Abstract
Although his doctoral defense was a far more tranquil affair than his earlier magister’s defense, Solov’ëv did address issues concerning the difference between philosophy and religion in his opening remarks. Here, we explore his positions not only to assess their tenability but also to compare them with his earlier stances. However, the path to a university position, for which he had hoped, again evaporated. Instead, he confronted in print a host of lesser known but highly caustic critics and one towering figure from an earlier generation, the neo-Hegelian Boris Chicherin, whose meticulous points have been sadly neglected by Western scholars. Particularly noteworthy, though, is that none of the critics probed the epistemological realm, let alone the structures of consciousness with its sense-bestowing function, that Solov’ëv had hesitantly explored. And while his Critique of Abstract Principles is indisputably his most comprehensive philosophical statement, Solov’ëv did publish in the early 1880s several articles that further elaborated his positions only to see him forsake academic philosophy for the rest of the decade in favor of engagement in church and social issues.
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.
N. K. Nikiforov, later a journalist and at this time a student at St. Petersburg University, wrote that for the majority of students there, “to speak of being interested in philosophy meant almost the same thing as confessing to pursue pornography.” Nikiforov 1912: 390. This attitude has recently been reaffirmed by Putnam: “At least through the 1880s in the philological and juridical faculties of Moscow University, almost every professor referred contemptuously to metaphysics and considered Comte’s law of human development from theological to metaphysical to scientific stages a fundamental truth.” Putnam 1977: 29.
- 2.
Curiously, an unsigned summary of this introductory presentation that appeared in the St. Petersburg newspaper Novoe vremja on the following day, 7 April, ascribed to Solov’ëv the position that “examining all philosophical systems one cannot help but notice two essential characteristics always unique to them: a free investigation historically distinguishing philosophy from religion and the aspiration to cognize the common connection between all that exists, to unite by one common thought all that lies within human consciousness.” Quoted in PSS, vol. 3: 525. The problem with such a summary is that Solov’ëv did not view free investigation as the historical difference between philosophy and religion, which would make it purely contingent. Rather, as the surviving fragment shows he saw it as the essential difference between the two disciplines. Whether history bears this out or not is unimportant.
- 3.
An English translation of much of this letter that summarized the speech can be found in Solovyov 2000: 218–219.
- 4.
Tolstoj 1914: 252.
- 5.
The letter to Kireev is undated. The editor of Solov’ëv’s letters, E. L. Radlov assigned it to 1881, a dating totally without foundation. Since Kireev surely was the author of the newspaper account and that account contains information unavailable elsewhere, he must have had access to privileged information, namely from Solov’ëv himself. Additionally, were we to accept Radlov’s dating, why would Solov’ëv repeat essentially the same information to Kireev that the latter had already reported the previous year? See Pis’ma, vol. 2: 97.
- 6.
This, of course, is not to say that newspaper accounts were the first basis for public awareness of Solov’ëv’s views. Since, as previously mentioned, the chapters in the dissertation were published serially starting already in 1877, his positions were widely available to the educated public. For example, in a letter of 12 October 1879 Peter Tchaikovsky – yes, that Tchaikovsky – wrote to his patroness Nadezhda von Meck: “Have you, dear friend, read the philosophical articles of Vlad. Solov’ëv (the son of the late rector and historian) in Russkij vestnik? They are excellently written in that they are quite accessible to the non-specialist and are presented with great talent and ingenuity. … I advise you, my dear friend, to read these articles, if you have not already done so.” Chaikovskij 1963: 390.
- 7.
[Moskovskii filosof-reformator] 1880.
- 8.
Although trained as a biologist, Wolfson remained interested in philosophy. He produced a translation of George Henry Lewes’s The Biographical History of Philosophy as well as a translation in 1895 of an early edition of Friedrich Kirkhner’s Geschichte der Philosophie von Thales biz zur Gegenwart.
- 9.
Mikhajlovskij 1880: 95.
- 10.
Mikhajlovskij 1880: 97.
- 11.
N. N. 1880: 234.
- 12.
PSS, vol. 3: 363–364.
- 13.
There still remains the exegetic question whether Solov’ëv in the Critique itself provided grounds for Obolenskij’s conclusion. We have seen that both parties helpfully refer to the same page of the Critique. There, Solov’ëv writes: “Obviously, justice demands that work and wealth be distributed in society corresponding to the inner dignity and civic importance of its members. This will at the same time satisfy the demand of love. In fact, the preponderance of the idea of all-unity over personal exclusivity or egoism is determined by the degree of inner dignity. Hence, a person with a higher level of dignity, and who, therefore, rightly possesses the greatest material means, will use these means only for the good of others.” PSS, vol. 3: 170. Solov’ëv’s words here differ little from his supposed clarification in his letter to the editor of Mysl’.
- 14.
Chicherin 1879: 1.
- 15.
Chicherin 1879: 39.
- 16.
Chicherin 1880: 9.
- 17.
Chicherin 1880: 24. Chicherin adds that these “concessions” may arise out of a misunderstanding, presumably Solov’ëv’s and not his own. However, if they are Solov’ëv’s, it is hard to understand just what Chicherin is charging him with misunderstanding. More likely, Chicherin misunderstands Solov’ëv’s position, part of which is that the all-important operative term “happiness” is ambiguous, and when we clarify that ambiguity, we realize that an individualistic eudemonism must cede first to utilitarianism and then to the elimination of the empirical from moral theory. Chicherin does recognize this progression from eudemonism to utilitarianism but considers it far-fetched. Chicherin 1880: 26. Solov’ëv certainly does not doubt that the moral goal of human activity is not some worldly happiness, but on the other hand he also does not doubt that people in their everyday actions strive for the elimination of as much pain, broadly understood, as possible.
- 18.
Chicherin 1880: 37.
- 19.
Chicherin 1880: 38. Chicherin, understandably given his own position, expresses alarm at the short-shrift treatment Solov’ëv accords free will and its place in jurisprudence. In terms of the history of philosophy, both Kant and Hegel devoted considerable attention to the link between a free will and responsibility, something which Solov’ëv denied. Moreover, the entirety of Christian theology from St. Augustine onward views sin as a result of a freely chosen action.
- 20.
Chicherin 1880: 59.
- 21.
PSS, vol. 3: 136.
- 22.
Chicherin 1880: 68.
- 23.
Chicherin 1880: 76.
- 24.
Chicherin 1880: 94.
- 25.
Chicherin 1880: 133.
- 26.
Chicherin 1880: 138.
- 27.
Although it appeared only in 1886 and thus just outside the chronological scope of the present study, N. G. Debol’skij’s book O vysshem blage ili o verkhovnoj celi nravstvennoj dejatel’nosti [On the Highest Good or the Supreme Goal of Moral Activity] also dealt extensively with the Critique. Debol’skij, however, also discussed Solov’ëv’s more recent writings up to the appearance of his own text. Debol’skij (1842–1918) is best remembered today for his Russian translation of Hegel’s Science of Logic.
- 28.
SS, vol. 8: 671. Of course, Solov’ëv did not really say what this “main reason” is, in the absence of which we must conclude that he may have had none.
- 29.
Pis’ma, vol. 2: 33.
- 30.
Solovyov 2000: 226.
- 31.
Shakhanov 1992: 394. The information contained here is from a conversation in May 1920 between Solov’ëv-biographer S. M. Luk’janov and E.E. Ukhtomskij, who had studied under Vladislavlev and Solov’ëv at the time in question. We should point out – whether it supports Ukhtomskij’s view or shows Ukhtomskij may have been prejudiced – that he, Ukhtomskij, did extensive work for a paper on free will that included travel abroad. It was approved by Solov’ëv but viewed negatively by Vladislavlev, and as a result received only a silver medal. Apparently, Ukhtomskij himself hoped at the time for a professorship but, like Solov’ëv, he was passed over. He eventually served in the navy, and his interest in philosophy receded.
- 32.
Ivan P. Minaev (1840–1890), who taught linguistics, reportedly thought that, on the one hand, there was science and on the other Solov’ëv’s chatter.
- 33.
Quoted in PSS, vol. 4: 574.
- 34.
Quoted in PSS, vol. 4: 575.
- 35.
Pis’ma, vol. 2: 204.
- 36.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 33.
- 37.
PSS, vol. 4: 173.
- 38.
§XVI [PSS, volume 4: 232–240] is drawn almost verbatim from Lecture 4, and the two sections both (!) labeled §XVII [PSS volume 4: 240–249] are drawn from Lecture 5.
- 39.
Solov’ëv was fond of referring to 1 John 5:19, which says that the world lieth in wickedness.
- 40.
The lecture was published in early 1881 in the journal Russkija mysl’.
- 41.
SS, vol. 2: 404.
- 42.
SS, vol. 2: 408.
- 43.
Although here in the introductory lecture he does not explicitly say that he has the medieval Church in mind, leaving it to his audience to infer the era, Solov’ëv does explicitly make the identification in his 13 March 1881 address. See PSS, vol. 4: 264.
- 44.
Again, Solov’ëv, in this earlier lecture, only obliquely mentions the French Revolution. The identification is explicit in his 13 March address: “Attempts appeared to realize it [the kingdom of truth – TN] in the name of pure reason. The French Revolution of ’89 carried out this role by its proclamation of the rights of reason.” PSS, vol. 4: 264–265.
- 45.
PSS, vol. 4: 679 and 683.
- 46.
PSS, vol. 4: 271.
- 47.
Solov’ëv grants “some” sense to Leibniz’s theory but only because his monadology breaks with the Cartesian dualism of mind and body.
- 48.
PSS, vol. 4: 272.
- 49.
The argument under consideration in this fragment breaks off here but resumes again on another sheet. An additional draft has survived allowing us in part to fill in a few minor points as is done here. See PSS, vol. 4: 284.
- 50.
PSS, vol. 4: 276.
- 51.
In her editorial comment, I. V. Borisova writes that this fragment must have been intended to form part of a much broader work, the other parts of which have not survived. See PSS, vol. 4: 677. It is most curious, then, that we have no information otherwise of his labor on this broader project. If Solov’ëv was writing at this time, circa 1880/1881, some large philosophical piece, what was its purpose? This fragment hardly fits into a suitable scheme as notes for an introductory course in the history of philosophy.
- 52.
PSS, vol. 4: 265. Solov’ëv in his 13 March speech pointed out the French Revolution in its “second half” rested on violence and led to despotism. It is doubtful that such a qualification would have been of much reassurance to officialdom.
- 53.
One of the lecture attendees at St. Petersburg University, Ivan M. Grevs, years later vividly portrayed the charged political atmosphere there as well as the heated discussion following Solov’ëv’s lecture. What stands out is, on the one hand, the radical attitude of the students in general and, on the other, that despite his clearly expressed Christian beliefs none of the students thought to lump Solov’ëv with their politically reactionary opponents. This fact is significant in that if the young “hot-heads” did not view him as the enemy we must ask ourselves how did Russian officialdom view him. See Grevs 1906: 502f. Kostalevsky, thus, is quite incorrect in writing: “The reception of Soloviev’s speech is not known….” Kostalevsky 1997: 79.
- 54.
Shch[egolev] 1906: 50. Such a blunt expression of pantheism is not typical of Solov’ëv, and we must keep in mind that he may not have expressed himself in exactly this manner. Possibly, he chose to simplify his views for the sake of presentation, though this is less likely, since he surely would have known the risk of being misunderstood. Mochul’skij described the lecture so: “Solov’ëv’s exposition was very short and formal, and the accounts of the listeners are unclear and contradictory.” Mochul’skij 1936: 125. Grevs, in his article, advises that the text of the speech given by Shchegolev should not be taken as fully authentic. It is quite possible that Solov’ëv never actually wrote it out and that he improvised. Grevs 1906: 503.
- 55.
Shch[egolev] 1906: 50.
- 56.
- 57.
Solovyov 2000: 228. Solovyov quotes from a letter in Pis’ma, vol. 3: 107.
- 58.
See Shch[egolev] 1906: 54. Kostalevsky wisely observes, “It appears that the tsar was disturbed not so much by what Soloviev said as by the public’s reaction to it. This explains the official advice to Soloviev to abstain from public speaking for a time – a measure aimed not against the philosopher himself, but toward the prevention of further political trouble.” Kostalevsky 1997: 88.
- 59.
- 60.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 34.
- 61.
Although this letter is dated by Radlov as having been written in 1881, this is quite unlikely. The events referred to in the letter surely occurred in 1882. See Pis’ma, vol. 3: 35.
- 62.
His dismissal of rational philosophical argument, already in evidence sporadically in his early writings, came to the fore in these works from his “middle period.” For example, in his largely neglected, but intriguing, essay “Na pyti k istinnoj filosofii” [“The Path to a True Philosophy”] from 1883 he wrote that philosophy and science are only “products of the human mind which do not and cannot claim to have any other significance.” And again, “If the general theoretical goal of human knowledge is to understand the sense of the universe, then neither modern philosophy nor modern science presents us with a direct path towards attaining this goal.” SS, vol. 3: 284 and 286.
- 63.
He typically wrote at night at the expense of a good night’s sleep and hardly ate properly. Although he complained in letters of various ailments, for example, problems with his eyesight and eczema, these alone should not have been enough to bring on his demise. As for his diet, we know that he had been for many years a vegetarian – though he ate fish – at a time and in a culture that would have made it difficult to eat well-balanced meals regularly given his erratic hours and penurious budget.
References
Chaikovskij, Petr Il’ich. 1963. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Gos. Muzykal’noe izd-vo. vol. VIII.
Chicherin, B[oris]. 1880. Misticizm v nauke. Moscow: Tipografija Martynova & Ko.
Chicherin, Boris N. 1879. Nauki i religija. Moscow: Tipografija Martynova & Ko.
Grevs, I. M. 1906. Iz politicheskikh nastroenij chetvert’ veka nazad. Svoboda i kul’tura, #7: 497–502.
Kostalevsky, Marina. 1997. Dostoyevsky and Soloviev: The Art of Integral Vision, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mikhajlovskij, N[ikolaj] K. 1880. Novyja knigi. Otechestvennye zapiski, #8: 93–98.
Mochul’skij, K[onstantin] V. 1936. Vladimir Solov’ëv. Zhizn’ i uchenie. Paris: YMCA Press.
Nikiforov, N. K. 1912. Peterburgskoe studentchestvo i Vlad. Serg. Solov’ëv. In Bojkov. 2000: 389–416.
Putnam, George F. 1977. Russian Alternatives to Marxism. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.
Radlov, E[rnest] L. 1913. Biograficheskie ocerk. In SS. vol. 10: vii-li.
Shakhanova, A. N. ed. 1992. Materialy k biografii Vl. S. Solov’ëva. In Rossijskj arkhiv: Istorija Otechestva v svidetel’stvakh i dokumentakh. XVIII-XX vv., vol. 2/3:392–427.
Shch[egolev], P. 1906. Sobytie 1-go marta i Vladimir Sergeevich Solov’ëv. Byloe, #3: 49–52.
Solovyov, Sergey M. 2000. Vladimir Solovyov: His Life and Creative Evolution, trans. Aleksey Gibson. Fairfax, Virginia: Eastern Christian Publications.
Tolstoj, L. N. & Tolstaja, S. A. 1914. Perepiska L. N. Tolstogo s N. N. Strakhovym, ed. B. L. Modzalevskij. St. Petersburg: Izd. Obshchestva Tolstovskogo Muzeja.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nemeth, T. (2014). Critiques of the Critique . In: The Early Solov’ëv and His Quest for Metaphysics. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 212. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01348-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01348-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01347-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01348-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)