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)

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)

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)

Solov'ev (1853-1900) gilt als "der erste christliche Denker, der den individuellen und nicht nur den Gattungssinn der Liebe zwischen Mann und Frau anerkannte" (Berdjajev). Der bedeutendste russische Philosoph des 19. Jahrhunderts sieht in der Unbedingtheit des leidenschaftlichen Verlangens der sinnlichen Liebe ein Geschehen der unbedingten Anerkennung des geliebten Menschen - das Fundament der Ethik.

Virtually the chief complaint thrown at Marxism by contemporary bourgeois philosophers is the accusation of undervaluation of "existential subject matter".

Looking back I count, not without some sadness, that I have been a reader of Voprosy filosofii for forty-five years, an author for almost forty, and a staff member for exactly ten. I hope that this entitles me to discuss briefly the most tempting of anniversarial problems; namely, the problem of periodization.

Marxism has relinquished the position of the ruling ideology in Russia without having been subjected to a fundamental critique. There was hardly time to boo it as it expired. The shelves in our libraries are still occupied by hundreds of books in which the Marxist-Leninist doctrine is introduced as the total fulfillment of the preceding social and philosophical thought. The tendentious construct of the history of philosophy that upholds this illusion has not been demolished to this day. People who teach, (...) study, or simply love philosophy fall, as before, into this trap. It has had a particularly strong influence on the reception of the German philosophical classics, which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Lenin had already raised to the ideological rank of one of the immediate sources of Marxism. (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.

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)

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 places Herzen's view of history in the context of the development of West European political philosophy—in particular, the concepts of "open history" and "historicism.".

Freedom, as a product of the historical development of society, is one of the very greatest social values. It testifies to human control over objective forces of nature and society.

Freedom, as a product of the historical development of society, is one of the very greatest social values. It testifies to human control over objective forces of nature and society.

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.

At the turn of the century an intimate alliance of philosophers, poets and theologians discovered the incarnation of their aspirations for a spiritually transformed world in the symbol of Sophia, the Divine Wisdom of God. Under her various aliases as the Divine Feminine, the Wisdom Clothed in the Sun and the Beautiful Lady, this feminine archetype usurped the traditional role of Christ as the mediator between heaven and earth. She was, however, primarily the inspiration of the Russian philosopher-poet, Vladimir (...) class='Hi'>Solov’ev (1853–1900), who created of her the cornerstone for both his metaphysical and aesthetic systems. This spiritual courtship of the Divine Sophia deeply patterned the literary works and interrelationships not only of such prominent symbolist writers as Aleksandr Blok and Andrej Belyj, but brought to light religious eccentrics like Anna Schmidt in a scandalous fashion. Sophia’s influence ranged far beyond the narrower confines of literature and eventually provoked one of the most fascinating debates within the modern émigré Russian Orthodox Church through the offices of Sergej Bulakov, an apparent student of Solovev’s Sophiology. (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).

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)

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)