I would reproach S. Frank on incorrect useage of the word subjective , which moreover is done by a large number of philosophers. It is impossible to be in agreement with this, that the I only but arises in front of the thou , and it is impossible to acknowledge, that the we is more primary than the I , which contradicts the truth of Personalism and leads to the slavery of man. S. Frank is not troubled by the objectification, the objectivisation of the we set over the human order. On the outside, from the objective order, from the human I there is no transcending, and there is but objectivisation, wherein the transcending is only on the inside. It is a striking aspect, that for S. Frank religious faith coincides with a monism of two worlds.
Religion is monism, whereas every dualism is anti-religious.
But there is indeed possible a religiosity, connected with the experiencing of contradiction, suffering and evil, and this especially mustneeds be said for the religion of redemption. Religion surmounts the inescapable dualism, but within it there is a dualistic moment. While moreover, monism often becomes non-religious. S. Frank bases himself upon a revelation in common , and this is completely correct for a philosophy of religion. And it is true actually, when he says that each man has his own especial religion.