в целом, и особенно в аспекте единства Бога со всем сотворенным. А в центре метафизики П.А. Флоренского находилась символическая реальность, подтверждающая факт абсолютной неотделимости духовного от чувственного, ноумена от феномена. Но несмотря на конкретные различия во взглядах на проблему взаимоотношения идеального мира и феноменального, русские софиологи пытались открыть тe стороны бытия, которые более всего указывали на его идеальное основание – Софию. Сквозь разногласия русских софиологов все же видна общая направленность их мыслей и тот тип мышления, который можно охарактеризовать как софийный.
Софийное мышление, как показало творчество B.C. Соловьева, П.А. Флоренского и С.Н. Булгакова, выражается в единстве постановки мировоззренческих и исследовательских задач, выборе средств их решения и полученных выводов. Оно позволяет преодолевать фрагментарное восприятие мира через ограниченность географических, конфессиональных, исторических, культурных и иных границ. Софийное мышление, по сути, есть синкретический тип мышления, для которого свойственно допущение единства рационального, иррационального и сверхрационального. В этом смысле софийное мышление, сущностные черты которого раскрываются через творчество, прежде всего B.C. Соловьева, П.А. Флоренского, С.Н. Булгакова, обладает еще не полностью раскрытым потенциалом формирования картины мира, отражающей единство мироздания в его все усложняющемся многообразии.
Катарина Брекнер
Sophiology in Vladimir Solov’ëv and in Sergej Bulgakov. A Comparative Analysis
Beginning with the impossible".describes the dynamics of religious life and thought, a life and a thinking that is fired by faith that is driven by a messianic hope for something impossible, something always to come. The impossible is what is absolutely unforeseeable, what surprises us or shatters our horizon of expectation."[109]
Explaining the possibility of the impossible has been Vladimir Solov’ëv′s theosophical program: man is, as he claimed, by no means an end in itself but God called him to unite the Created with the Creator. Solov’ëv firmly believed that Creation is incomplete. Especially the fifth book of Istoriia i buduchshnost′ teokratii, 1885–1887[110], unambiguously declares Creation as awaiting man′s conscious reunification with God.
The confidence in Creation continued by mankind is what held together "Silver Age" thought as it developed in Solov’ëv′s wake. Especially Bulgakov shared the belief that Creation is incomplete and that bogochelovechestvo (humanity following the example of the second Adam Jesus Christ) must arrive at organizing social life according to man′s God-like creativity and hence fulfill Creation until the "eighth day"[111] dawns. Although the idea of an "eighth day" cannot be found in the writings of Solov’ëv or Bulgakov, it organizes, as this essay argues, their thought about Creation and Godman′s co-Creative task.
Vladimir Solov’ëv prophesied the Universal Church, the embodiment of "Sophia," as to be established on this eschatological "eighth day" whereas Bulgakov envisioned a particular type of ′sophianic materialism′ (my expression, KB) that unambiguously defined the Church to promote godman′s co-Creativity
Both St. Athanasius, the generally acknowledged Father of the Orthodox Church, and St. Augustine had a fully explicit sophiology at the heart of their vision. Both see Sophia as the final embodiment of the glorification of human nature in Christ, in His mystical body the Church. This view of Sophia is in agreement with the content of the great Biblical texts of Proverbs 8, 9, Ecclesiastes 24, and The Song of Solomon 7, which all describe Wisdom as a quasi-personal and feminine reality.[112] Nonetheless, the idea of created wisdom never held a prominent place either in Catholicism or in Orthodoxy, The interest in Sophia, namely the quasi-personal Wisdom of God was revived as late as in sixteenth century by the German mystic Jakob Boehme. The pietistic theologian Jacob Arnold transmitted Boehme′s views to German idealist philosophers of nineteenth century, especially to Franz von Baader, and, through his intermediary, above all to Friedrich Schelling. There is no doubt that the revival of Sophiology in Vladimir Solov’ëv proceeds directly from the influence of Schelling.[113]
Solov’ëv agrees with Boehme that upon the final and full attainment of Sophia – an image that also imbues Solov’ëv′s poetry – humanity as a whole will be transformed into "the body of Christ."[114],[115] Although it is impossible to present an unambiguous picture of Solov’ëv′s Sophia in discursive terms