Abstract
We look in this chapter at Solov’ëv’s confrontation during the last decade of his life with recent contemporary philosophies, including Comte’s positivism. While highly critical of it, he came at the end to an appreciation for Comte’s quasi-religious turn, particularly his talk of Humanité. Materialism was another metaphysical creed that Solov’ëv thought Kant should have vanquished long ago, but which still drew adherents despite its simplicity. In Nietzsche, on the other hand, Solov’ëv saw an alarming opponent, who preached a message that Solov’ëv took to be directly opposed to his Christian vision. We also look at three Russian figures with whom he maintained a far more nuanced relationship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Solovyov 2009: 213.
- 2.
For more on this, see Nemeth 2014: 12–13. Solov’ëv’s position that we can cognize things as they are in themselves would become much more nuanced in his last years leading to a reevaluation of Comte.
- 3.
For more on Solov’ëv’s puzzling last-minute approach to Comte, see Nemeth 2016.
- 4.
Writing from a broadly considered Marxist viewpoint, Mikhail M. Filippov (1858–1903) found Comte to be the first to demarcate a specific sphere of concern to the new discipline of sociology and recognize it as a “science.” Nevertheless, “Comte’s social ideal was no more than a reflection of the class interests of the bourgeoisie….” Filippov 1898a: 43.
- 5.
Gorodcev 1881: 256.
- 6.
Kozlov moved to St. Petersburg from Kiev in 1891. Although of course Solov’ëv lived there as well, the two were not particularly close, seeing each other on the street only on occasion. Kozlov’s son reported that Solov’ëv dropped in to see his father only twice. Alekseev 1912: 36.
- 7.
Kozlov 1892: 57–59. Kozlov already in 1875 published a review of Solov’ëv’s The Crisis of Western Philosophy. He also published in 1873–1875 a Russian-language translation of Eduard von Hartmann’s best known work Philosophie des Unbewussten.
- 8.
Chicherin’s work was in response to a competition announced in late 1889-early 1890 for the best work on the theme “A Critical Examination of Comte’s Theses Concerning the Natural Coincidence of the Original Laws of Inorganic Nature with the Fundamental Laws of Organic Life and on the Aspiration of All Real Human Knowledge for Logical and Scientific Unity.” The competition was under the auspices of the Moscow Psychological Society with an award of 2000 roubles donated by D. A. Stolypin. Chicherin was awarded half the amount, the Society deeming his manuscript to be not fully satisfactory. See Grot 1890b and Chujko 1892: 291. For further information on Stolypin and this competition, see Bazhanov 2006: 128–130.
- 9.
- 10.
Chicherin 1892: 152.
- 11.
Solovyov 2009: 214; SS, vol. 9: 173.
- 12.
SS, vol. 9: 183; cf. Solovyov 2009: 221. The English translation of the corresponding passage has Solov’ëv speaking of faith “not in a theoretical sense.” Of course, such a rendition makes no sense.
- 13.
Kant 1996a: 254 (Ak 5: 142–43).
- 14.
Solovyov 2009: 222–23; SS, vol. 9: 186.
- 15.
Solovyov 2009: 226; SS, vol. 9: 189. In this piece, Solov’ëv expressly distinguished Comte’s use of “humanité” with a lower case “h,” designating the aggregate of nations, families, and individuals, from “Humanité” with an upper case “H,” designating the real, living principle of the unity behind the elements comprising “humanité.” Solovyov 2009: 223; SS, vol. 9: 186. The question, then, is whether Solov’ëv consistently accepted and retained Comte’s distinction both here and throughout his essay.
- 16.
- 17.
SS, vol. 6: 270. Grot had by this time evolved philosophically from positivism to a broad acceptance of metaphysics.
- 18.
SS, vol. 6: 273.
- 19.
Solov’ëv, in all likelihood, had Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics in mind when writing these lines concerning Comte.
- 20.
SS, vol. 10: 403.
- 21.
SS, vol. 10: 404.
- 22.
Solov’ëv was quite emphatic in his rejection of a psychologism that reduces mathematics to psychology. In his Dictionary entry on “metaphysics,” Solov’ëv wrote, “That the multiplication tables and the theorems of Euclidean geometry can turn out to be false on some other planet, where 2 × 2 = 15 and the sum of the angles of a plane triangle sometimes is equal to two but sometimes to 45 right angles, is only an extreme conclusion from a prejudiced abstract principle (skeptical empiricism), and not a serious scientific conviction.” SS, vol. 10: 240.
- 23.
Gorodcev 1881: 12.
- 24.
Strakhov 1883: 122.
- 25.
Kozlov 1892: 56.
- 26.
Jakovenko 2003: 167.
- 27.
Gustav Shpet, writing in 1922 with far greater philosophical knowledge and acuity than most, doubted that Chernyshevskij was, properly speaking, a materialist. He wrote, concerning Chernyshevskij, that “In his chaotic article [“Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”] we can find everything but philosophy. There is as little of Feuerbach, as there is of Plato, Hegel, Kant or any other representative of positive or negative philosophy.” Shpet 2009b: 460. Nevertheless, in a letter dated 15 September 1876 to his sons from his Siberian exile, Chernyshevskij wrote, “What exists is matter. Matter has properties. The manifestations of properties are forces. What we call laws of nature are the modes by which forces act.” Chernyshevskij 1987: 378. Surely, such blanket assertions testify to his materialism, despite Shpet’s words. Additionally, for a fuller well-argued defense of the characterization of Chernyshevskij as a materialist in full recognition of Shpet’s contrary claim, see Scanlan 1970. Whereas Shpet deemed that Chernyshevskij had not sufficiently adhered to Feuerbach to be a materialist, N. N. Strakhov, already in 1860 in an essay “The Significance of Hegel’s Philosophy,” questioned whether Feuerbach was a materialist! “It seems quite clear to me in the first place that Feuerbach is not a materialist in the genuine sense of this word.” Strakhov 1906: 20.
- 28.
Trubeckoj 1995: vol. 2, 304.
- 29.
Jurkevich was the first to occupy the chair in philosophy at the secular Moscow University after the decision had been made to reintroduce the subject there. He was the only individual at the time thought to have the necessary preparation and be reliable enough from the government’s viewpoint to teach such a potentially revolutionary subject as philosophy.
- 30.
Chernyshevskij replied to Jurkevich with a piece entitled “Polemical Gems,” the title being indicative of its content. A contemporary scholar writes that Chernyshevskij failed even to make the effort to read Jurkevich’s article, relying on his knowledge of theology and his own opinions of human nature in writing the mentioned reply. See Zasukhina 2012: 117.
- 31.
Jurkevich 1860a: 377–378
- 32.
Vucinich, in his otherwise quite valuable book, unfortunately failed to give Jurkevich any benefit of a doubt regarding the latter’s positions. The former wrote that Jurkevich’s nod to science “was only a dialectical maneuver, and did not echo his philosophical orientation.” Vucinich 1970: 10. True, Jurkevich did have an explicit religious background and “orientation,” but this need not be construed at the expense of an appreciation of natural science within its own confines. Vucinich, there, also wrote that Jurkevich “failed to elaborate his ideas , and left little imprint on the religious thought of his time.” This, of course, is not quite accurate. He did leave a significant imprint on Solov’ëv and Shpet, to name just two – though in philosophy, not theology. For Shpet’s appreciation of Jurkevich, see Shpet 2009a. Shpet, at times in his piece, read Jurkevich’s idealism in a manner not dissimilar to that in which Natorp read Plato. Ideas for Jurkevich and, respectively, for Plato are neither “existents” nor cognitions, but rules of the understanding.
- 33.
Jurkevich 1860b: 28.
- 34.
Solov’ëv did not assert that he was familiar with all of Jurkevich’s writings, and those which he did know he read from his own standpoint. Sadly, Solov’ëv recognized Jurkevich’s belief in spiritualism (or “spiritism”) without himself condemning it, despite acknowledging it to be “in the eyes of the majority” something odious. See Solov’ëv 2000a: 173.
- 35.
SS, vol. 6: 272.
- 36.
Solov’ëv 1997b: 31–32.
- 37.
SS, vol. 4: 147–48; Soloviev 1884: 54–55. Generally speaking, Solov’ëv, unlike some others, wisely refrained from pronouncing on technical scientific matters with which he had no special familiarity. Nevertheless, in his discussion of theoretical materialism he mentioned that it is often combined with the atomic theory in metaphysics as well as the other stands just mentioned.
- 38.
SS, vol. 4: 148; Soloviev 1884: 55.
- 39.
SS, vol. 6: 273.
- 40.
SS, vol. 10: 372.
- 41.
SS, vol. 9: 373.
- 42.
SS, vol. 9: 373.
- 43.
- 44.
Tolstoj 1984: 682.
- 45.
Pis’ma, vol. 1: 72. Nothing, apparently, came of this proposal. Presumably, Solov’ëv was referring here to Schopenhauer’s “Essay on spirit-seeing and related issues.”
- 46.
Solov’ëv knew Vasilij Preobrazhenskij well for some time as well as his father Petr, who as the editor of the journal Pravoslavnoe obozrenie [Orthodox Review] published many of Solov’ëv’s early pieces. When Vasilij died in April 1900, Solov’ëv wrote a sincere and moving obituary. See SS, vol. 9: 428–430.
- 47.
- 48.
SS, vol. 10: 509. He wrote regarding Leont’ev, “In his contempt for pure ethics and in his veneration for self-affirming power and beauty, Leont’ev anticipated many of Nietzsche’s thoughts.” Grillaert dates Solov’ëv’s contribution specifically to “the beginning of 1892,” specifically “some months before” Preobrazhenskij’s article. The basis for this dating is not stated, but given that Leont’ev died in November 1891, Grillaert’s dating is quite reasonable. See Grillaert 2008: 24, 83.
- 49.
Preobrazhenskij 1892: 115.
- 50.
Lopatin 1893: 8.
- 51.
Grot 1893: 134.
- 52.
Grot 1893: 143.
- 53.
Astaf’ev 1893: 74.
- 54.
Grillaert has observed this as well. See Grillaert 2008: 82.
- 55.
SS, vol. 6: 263–268. If, as R. Peterson claims, Minskij’s book, Pri svete soveti. Mysli i mechty o celi zhizni [In the Light of Conscience. Thoughts and Dreams on the Meaning of Life], was written under the influence of Nietzsche, that influence, given the absence of a discussion of Nietzsche’s ideas, would not have been directly recognized by someone, such as Solov’ëv, who did not have at the time independent knowledge of them. See Peterson 1993: 14. Solov’ëv charged Minskij with confusing egoism with self-consciousness and with failing to distinguish the chief motive in moral activity from the secondary psychic phenomena that accompany it. Nikolaj M. Minskij (1855–1937), coming from a poor Jewish background, converted to Orthodoxy in 1882. He died in Paris.
- 56.
Soloviev 1894: 138; SS, vol. 7: 72–73. Berdjaev, much later, would write that Nietzsche’s thought was seen in Russia in terms of neither his will to power nor his fight for an aristocratic race and culture, but owing to his religious theme. This is not quite accurate at least in Russian philosophical circles. In them, he was seen, rather, as an amoralist, and Solov’ëv, in 1894, saw him as defending just what Berdjaev denied. See Berdyaev 1948: 229.
- 57.
Grillaert certainly appears to have greatly exaggerated in writing that Solov’ëv’s “first substantial treatment of the German philosopher appears in 1894, in an article intended to argue against the so-called decadent artists.” Grillaert 2008: 82.
- 58.
Sergey Solovyov wrote, “…to a philosopher who had grown up on Kant and Hegel, it was difficult to understand the complete significance of Nietzsche.” Solovyov 2000: 479. This is doubtful. Solov’ëv had “grown up” as much on Schopenhauer as on Kant and Hegel – just as Nietzsche had too.
- 59.
Solov’ëv 2015: liii f; SS, vol. 8: 5f.
- 60.
Solov’ëv 2015: lix; SS, vol. 8: 12.
- 61.
Solov’ëv, additionally, seriously misunderstood Nietzsche’s conception of the Übermensch. See Grillaert 2003: 164–65. We should remember, in any case, that whereas Nietzsche had in mind the human individual, Solov’ëv thought in terms of the entirety of humanity.
- 62.
Soloviev 1897: 87.
- 63.
SS, vol. 9: 288.
- 64.
Soloviev 1899: 256; SS, vol. 9: 266.
- 65.
Soloviev 1899: 257; SS, vol. 9: 267.
- 66.
Soloviev 1899: 263; SS, vol. 9: 274. Unfortunately, Solov’ëv’s appeal for a “conversation” with the Russian literary Nietzscheans quickly went nowhere. Apparently, in response to articles that had appeared in a special issue of Mir iskusstvo celebrating the centenary of Pushkin’s birth, Solov’ëv published in the summer of 1899 in Vestnik Evropy an article “The Special Celebration of Pushkin.” In it, Solov’ëv displayed his annoyance with the contributors’ readings of Pushkin, including the ascription of Nietzschean motifs to Pushkin. SS, vol. 9: 277–87. In reply, Dmitrij Filosofov, a member of the offended group, took the Vestnik article as an example of the kind of “conversation” Solov’ëv had in mind. Filosofov expressed, among other things, his indignation that Solov’ëv would turn to Vestnik, a publication Filosofov did not hold in high regard, rather than Mir iskusstvo itself, to “further” the “conversation.” Moreover, he could not see how Solov’ëv could overlook the Nietzschean themes in literature that were so obvious to him. See Filosofov 1899: 25–26. Solov’ëv responded, albeit in a ridiculing tone, the next month to Filosofov but again in the pages of Vestnik Evropy. Solov’ëv rejected Filosofov’s inference that his earlier piece was intended to be the start of a conversation. Solov’ëv went on harshly belittling several of the contributions to Mir iskusstvo which only served to harden feelings and make any dialogue between the respective parties impossible. See SS, vol. 9: 288–93. Also see Grillaert 2003: 169.
- 67.
Pis’ma, vol. 4: 75.
- 68.
SS, vol. 9: 348.
- 69.
Berdyaev 1992: 244.
- 70.
Shakhanov 1992: 394. Ukhtomskij expressed this comment in the course of a conversation with Solov’ëv’s biographer S. M. Luk’janov in May 1920. It should be pointed out that Ukhtomskij had attended classes under Vladislavlev and Solov’ëv. However, whereas the latter approved of Ukhtomskij’s academic work in philosophy, the former did not. See here also Nemeth 2014: 209. If we give credence to second-hand or even third-hand accounts, nothing Solov’ëv did could meet with Vladislavlev’s approval. Solov’ëv served through 1881 on the Academic Committee of the Ministry of Public Education, which was charged with reviewing educational material to be used in state-supported (as opposed to church-supported) educational institutions. Vladislavlev’s manuscript for his proposed Uchebnik logiki [Textbook on Logic] came before the Committee and was referred to Solov’ëv for evaluation. He, in turn, reported to the Committee that it was acceptable. Vladislavlev, however, met the brevity of Solov’ëv’s evaluation with “displeasure” and thought Solov’ëv should not merely have “accepted” it for use in schools but “approved” of its use. Luk’janov 1990. Vol. 3, vyp. 2: 130.
- 71.
SS, vol. 5: 137f. Solov’ëv presumably had in mind Vladislavlev’s two-volume text Psikhologija: Issledovanie osnovnykh javlenij dushevnoj zhizn [Psychology: Investigation of the Basic Phenomena of Mental Life] from 1881.
- 72.
SS, vol. 5: 476. Solov’ëv was referring to Vladislavlev’s elaborations in his Psikhologija text, particularly volume two of that work.
- 73.
SS, vol. 9: 380–397. The essay “Tri kharakteristiki” first appeared in the journal Vestnik Evropy.
- 74.
Luk’janov 1990. Vol. 3, vyp. 2: 177. Borisova adds that Solov’ëv could hardly have “transferred his hostility toward Vladislavlev to Vvedenskij,” since Solov’ëv was on friendly terms with, for example, Radlov and Grot, who had also been students of Vladislavlev. They, however, did not get Vladislavlev’s professorship, which Solov’ëv coveted. See Borisova et al. 1993: 17. The reference to “Vladislavlev’s nest” is, most likely, to a group that also included N. N. Lange and Ja. N. Kolubovskij, who, “wishing to specialize in philosophy,” received additional instruction from Vladislavlev. Pavlov 2017: 151.
- 75.
For more on this controversy, see Nemeth 1995.
- 76.
Borisova et al. 1993: 17. To be fair, though, to Vvedenskij, he did not deny that the other has similar psychic activity as I do, but only that empirically we cannot proceed to knowledge of the inner states of others solely on the basis of outer corporeal movements. Albeit with a somewhat different argument in mind, a later philosopher would say, “Inner states stand in need of outer criteria.” Furthermore, to accuse Vvedenskij of lacking talent on the basis of his argument would mean inferentially that Descartes too lacked philosophical talent.
- 77.
Borisova et al. 1993: 17.
- 78.
Borisova claims that for Solov’ëv the question of the existence of other minds could be solved “theoretically.” Borisova et al. 1993: 22. This is simply not so, unless the testimony of common sense is considered to be “theoretical.”
- 79.
It remains unclear here whether it is the sexual lust, as such, or the immorality of that lust that is the decisive factor in the supposed proof.
- 80.
Borisova et al. 1993: 17. Oddly, in a few years Solov’ëv would partially reverse himself thinking that sexual lust, even in the absence of a living sexual object, can be immoral.
- 81.
Lapshin later became a professor of philosophy himself at St. Petersburg University. He was in the early 1920s forced to leave Soviet Russia aboard the “philosophers’ steamship.”
- 82.
Luk’janov 1916: vol. 3, vyp. 2, 177. We should add that the young Solov’ëv was a close friend of Lapshin’s parents and as such knew Ivan since the latter’s childhood.
- 83.
SS, vol. 9: 383.
- 84.
- 85.
As quoted in Luk’janov 1916: 429.
- 86.
Obshchestvo 1914: 56. Strakhov, in this letter, also commented that Solov’ëv appeared sickly and emaciated – surely a portent of things to come. As for spiritism, however ridiculous we may find it today it was widely taken seriously by a number of people in Solov’ëv’s day including William James. Solov’ëv apparently abandoned this interest by 1883.
- 87.
Strakhov 1881: 80.
- 88.
Strakhov 1881: 88.
- 89.
Strakhov 1881: 112. Of course, Solov’ëv would have had a reply ready, and one may say that Strakhov should have known what this was. The point is that Strakhov, for whatever reason, did not give Solov’ëv the benefit of any doubt at this time.
- 90.
One commentator today reflecting on the dispute correctly recognizes that already after the first exchanges in 1888, “neither of the parties in the subsequent articles expressed anything fundamentally new in terms of the topic of interest to us. … On the whole, the polemics were tedious, mutually hostile, and creatively unproductive. Both opponents accused the other of the same things: conceptual ambiguity, imprecise formulations, and groundless theories.” Atjakshev 2013: 75.
- 91.
SS, vol. 5: 323. The expression and this summary is from the essay “Nemeckij podlinnik i russkij spisok,” which originally appeared in the journal Vestnik Evropy.
- 92.
SS, vol. 5: 324.
- 93.
Strakhov 1894: 165.
- 94.
- 95.
Bibliography
Works by Vladimir S. Solov’ëv in Russian and in English Translation Used in the Present Volume
Solov’ëv, Vladimir. 1997b. Ob istinnoj nauke etc. In Issledovanija po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik za 1997 god, ed. M.A. Kolerov, 31–65. St. Petersburg: Aletejja.
———. 2000a. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem. Sochinenija, tom pervyj 1873–1876. Moscow: Nauka. Cited in the text as PSS, vol. 1.
———. 2000b. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem. Sochinenija, tom vtoroj 1875–1877. Moscow: Nauka. Cited in the text as PSS, vol. 2.
———. 2015. Vladimir’s Solov’ëv’s Justification of the Moral Good. Trans. Thomas Nemeth. Heidelberg: Springer.
Soloviev, Vladimir. 1884. The Jews and the Christian Question. In Soloviev 2008: 43–88.
———. 1894. A First Step Toward a Positive Aesthetic. In Soloviev 2003: 135–143.
———. 1897. Literature or Truth? In Soloviev 2000: 87–90.
———. 1899. The Idea of a Superman. In Soloviev 2000: 255–263.
Solovyov, Vladimir. 2009. In Divine Sophia: The Wisdom Writings of Vladimir Solovyov, ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Works Mentioned
Alekseev, S[ergej] A. 1912. Aleksej Aleksandrovich Kozlov. Moscow: Tip. Mamontova.
Astaf’ev, P.E. 1893. Genezis nravstvennago ideala dekadenta. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 16: 56–75.
Atjakshev, M.V. 2013. N. N. Strakhov i V. S. Solov’ëv: spor o teorii kul’turno-istoricheskih tipov. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija, vyp. 3(39): 71–79.
Bazhanov, V.A. 2006. Rozhdenie filosofii nauki v Rossii. Voprosy filosofii 1: 128–134.
Beiser, Frederick C. 2014. After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840–990. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Berdyaev, Nicholas. 1948. The Russian idea. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Berdyaev, Nikolai. 1992. The Russian Idea. Trans. R.M. French. Hudson: Lindisfarne Press.
Borisova, I.B., M.A. Kolerov, and A.A. Nosov. 1993. K istorii odnoj druzhby. V. S. Solv’ëv i Kn. S. N. Trubeckoj. Novye materialy. De Visu 8: 5–23.
Bunin, Ivan. 2001. The Liberation of Tolstoy: A Tale of Two Writers. Trans. Thomas Gaiton and Vladimir T. Khmelkov. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Certelev, D[mitrij]. 1887. Logika positivizma. Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, tom 1: 22–66.
Chernyshevskij, Nikolaj Gavrilovich. 1987. Sochinenija v dvukh tomakh. Moscow: Mysl’. Volume two.
Chicherin, Boris N. 1892. Polozhitel’naja filosofija i edinstvo nauki. Moscow: Tip. Kushnerev.
Chujko, V. 1892. Pozitivizm pered sudom nauchnoj kritiki. Nabljudatel’, 7: 287–304, July.
Filippov, Mikhail M. 1898a. Kont i ego metod. St. Petersburg: Tip. Porokhovshchikova.
Filosofov, D.M. 1899. Ser’eznyj razgovor s nitcheansami (Otvet Vl. Solov’ëvy). Mir iskusstva 16–17: 25–38.
Gerstein, Linda. 1971. Nikolai Strakhov. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gorodcev, Pavel D. 1881. Pozitivizm i khristianstvo. Religiosno-filosofskija vozzrenija Dzh. St. Millja i ikh otnoshenie k khristianstvu. St. Petersburg: Tip. S. Dobrodeeva.
Grillaert, Nel. 2003. A Short Story about the Übermensch: Vladimir Solov’ëv’s Interpretation and Response to Nietzsche’s Übermensch. Studies in East European Thought 55: 157–184.
———. 2008. What the God-Seekers Found in Nietzsche. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Grot, N[ikolaj]. Ja. 1890a. Ot redakcii. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 3: i–iii.
———. 1890b. Uslovija dlja soiskanija premii za sochinenie na temu po filosofii nauk. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 3: 145–146.
———. 1890c. Ot redakcii. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 4: v–viii.
Grot, Nikolaj [Ja.]. 1893. Nravstvennye idealy nashego vremeni. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 16: 129–154.
Jakovenko, Boris V. 2003. In Istorija russkoj filosofii, ed. Ju.N. Solodukhina. Moscow: Respublika.
Jurkevich, P[amfil]. 1860a. Iz nauki o chelovechkom dukhe. Trudy Kievskoj dukhovnoj Akademii, kn. chetvertaja: 367–511.
———. 1860b. Materializm i zadachi filosofii. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenija, chast’ 108, no. 10, otd. II: 1–53.
Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Practical Philosophy. Trans. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996b. Religion and Rational Theology. Trans. Allen W. Wood and George DiGiovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kozlov, A[leksej] A. 1892. Pozitivizm Konta. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 15: 53–70.
Lopatin, L.M. 1893. Bol’naja iskrennost’. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 16: 109–114.
Luk’janov, S.M. 1916. O Vl. S. Solov’ëv v ego molodye gody. Petrograd: Senatskaja Tip. Kniga pervaja.
Nemeth, Thomas. 1995. Aleksandr I. Vvedenskij on Other Minds. In Studies in east European thought, vol. 47, 155–177.
Nemeth, Thomas. 2014. The Early Solov’ëv and His Quest for Metaphysics. Cham: Springer.
———. 2016. Solovyov’s Crisis and Positivism in Late Imperial Russia. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 2(50): 65–80.
Nethercott, Frances. 2007. Russian Legal Culture Before and After Communism. London: Routledge.
Obshchestvo, Tolstovskogo Muzeja. 1914. Perepiska L. N. Tolstogo s N. N. Strakhovym 1870–1894. St. Petersburg: Tip. B. M. Vol’fa.
Pavlov, A.T. 2017. Filosofskoe obrazovanie v Rossijskoj imperii. Moscow: Izd. Borob’ev A. V.
Peterson, Ronald E. 1993. A History of Russian Symbolism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Preobrazhenskij, V. 1892. Fridrikh Nicsche. Kritika morali al’truizma. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 15: 115–160.
Rozanov, V.V. 1913. Literaturnye izgnanniki. St. Petersburg: Tip. Suvorina. Tom pervyj.
Scanlan, James P. 1970. Nicholas Chernyshevsky and Philosophical Materialism in Russia. Journal of the History of Philosophy, January: 65–86.
Shakhanov, A.N. ed. 1992. Materialy k biografii Vl. S. Solov’ëva. In Rossijskij Arkhiv: Istorija Otechestva v svidetel’stvakh i dokumentakh. XVIII–XX vv. Vol. 2/3:392–427.
Shpet, Gustav. 2009a. Filosofskoe nasledstvo P. D. Jurkevicha. In Ocherk razvitija russkoj filosofii. II. Materialy, ed. T.G. Shchedrina, 306–361. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
———. 2009b. Antropologizm Lavrova v svete istorii filosofii. In Ocherk razvitija russkoj filosofii. II. Materialy, ed. T.G. Shchedrina, 439–508. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Sineokaja, Ju.V. 1999. Vosprijatie idej Nicshe v Rossii: osnovye etapy. In Fridrikh Nicshe i filosofija v Rosii: Sbornik statej, 7–37. St. Petersburg: Russkij Khristianskij gumanitarnyj institut.
Snetova, N.V. 2015. Nikolaj Strakhov: Koncepcija nravstvennogo ideala. Vestnik Russkoj Khristianskoj gumanitarnoj akademii, tom 16, vyp. 2: 45–57.
Solovyov, Sergey M. 2000. Vladimir Solovyov: His Life and Creative Evolution. Trans. Aleksey Gibson. Fairfax: Eastern Christian Publications.
Strakhov, Nikolai N. 1881. Istorija i kritika filosofii. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenija, January: 79–115.
Strakhov, [Nikolai N]. 1883. Bor’ba s zapadom v nashej literature. St. Petersburg: Tip. brat. Panteleevykh, kn. 2. 272pp.
Strakhov, N. N. 1894. Istoricheskie vzgljady s Rjukkerta i N. Ja. Danilevskogo. Russkij vestnik, #10: 154–183.
Strakhov, N.N. 1906. Filosofskie ocherki. Kiev: Izd. Matchenko.
Tolstoj, L.N. 1984. Sobranie sochinenij v 22 tomakh. Vol. 18. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaja literatura.
Trubeckoj, Evgenij N. 1995. Mirosozercanie V. S. Solov’ëv. Moscow: Izd. Medium. Two volumes.
Vucinich, Alexander. 1970. Science in Russian Culture. 1861–1917. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zasukhina, Viktorija Nikolaevna. 2012. Antropologizm filosofii P. D. Jurkevicha v kontekste ego polemiki s N. G. Chernyshevskim. Vesnik ChitGU 1 (80): 116–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nemeth, T. (2019). On Contemporaries and Contemporaneous Movements. In: The Later Solov’ëv . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20610-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20611-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)