaev dwelled on the main existential aspects, which convey the inauthenticity of human being irrespective of God, existence, truth, and freedom.
Poltoratskiy wrote that Berdyaev's ethics is personalized; moral judgments and acts are always individual, they cannot be determined collectively, socially. The distinction between good and evil is a consequence of the Fall. There are three main types of ethical doctrines: the ethics of law, the ethics of atonement, and the ethics of creativity .
The medium that determines the inauthenticity of human being is sociality. It reflects the generic nature of a human person, his/her personality, which exhibits a constant set of properties inherent in anyone in different ratios (Dendiberya, 2015). The rigorous theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were based on this idea. Berdyaev believed that only Max Scheler came close to unraveling the meaning of the true being of human, calling it spiritual; but the spirit, of which the German thinker spoke, was passive and devoid of creativity and freedom (Berdyaev, 2003).
According to Berdyaev, sociality is an area of mundane existence, where only utilitarian and mundane meanings are true. In society, a human person is a part of the whole, therefore, he/she is not a free being (Bodea, 2019). The universality of historical being suggests a direct connection with the meaning of the world history and does not manifest itself through an abstract and somewhat transpersonal nature (Grober, 2016). Hence the human alienation and dependence on general ancestral principles, which pave the way to an unhappy existence. Logic and abstract knowledge can only contribute to the formation of a vicious cycle in this matter.
Berdyaev came to the paradoxical conclusion that universum is a part of a person and not vice versa (Berdyaev, 2003). In his book "The Self and the World of Objects" (Berdyaev, 2007), the philosopher added the concept of "objectification" to a set of basic concepts, which characterizes the social world. In the same book, he analyzed the question of the inauthenticity of human being, and provided meta-discursive meanings. The author also wrote that the human spirit is a prisoner of "this world, the given world of necessity" (Berdyaev, 1989), all of which were later explained by the concept of objectification. Alienation, dementalization, and a lack of control over the world constitute the concept of objectification; it is an endless string of compromises with social conditions and external contents of being, which inevitably transform the uniqueness of a human person. Berdyaev states that "philosophy is creativeness and not adaptation or obedience" (Berdyaev, 1989). He concludes that the human being inauthenticity lies in the disengagement from freedom, creativeness, and God (Petkanič, 2018).
Reflections on the human being inauthenticity continued in the work of another remarkable Russian religious philosopher, Ivan Ilyin. Russian religious thinkers were actively using the basic Christian dogmas and universal meanings that related to the foundations of the human being inauthenticity, which they saw in the Fall and in the damage that original sin has done to human nature (Astapov, 2018). However, this is not the only thing that unites them. Their unique similarity lies in the fact that they used a specifically creative approach to the analysis of the problem, which is possible only in the context of a specific ontology (Pylaev, 2018). In this regard, Ilyin wrote that everyone is "woven" in the global process, "each of us in a special way, in a different way but without exception" (Ilyin, 2002). The ontology, based on which the Russian philosopher built his ideas, includes sociality, which is also the factor that can be transformed into a method and strategy for overcoming the human being inauthenticity. The author defined the essence of this process in a figuratively conceptual way: "We hold on to each other [...] there are no alienated or isolated people despite all our mental and spiritual loneliness" (Ilyin, 2002). First, the philosopher gave an ascetic explanation of the inauthenticity of being, which he obviously took from the patristic heritage. Second, he made a sense-making connection, showing the border beyond which the loss of the essential qualities of a person occurs. In the ascetic sense, the thinker identified the basic states of a person's inauthenticity: callousness, laziness, debauchery, delinquency, spiritual betrayal, personal falsehood, and others. According to the logic of the relationship between the general and the special, the universal and the unique, the macrocosm and the microcosm, these states apply to the whole world. A person who has consciousness and reason cannot be unaware of the connection between his/her existence and the universal existence. The loss of this understanding can weaken the sense of guilt and responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.
In contrast to Berdyaev's philosophy, Ilyin saw a possible overcoming of human inauthenticity not only in the transcendence beyond objectification and world conditions. Ilyin became one of the most prominent representatives of the "philosophical renaissance" era in Russia and belongs to a group of prominent Russian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries (Polipchuk, 2014). In his opinion, it is necessary to dare and create, even in the bonds of necessity and ordinariness. He reflected on the need to have enough courage and humility to acknowledge one's own guilt and understand it creatively (Ilyin, 2002). In this regard, creativity is a consciousness of ontological "world guiltiness" woven into thought and not just a means of transcending beyond the given world and objectivity.
Awareness and a sense of one's own inauthenticity cannot be explained by sin, guilt, suffering, or by the ingrained fallen state of the human nature. The philosopher believed that the feeling of falsehood and inauthenticity is a result of the falling out of the "Ray of God." Ilyin wrote that sin leads to suffering, and suffering must lead a living creature to spirituality, self-knowledge, purification, surrender, religious sincerity, and return into the Ray of God (Ilyin, 2002).
Berdyaev unambiguously divided being into authentic and inauthentic; he believed that they can be positively overcome only in a creative impulse and freedom. For Ilyin, orthodox, Christian foundations were more important than philosophical ones (Malinin, 2014). In the end, it cannot be denied that all of these existentials become a prerequisite for spiritual purification and the basis for understanding one's own chosenness that ascends to God; they add up to the concept of adherence that overcomes inauthenticity. According to Ilyin, being does not have a static border between falsehood and truth, freedom and the world, but it has a prerequisite for the possibility of breaking out of inauthenticity and transforming it through personal effort. Inauthenticity is an integral part of a blessed state, which equally contains qualities such as perseverance, self-control, and strength of character. Existence is able to return them to a human.
The philosopher strongly emphasized the dynamics between the material world and the spirit. He claimed that human is meant to spiritualize one's own body and not to materialize one's own spirit (Ilyin, 2002). With this opinion, the thinker fully agreed with the main traditional premises of the Russian religious and philosophical thinking, which was dominated by the rejection of the proclivity for effectiveness, dementalization, and excessive social qualities in the human essence. "Materialization of the spirit" implies inauthenticity in one's own existence.
The dichotomy "periphery-center" was important --sometimes decisive --in Ilyin's work. In his opinion, decentration, or the loss of center, and proclivity for secondary peripheral components of human being leads to the withdrawal from the God's ray. The center itself can be deformed if a lot of attention is paid to secondary peripheral meanings and elements. As a result, the whole personality and its position in the world can change. In this case, inauthenticity appears as a fog of "everyday expectations" (Ilyin, 2002). The stronghold of the resistance to inauthenticity is "the one and only, imperative, dazzling religious center" (Ilyin, 2002). Captured by the peripheral reality, human becomes immersed in the inauthenticity of being, which denies its own center; and taking a false center for authentic inevitably leads to the distortion and ambiguity of being.