3. This objectivism is likewise characteristic of Russian mysticism as direct contemplation of the godhead (Platonism).
By Čaadaev and Solov'ev mysticism is actually identified with religion, and even the adversaries of religion effect the same identification. Mihailovskii and Tolstoi are exceptions here; the former, while rejecting mysticism, refuses to identify it with religion.
4. Russian philosophers of religion do not stress morality as a constituent of religion to the extent that is customary in the west. Tolstoi, influenced by Kant, has gone furthest in this direction. Solov'ev strongly emphasises the moral element of religion (for he, too, is influenced by Kant); but in addition he demands belief in miracle, regarding the dogma of the resurrection as the most important among religious dogmas. Mihailovskii's thought in this matter is also akin to that of Tolstoi, in so far as Mihailovskii regards morality as the essence of religion.
Even the opponents of ecclesiastical religion look upon ritual and ritual mystagogy as the leading elements in religion.
5. Consequently, side by side with ordinary morality a higher religious morality is recognised, asceticism being considered the logical outcome of objectivist transcendentalism and of mysticism. In the ascetic cult, the aristocratic character of ecclesiastical religion finds expression; the cloister and the monk occupy a central position in ecclesiastical religion.
Solov'ev and Tolstoi approve religious asceticism; Leont'ev and Dostoevskii glorify the monk as Christian hero in contradistinction to the heroes of this world.
The adversaries of ecclesiastical religion, on the other hand, attack asceticism. Hence the great importance of utilitarianism (hedonism and eudemonism) in Russian philosophy. The westernisers and the liberals, the nihilists, the socialists, and the anarchists, all espouse utilitarian morality.
6. Religious objectivism and passivism proclaim the church as leading authority. Beginning with Čaadaev and Homjakov, this insistence on the importance of the church continually recurs. Tolstoi is an exception.
The church is a thoroughly aristocratic organisation, being primarily the organisation of the members of the priesthood as mediators on behalf of the laity, the latter being dependent in religious matters. In the Russian church, the aristocratic factor is further strengthened by the circumstance that the
