|
Existential Philosophy in the thought of Vladimir Solovyov
By: Seyed Javad Meynagh Copyright: LONDON ACADEMY OF IRANIAN STUDIES
Abstract
The question of Russian Religious Intellectuals is one of those important issues which modernist (disciplinary, secular, academic) social theory refuses to engage with for various ideological reasons such as the unreasonable insistence on the relevance of religious paradigm as a contemporary issue and not only a matter of historical past. To present Solovyov we are not only interested in a thinker of the past but our main aim is to demonstrate the relevance of perennial questions which are embodied within the discourses of various intellectuals from distinct (but interdependent) religious traditions across the globe. In this sense the Russian Religious Circle proves to be one of the most enchanting traditions that world has produced to this day. Introduction It would not be exaggerated to consider the Russian philosophy one of the most vital philosophies of humanity, at least in the past 200 hundred years, which its fundamental questions and problems have poured into all sections of humanities from film, psychology, literature to sociology and art history and so on and so forth. Many have tried to explain its vitality in relation to the Orthodox tradition of Christianity, which puts a great emphasis on the role of personal mystic union with living God. There are others who try to conceptualize this vitality in relation to the Asiatic spirit of Russian psyche that is demonstrably evident in the geography of the Russians who are predominantly, despite many intellectual efforts by Russian intelligentsia and politicians, Asians rather than Europeans. There are again others who attempt to explain the originality and its volcanic character of Russian philosophy to three streams of thoughts which resulted historically in the ethos of Mongolian/Cossack religiosity, Christianity and finally the immense influence of Iranian (both pre-Islamic and Islamic) philosophical traditions on Russia, which are greatly evident in people like Tolstoy and even early orthodox mystics of Russia before she entered to world politics (via the influence of Tatars who ruled what we call today Russia for more than seven centuries based on Mongolian military and Iranian culture). However what is of interest to us now is the importance of existential impulse within Russian religious philosophy, which is profoundly evident in Solovyov as it was in Tolstoy. By existential impulse we intend to understand the role of intellectual approach to the question of human existence within the parameters of Solovyov’s thought. He, like many other Russian religious thinkers, represents a thinker who has a profound concern with human existence (based on an integral vision) in its broadest sense which does not view only humanity as a terrestrial accident but as a divine reality which requires for its unfolding a free soul. (Kostalevsky, 1997)
He
(1853 - 1900) was an outstanding Russian philosopher, poet, pamphleteer and
a literary critic, who played a significant role in the development of
Russian philosophy and poetry at the end of the 19th century. Solovyev
played a significant role in the Russian spiritual renaissance in the
beginning of the 20th century. He had an effect on the religious philosophy
of Nicolas Berdyaev, Sergey Bulgakov, Pavel Florensky, Semyon Frank, and
also to poetry and theory of the Russian symbolism by Andrei Belyi,
Alexander Blok, and others. (Zouboff, 1944. p 38) Solovyov’s Philosophy of Existence
Interpretations of Solovyov's Philosophical Writings Despite the vast amount of secondary literature, particularly, of course, in Russian, little, especially that in English or Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Turkish, is of interest to the professionally-trained philosopher. Nevertheless, even while memory of him was still fresh, many of his friends differed sharply on key issues involved in interpreting Solovyov's writings and legacy. Among the topics debated over the years has been the number of phases or periods through which his thought passed. Opinions have ranged from four to just one, depending largely on the different criteria selected for demarcating one period from another. Those who hold that Solovyov's thought underwent no "fundamental change" (Shein, 1970. p 14) do not deny that there were modifications but simply maintain that the fundamental thrust of his philosophy remained unaltered over the course of time. Others see different emphases in Solovyov's work from decade to decade. Yet in one of the most philosophically-informed interpretations, Solovyov moved from a philosophy of "integral knowledge" to a later phenomenological phase that anticipated the "essential methodology" of the German movement (Dahm, 1975. p 12). Historically, another central concern among interpreters has been the extent of Solovyov's indebtedness to various other figures. Whereas several have stressed the influence of, if not an outright borrowing from, the late Schelling (Mueller, 1951; Shein, 1970), at least one prominent scholar has sought to accentuate Solovyov's independence and creativity (Losev, 1983). Still others have argued for Solovyov's indebtedness to Hegel (Navickas, 1966), Kant (Vvedenskij, 1924), Boehme (David, 1962), the Russian Slavophiles and the philosophically-minded theologians Jurkevich and Kudryavtsev. In Russia itself the thesis that Solovyov had no epistemology (e.g. Radlov) evoked a spirited rebuttal (e.g. Ern) that has continued in North America by scholars such as Shein and Navickas. None of these scholars, however, has demonstrated the presence of more than a rudimentary epistemology, at least as that term is currently employed in contemporary philosophy. Additionally, the vast majority of secondary studies have dealt with Solovyov's mysticism and views on religion, nationalism, social issues, and the role of Russia in world history. Consequently, it is not surprising that those not directly acquainted with his explicit philosophical writings and their Russian context view Solovyov as having nothing of interest to say in philosophy proper. We should also mention one of the historically most influential existentialist views, one that initially at least appears quite plausible. Berdyaev, seeing Solovyov as a paradoxical figure, distinguished a day- from a night-Solovyov. The "day-Solovyov" was a philosophical rationalist, in the broad sense, an idealist, who sought to convey his highly metaphysical religious and ontological conceptions through philosophical discourse utilizing terms current at the time; the "night- Solovyov" was a mystic who conveyed his personal revelations largely through poetry. However, in my view, the most integral view of Solovyov, is the combination of day and night Solovyov. That is to say, Solovyov as an intellectual who could dream about the depth of human existence and at the same time could communicate this reality to others in a dialogical manner. Once seen in this light he would be more of a contemporary thinker who addresses perennial questions and not only a Russian who talked about political problems of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution of 1917.
The overriding concept of his philosophy is Godmanhood. (Zouboff, 1944) God is All in Everything. God posits his Otherness - the World. God posits his Oneness with the World - his son, Godman Jesus Christ, and his Oneness with his Son - Holy Spirit. Godmanhood is not only the essence of Christ but also the historical process designed to unite God and world. His union cannot be a single act imposed by God on humanity because humanity must unite itself with God freely. Solovyov approaches the idea of Man as a free agent who needs God in order to be-come his own true self. Freedom is the likeness of God in man, while perfection is the image of God in man. The achievement of perfection through freedom is the task of humanity. Freedom presupposes the free choice between good and evil and thus creates the possibility of evil. Evil cannot be eradicated otherwise than through man's own free will for good. Freedom leads a human being away of God, but only through freedom s/he can return to God. Evil manifests itself in egoism and suffering. In egoism, person opposes oneself to other entities; in suffering person experiences their externality as the obstacle for the attainment of one's own goals and desires. Egoism and suffering are the two aspects of one process of alienation. To overcome suffering, one must overcome one's own egoism. Sexual love is the way to overcome egoism by recognizing the absolute significance of another personality; the salvation of individuality through the sacrifice of egoism. No other kind of love - mystical, parental, patriotic love - can lead to a real unification of two personalities comprising one full personality, the image of God. Sexual love is not a means for the larger quantity or better quality of the progeny, since its goal is not multiplicity, but the creation of ideal personality. The true human being cannot be merely a man or a woman but the higher union of the two. Both exclusively physical and exclusively spiritual love are degradation of love and the triumph of death, since death disintegrates human wholeness and separates soul from the body. The goal of love is the transformation of divided mortal beings into integral immortal being, the reception of the temporal into eternity.
Sophia is the Eternal Feminine, the feminine soul
of the world. Sophia occupies a mediating position between the multiplicity
of living entities and the absolute unity of Deity. Sophia is the passive
force, which unconsciously strives for unity, while God's Logos (Christ) is
an active and formative energy and has the conscious idea of total-unity.
Sophia is the mysterious companion of God, His Feminine Other. The
relationship between God and Sophia are reproduced in human love. God loves
the soul of the world, the ideal mankind, and aspires to its salvation and
immortality. Through love, man perceives the Eternal Feminine in the
personality of his beloved, and attempts to liberate her from the
multiplicity and discordance of the physical elements, to immortalize her.
In the state of externality, generated by the negative aspect of freedom (evil, egoism), each element is excluded or displaced by all others. In the divine order, all of these elements positively supplement each other and form an integral and harmonious organism. The gradual realization of ideal total-unity is the ultimate goal of the cosmic and historical processes. Man is the mediator between God and material existence, his task is to introduce total-unification into the multiplicity of natural elements, to order and organize universe. Total-unity does not diminish individuality but incorporates it fully and freely. The perfection is the greatest freedom of parts in the greatest unity of the whole. The universality of an entity stands in direct relation to its individuality: the more universal it is, the more individual it will be. The universal organism, the total-unity is a distinctive individual entity. The universality of God coincides with the individuality of Christ. The principle of total-unity presupposes criticism of one-sided "abstract principles" such as "spiritual" and "physical" love, or "empiricism," "rationalism," and "mysticism." The experience, reason and belief are insufficient by themselves and must be incorporated into the "integral knowledge"; by the same token, physical, legal and spiritual aspects of love must be integrated into "full personality". In sum, one can discern a very strong presence of mystic thought within his discourse, which brings to mind one of the very reasons of our engagement with Solovyov, which is aimed to bring about the ideas, thoughts, reflections and engagements of non-Western thinkers on existential questions. Solovyov’s approach to the human predicaments was not solely defined by what academic philosophy defined as proper domain of philosophical reflection. On the contrary, to understand human existence and find ways to overcome suffering that goes with the loss of God one, as Solovyov rightly argued, needs to take on all avenues of comprehension. As human being is not a one-dimensional reality the sources of knowledge for him should not be of one character either. Total unity requires a total approach to the predicaments that existence as such presents to the soul of the whole man. Solovyov’s thought on human predicament is set forth in his idea as the acceptance of full responsibility. Freedom may lead to evil and evil holds the seed of all estrangement. The Fall story is a mythical description of the transition from essential to existential being, which highlights the process of estrangement, alienation and finally the only way one could be-come self-realized and God-conscious. All men are aware of estrangement from their true nature. Yet, the Fall does not refer to an event that happened once upon a time. What the Fall symbolizes is the universal human situation. All men are fallen because all are estranged from themselves, from others and from God. The human predicament involves various fundamental forms of self-destruction: unbelief, pride and concupiscence. Because of these we feel burdened with personal guilt and experience the tragic consequences of existence which are evident in egoism and suffering that dominates the human history. In other words, it is hard to miss the ‘religious’ (transcendental) character of Solovyov’s philosophy which takes the relation between God and Man as one of its grandest pillars of thinking qua thinking in the midst of Leben. (Sutton, 1988) For some this anchorage of thinking may prove anti-modern but certainly for those who view human life in an eschatological suluki manner this concern is of great importance for the full realization of Godmanhood or what Muslim thinkers call ‘Divine Viceregency’. In Solovyov as we could discern in Tolstoy and in a different jargon in Phiroz Mehta we see a preoccupation with the Kingdom of God and how one should relate to it both individually and collectively. (Courten, 2004) The Kingdom of God cannot be attained by human efforts, and all human claims to absolute perfection and universality are dangerous since they prepare the kingdom of Antichrist. The reason is that if the efforts are going to be all based on external dimensions such as brining about better systems what is lost in the whole process is the inner man and what in reality constitutes the inward dimension of man. Once this is lost all efforts towards goodness is a mere mirage without any end. This is one of the most pressing issues within Russian Christian Religious Thoughts as best captured in the works of thinkers such as Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Berdayev and so on and so forth. (Valliere, 2000)
References Courten, Manon de. History, Sophia and the Russian nation: A reassessment of Vladimir Solovyev's views on history and his social commitment. Bern: Lang, 2004. Publications Universitaires Européennes. Série 3, Histoire et sciences auxiliaires . Dahm, H. Vladimir Solovyev and Max Scheler: Attempt at a Comparative Interpretation, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1975. David, Z. V. "The Influence of Jacob Boehme on Russian Religious Thought," Slavic Review, 21(1962), 1, pp. 43-64. Kostalevsky, M. Dostoevsky and Soloviev: The art of integral vision. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1997. Losev, A. Vladimir Solov'ev, Moscow: Mysl', 1983. Mueller, L. Solovjev und der Protestantismus, Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1951. Munzer, E Solovyev: Prophet of Russian-Western unity. London: Hollis & Carter, 1956. Navickas, J. L. "Hegel and the Doctrine of Historicity of Vladimir Solovyov," in The Quest for the Absolute, ed. Frederick J. Adelmann, The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1966, pp. 135-154. Shein, L. J. "V.S. Solov'ev's Epistemology: A Re-examination," Canadian Slavic Studies, Spring 1970, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Sutton, J. The religious philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov: Towards a reassessment. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Trubeckoj, E. N. Mirosozercanie V. S. Solov'eva, 2 vols., Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Medium," 1995. Valliere, Paul. Modern Russian theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Vvedenskij, I. A. "O misticizme i kriticizme v teorii poznanija V. S. Solov'eva," Filosofskie ocherki, Prague: Plamja, 1924, pp. 45-71. Zouboff, Peter P. Godmanhood as the main idea of the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev. Poughkeepsie : Harmen Printing House, 1944. |