History Russian Philosophy V2

V Zenkovsky

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415303064
• eBook ISBN: 9781317851110
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

First published in 2003. This is volume II in the history of Russian philosophy, written in 1953, it takes in the work of Vladimir Solovyov, V.D. Kudryatsev, Nesmelov, Tareyev, M.I. Karinski, Fyodorov, as well as the twentieth century moves into Materialism, Neo-Marxism and the Religio-philosophic renaissance and finally the metaphysics of total-unity.

PART III

The Period of Systems

CHAPTER XVI

Vladimir Solovyov

1. THE DIALECTIC OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY. TRANSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SYSTEMS

THE period of systems, to which we now turn, is connected in the most intimate fashion with the philosophic theories which we have examined in the preceding chapters. In fact, Russian thought had been ‘on the threshold’ of systems for a long time. If Chernyshevski, Lavrov, Mikhailovski, and Strakhov did not create genuine systems, this was not from lack of talent but because of a ‘dissipation’ of philosophic talent in concrete life and contemporary problems. How much philosophic reflection and genuine philosophic creativity was absorbed by social and political writing, for example! The most original and audacious of the thinkers mentioned, N. K. Mikhailovski, left a number of valuable philosophical articles and studies, but his principal concern, to which he devoted himself with characteristic passion, was journalistic work, the writing of critical articles, etc. This encumbering of Russian thought with problems of daily life did not wholly suppress it, of course. Indeed, it had certain positive effects, since vital inspirations from life itself were brought into the treasury of Russian thought; concrete rather than abstract themes were put forward. As a result, philosophic thought, in the period which we have just studied, not only touched upon all the essential themes of philosophy, but touched upon them with that profundity and intensity which nearly always characterizes a one-sided approach. For this very reason, however, the problem of organic synthesis—a ‘systematic’ synthesis of all that had found expression in the separate theoretical constructions of previous thinkers—had long been before Russian thought. This meant that a suitable basis must first be found, a general foundation on which the structure could be erected. New ideas were not needed—rather an organic binding together of what had already found expression. For Russian philosophy the period of systems was at hand. The materials were already there. The only fundamental question was: what kind of structure could be erected from these materials?

Such is the formal dialectic of the theoretical constructions to which we now turn. We can evaluate them properly, and exhibit their historical relation to the preceding period, only if we understand that the task of the systematizer was not to reinterpret existing themes, but to mould them into an integrated system. The subsequent career of Russian philosophy was determined by two basic tendencies: one school—comparatively uninfluential in Russian thought—started from epistemology, the analysis of knowledge, the establishing of the basic principles which must provide a foundation for the whole system. This group includes, first of all, the Kantian tendencies in Russian philosophy—Russian ‘criticism’—most clearly represented by Alexander Vvedenski; and Russian positivism, in the strict sense of the word, whose most brilliant exponent was Lesevich. Much more numerous, and much richer and more influential in their creativity, were those tendencies which started not from epistemology (although they gave it a definite place), but from a general intuition of reality. This was not anti-epistemologism or even extra-epistemologism; it was the familiar and very characteristic approach of ontologism. In the latter tendencies chief importance attached to basic intuitions of existence—a vital relationship to it—rather than to epistemological ideas. In this group we include Vladimir Solovyov with his intuition of ‘positive total unity’, N. Lossky with his perception of the world as an ‘organic whole’, and S. Bulgakov with his Sophiological theories—not to mention other important idealists. But this group also includes the Russian materialists—Lenin and contemporary followers of ‘dialectical materialism’. Idealism and materialism, in the period under consideration, are two opposed ontological intuitions in Russian philosophy; and their sharp conflict offers a key for the understanding of the inner struggle in Russian thought, the time for the overcoming and harmonizing of which has evidently not yet come.

2. THE INTERNAL ASPECT OF THIS DIALECTIC

Turning from the formal dialectic of the Russian philosophic doctrines which we are about to examine to their inner dialectic, we find a more complex picture than might have been anticipated. In the 1860’s what we have called ‘semi-positivism’ (the combination of positivism with idealistic ethics) was most characteristic, but this ‘halfwayness’ disappeared almost completely during the period of systems. There was a sharper and more consistent polarization of philosophic thought. The illicit combination of free and autonomous ethicism with positivism became more difficult to sustain. Secular tendencies were more clearly expressed, and a deliberate and systematic struggle against secularism emerged more clearly. On the one hand, we find triumphant secularism—on the other, a decisive return to religious philosophy. ‘Pure’ philosophy, independent—either positively or negatively—of the religious sphere, also found its representatives. But they were very few in number, and they were mostly defenders of some form of transcendentalism.

Be that as it may, this sharp opposition of a consistent secularism and an equally consistent defence of the religious world-conception, was a culmination of the basic polarization which had already begun in Russian thought in the eighteenth century, i.e. with the beginning of the decline of the ecclesiastical world-view. Secularism, which began in Russia in the seventeenth century, tearing state consciousness away from its ecclesiastico-political ideology, cut deep into the intellectual and spiritual life. The basic theme of secularism—the break with the Church—thus came to dominate Russian thought. Of course, it fixed only the line of development, and did not in the least exclude the varied ‘materials’ which flowed into consciousness from different cultural spheres, demanding ‘harmonious’ combination with the basic theme of thought and conscience. The dominant force of secularism imposed only a defining line of development on the passionate and creative work of the mind. Therefore, the often hidden, but sometimes perceived, motive forces of Russian philosophic creativity are to be found in this vital, disturbing theme—made obtrusive by the whole tradition of Russian spiritual life: with the Church or without it—against it?

This was true, essentially, of the thinkers whom we have studied thus far, and it remained true in the sequel. Philosophic ‘neutrality’ in this still unfinished strife of the Russian spirit with itself, is to be found in no one, or practically no one. Perhaps only L. M. Lopatin managed in his writings to maintain (more or less!) a position of philosophic ‘neutrality’, but his warm friendship for Vladimir Solovyov, which is half acknowledged in his articles and speeches devoted to Solovyov, makes his philosophic ‘neutrality’ seem more a matter of academic scruple than of genuine indifference to the theme of secularism. As to the ‘left wing’ of Russian philosophy, its apparent indifference to the religious theme was replaced after the October Revolution by such a stormy and sharply militant atheism that ‘indifference’ to the theme of secularism is out of the question here. But one has only to move slightly to the ‘right’ of Russian positivism to find the dominant force of the religious theme appearing in ever-increasing degree, right up to Solovyov, Florenski, Bulgakov, et al., who passionately professed their intention of exhibiting Christian truth in the ‘form of philosophy’. Our study of individual thinkers and their work will show this with ample clearness.

For purposes of clarity of exposition we shall not keep to a strictly chronological order, but shall divide our survey of the whole ‘period of systems’ into two parts—the first relating to the nineteenth century, the second to the twentieth. Vladimir Solovyov, who died on the threshold of the twentieth century (July 31, 1900), symbolically separates both his own work and that of those philosophers whose chief contributions fell within the nineteenth century, from those whose creative activity developed predominantly in the twentieth. I am well aware of the artificiality of this division of the thinkers with whom we will be concerned in Parts III and IV, but I hope that it will result in a real gain in clarity and dialectical connectedness in our exposition.

We begin with a study of Vladimir Solovyov, who is truly the most brilliant and influential philosopher of the ‘period of systems’.

3. SOLOVYOV’S BIOGRAPHY

Let us turn first to Solovyov’s biography.¹

Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov (1853–1900) was the son of S. M. Solovyov, a noted historian, and professor at Moscow University. On his father’s side Vladimir Solovyov was connected with the clergy; his grandfather was a priest in Moscow. His mother came from an old Ukrainian family. The Solovyov family was large, there being nine children. The family life was affectionate, but a ‘strict and pious atmosphere’ reigned in the home. The future philosopher remained for a long time immersed in childish dreams and fantasies.

A strange child was I then,

And strange dreams did I dream …

—Solovyov later wrote of himself. These ‘strange dreams’ never lost their power over his soul; in Solovyov’s spiritual make-up the ‘realm of mystical fantasies’ always occupied an important place. In any event, Solovyov himself says that his first vision of ‘Sophia’ occurred during his ninth year. To ascribe to this vision, or to any of his ‘strange dreams’, decisive importance in Solovyov’s spiritual life (as K. V. Mochulski, for example, does ¹), would of course be an unjustified exaggeration; but to ignore this fact, in our study of Solovyov’s enigmatic nature, would also be a mistake.²

At the age of eleven Solovyov entered the Gymnasium, from which he graduated at the age of eighteen. Solovyov’s Gymnasium years were of decisive importance in the formation of his personality. During this time he passed from childhood religiosity to a very passionate and stormy atheism. At the age of thirteen a period of doubt began. In Solovyov’s own words ‘from the age of fourteen to eighteen I went through various phases of theoretical repudiation’. ‘I am ashamed even to recall’, he wrote some years later, ‘the stupid blasphemies which I then spoke and committed.’ ³ The noted philosopher, L. M. Lopatin, Solovyov’s close friend (from youth), wrote of him, ‘There was a period in his life when he was a thorough materialist—in his early years, however, when he was barely more than fifteen. … Never since have I met a materialist so passionately convince...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Part III. The Period of Systems
• Part IV. The Twentieth Century
• Appendix: Brief Survey of the Philosophic Activity of Authors not Mentioned in the Foregoing Discussion
• Conclusion
• Transliteration Table
• Index