Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/149

Rh content to recognise the existence of a higher impulse towards truthfulness and morality. Lavrov here follows the French socialists, and we may consider in especial that he must have borrowed from Louis Blanc the doctrine of physical, intellectual, and moral needs; but whereas Blanc had a theistic foundation for his psychology, Lavrov detests metaphysics and religion.

Thus Lavrov attains a peculiar subjectivism of aims and values. The moral ideal is considered to give men their perspective for the arrangement and valuation of history, many recognising that, despite temporary arrests and relapses, historical progress is a reality.

The brief formula of the idea of progress is thus worded by Lavrov: "The development of individuality alike physically, mentally, and morally; the incorporation of truth and justice in social forms."

Society and individuals are veridical data; but only the fully conscious, the "more definite" individuality, the personality, only (as Lavrov expresses it, following Ruge and Bruno Bauer) the critically thinking individuality, makes history—by elaborating, as we have already been told, traditional culture, and thus forming a human society out of the human ant-hill. The critically-thinking individuality keeps history going, keeps it moving, and in doing so converts simple evolution into progress.

Bruno Bauer in conjunction with many adherents of the Hegelian left, transformed Kant's Critique of Pure Reason into a "pure critique," that is to say into a negation of theology and of the (absolutist) state. Lavrov agreed in this estimate, but wished the criticism to be conceived more in Kant's own sense. Such was the leading problem with which he dealt, though it was not clearly formulated. We note, however, his endeavour to display the contrast between faith and criticism, meaning by faith, not religious faith merely, but faith of every kind. He was aware that faith alone can move mountains, and he desired such a faith for himself, condemning unfaith as indifferentism. Criticism must not destroy faith. Its function is to upbuild firm convictions, so that what was criticism yesterday becomes belief to-day. Faith is omnipotent, but is not all-sufficing, since falsehood no less than truth may be animated with faith. This is why criticism on the part of the thinking individualities is essential;