I attempt to clarify the connection between two late texts by V.S. Solov''ëv: Justification of the Good and Theoretical Philosophy. Solov''ëv drew attention to the intrinsic connection between moral and intellectual virtues. Theoretical Philosophy is the initial -- unfinished -- sketch of the dynamism of mind seeking truth as a good. I sketch several parallels and analogies between the doctrine of moral experience set out in Justification and the account of the intellect''s dynamism based on immediate certitude set (...) out in Theoretical Philosophy. Solov''ëv can thus be considered as a virtue epistemologist in the current meaning given to this description. I conclude by suggesting that Solov''ëv''s position on these questions does not easily cohere with the impersonalism he appears to defend in Theoretical Philosophy. (shrink)
From the Editors:Such was the topic considered by members of a new discussion club, "The Free Word" [Svobodnoe slovo], along with specialists from the Institute of Philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences.
From the Editors:Such was the topic considered by members of a new discussion club, "The Free Word" [Svobodnoe slovo] , along with specialists from the Institute of Philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences.
I attempt to clarify the connection between two late texts by V.S. Solov'Ã«v: Justification of the Good and Theoretical Philosophy. Solov'Ã«v drew attention to the intrinsic connection between moral and intellectual virtues. Theoretical Philosophy is the initial -- unfinished -- sketch of the dynamism of mind seeking truth as a good. I sketch several parallels and analogies between the doctrine of moral experience set out in Justification and the account of the intellect's dynamism based on immediate certitude set (...) out in Theoretical Philosophy. Solov'Ã«v can thus be considered as a âvirtue epistemologistâ in the current meaning given to this description. I conclude by suggesting that Solov'Ã«v's position on these questions does not easily cohere with the âimpersonalismâ he appears to defend in Theoretical Philosophy. (shrink)
Could anyone shake nineteenth century Russia out of herphilosophico-juridical stagnation? Was there anyone whodared speak of rights, of freedoms based on vital principles?Was there anyone who had the courage to suggest that the lawof force be turned into recognition of the force of law, orwas bold enough to call for the revival of natural law onits idealist reading? Solov'ëv turned out to be the thinkerwho was able to do these things. An amateur in juridicalquestions, remote from the enlightenment rationalizations (...) ofpolitical liberalism, Solov'ëv set out to lay the basis forjuridical freedom in way that was unexpected philosophicallyand culturally. (shrink)
I recall that Solov''ëv wasRussia''s first professional philosopher andpresent the most important currents andconcepts of his many-sided theoretical edifice.Solov''ëv conceived philosophy in a verybroad sense of the term, for which reason histhinking comprises metaphysics no less thantheology, ecclesiology, history, and sociology.I show how Solov''ëv sought constantly to bringthese diverse elements into agreement with oneanother for the sake of a consistent systematicproject, how he attempted to synthesizenumerous oppositions (including patriotism anduniversalism, humanism and theocentrism).
In his last, uncompleted essayTeoreticheskaja filosofija Vladimir Solov'ëv seems to acknowledge thecentral statements of Kant's epistemology andphilosophy of subjectivity in a manner whichhas lead many interpretators to think that hewanted to revise substantially his earlierphilosophy. A closer look at Solov'ëv'sarguments show, however, that this is not thecase: his critique of the Cartesian concept ofsubjectivity does not allow him to embraceKantianism, either. So it must be stated thateven Solov'ëv does not, in the last instance,abandon the primarily Anti-Kantian positions (...) ofRussian idealism. (shrink)
Vladimir Sergeevich Solov'ev was born on January 16, 1853, into the highly educated family of the outstanding Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solov'ev. Solov'ev received his secondary education in the Fifth Moscow Gymnasium, and his higher education at Moscow University. At first Solov'ev studied in the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics. After three years and eight months there he left the university, but a few months later he stood his candidate's examination for the full university course in (...) the Faculty of History and Philology. At the same time as he was preparing his candidate's examination he audited lectures on theological and philosophical issues at the Moscow Spiritual Academy. (shrink)
Vladimir Solov'ev (1853-1900- is regarded as the most original and systematic of the Russian philosophers in the 19th century. He has once again become the subject of international scholarly attention both in Slavic countries and the West. This volume contains selected papers presented at the international conference on Vladimir Solov'ev held at Nijmegen University, the Netherlands, in September 1998. The scope of this conference was wide-ranging, dealing with theological, metaphysical, philosophical and historical themes. Though Solov'ev's broad intellectual (...) activity defies any strict attempt at categorisation, the editors have classified its major themes under the dual characteristic of reconciliation and polemics. Solov'ev was passionately committed to the reconciliation of all beings under the idea of all-unity, which he attemted to achieve by engaging in uncompromising polemics with his contemporaries, The thirty contributors to this volume are specialists from Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Western Europe and the United States. The volume makes a significant contribution to the intellectual reassesment of Vladimir Solov'ev since the rediscovery of his philosophical heritage in his own homeland in the 1980s. (shrink)
Gentlemen! In inviting you to the free pursuit of philosophy, I should like first of all to reply to one question that may arise on this account. This question would be easy to dismiss as excessively naive, one that could only come from someone totally unfamiliar with philosophy. But since I have in mind mainly people who are as yet unfamiliar with philosophy, who have only just come to it, I cannot be so dismissive of this naive question, but rather (...) deem it better to answer it. (shrink)
The lecture of V. S. Solov'ev on "The Historical Tasks of Philosophy" [Istoricheskie dela filosofii] was given by the young privat-docent on November 20, 1880 at St. Petersburg University; the text of the lecture was published in the periodical Russkaia mysl' soon thereafter. The lecture prepared the way for two parallel courses: a course in metaphysics at the university and a course in the history of ancient philosophy in the Advanced Women's Courses of K. N. Bestuzhev-Riumin. It is clear (...) from the text of the lecture how important a role Solov'ev's simultaneous and mutually related pursuits in metaphysics, the history of philosophy, comparative mythology, and the history of religion played in his early works. (shrink)
In his last, uncompleted essay Teoreticheskaja filosofija (1897–1899) Vladimir Solov'ëv seems to acknowledge thecentral statements of Kant's epistemology andphilosophy of subjectivity in a manner whichhas lead many interpretators to think that hewanted to revise substantially his earlierphilosophy. A closer look at Solov'ëv'sarguments show, however, that this is not thecase: his critique of the Cartesian concept ofsubjectivity does not allow him to embraceKantianism, either. So it must be stated thateven Solov'ëv does not, in the last instance,abandon the primarily (...) Anti-Kantian positions ofRussian idealism. (shrink)
For nearly a century, the interpretation of Vladimir Sergeevich Solov′ev has been locked in a “mythopoeic method” of the Symbolist conceit rooted in Europe-widefin de sièclecultural developments. Solov′ev's posterity has come to see him as a mystic prophesying the folly of reason and mass politics, whereas his contemporaries saw him as the model for both Ivan and Alyosha Karamazov in Fedor Dostoevskii'sThe Brothers Karamazov—a dramatization of the “politics of the self” within the secularization frame. The story of the (...) gap between these two images reveals the historicity of the Symbolist conceit. More broadly, it shows how the Russian authors of this myth participated in transnational prewar and interwar discourses about mass politics, culture, and violence that expand the typical chronological and geographical boundaries associated with these developments. (shrink)
In this narrative analysis oftwo Soviet dissertations in philosophy Idiscuss the role of Solov'ëv as one of themajor characters in the Soviet academicnarration of Russian philosophy: I show how theauthors (Turenko and Spirov) cope with thenecessity of criticizing Solov'ëv from theMarxist position and protect him from Westernscholars as the latter attempted to reviseRussian philosophy. I also discuss the way inwhich this requirement both to criticize andprotect is represented in the dissertations inwhich the strong Marxist posture and loyalty tocommunist (...) doctrine corresponded to the authors'belief that Solov'ëv was a greatphilosopher who made mistakes, although hisphilosophy remains a part of Russia's culturalheritage. The main conclusion is that in spiteof their vision of the world as split into thecommunist and bourgeois camps, both authors tryto avoid straightforward Manichean assessmentsand, in 60s and 70s, were keen to find as manypositive elements in Solov'ëv's philosophyas possible. (shrink)
This volume offers a critical examination of the later philosophical views of Vladimir Solov’ëv, arguably Russia’s most famous and most systematic philosopher. It offers a philosophically informed approach to this pivotal figure and to his era. Inside, readers will discover a detailed portrait of the often overlooked evolution of the philosopher’s views during the final two decades of his life. The author explores Solov’ëv’s still evolving aesthetic philosophy and his entry into the lively Russian discussion of free will. (...) The work then turns to the philosopher’s mature statements on many figures from within the history of philosophy. This includes Kant and Hegel. Next, readers will learn about his disagreements with several contemporaries as well as contemporaneous movements. These include positivism and materialism. In addition, the coverage includes an elucidation and examination of Solov’ëv’s final expression of his ethical philosophy as set forth in his major ethical treatise Justification of the Moral Good. The overall picture that emerges is of a much more vibrant and heated philosophical community than typically portrayed in Western secondary literature. The book ends with a reflection on the rise of Solov’ëv as a religious mystic at the expense of a critical evaluation of his thought. (shrink)
Contrary to the widespread opinion that in the Soviet period the Institute of Philosophy had been a mere citadel of ideological dogmatism, the author shows that even in the most oppressive periods of stagnation not only did the institute resist the imposition of this atmosphere, but it openly refused to take part in any campaign of condemnation or ideological reprisal against nonconformists, whether in philosophy, literature, economics, or politics. The reigning atmosphere in the institute at that time was one of (...) glasnost, open argument, and constructive discussion. And the mediator of such an environment was the institute's Communist Party chapter, which among other positive influences, provided the institute and its associates with real protection from Stalinism, hostility, and societal pressure. While in the country as a whole there had never been a civil society, the institute always possessed and actively displayed the key features of such an institution. The famous wall newspaper published at the institute was one sign of such its civic-social maturity. (shrink)
The author analyzes Mamardashvili's philosophical views by putting them in the context of contemporary Western philosophy, especially existentialism. He identifies unique features of Mamardashvili's philosophizing that he equates with existentially interpreted soteriology.
In this contribution, the author analyzes Vladimir Solov''ëv''s intention to study the idea of the Good as something relatively independent from religion and metaphysics. Some implications of Solov''ëv''s definition of moral philosophy in The Justification of the Good are investigated, and illustrated with his applied ethics of war in chapter 18 of this book. It appears that Solov''ëv''s moral philosophy and his account of war must be understood in connection with the central place of the cult of (...) ancestors in his ethics. The idea of the Good and the idea of God spring from a religious origin and appear in our efforts to conjure up and exorcize the spirits of our forefathers. The author explains this ethics by referring to Solov''ëv''s article China and Europe. There, Solov''ëv assumes that the Christian mind is treatened by the danger of a cultural order in which the cult of ancestors is most purely preserved. In the future war against China, however, Christian civilization must show itself superior to its enemy without betraying its loyalty to its own ancestors. The author concludes that in Solov''ëv''s ethics, the moral subject is divided between the confirmation of its own autonomy and its being haunted by the spirits of its forefathers, a haunt which results in relentless wars against others. (shrink)
In the article I presentSolov'ëv's views on the national question(including the so-called Polish question)presented in his writings of the 1880s. Thequestion involved uniting the Churches as wellas Russia's specific mission in building thefuture Kingdom of God. Solov'ëv's position,according to which individual nations acquire aconcrete place in the course of mankind'sexistence, was subjected to criticism by thePolish historian Stanisaw Tarnowski. Thiscontributed to an interesting discussion andpolemic between the two thinkers that tookplace on the pages of the journal PrzegldPolski (The Polish (...) Review). (shrink)
Anyone who knows Solov'ev mainly from his mystical speculations and aspirations will of course be surprised to hear that he was a brilliant and outstanding representative of the philosophy of law. One is not immediately able to see how such a supremely real and practical idea as the idea of law [pravo] was able to find a place among his dreams and prophecies. And yet we have all the evidence to affirm that this idea was for him one of (...) the most important and precious. It would be an act of unfairness toward the late philosopher, at this solemn celebration of his memory, to forget that aspect of his activity, which he bequeathed to us to remember and esteem. (shrink)
The life and thought of Vladimir Solov’ëv have long fascinated students of Russian culture. Poet, philosopher, mystic, theologian, scholar, humorist, theosopher, ecclesiologist—a tale of Solov’ëv’s very considerable influence could be told by focusing on any single one of these terms. Attempting to encompass all of them at once in a grand summation of the significance of his life is a thoroughly daunting task. Perhaps it will never be accomplished to general satisfaction in a single work, which might partly (...) explain the steadily expanding stream of articles and monographs in several languages devoted to the study of this remarkable figure. Nemeth, perhaps wisely, declines any attempt to... (shrink)
From the 1890s on, the atheist philosopher F. Nietzsche exerted a profound and enduring impact on Russian religious, cultural, and social reality. The religious philosopher V.S. Solov'ëv perceived Nietzsche's thought as an actual threat to Russian religious consciousness and his own anthropological ideal of Divine Humanity. He was especially preoccupied with the idea of the Übermensch since sometwo decades before the Nietzschean Übermensch was popularized in Russia, Solov'ëv had already developed his own interpretation of the sverkhchelovek.
Moral absolutes were perceived, by Solov'ëv, in a dual manner: a) from the side of content, of psychology, as when we speak of feelings, emotions, etc.; and b) under a formal aspect, as “ideas,” i.e. logically. Neither of these can be treated without relating to moral absolutes astrue, and without a rationalbelief in their truth, a truth that cannot be logically proved. In my opinion, our time has become keenly aware of the universally human value of Vladimir Solov'ëv's (...) ethics, of its humanist nature, oriented towards the everyday and the ideal tasks of man, and of the concrete direction of his philosophy of “practical idealism”. (shrink)
Russia of the 1990s, in spite of its thousand-year traditions, is in some respects a new country in an unfamiliar and strange world: a country confronting a complex of hitherto unencountered macro-economic, technological, and ecological circumstances; a country compelled, in fact, to renounce its past global imperial ambitions, which in previous periods were defended in terms of the exclusive truth of the "autocratic-Orthodox" or "Marxist-Leninist" doctrine.
A Kantian Utopia in Russia: Erikh Solov'ëv. The article deals with Erikh Solov'ëv, a historian of philosophy who is one of the best Soviet and post-Soviet exponents of Kant. In several of his works and articles, published in the 1990s, Solov'ëv has attempted to apply the ideas of Kant's social philosophy to post-Soviet realities. Kant is important above all as a theoretician of a free subjectivity, human rights, and a critic of paternalism in social life. Several Kantian (...) motives came to the fore during the perestrojka when the Marxist "class approach" was abandoned and "all-human" values entered into the discussion. Later, Solov'ëv attempted to develop Kantian guidelines for a post-Soviet society, including moral norms for businessmen in the new Russia, but these attempts bore the distinct hallmark of social utopianism. (shrink)
Is Solovyov''s philosophy pantheistic, is the individual absorbed by the absolute? Ehlen investigates Solovyov''s late Teoretieskaja filosofija (1897--99). Results: 1. According to Solovyov philosophy necessarily strives for unconditional truth. 2. Descartes could not prove the unconditional certainty of the substantiality of the human Ego. 3. The unconditional certainty, which we have with regard to the factual contents of our conscience is unable to base metaphysics. 4. The logical form of thinking is unconditional. 5. By searching for a truth, which meets (...) this form, reason modifies itself: the unconditional truth becomes the form of the searching reason. Conclusion: Although this searching for unconditional truth is stimulated by the absolute truth, nevertheless this searching is possible only as a free and responsible act. It is completed by practice (love). Solovyov''s articles on Comte (1898) and on The meaning of love (1982--94) do not contradict this outcome: the late Solovyov acknowledges the freedom and personality of the human Ego. (shrink)
The main concern of both Berdjaev's and Bulgakov's philosophical strivings consists in developing a concept of the person as the foundation of human dignity and creativity within a Christian world view. Once attracted by Marxism with its emphasis on human dignity and social justice, they started to struggle against Marxism's atheist materialism because of its lack of a concept of person. However, the same concern will lead both thinkers down very different paths with different consequences. This paper argues that, even (...) though Berdjaev has become famous as a philosopher of the person and a herald of creative ethics, Bulgakov developed a more solid Christian justification of the same claims. Both systems are presented by means of comparing some crucial notions within their concepts of personality—potentiality, trinity and autonomy. (shrink)
The law of negation of the negation as it appears in the economic writings of Marx in general, and in Capital in particular, has repeatedly been treated in our philosophical literature in one way or another. To this day, however, as judged from the literature, attention has not been directed to the principle of negation of the negation as it is manifested not only in Marx's historical but also in his logical analysis. Negation of the negation has been examined primarily (...) as a form of expression of historical analysis . In the present article the emphasis is upon negation of the negation in logical analysis, upon the function of this principle considered as form of motion dealt with by historical analysis. All the examples of negation of the negation in historical analysis that have already been treated in the literature are omitted quite consciously, to avoid repetition. Nor is anything said about the structure of Capital as a "dialectically subdivided whole" in connection with negation of the negation, as that question has been splendidly handled in the book by L. A. Man'kovskii referred to in the footnote. (shrink)
The paper argues that Sergej Bulgakov's sophiology was an attempt, via antinomism or the philosophy of antinomies, to overcome the rationalism, monism, and determinism (in a word, "pantheism") of Vladimir Solov'ëv's philosophy of the Absolute understood as an abstract Trinitarianism. After detailing Solov'ëv's thought on the Trinity and Bulgakov's criticisms of it, the study then describes Bulgakov's antinomism and its application to the doctrine of God. However, it is contended that Bulgakov's antinomism ultimately falls into the same problems (...) with pantheism found in Solov'ëv and so the last part of the paper tentatively proposes resources in his work, stated in the form of a suggested "fourth (Bulgakovian) antinomy" between ousia (divine Being as such) and Sophia (the revelation in God and the world of the divine Being), that might help to avoid a collapse of God and the world by making the divine Being proper utterly transcendent and unknowable. (shrink)
Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov is one of the most original and as yet inadequately studied Russian thinkers. Neither a professional philosopher, nor a well-known scholar, nor a critical essayist, he led a kind of double existence while working as an ordinary civil servant, developing his original philosophy at his leisure in the hours free from his intensive daily work. Fedorov's life was one of selflessness and self-denial, not at all eventful outwardly. He graduated from the Gymnasium in Tambov and completed three (...) years of study in the Law Department of the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, after which he taught for a number of years in the Borovsk, Lipetsk, Podol'sk, and other regional schools. The quarter century he spent working in the Library of the Rumiantsev Museum in Moscow was the most stable period in Fedorov's life. Fedorov's ideas attracted the attention of outstanding cultural figures. F.M. Dostoevskii became acquainted with them in 1878 through Peterson, and on March 24 of that year he wrote: "I am essentially in full accord with these ideas. I read them as if they were my own." L.N. Tolstoy, who knew Fedorov personally, said, "I am proud to be living in the same times as such a man." V.S. Solov'ev, who also associated with Fedorov, wrote to him as follows in the mid-1880s: "Your ‘project’ is the human spirit's first advance along the path of Christ since the advent of Christianity. As for me, I can only acknowledge you as my teacher and spiritual father." A.M. Gorky was especially impressed by the activism in Fedorov's views. But none of this precludes the many and very essential divergences of these authors from Fedorov. One can find some links with his ideas in A.N. Belyi, V. Ia. Briusov, N.A. Zabolotskii, V.V. Maiakovskii, A.P. Platonov, M.M. Prishvin, I.L. Sel'vinskii, O.D. Forsh, and V.N. Khlebnikov. The artist B.N. Chekrygin drafted a large fresco entitled The Resurrection of the Dead [Voskreshenie mertvykh] and a philosophical work entitled The Synod of the Resurrecting Museum [Sobor voskreshaiushchego muzeia], both inspired by Fedorov's teachings. (shrink)
The search for the essence of emotions is a common feature of various views of emotions—many of which attempt to reduce emotions to one central component. Three major views that seek to define emotions via a basic component are: that emotions are essentially a cognitive-evaluative state; that emotions are feelings; that emotions are desires. I believe that all these reductions are inadequate. I focus here on as expressed in Nussbaum’s recent view of emotions. I begin, however, by briefly discussing and.