Abstract
This chapter is a presentation of Solov’ëv’s views of various figures and movements in the history of philosophy. The appearance of successive volumes of the Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, of which he served as the philosophy editor, gave him the opportunity to author a number of entries himself. Many of these entries were simple expositions of the ideas of historical figures, but with the longer pieces he was able to offer his own criticisms. Among the most important of these entries are those on Kant and Hegel, which reveal not only his own position on many issues they discussed but also that he viewed the German Idealist movement in largely Hegelian terms.
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.
Nethercott 2000: 36–40.
- 2.
SS, vol. 6: 299. Solov’ëv’s review appeared in the journal Russkoe obozrenie (Russian Review), which at the time was edited by his friend Dmitrij Certelev and in which he published many articles. Although the journal presented itself as above any partisan position on social and philosophical issues, contemporary political opponents on the right widely held Certelev to be Solov’ëv’s puppet. For example, in a letter to Nikolaj Strakhov, Aleksandr Kireev wrote regarding Certelev, “Obviously, he is confused. He writes at Solov’ëv’s dictation and writes unbelievable nonsense.” Quoted in Medovarov 2016: 83. Medovarov disputes Kireev’s evaluation of Certelev’s subservience toward Solov’ëv: “Certelev was quite critical of Solov’ëv and openly demonstrated this on the pages of his publication.” Medovarov 2019: 38. Medovarov certainly exaggerates, though, the importance of Solov’ëv’s review in writing that it “is a completely independent and logically complete philosophical work.” Medovarov 2016: 86.
- 3.
Andreevskij 1890a: i–ii.
- 4.
- 5.
Solov’ëv 1909: 68. Why he believed he should be listed as a professor is unclear. He never held a position with that title.
- 6.
- 7.
We defer for now a discussion of Solov’ëv’s entry on Plato for two reasons: (1) As we shall see, a preoccupation with Plato consumed a considerable amount of Solov’ëv’s attention in the final years of the century (and his life), and coupled with that (2) Solov’ëv surely wrote the piece on Plato only after his others on Kant and Hegel. Most likely, he wrote it while he was engaged in translating the Platonic dialogues.
- 8.
Just as a reminder to the reader, the Latin letter “V” is transliterated in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet as “В” and is the third letter in that alphabet after “А” and “Б.”
- 9.
SS, vol. 10: 285.
- 10.
My dating of Solov’ëv’s contribution on Valentinus is based on a letter dated 8 November 1891. There, he writes, “I am sending to K. K. Arsen’ev my article on the gnostic Valentinus for the dictionary.” Solov’ëv 1923: 55. See also an undated letter to Arsen’ev in which he specifically mentioned sending that particular piece as well as 17 additional small ones. Solov’ëv 1907: 71.
- 11.
SS, vol. 10: 288.
- 12.
Carlson in her discussion of the “gnostic elements” in Solov’ëv’s thought cautions us from taking his comments at face value despite his obvious wealth of knowledge concerning Gnosticism. She writes that Solov’ëv’s articles would have been read carefully by the censors for objectionable material. His pieces would have to have been in conformity with the official Church position, which regarded Gnosticism as a heresy. See Carlson 1996: 55.
- 13.
SS, vol. 10: 325.
- 14.
SS, vol. 10: 325.
- 15.
There is ample literature available on this. See, in particular, Courten 2004: 246–253.
- 16.
- 17.
SS, vol. 10: 413.
- 18.
The reader might recall that Solov’ëv, in his early Crisis of Western Philosophy, called Duns Scotus the initiator of scholasticism and did not mention others, such as Thomas Aquinas, whom we just as strongly associate with scholasticism. That of the prominent scholastics, Solov’ëv contributed only the piece on Scotus to the Dictionary may, however, only be accidental, since the entry, for example, on Thomas Aquinas appeared only in a 1904 volume, i.e., after Solov’ëv’s death.
- 19.
SS, vol. 10: 335.
- 20.
Solovyov 1990: 57, 59. Solov’ëv’s talk of compassion, which he identifies here with love of others, will play an important role in his major ethical treatise, Justification of the Moral Good, as we shall see later. We should also bear in mind that Solov’ëv’s piece was stimulated by Grot’s own editorial essay in Voprosy filosofii stating that the journal would not follow the lead of these same unnamed individuals who preach hatred “under the banner of Orthodoxy and the national idea.” Quoted in Solovyov 1990: 54. For the original see Grot 1891: v.
- 21.
SS, vol. 5: 439. Mochul’skij wrote that in spite of all the evidence, Solov’ëv still believed in a free theocracy as the telos of society and in Russia’s paramount role in accomplishing this, but that the famine had “struck a fatal blow to this faith.” Mochul’skij 1936: 192. Mochul’skij exaggerated. Certainly, Solov’ëv’s faith received a blow, but it was not fatal. Solov’ëv reconsidered the path by which the Christian message would be realized.
- 22.
That Solov’ëv’s central theme contained nothing totally new from him has also been observed by the editors of the 1989 Russian compilation of Solov’ëv’s writings. Kotrelev and Rashkovskij write that his address “in essence contained nothing beyond what the philosopher had earlier said and wrote. However, the form of his exposition turned out to be distinct and sharp.” Solov’ëv 1989: 689.
- 23.
According to one scholar today, 80 members of the Psychological Society came and approximately 300 guests. This unusually large group can be explained by the fact that Solov’ëv had not given a public address since his lectures on divine humanity in 1881. Ermichëv 2016b: 85. Surely, however, Solov’ëv’s more recent reputation as a social gadfly also played a role.
- 24.
Soloviev 2008: 159.
- 25.
Soloviev 2008: 169–170. Solov’ëv’s presentation certainly aroused those in the audience. A number of members of the Society requested the preceding officer, N. Ja. Grot, for the opportunity to make a counterstatement. Grot, sensing the delicacy of the situation announced that debate would be restricted to members of the Society in another room. This too elicited grumbling, and many thereupon registered to be members, paying the ten rouble membership fee. Mochul’skij 1936: 195. Reaction in the press was swift. Led particularly by the literary critic and publisher of the newspaper Moskovskie vedimosti, Ju. Gavorukha-Otrok [pseud. Ju. Nikolaev], charged Solov’ëv with directly attacking Orthodoxy and the Psychological Society as being complicit in this by consciously indulging in this anti-religious propaganda. For a detailed account of these events including many additional documents, see Barabanov 1976. The government demanded that Solov’ëv affirm that he had not distributed the text of his address nor encouraged others to do so. Sutton 1988: 151. For his part, Solov’ëv responded to the editor of Moskovskie vedimosti that he was not denouncing the Church but, rather, a particular anti-Christian spirit, which everyone would see when his text finally appeared in print. He hoped to publish his piece exactly as he had presented it, but censorship ultimately would not permit its official publication. In his biography of Solov’ëv, Mochul’skij somewhat inaccurately stated that this piece appeared only after Solov’ëv’s death. Mochul’skij 1936: 196. Rather, a typed lithography of the piece was prepared prior to the censor’s ban and a limited number of copies circulated beyond the walls of the printing house. The publication appeared under the title “On the Causes of the Decline of the Medieval Worldview” and bore the date 1892. For more information, see Solov’ëv 1989: 691. Apart from this controversy, though, those who subscribed to the Society’s journal could find an outline of the talk shortly after its presentation in the November issue, though tucked away, so to speak, in an account of the Society’s minutes. This outline was already available to those in attendance at the meeting.
- 26.
Solov’ëv reached out to Chicherin and Lopatin with the suggestion that they write the entry on Hegel, but both declined. Consequently, he had to do it himself, as he acknowledged in a letter from August 1892. Pis’ma, vol. 2: 322.
- 27.
Pis’ma, vol. 1: 207.
- 28.
SS, vol. 10: 304.
- 29.
He wrote in a letter to Strakhov from Zagreb dated mid-December 1888: “You believe (or you pretend to believe) the pathetic stupidities of Descartes and Leibniz.” Pis’ma, vol. 1: 56. Unfortunately, there is little context here to interpret Solov’ëv’s remark.
- 30.
SS, vol. 5: 282.
- 31.
Solov’ëv already in an 1884 article referred to “the pantheistic philosophy of the Jew Spinoza.” Soloviev 2008: 51; SS, vol. 4: 144.
- 32.
SS, vol. 10: 307. Solov’ëv, commenting on Danilevskij’s works in 1888, already made a broader characterization of Fichte’s position: “Having established in his Wissenschaftslehre an abstract-philosophical egoism or a solipsism of the conscious I, Fichte passed in the Addresses to the German Nation to an even broader based but still arbitrary and repulsive national egoism.” SS, vol. 5: 84.
- 33.
This is important in terms of his position later in the “Theoretical Philosophy.”
- 34.
Sidorin 2013: 118.
- 35.
Thus, the myth of Hegel’s a priori proof that there could be only seven planets was widespread already in Solov’ëv’s Russia! For the standard refutation of this, see Craig and Hoskin 1992.
- 36.
SS, vol. 10: 319–320.
- 37.
SS, vol. 10: 320.
- 38.
Solov’ëv 1997a: 430. Unfortunately but understandably, since the criticism of Kant and this plaudit for Hegel is in his short Dictionary entry Solov’ëv presented neither additional supportive information nor argumentation.
- 39.
Solov’ëv 1997a: 428. This quotation appears in Solov’ëv’s Dictionary entry on “reason” in volume 26 published in 1899 and thus shortly before Solov’ëv’s death.
- 40.
Pis’ma, vol. 1: 207.
- 41.
SS, vol. 10: 306.
- 42.
SS, vol. 10: 345.
- 43.
SS, vol. 10: 349.
- 44.
SS, vol. 10: 358. Likewise, in his entry on the term “object” (ob”ekt), Solov’ëv wrote that an object “in general, is that to which the cognitive activity is directed. … All given objects are, in terms of their content, only representations of the subject, although conditioned by something external to it.” Solov’ëv 1997a: 327.
- 45.
SS, vol. 10: 232.
- 46.
Solov’ëv added that “many” have confused Kant’s actual standpoint with a “fantastic idealism, according to which the world is created by the subject without any given material and is only a dream or an empty specter.” SS, vol. 10: 359. However, although Solov’ëv apparently assumed the existence of objects independently of my cognition, this does not amount to a proof, but merely a statement of belief. From Kant’s standpoint, Solov’ëv’s assumption is entirely unsatisfactory and represents what he called a “scandal of philosophy and universal human reason.” Kant 1997: 121 (Bxxxix f). Moreover, in the absence of such a philosophical proof we lose the basis for distinguishing objective reality and subjective appearances.
- 47.
SS, vol. 10: 272.
- 48.
As previously mentioned, the Latin letter “V” is transliterated in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet as “В” and is the third letter in that alphabet, whereas the letter “K” comes roughly in the middle.
- 49.
SS, vol. 10: 231. Solov’ëv, possibly, was still exploring at this time how freely he could express his own views in the Dictionary. It is also quite possible that he simply wished to state his positions in the relevant context. In fact, in the quoted sentence he continued, saying the philosophical explanations of time “will be examined under the names of the philosophers.”
- 50.
SS, vol. 10: 271.
- 51.
Kant 1997:161 (A28/B44).
- 52.
SS, vol. 10: 271.
- 53.
SS, vol. 10: 272.
- 54.
To be sure, Solov’ëv did not mention Chelpanov by name. However, since both were active members of the Moscow Psychological Society Solov’ëv could hardly have been totally ignorant of Chelpanov’s interests. Moreover, Solov’ëv could also have been thinking of Wilhelm Wundt, on whom he authored the Dictionary entry. See Solov’ëv 1997a: 46–48. For Chelpanov’s early work on the perception of space, see Chelpanov 1896.
- 55.
For Kant’s distinction, see Kant 1997: 386 (A296/B352).
- 56.
Kant 1997: 109 (Bxiv).
- 57.
SS, vol. 10: 241.
- 58.
SS, vol. 10: 272.
- 59.
Kant 1997: 453 (B423f).
- 60.
Allison 2004: 164. A more complete account of Kant’s treatment of the “I” would be considerably beyond the bounds of our present study and involve us in disputes for which there is an enormous amount of literature but with little relevance to our concerns here.
- 61.
SS, vol. 10: 373.
- 62.
For whatever reason, Orthodox Christian interpreters are particularly keen to view Solov’ëv as a pantheist. Even Zenkovsky, who should have known better, writes that pantheism is “so noticeable in Solovyov’s theoretical constructions.” Zenkovsky 1953: 484. Fortunately, on the other hand, Obolevich too recognizes panentheism is a better characterization of Solov’ëv’s position. “Whereas the views of the latter [Spinoza] can be characterized with certainty as pantheism (Deus sive natura), Solov’ëv shares the position of panentheism: everything is contained in God, but God as such is higher than the world.” Obolevich 2012: 38–39. For a particularly clear presentation of Solov’ëv’s panentheism, see Gardner 2000.
- 63.
SS, vol. 10: 374.
- 64.
SS, vol. 10, 376.
- 65.
SS, vol. 9: 3.
- 66.
There was no Russian translation of the Ethics at the time. The first translation appeared years later in 1886. Kaufman 2005: 344. The question, then, becomes if he actually read the Ethics, was it in French, German or the original Latin. Had he actually read at this time the Ethics text, or only an account of it, such as that by Kuno Fischer? N. N. Strakhov already during the decade of the 1860s published a four-volume edition of Fischer’s History of Modern Philosophy, the first volume of which contained an exposition of Spinoza’s philosophy. Kaufman 2005: 341. The sparse quotations from Spinoza’s Ethics in Solov’ëv’s Crisis thesis are given in the original Latin.
- 67.
Vvedenskij 1897: 158.
- 68.
Vvedenskij 1897: 168.
- 69.
Vvedenskij 1897: 172.
- 70.
SS, vol. 9: 8.
- 71.
Solov’ëv 1997a: 25.
- 72.
SS, vol. 9: 23.
- 73.
SS, vol. 9: 27.
Bibliography
Works by Vladimir S. Solov’ëv in Russian and in English Translation Used in the Present Volume
Solov’ëv, Vladimir. 1909. In Pis’ma, ed. E.L. Radlov. St. Petersburg: Tip. Obshchestvennaja Pol’za. Tom II. Cited in the text as Pis’ma.
———. 1923. Pis’ma, ed. E.L. Radlov. Petersburg: Vremja. 244pp. Tom IV. Cited in the text as Pis’ma, vol. 4.
———. 1989. Sochinenija v dvukh tomakh, ed. N. V. Kotrelev and E. B. Rashkovskij. Moscow: Izd. Pravda. Volume 2.
———. 1990. Stikhotvorenija. Estetika. Literaturnaja kritika. Moscow: Kniga, 574pp.
———. 1997a. Filosofskij slovar’ Vladimir Solov’ëva. Rostov-na-Donu: Izd-vo “Feniks”.
Soloviev, Vladimir. 2008. Freedom, Faith, and Dogma: Essays by V. S. Soloviev on Christianity and Judaism. Ithaca: State University of New York Press.
Works Mentioned
Allison, Henry E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Andreevskij, I.E. (ed.). 1890a. Enciklopedicheskij slovar’, vol. 1: A-Altaj. St. Petersburg: Tip. I. A. Efron.
———. (ed.). 1890b. Enciklopedicheskij slovar’, vol. 1: A: Altaj-Aragvaj. St. Petersburg: Tip. I. A. Efron.
———. (ed.). 1890c. Enciklopedicheskij slovar’, vol. 2: Arago-Autka. St. Petersburg: Tip. I. A. Efron.
Barabanov, Evgenij. 1976. Zabytij spor. Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo dvizhenija, 118: 117–145.
Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon. 1882. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, volume 1.
Carlson, Maria. 1996. Gnostic Elements in the Cosmogony of Vladimir Soloviev. In Kornblatt 1996: 49–67.
Chelpanov, G[eorgij]. 1896. Problema vosprijatija prostranstva v svjazi s ucheniem ob apriornosti i vrozhdennosti. Kiev: Tip. Kushnerev.
Craig, Edward, and Michael Hoskin. 1992. Journal for the History of Astronomy 23 (3): 208–210.
de Courten, Manon. 2004. History, Sophia and the Rusian Nation: A Reassessment of Vladimir Solov’ëv’s Views on History and his Social Commitment. Bern: Peter Lang.
Ermichëv, A.A. 2016b. «Moskovskie vedomosti» protiv Vladimira Solov’eva (K diskussii o referate «Ob upadke srednevekovogo mirosozercanija»). Voprosy filosofii 10: 81–95.
Gardner, Clinton C. 2000. Vladimir Solov’ëv: From theism to panentheism. In Bercken 2000: 107–118.
Grot, N[ikolaj]. Ja. 1891. Eshche o zadachikh zhurnala. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 6: i–vi.
Kaufman, I.S. 2005. Filosofija Spinozy v Rossii. Pervaja chast’. 1774–1884. In Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik 2004, 312–359. Moscow: Institut filosofii Rossijskoj akademii nauk.
Medovarov, M.V. 2016. Galljucinacija ili nesovershenstvo? Zhurnal «Russkoe obozrenie» i zabytyj spor Vl. S. Solovëva i S. N. Trubeckogo. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 2(50): 82–94.
———. 2019. Vladimir Solov’ev i «Russkoe obozrenie»: Zhurnal v sud’be avtora i avtor v sud’be zhurnala. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 1(61): 37–57.
Mochul’skij, K[onstantin V]. 1936. Vladimir Solov’ëv: zhizn’ i uchenie. Paris: YMCA Press.
Nethercott, Frances. 2000. Russia’s Plato: Plato and the Platonic Tradition in Russian Education, Science and Ideology (1840–1930). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Obolevich, T. 2012. Spor Vladimira Solov’ëva s Aleksandrom Vvedenskim po povodu Spinozy. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 4(36): 38–44.
Saval’skij, Vasilij A. 1907. Vvedenie v filosofiju prava. Kriticheskoe obozrenie, vyp. 5: 5–13.
Sidorin, Vladimir Vital’evich. 2013. Interpretacija Gegelevskoj dialektiki v filosofii V. S. Solov’ëva. Moscow: dissertation.
Solovyov, Sergey M. 2000. Vladimir Solovyov: His Life and Creative Evolution. Trans. Aleksey Gibson. Fairfax: Eastern Christian Publications.
Sutton, Jonathan. 1988. The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Vvedenskij, Aleksandr. 1897. Ob ateizme v filosofii Spinozy. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 37: 157–184.
Zenkovsky, V. V. 1953. A History of Russian Philosophy. Trans. George L. Kline. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Volume 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nemeth, T. (2019). A Perspective on the History of Philosophy. In: The Later Solov’ëv . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_4
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)