Philosophy in. Solovyova
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Mari State Technical University
Department of Philosophy
on the topic: Justification of good
completed by: student gr. RTB-21
Slivin D.S.
checked by: Ph.D., professor
Maslikhin A.V.
Yoshkar-Ola 2008
Introduction
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The problem of the relationship between good and evil has worried philosophers at all times. Vladimir Solovyov’s book “The Justification of Good” is one of the attempts to revisit this problem. Why is this particular book given so much attention?
“Justifying Good” is a unique work. For the first time in the history of ethics, this book summarizes theoretical work on goodness, meaningfully revealing and affirming it. A Justification of Good is also unique because it is optimistic in spirit and firmly opposed to pessimistic and negativistic concepts of morality. The most striking of these concepts was, of course, that of Nietzsche, set out in his book “Beyond Good and Evil.” The main idea of this work was to “remove” the problem of good and evil, refusing to recognize its fundamental nature. Nietzsche proposed replacing the old normative ethics, which distinguishes between good and evil, with a new ethics, which is on the other side of good and evil. Of course, such pessimism and “belittling” of the good had been encountered before, so the moment came when the need to refute such concepts became completely clear.
It is in response to this “criticism” of the good that Solovyov writes a justification of the good, in order to defend the good from the accusations brought against it. From this initial task gradually grew a second one - to try to give a positive theory of the good. In addition, in his work, Solovyov also solved such a specific task as considering the basic ethical concepts - good, evil, the meaning of life, the meaning of death, suffering, love - in the light of new spiritual and social experience. Thus, in Russia at the end of the last century a new image of moral philosophy began to take shape. Even if, in the process of writing “The Justification of Good,” Solovyov delved into the solution of only one task: to explore goodness, give its definition, reveal its hypostases, varieties, i.e. not to go beyond the bounds of ethics - even then the task he took on would have been significant and difficult.
But Vladimir Solovyov saw and set himself an even more difficult task: he saw the need to talk about the properties of good not as abstract moments of an idea and not as empirical facts, but bearing in mind “the completeness of moral norms for all basic practical relations of individual and collective life " Soloviev V.S. Justification of the good: Moral philosophy. / Preface to the first edition / Thus, for a philosopher, the problem of good goes beyond ethics, affecting the sphere of human history, sociology, psychology, metaphysics.
In his work, Solovyov tries to “justify” not only goodness, but also existence, life in general, God’s plan for the world. The solution to the second task - to justify trust in goodness, to inspire one to do goodness - is associated, as the theory of ethics shows, with even greater difficulties.
The main question that Solovyov is trying to solve by “justifying” good is whether it is worth living if evil reigns in the world, and what is the meaning of life.
In order to answer this question, you need to consider a huge number of facts, deeply study life and the human psyche, turn to God and world history. Solovyov chooses a long and complex path, which determines the structure of the book: first he delves into human nature, then turns to God, and then to the crossroads of historical events.
The first part of Vladimir Solovyov’s work is called “Good in Human Nature.” The philosopher considers the problem posed to himself of “justifying” good through the prism of the human soul, human psychology, human essence. He truly seeks, finds and explains “the good in human nature.”
Soloviev was firmly convinced that the meaning of life does not appear from somewhere outside. A person determines it independently. Calling a person “an unconditional internal form for good as unconditional content” Soloviev V.S. Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy./Preface to the first edition/, the philosopher explains that the meaning of life lies in the goodness of man.
But if the role of man in the implementation of good is so great, if he exists in the world in order to justify and affirm this good, then what is the relationship between good and evil in human nature? The first part of “The Justification of Good” is devoted to answering this question.
1. Shame as the root of human morality
“Any moral teaching, no matter what its internal persuasiveness or external authority, would remain powerless and fruitless if it did not find solid points of support for itself in the very moral nature of man.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. As we see, Solovyov has no doubt that universal morality is the basis for any significant construction in the field of ethics.
It is well known and has long been realized that man is a creature who cannot be given an unambiguous assessment. The properties of his nature are too diverse and contradictory: beauty and greatness coexist with aggressiveness and malice, laziness and envy, deceit, cunning and a host of other sins and vices. In this regard, the question arises about the possibility of an unambiguously positive assessment of human nature from a moral point of view.
“In animals, obedient to instincts, there are no excesses harmful to self-preservation, but man, due to the greater strength of individual consciousness and will, receives the opportunity for such abuses, and against the most harmful of them - sexual - he develops, on the general principles of natural selection, a useful the counterweight is a feeling of shame” Lossky N.O. History of Russian philosophy.
Normal man of the highest spiritual development is not at all ashamed of the fact that he is a corporeal or material being in general; no one is ashamed to have an extended body, of a certain shape, with a certain weight and color, i.e. we are not ashamed of everything that we have in common with a stone, a tree, a piece of metal; Only in relation to that in which we resemble the creatures closest to us from the kingdom of nature adjacent to us - the higher animals - do we have a feeling of shame and
internal confrontation, showing that it is here, where we essentially come into contact with the material life of the world, where we can truly merge with it, that we must break away from it and rise above it.
The subject of shame turns out to be that area of our material existence, which, although it is directly related to the spirit, for it can internally excite it, but at the same time not only does not serve as an expression of spiritual life, but, on the contrary, through it the process of purely animal life strives to capture the human spirit into its own. sphere, subjugate or absorb it. It is this capture by material life, which strives to make the rational being of man a suffering instrument or a useless appendage of a physical process, that causes opposition from the spiritual principle, directly expressed in a feeling of shame. Here, a reasonable affirmation of a known moral norm is psychologically clothed in the affect of fear of its violation or grief over the violation that has occurred. This norm, logically presupposed by the fact of shame, says in its most general expression: the animal life in man must be subordinated to the spiritual. Since the fact of shame does not depend on individual, tribal and other characteristics, and the demand contained in it has a universal character, which, in combination with the logical necessity of this demand, informs it full meaning moral principle.
Soloviev emphasizes the presence in humans of qualities that are absent in all other animals. For example, the feeling of shame, which “is already the actual unconditional difference between man and lower nature” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. Unlike humans, no animal is ashamed of its physiological acts. A person is ashamed when the animal nature takes precedence over the human in him. The feeling of shame is surprising because it cannot be explained by any biological or physiological reasons, benefit for the individual or for the species. It has another, more serious meaning: it testifies to the higher moral nature of man compared to animals: if a person is ashamed of his animality, therefore, he exists as a man; if a person is ashamed, therefore, he exists not only physically, but also morally.
According to Solovyov, the fundamental importance of the feeling of shame lies in the fact that it is this feeling that “determines a person’s ethical attitude to material nature” Solovyov V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. Man is ashamed of the dominance of material nature in himself, he is ashamed to be subordinate to it, and thereby he recognizes, in relation to it, his dignity and inner independence, due to which he must possess material nature, and not vice versa.
Further, in the first part of “The Justification of Good,” the philosopher connects the feeling of shame with the principle of asceticism. A person is characterized by a consciousness of his moral dignity, which is semi-conscious and unstable in a simple feeling of shame. By the action of reason it is elevated to the principle of asceticism.
The philosopher believes that the spiritual nature of man counteracts material nature. This opposition is expressed in shame and develops into asceticism. The reason for it is not nature itself, but the influence of its “lower life,” which strives to subjugate the rational being of man and turn it into an “appendage of a blind physical process.”
Analyzing the thoughts of Vladimir Solovyov about the feeling of shame and the role of this feeling in the development of human morality, we can conclude that the feeling of shame is a fundamental factor that distinguishes a person from an animal. It shapes a person’s ethical perception of material nature. The feeling of shame is a means of subordinating the spontaneous life of a person to spiritual life.
2. Feelings of pity as an expression of a person’s ethical attitude towards his own kind
Along with the feeling of shame, which Solovyov calls the main moral feeling, in human nature there is also a feeling of pity, which constitutes “the root of the ethical attitude no longer towards the lower, material principle of life in every person, but towards other human and generally living beings similar to him.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. .
“The feeling of pity or compassion - as opposed to shame - is characteristic (in a rudimentary degree) of many animals and, therefore, cannot be considered from any point of view as a later product of human progress. Thus, if a shameless person represents a return to a bestial state, then a ruthless person falls below the animal level” Golubev A.N. Vladimir Solovyov and his moral philosophy. The close connection of the feeling of pity with social instincts in animals and humans is beyond doubt by the very essence of this feeling; however, at its root, it is still an individual moral state, which is not entirely covered by social relations, even in animals, not only in humans. If the only basis for sympathy were the needs of the social organism, then each being could experience this feeling only in relation to those who belong to the same social whole. This is how it usually happens, but not always, at least in higher animals. Numerous
facts of the most tender love (love in a purely psychological sense) of various animals for individuals of other, sometimes very distant zoological groups. Therefore, Darwin's assertion that among savage peoples sympathetic feelings is limited to members of the same close society is very strange. Of course, even among cultured peoples, the majority of people show real sympathy mainly for their family and immediate circle, but the individual moral feeling in all peoples can - and indeed has been crossing since ancient times - not only these narrow, but also all other empirical limits. To accept Darwin's statement as unconditional, even if only for wild tribes, means to admit that the moral height that dogs, monkeys and even lions sometimes reach is inaccessible to a wild man.
The philosopher understands pity as a feeling of someone else's suffering or need, solidarity with others. From this simple root, which is based on parental, especially maternal love, then such specific moral feelings as compassion, mercy, conscience, and the whole complexity of internal and external social connections arise.
Agreeing that pity in the universal human understanding is good, and a person who shows this feeling is called kind, and a ruthless person is called evil. Soloviev, however, argues that all morality and the essence of all good cannot be reduced only to compassion.
The philosopher does not question the assertion that pity or compassion is the basis of morality, but he emphasizes that this feeling is just one of the three components of the basis of morality, which has a strictly defined scope, namely, it determines the proper attitude of a person towards other creatures of his world.
Just as the rules of asceticism develop from a feeling of shame, so the rules of altruism develop from a feeling of compassion. Soloviev agrees that pity is the real basis of altruism, but he warns against identifying the concepts of “altruism” and “morality”, since altruism is a component of morality.
The philosopher also reveals the true essence of pity, which “is not at all a direct identification of oneself with another, but recognition of another’s own (belonging to) value - the right to existence and possible well-being.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. This means that when a person feels sorry for another person or animal, he does not take him for himself, but sees in him the same animated being as himself. And since a person recognizes certain rights for himself to fulfill his desires, he, feeling pity, recognizes the same rights for others and reacts in the same way to the violation of someone else’s rights. A person, as it were, equates himself with the one for whom he feels pity, imagines himself in his place.
Based on these premises, Soloviev makes the following conclusion: “the conceivable content (idea) of pity, or compassion, taken in its universality and regardless of the subjective mental states in which it manifests itself,<...>there is truth and justice.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. Thus, it is true that other beings are like man, and it is fair that he treat them as he treats himself.
From this position, through various conclusions, the philosopher deduces the main principle of altruism, which is psychologically based on a feeling of pity and justified by reason and conscience: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy.
However, Vladimir Solovyov notes that this general rule does not imply material or qualitative equality of all subjects. There is no such equality in nature, and it is pointless to demand it. In this case, we are talking only about the equal right for everyone to exist and develop their positive forces.
3. A sense of reverence for the highest and “a religious principle in morality”
In addition to these basic feelings (shame and pity), in human nature there is an equally primary feeling of reverence for the highest. It expresses a person’s attitude towards something special, which is recognized as the highest, on which a person completely depends, before which he is ready to bow.
The primary or innate character of this feeling cannot
to be denied for the same reason that the innateness of pity or sympathy for us is not seriously denied; both this latter and the feeling of reverence in rudimentary degrees and forms are already found in animals. It is absurd to look for religion in them in our sense, but that common elementary feeling on which religion initially rests in the soul of every person - namely, the feeling of reverent admiration for something higher - arises unconsciously in other creatures besides man.
The feeling of reverence for the highest is the basis of religion. It gives rise to such complex phenomena of moral life as the desire for an ideal and self-improvement.
This feeling underlies the religious principle of morality.
Moving smoothly from the rules of justice and mercy, which are psychologically based on a feeling of pity, Solovyov examines the feeling of reverence using the example of the relationship between parents and children. According to the philosopher, these relationships are specific. They are not reduced only to justice and philanthropy and are not derived from pity. The relationship between children and parents is built on the child’s recognition of the superiority of his parents over himself and his dependence on them. The child feels reverence for them, and from this feeling flows the practical duty of obedience. These relationships definitely go beyond the scope of altruism, since the moral attitude of children towards their parents is not determined by equality; on the contrary, it is based on the recognition of what makes these beings unequal to each other.
Of course, such relationships do not contradict justice, but in addition to it, they contain something special. Loving his parents, the child, of course, feels the need for their love, but the love he feels for his parents is significantly different from the love he expects from them. A child’s love for his parents “is dominated by a feeling of admiration for the higher and the duty of obedience to him, and it is not at all assumed that the child demands the same respect and obedience from his parents.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy. According to the philosopher, filial love has the character of reverence.
Soloviev believes that it is precisely this attitude of children towards their parents, the positive inequality present in their relations due to the advantage of parents over children, that ensures their solidarity and underlies a special kind of moral relations. The philosopher sees here “the natural root of religious morality, which represents a special, important area in the spiritual nature of man.” Soloviev V.S. Justifying the Good: Moral Philosophy.
4. The union of the three primary feelings as a guarantee of “good in human nature”
Thus, initially simple feelings (shame, pity and reverence for the highest) lie at the basis of human morality and turn a person away from evil. They are the basis of virtue, showing what a person should be.
Vladimir Solovyov identifies these three qualities as the most important for human nature. The philosopher, explaining his choice, argues that all other qualities, such as duty, freedom or justice, are far from unambiguous and not without internal contradictions, the presence of which can easily turn them into either direct evil or a means leading to evil. It is also important that these feelings are not inherent in humans by nature.
However, that's not all. For Solovyov, the most important thing is that only these three initial feelings - shame, pity and reverence for the highest authority - can be the guarantors of morality, i.e. ensure a person's personal morality. Only these simple feelings (each individually and especially all together) serve as a guarantee that the person who possesses them will not even attempt to kill, steal, or cause other harm to other people. Such a person is ashamed of being bad, he not only can no longer do evil, he now cannot do it and will refuse it. He will now do good.
So, Vladimir Solovyov “justified” the good in human nature and resolved the question of human nature in favor of good.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to note that not only the first part, but the entire treatise is built on the most careful attention to human needs and aspirations, on consideration of the most ordinary paths human life, calling, despite the elements of evil, to the clear simplicity of truth and goodness, established not through violence, but as a result of the most sincere inclinations of the human will. He is imbued with a soft, benevolent, fatherly concern for bringing a person and his entire history to a successful conclusion.
The human attraction to goodness justifies what is very often considered an incompatible contradiction. Thus, morality is characterized by an ascetic beginning. But it is not a goal at all, but only a path to good, and even then not the only one. It is characteristic that there is a echo here with Buddhism, which also proclaims a “middle path” that does not encourage excessive deviations. This once again shows that no matter how many religions there are, they all have a grain of truth in them, you just need to be able to see it.
The person's personality is in the foreground. But this plan is also far from final. Vladimir Solovyov gives a whole theory of the family, where the individual, although in the foreground, is in agreement with another series of personalities, or ancestors, or descendants. Sexual love is completely justified, but it is not overwhelming, but contains much more. Childbearing is a good thing, but it’s also not the only good. Personality is completeness, but to complete this completeness it needs society. Society is completeness, but the completion of this completeness is not just in society, but in the entire historical process, i.e. in humanity. Economic and political life, state and law are integral moments of humanity’s historical striving for truth and goodness. But the most general moral organization must be religious and culminate in the universal church, believes Vladimir Solovyov.
List of used literature
1. Soloviev V.S. Justification of good: Moral philosophy / V.S. Soloviev - M.: Respublika, 1996. - 479 p.
2. Golubev A.N. Vladimir Solovyov and his moral philosophy / A.N. Golubev, L.V. Konovalova - M.: Respublika, 1994. - 446 p.
3. Lossky N.O. History of Russian philosophy / N.O. Lossky - M.: Higher. school, 1991. - 559 p.
4. http://www.philosophy.ru - philosophical portal
5. http://www.modernphil.pp.ru - Philosophy in Russia
Similar documents
The nature of human morality in the teachings of Vladimir Solovyov. Religious doubt and return to faith of the Russian philosopher. Moral principles of human activity. The main philosophical work "Justification of the Good", dedicated to problems of ethics.
thesis, added 04/24/2009
Panmoralism as one of the characteristic features of Russian philosophy. Optimism, humanism and ahistoricism of moral doctrines. The search for eternal values - truth, truth and goodness as the meaning of a religious worldview. The problem of good and evil in the beliefs of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
abstract, added 07/20/2011
Vladimir Solovyov and the influence of Spinoza’s works on his worldview. Philosophical work"Justification of the good" and problems of ethics. General outline of Solovyov's philosophy. The unity of the world soul in its desire for realization. The union of the divine principle with the soul of the world.
abstract, added 03/22/2009
Study of the concept of good and evil in Christianity, Hinduism, Kabbalah, ethics. Hedonistic and eudaimonic teachings of the concept of good and evil. Consideration of historical examples: Adolf Hitler, Vlad III the Impaler (Count Dracula), Roman Emperor Nero.
abstract, added 02/21/2016
Biography of V.S. Solovyova. Basic principles of Solovyov's philosophy. Place in the history of Russian philosophy. The theory of “all-unity”: its concept in ontological, epistemological and axiological terms. Theosophy, the concept of Sophia. Truth, beauty and kindness.
abstract, added 02/27/2017
Justice and its connection with problems of equality, law, duty, goodness
abstract, added 07/23/2009
The experience of paradoxical ethics in the work of the Russian philosopher, representative of existentialism N. Berdyaev “On the purpose of man”: the origin of good and evil, human perception of the world; comparison of the views of V. Rozanov and N. Fedorov on the issue of knowing the truth of existence.
essay, added 12/13/2012
general characteristics aesthetic concept. The religious ideal as a synthesis of truth, goodness and beauty. The meaning and tasks of art, poetry and reflection of the beauty of nature. Religious and philosophical issues and trends in Russian literature and theology.
course work, added 05/26/2012
Characteristics of the categories “good” and “evil” from the point of view of philosophy, spiritual and moral beliefs of a person. Features of the concept of “the struggle between evil and good,” which is nothing more than a choice, namely, the choice between good - evolution and between evil - degradation.
abstract, added 05/21/2010
Development of philosophy in Ancient Rome. Description of the biography of Lucius Aeneas Seneca the Younger, a representative of Stoicism. Consideration of the moral teaching of the philosopher. Declaring that everything that is in accordance with nature is good; definition of reason as a criterion of good and evil.
“Justification of Good” is again the title of Vl.’s main work. Solovyov, and the designation of the main line of his philosophical and personal-moral searches. The question of goodness is at the same time the problem of the meaning of human life. In the preface to the first edition of “Justification of the Good,” the philosopher wrote: “Does our life have any meaning at all? If so, then does it have a moral character, is it rooted in the moral sphere? And if so, what does it consist of? "What is the true and complete definition of it? It is impossible to avoid these questions regarding which there is no agreement in modern knowledge." So, questions are posed that are fundamental to the existence and essence of man, to the seeking moral soul. But these same questions in one way or another concern “deniers of the meaning of life,” no matter whether we are talking about people in their everyday existence or the creators of philosophical systems, “theoretical pessimists.”
Vl. Soloviev proceeds from the fact that in order to answer the fundamental questions posed it is necessary to develop a new philosophy. giving precisely the justification of good, moreover, not with the help of isolated superficial reasoning, but through the construction of a detailed philosophical and ethical systematic concept and the implementation of a universal synthesis of rational and mystical means of knowledge. The research in the treatise “Justification of the Good” unfolds accordingly: first, the “general question about the meaning of life” (Preface) and about moral philosophy as a science (Introduction) are posed. In the Introduction, Soloviev examines and rejects those views on the meaning of life that seem unacceptable to him: 1) the reasoning of those who talk about the advantages of non-existence, but in fact prefer being; 2) a view that recognizes meaning in life, but exclusively aesthetic, unrelated to moral goodness; 3) the idea that the meaning of life is good, but it is given from above, and only obedience is left to the lot of a person; 4) “the opposite delusion (moral amorphism), which asserts that goodness exists only in the mental states of an individual person and the good relations between people that naturally flow from this.”
Solovyov rejects these views primarily for the reason that they do not correspond to the essence of good. The general “internal signs of good as such are: its purity, or self-legitimacy (autonomy), since it is not conditioned by anything external; its completeness, or unity, since it determines everything; its strength, or effectiveness, since it is realized through everything.” Based on the nature of good, Solovyov resolves the issue of the specifics of moral philosophy, which, in his opinion, does not depend either on positive religion or on theoretical philosophy (epistemology and metaphysics). Nor does it depend on endless philosophical debates about free will, for, according to Solovyov, “morality is possible even with determinism, which affirms the necessity of human actions.” Exactly what form moral philosophy should take becomes clear from the further contents of the book “The Justification of the Good.” This book is divided into three main parts: “Good in Human Nature,” “Good from God,” and “Good through Human History.” A broad canvas of “moral philosophy” with its “justification of good” unfolds before the reader. This philosophy actually includes the problem of man, human nature, and the philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, and a special social philosophy, and the philosophy of history. But all this problematic is, as it were, strung on the core of moral principles and principles, raised to the essence and purpose of good.
The first level at which the problem of good is understood is man and his essence, “human nature.” Soloviev proceeds from the fact that there are some “natural roots” of morality. These are, for example, feelings of shame, pity and “sympathetic feeling”, a feeling of reverence or piety, conscience as a feeling of shame in a more generalized form. Soloviev also examines: asceticism, or abstinence elevated to a principle, as an undoubted element of good; pity and altruism; religious principle in morality. True, at the same time the philosopher notes that there is “evil asceticism,” humiliating pity, ostentatious or fanatical religiosity. Therefore, the “natural roots” of morality in human nature are incomplete, imperfect and insufficient, and do not correspond to the signs of goodness as such, although they form one of its prerequisites. All of them are valuable in that they seem to appeal, “refer” to the integrity of good, the guarantor of which, however, cannot be a person. Now the way is open to the second level of analysis - “Good from God.” First Vl. Solovyov, as if returning to the natural moral foundations, demonstrates their unity - and thereby the movement towards something higher, towards the “unconditional beginning of morality”, which is God. “When a person’s connection with the deity rises to absolute consciousness, then the protective feeling of chastity (shame, conscience, fear of God) reveals its final meaning as preserving not the relative, but the unconditional dignity of a person - his ideal perfection, as something that must be realized^ - Here and Ascetic morality receives its day on February 19, writes Solovyov.His reasoning remains relevant today.
The main work of V. S. Solovyov in the field of moral philosophy. Initially, this work was published in separate chapters in the journal. “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, “Books of the Week”, “Bulletin of Europe” and “Niva” since 1894. A separate edition of it was published in 1897. Solovyov believed that “Justification of Good” would be the first book giving a systematic presentation of his philosophy . He intended to supplement and continue this work with works on ontology and epistemology, but this plan was destined to come true. Soloviev refuses to consider moral philosophy as one of the most unremarkable and insignificant components of the general presentation of philosophy. Moral philosophy is defined by him as “complete knowledge of the good.” An independent character, according to Solovyov, is given to moral philosophy in the search for a solution to the problem of good. Analysis of this problem allows us to find the key to other problems of ethics - the meaning of life and death, conscience, freedom, duty, pity, shame, etc. In its content, “Justification of Good” is the embodiment of the titanic efforts of the philosopher to create and systematize moral philosophy and ethics time.
The main goal of Solovyov’s work was not the analysis of good as an abstract moment of an idea or its empirical manifestations, but the study of the completeness of “moral norms for all basic practical relations of individual and collective life.”
In Solovyov’s understanding, the problem of good outgrows the framework of ethics, not stopping directly at the idea of good, but expanding to the categories of being, life in general, God’s plan for the world, for “good is from God” and its creation cannot be unsuccessful. Solovyov considered goodness to be an integral, unconditionally inherent part of man, as part of his morality, its initial element. Solovyov in his philosophy elevates goodness to a morally universal category, to the very subject of moral philosophy.
Justification of good as such is the main task of moral philosophy, while Solovyov attributed justification of good as truth to the tasks of theoretical philosophy.
The main question that Solovyov is trying to solve by “justifying” good is whether it is worth living if evil reigns in the world, and what is the meaning of life.
In order to answer this question, you need to consider a huge number of facts, deeply study life and the human psyche, turn to God and world history. Solovyov chooses a long and complex path, which determines the structure of the book: first he delves into human nature, then turns to God, and then to the crossroads of historical events.
Soloviev begins his work with a consideration of human nature (Part I - “Good in Human Nature”). He begins the analysis by talking about the history of ethics, which noted such vices of human nature as aggressiveness and anger, laziness and envy, deceit and cunning, as well as many other vices. However, if we recall the works of Darwin, we can talk about a certain moral feeling, the presence of which the scientist himself recognized as the most important difference between man and animal, considering it innate. Soloviev agrees with Darwin, citing as an argument the feeling of shame, which is absent in animals and has a purely moral character.
I am ashamed of my animality, therefore, I still exist as a person, not only physically, but also morally.
Along with this basic moral feeling in human nature there is a feeling of pity, understood by the philosopher as a feeling of someone else's suffering or need, solidarity with others. It is from this concept that the understanding of compassion, mercy, conscience, and then the whole complexity of internal and external social connections develops.
Among the moral qualities characteristic of a person, Solovyov considers reverence, the ability to bow before something higher, which gives rise to such manifestations of moral life as the desire for an ideal and self-improvement.
According to the philosopher, these feelings are the simplest organically, and support all morality, forming a fairly powerful counterbalance to all vices, selfishness, and wild passions.
The second part of Solovyov’s work, “Good from God,” is devoted to the problem of the origin of good and its character. He says that, despite the unconditional presence of the necessary grounds for the affirmation of good in human nature, it is impossible to talk about the unconditional victory of virtues over vices, good over evil.
Therefore, goodness has only a relative character, hence morality must have an unconditional beginning.
The completeness of good, according to Solovyov, is expressed in 3 types: in unconditionally existing, real perfection - in God, in potential - human consciousness and will, as well as in the actual implementation of good in the historical process of improvement, which is a long and difficult transition from bestiality to Here too, God-mankind can speak of progress not only in the field of science and culture, but also in the field of morality, since “the average level of generally binding and implementable moral requirements is increasing.”
Solovyov touches on the problems of moral philosophy about freedom as its basis, considering genuine freedom to be rational freedom, which he equates to moral necessity, and not to free will, or irrational arbitrary choice.
From this point of view, morality is “entirely compatible with determinism and does not at all require so-called free will” (p. 114). “I am not saying,” he wrote further, “that there is no such free will; I am only asserting that it does not exist in moral actions” (p. 115).
The conditions for the implementation of the historical process do not prevent good from becoming common property (Part III - “Good through the history of mankind”).
In historical development, Soloviev identified three successive stages: tribal, national-state system and worldwide communication of life (as the ideal of the future).
Its purpose is to embody perfect morality in the collective whole of humanity; The real subject of improvement or moral progress is the individual person together with the collective person, or society.
Society at its core, according to Solovyov, is the moral fulfillment or fulfillment of the individual in a given life circle, that is, they are interconnected as part and whole, for society is an augmented and expanded personality, and the individual is a “focused” society. The philosopher recognized the coerciveness of some forms of public morality, but with the caveat that they relate only to cases of the need to maintain external order. As for internal moral improvement, the scientist rejected the possibility of any absolute coercion.
In the moral field, good exists on its own, not connected with legal norms and not requiring any government influence.
Soloviev recognized the inseparability of morality from law and its implementation in the state in the whole historical process. He considered, being an innovator, the question of the relationship between the legal and moral spheres to be one of the fundamental and basic ones in practical philosophy
“This is,” he wrote, “essentially the question of the connection between ideal moral consciousness and real life; the vitality and fruitfulness of moral consciousness itself depends on a positive understanding of this connection.”
In the end, Soloviev defines law as a form of balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good, as a compulsory requirement for the implementation of a certain minimum good, or order, which does not allow certain “manifestations of evil.”
“The task of law is not at all to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but only to ensure that it does not turn into hell before the time comes.”
Soloviev was an ardent opponent and critic of nationalism and false patriotism. In his understanding, the concepts of “universal” and “national” are expressed as follows:
“Peoples... live not only for themselves, but for everyone.”
He considered cosmopolitanism to be a counter-worldview to nationalism, by which he understood the requirement for the unconditional application of the moral law without any regard to national differences. This interpretation was fully consistent with his idea of the future unity of humanity.
Tue, 03/03/2015 - 16:14 - Vyacheslav Rumyantsev
“JUSTIFICATION OF THE GOOD” is the main work of V. S. Solovyov in the field of moral philosophy. Initially, this work was published in separate chapters in the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, “Books of the Week”, “Bulletin of Europe” and “Niva” starting in 1894. A separate edition of it was published in 1897. Solovyov believed that “The Justification of Good” would constitute the first book giving a systematic presentation of his philosophy. It was supposed to be followed by a (never realized) exposition of ontology and epistemology; Thus, he abandoned the traditional scheme for constructing philosophy (ontology, epistemology, then ethics, etc.), when moral philosophy turned out to be only one of the last, finishing touches in the general presentation of philosophy.
For him, moral philosophy was supposed to become a systematic pointer to the right path of life's wanderings for people and nations, therefore, when creating it, he deliberately abstracted himself from metaphysics. Moral philosophy is defined by him as “complete knowledge of the good.” It is the solution to the problem of good that gives, Soloviev believed, an independent character to moral philosophy. Analysis of the good allows us to find the key to solving other problems of ethics - the meaning of life and death, conscience, freedom, duty, pity, shame, etc. Therefore, in its content, the work “Justification of the Good” contains all moral philosophy, all ethics. Soloviev considered the main goal of his work not to analyze goodness as an abstract moment of an idea or its empirical manifestations, but to study the completeness of “moral norms for all basic practical relations of individual and collective life” (Works: In 2 vols. Vol. I. P. 97). Thus, the problem of good outgrows the framework of ethics: it is a justification not only of good, but of all existence, all life as a whole, God’s entire plan for the world, for “good is from God” and its creation cannot fail. Solovyov understood goodness as a feeling that is unconditionally inherent in man, as the initial element of human morality, the most universal moral category and the subject of moral philosophy. Hence, the justification of good as such is the main task of moral philosophy, while Solovyov attributed the justification of good as truth to the tasks of theoretical philosophy. Solovyov begins the justification of good with a consideration of human nature (Part I of the work is called “Good in Human Nature”). In the history of ethics it has long been noted that in human nature there is aggressiveness and anger, laziness and envy, deceit and cunning, as well as many other vices. However, Darwin also recognized that the most significant difference between man and animals is the presence of a moral sense, which he considered innate. In support of this, Soloviev referred to such a quality of a person, absent in animals, as a feeling of shame, which has a purely moral character: I am ashamed of my animality, therefore, I still exist as a person, not only physically, but also morally (see p. 124 ).
Along with this basic moral feeling in human nature there is a feeling of pity, understood as a feeling of someone else’s suffering or need, solidarity with others, from which compassion, mercy, conscience, and the whole complexity of internal and external social connections grow. Among the moral qualities characteristic of a person, Solovyov considers reverence, the ability to bow before something higher, which gives rise to such manifestations of moral life as the desire for an ideal and self-improvement. Being organically simple, these feelings, according to Solovyov, support all morality and constitute a fairly powerful counterbalance to all vices, selfishness, and wild passions. Soloviev devotes Part II to the problem of the origin of good and its character - “Good from God.” Although human nature is structured in such a way that it contains the necessary grounds for the affirmation of good, at the same time one cannot help but see that good is in constant struggle with evil, and virtue has not completely reigned over sins and vices. Therefore, goodness has only a relative character, hence morality must have an unconditional beginning. The completeness of good, according to Solovyov, is expressed in 3 types: in unconditionally existing, real perfection - in God, in potential - human consciousness and will, as well as in the actual implementation of good in the historical process of improvement, which is a long and difficult transition from bestial humanity to God-humanity and here we can talk about progress not only in the field of science and culture, but also in the field of morality. since “the average level of generally binding and implementable moral requirements is increasing” (p. 245). Speaking about freedom as the basis of morality and moral philosophy, Solovyov considered such freedom to be rational freedom, which he identified with moral necessity, and not free will, i.e., irrational arbitrary choice. From this point of view, morality is “entirely compatible with determinism and does not at all require so-called free will” (p. 114). “I am not saying,” he wrote further, “that there is no such free will; I am only asserting that it does not exist in moral actions” (p. 115).
The entire historical process develops the conditions under which good can become a truly common property (Part III - “Good through the history of mankind”). In historical development, Soloviev identified three successive stages: tribal, national-state system and worldwide communication of life (as the ideal of the future). Its purpose is to embody perfect morality in the collective whole of humanity; The real subject of improvement or moral progress is the individual person together with the collective person, or society. Society in its essence, he believed, is the moral replenishment or fulfillment of the individual in a given life circle, in other words, society is an augmented or expanded personality, and the individual is a compressed or “focused” society. Soloviev recognized that public morality has coercive forms, but they relate only to the external implementation of order; as for moral improvement as an internal state, here any coercion is both undesirable and impossible. In the moral field, good exists on its own, not connected with legal norms and not requiring any government influence. True, morality in the whole historical process cannot be separated from law and its implementation in the state. Soloviev considered the mutual relationship between the moral and legal spheres to be one of the fundamental issues of practical philosophy. “This is,” he wrote, “essentially the question of the connection between ideal moral consciousness and real life; the vitality and fruitfulness of moral consciousness itself depends on a positive understanding of this connection” (p. 446). In this regard, he defined law as a form of balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good, as a compulsory requirement for the implementation of a certain minimum good, or order, which does not allow certain “manifestations of evil.” “The task of law is not at all to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but only to ensure that it does not turn into hell before the time comes” (p. 454).
Soloviev also acted as a critic of nationalism and false patriotism. His understanding of the relationship between the universal and the national is expressed in the following words: “Peoples... live not only for themselves, but for everyone.” He contrasted nationalism with cosmopolitanism, by which he understood the requirement for the unconditional application of the moral law without any regard to national differences. This interpretation was fully consistent with his idea of the future unity of humanity.
L. V. Konovalova. V. I. Prilensky
Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. second, modified and expanded. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Comp. P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. – M., 2014, p. 447-449.
Essays:
Justification of good // Sozhtiev Vl. Works: In 2 vols. M., 1988. T. 1; M., 1996.
Literature:
Controversy Vl. Solovyova and B. Chicherina // Philosophical Sciences. 1489. No. 9-12; 1990, no. 1-4; Gaidenko P. P. Vladimir Solovyov and the philosophy of the Silver Age. M., 2001. P. 64-68.
Restructuring of the philosophical system (1897-1899)
I. Justification of good
In 1894, Solovyov decided to re-issue his “Critique of Abstract Principles,” but, re-reading it, he became convinced that his view of morality had changed in many ways and that the old system no longer corresponded to his beliefs. An attempt at revision led to a complete revision, and at the age of three he wrote a new ethics.
The Justification of Good was published in 1897. In the preface, the author rejects three false concepts of morality: the cult of strength and beauty (Nietzscheanism), moral amorphism (Tolstoyism) and external authority (positive religion). “The moral meaning of human life,” he concludes, “consists in serving good, but this service must be voluntary, that is, pass through human consciousness.”
The previous division of ethics into subjective and objective morality is preserved (“Good in human nature” and “Good through the history of mankind”), but its theoretical justification changes dramatically. In the “Critique of Abstract Principles” the autonomy of ethics was rejected: it seemed to the author a false “abstract moralism” - and he derived morality from positive religion and mystical experience: only by believing in the Christian revelation can one affirm the divine principle of man, and without faith in this principle any morality becomes a subjective illusion. And Soloviev convincingly proved the impossibility of constructing ethics without metaphysics.
In “The Justification of the Good” he takes the opposite point of view: ethics is not heteronomous, but autonomous, moral philosophy can be built as a science on empirical foundations. The idea of goodness is inherent in human nature and universal. Ap. Paul says that the pagans also do good according to the law written in their hearts, which means that there can be a consciousness of goodness apart from true religion; there are many religions, but one morality; It is not morality that should seek justification from religion, but, on the contrary, religion is justified by morality. For example, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians always use moral arguments in their polemics. Finally, there are immoral religions. The author comes to the conclusion: “Regardless of any positive beliefs or disbelief, every person, as a rational being, must recognize that the life of the world has meaning, that is, he must believe in a moral order. This faith is logically superior to all positive religions and metaphysical teachings and constitutes what is called natural religion.”
It is difficult to imagine a more decisive renunciation of former cherished beliefs. Previously, Soloviev derived the concept of good from the concept of God, now he is trying to derive the concept of God from the concept of good. Natural religion is given in experience, and therefore ethics can be built as a science, without any metaphysics.
The author considers shame, pity and reverence to be the empirical principles of ethics. All moral life grows from one root - sexual shame: the fact of shame says: the animal life in man must be subordinated to the spiritual. Therefore, the basic principle of morality is asceticism: a person fights with animal life, with material nature, he does not want to be an enslaved servant of rebellious matter or chaos. The carnal principle of reproduction is evil and must be abolished.
Equally “natural” is the second principle of morality - pity. “The natural organic connection of all beings, as parts of one whole, is a given of experience, it is the “natural solidarity of everything that exists.” Soloviev develops Schopenhauer’s teaching about pity as the basis of morality, does not refuse to recognize this basis as the only one: pity is essentially conditioned by a sense of equality; in the case of inequality , for example, in the attitude of children to their parents, younger ones to elders, it turns into reverence. And here is the origin of religious feeling. Together with Spencer, he believes that in the image of parents, for the first time, the idea of the Divine is embodied for children and that the primitive form of religion is the veneration of dead ancestors.
From three principles - shame, pity and reverence - the author tries to derive all moral consciousness. Even the theological virtues: faith, hope and love do not seem unconditional to him. It takes him a lot of work to prove that the four cardinal virtues - temperance, courage, wisdom and justice - are derivatives of the “empirical” principles he indicated. “Any manifestation of our will,” he writes, “can be bad only if one of the three duties is violated, that is, when the will asserts something shameful (in the first respect), or something offensive (in the second respect), or something wicked (in the third).”
The task of constructing an autonomous ethics as a science is clearly impossible. No experience can convince us that the idea of goodness is inherent in human nature. A study of different cultural types and primitive peoples shows the opposite. The idea of good in human consciousness is not absolute and not universal. Stuart Mill's empirical ethics is based on the concept of happiness, and Spencer's empirical ethics is based on the idea of evolution and adaptation. Solovyov’s “three principles” are no less arbitrary. The feeling of shame is as “natural” to man as shamelessness; pity and altruism are opposed by natural egoism; reverence is associated not so much with the “nature” of man as with his social development. Soloviev constantly gets confused in insoluble contradictions, makes formal deductions instead of real conclusions (for example, deriving conscience and courage from shame!), and introduces metaphysical concepts under the guise of “natural data”. Wanting to defend the complete autonomy of ethics at all costs, he comes to the following incredible statements: ethics does not depend on theoretical philosophy, and the question of the real existence of the world and people is not important for it; it does not depend on one or another solution to the question of free will and the problem of evil. As paradoxical as it may sound, Solovyov’s ethical system is built outside the concepts of being, freedom and evil.
How to explain the bizarreness of this construction? Book E. Trubetskoy rightly notes that Solovyov’s system is the ethics of sexual love. This puts it in direct connection with the “Meaning of Love” and reveals the erotic basis of the philosopher’s entire worldview. Sexual love is at the center; all the diversity of moral life is derived from sexual shame. Man is ashamed of his animal nature, and his moral feat lies in overcoming it. As in “The Meaning of Love,” eroticism leads to asceticism, and a person’s life task is recognized as abstinence and chastity, that is, the restoration of integrity. By declaring shame the only root from which all moral consciousness grows, the author could not help but distort the perspective of his construction.
The erotic ascetic does not hide his disgust for sex. “The path of sex,” he writes, “is at first shameful, but in the end it turns out to be merciless and wicked: it is contrary to human solidarity, for children supplant fathers.”
In the second part (“Good from God”), Soloviev strives, without violating the autonomy of ethics, to connect it with positive religion. At the same time he was working on The Justification of the Good, he was translating Kant, and the influence of the Critique of Practical Reason is clearly felt in his book. He fully shares Kant's teaching about the self-legitimacy of pure will, determined solely by respect for moral duty. But he cannot follow Kant to the end: this would mean admitting that mental phenomena have no reality other than subjective reality and that the immortality of the soul and the existence of God are only postulates of practical reason. With such an understanding, his entire religious naturalism would turn into pure phenomenalism. And so he makes a brave attempt to overcome Kant. God and immortality, Solovyov argues, are immanent in moral consciousness. “In religious sensation,” he writes, “the reality of what is felt, the real presence of God is given...” “Correct theology, like correct astronomy (!), is an important and necessary matter, but it is not a matter of primary necessity... Reality deities are not a conclusion from a religious sensation, but the content of this sensation... There is God in us - that means He exists.”
Soloviev proceeds from a deep and true sense of the divinity of man. In man, indeed, there is the image of God, a particle of the Divine. He is right in his naturalism, since “every soul is by nature a Christian.” But he is mistaken, looking for this divine principle not in the mystical, but in the rational and moral consciousness of man. Here he argues not as a Christian, but as a pagan Hellenic, follows not the Gospel, but Plato. He forgets that the image of God abides in fallen man, that sin is overcome not by natural evolution, but by the action of grace, and that “the law written in the hearts” alone is not enough to reunite man with God. How dramatically Solovyov’s attitude towards open religion and the Church has changed can be judged by his following words: “Those who have left school age and reached the heights of education, of course, have no reason to go to school (i.e. to church), but still he has less reason to deny it and convince schoolchildren that all their teachers are parasites and deceivers.” “In the religious field, the unconditional moral principle inspires us with a positive attitude towards church institutions and traditions, in the sense of educational means leading humanity to the goal of highest perfection... This subordination to the church and state is only conditional... We will never put the church in the place of the Divine and the state - in the place of humanity. We will not accept the transitory forms and instruments of the providential work in history as the essence and purpose of this work.” And this is written by the author of “Theocracy”, who once considered the Church to be the visible form of the Kingdom of God on earth! Now he recognizes only a conditional educational value for it and believes that spiritually adult people have no need to go to this “educational institution.” Soloviev is individually spiritualistic: he is respectfully indifferent to “historical forms of religion” and recognizes only “inner religious feeling.”
Hellenic philosophy could teach him to deduce the concept of God from the concept of good, but was powerless to help him deduce from this concept the revealed truths of the Christian religion. Can a person naturally come to faith in the living person of the God-man Christ? Here is the experimentum crucis of Solovyov’s entire moral system. If the answer is negative, his autonomous ethics collapses like a house of cards. He is forced to answer in the affirmative, and of all his statements, this statement is the most incredible. “Christ said,” he writes: “I was born and sent from God, and before the creation of the world I was one with God. Reason forces us to believe this testimony, for the historical appearance of Christ as the God-man is inextricably linked with the entire world process, and with the denial of this phenomena, the meaning and expediency of the universe decreases.”
With religious naturalism, the truths of faith inevitably become truths of reason: naturalism logically turns into rationalism. Based on the “data of experience,” Solovyov came to the super-experiential truth of God-manhood; After such a miracle of dialectics, everything further was no longer difficult.
In “Objective Ethics” the author traces “good through the history of mankind” in the forms of the divine-human process already familiar to us. The doctrine of society is little new. Solovyov polemicizes with Tolstoy's anarchism and, starting from non-resistance, justifies war and punishment of criminals, recognizes the need for capital, banks, trade, and property. Solovyov does not even pose the social problem: he has insufficient sensitivity to social evil. He considers socialism "the extreme expression of bourgeois civilization" and work as a commandment of God. Under the influence of B. Chicherin’s criticism, the author changes his view of law and the state. In the “Critique of Abstract Principles,” law was defined purely negatively, and the state as a formal legal union. Now they have a positive meaning. “Right is a compulsory requirement for the realization of a certain minimum good or order that does not allow certain manifestations of evil.” “The state is a collectively organized pity.” A sharp line is drawn between the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of God. “The task of law,” he writes, “is not at all to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but only to ensure that it does not turn into hell before the time...” The law of coercion is separated from the law of love, and the first is not denied in the name of the second; the historical paths of humanity are not confused with the supra-historical goal. In this sobering of Solovyov from the theocratic utopia, a large role belongs to Tolstoy: his anarchic utopia forced the author of “The Justification of Good” to recognize the relative value of the temporary and the conditional. “The positive elements of life must be understood and accepted by us as conditional data for solving an unconditional task.” Relations between the church and the state are now being built by Solovyov on the basis of complete mutual independence: the state has full power, the Church has the highest spiritual authority. The Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth, but only “organized piety.” It should have no coercive power, and the coercive power of the state should have no contact with the field of religion. Above the “high priest” and the “king” stands the “prophet”, who has the moral control of these authorities. From the former majestic trinity of “Theocracy” only disembodied shadows remained in “The Justification of Good”. In a new world that has changed beyond recognition, they give the impression of being from the other world. Soloviev ends his book with the words: “The moral task can only consist in improving the given. .. The perfection of good is finally defined as the indivisible organization of triune love.”
Despite all the shortcomings, Solovyov's book has enduring value: it is the only complete ethical system in our philosophical literature. The author has enormous moral pathos, deep religiosity and personal fiery love for Christ. “Justification of good” has not lost its moral and educational meaning in our time. You can argue with the author's individual views, but you cannot resist the power of his personality.
For many, acquaintance with this book was a decisive turn in life - for everyone it remains an unforgettable event.
II. Theoretical philosophy
At the end of “The Justification of Good” a transition to epistemology is planned. Until now, Solovyov’s philosophical worldview was built independently of the solution to the problem of evil: now his worldview has changed, his belief in the triumph of good in historical life humanity wavered, the feeling of “the failure of Christianity in history” intensified - and the question of the essence of evil appeared in all its tragic inevitability. In the “Conclusion” of Justification of Good he writes: “The question arises: where does evil come from? If it has a beginning other than good, then how can good be unconditional? If it is not unconditional, then is there a guarantee of its victory over evil... The question of the origin of evil can only be resolved by metaphysics, which in turn presupposes the question: what is truth, what is its reliability?.. Having justified Good, how such, in moral philosophy, we must justify the Good as Truth in theoretical philosophy.”
But Solovyov did not manage to complete his epistemology. Three chapters of “Theoretical Philosophy” (1897-1899) do not allow us to judge the unrealized plan in its entirety. One thing is certain: he subjected his previous theory of knowledge to an even more radical revision than his ethical system: the doctrine of knowledge set forth in the “Philosophical Principles of Whole Knowledge” and in the “Critique of Abstract Principles” is now rejected entirely. There is no trace left of the third mystical path of knowledge - intellectual apperception, or intuition, of the triple cognitive act consisting of faith, imagination and creativity. Having defended, or rather, tried to defend the autonomy of ethics, Soloviev strives to equally decisively affirm the autonomy of philosophical thought: philosophy must have its starting point in itself; philosophical thinking there is a conscientious search for reliable truth “to the end.”
The author analyzes “pure consciousness” and does not find in it any difference between the apparent and the real. Polemicizing with L. Lopatin, he argues that one cannot conclude from consciousness about the true reality of a conscious subject, one cannot deduce being from thinking. The subject of consciousness does not belong to any other reality than the phenomenal one: after all, no one can be sure that he is not in a hypnotic sleep and does not mistake himself for a fireman or a Parisian archbishop, without being them. “I” is not a substance, but a phenomenon. But in addition to the subjective certainty of immediate consciousness, we also have the objective certainty of rational thinking; everything conceivable as a logical form exists. In his rejection of all substantiality, Soloviev follows in the footsteps of Kant and renounces his previous convictions. “I myself thought so before (i.e., that “I” is a substance) and from this point of view I objected in my master’s thesis (“The Crisis of Western Philosophy”) against Hegel’s panlogism and Mill’s panphenomenalism.” But now he thinks differently: he is no longer satisfied with the res cogitans of Descartes, or the monads of Leibniz, or the active elements of consciousness of Maine de Biran; he goes further than Kant and denies even Kant’s “intelligible character.” So, personality in itself is nothing.
Where is the way out of this extreme phenomenalism, from this emptiness?
Soloviev is only outlining it; we still don’t know what conclusions he would have come to, how he would have completed his epistemology. Or maybe he didn’t finish it because the task was impossible.
So, in reality we are given only an empty form of consciousness and thinking. But the very concept of form contains a requirement for content. The search itself is an undoubted fact: we know what we are looking for, for ignoti nulla cupido.
At the center of knowledge is the idea: to know the truth itself; the subject of philosophy reveals itself as the emerging mind of truth. True philosophy begins when the empirical subject is raised by superpersonal inspiration into the realm of truth itself. And here the word of Truth has power: “Whoever wants to save his soul will lose it.” “Among the philosophers who approached the truth, there is no greater than Hegel, but the least among the philosophers who proceed from truth itself is greater than him.” Soloviev cites the saying of the Delphic oracle and ends: “Know yourself - means know the truth.”
L. Lopatin objected to Solovyov in the article “The Question of the Real Unity of Consciousness.” He does not hide his surprise that “at present Solovyov is the most determined supporter of the transcendental understanding of substantial reality,” and adds: “It involuntarily comes to mind that Solovyov has conceded too much to the principled opponents of his sincere convictions. Given such concessions, it is extremely difficult to provide a consistent and contradiction-free justification for the deep and original worldview that he preached all his life.” Lopatin correctly felt that Solovyov’s new teaching contradicts his entire previous philosophical system, all his previous “sincere convictions,” but he simplifies the matter and does not feel the tragedy of the thinker’s renunciation “of the work of his whole life.” After the collapse of the theocracy and the departure from the church, Solovyov’s cherished faith in the this-worldly transformation of the world collapsed. The “divine” fire went out under the “rough crust of matter.” The world became a dead ghost, a gaping void. Neither nature nor man are real; There is nothing given, there is only the given.
In the article “The Concept of God,” Soloviev defends Spinoza from the charge of atheism brought against him by A. I. Vvedensky. He considers God to be not a personal, but a supra-personal principle and repeats the words of the Gospel: “Whoever protects his life will lose it.” Instead of preaching the divine-human cause, man's participation in the creation of the Kingdom of God, there is a preaching of complete renunciation. “Personality is only a support (hypostasis) for something else, higher. Its life content, its “ousia” is God. A person must renounce the “imaginary self-affirmation of personality.”
This is the result of the spiritual tragedy experienced by Solovyov. The “astonishing failure of the cause of Christ in history” made him doubt the sophianity of the world. He now thinks not about the historical process, but only about its end - the impending Last Judgment.
“Theoretical Philosophy” reveals a characteristic feature of Solovyov’s worldview - his impersonalism. It is due to the fact that the origins of his philosophy were in Hellenic thought. For the most brilliant of Greek thinkers - Solovyov's spiritual father Plato - the “universal” prevails over the individual.
Solovyov had a genuine mystical intuition of “all-unity”; he had a sense of the cosmos, but no sense of personality. Therefore, he denied free will and avoided solving the problem of evil. In the articles “The Meaning of Love,” he tried to build his anthropology using the theory of androgyne, but became entangled in contradictions. One can only guess at what final conclusions his restructuring of his entire philosophical system, because he never wrote a new “metaphysics”.
Note:
L. Lopatin’s dissertation “Positive Problems of Philosophy” was published in Moscow in 1886.
"Issues of philosophy and psychology." Book 50, 1899
See Solovyov’s article “Free will and causality.” "Thought and Word". II part M., 1913-1921. This article, written in 1893 regarding the second part of “Positive Problems of Philosophy” by L. Lopatin, was not published during the author’s lifetime.
