CC BY
176
O. Dushin (Saint-Petersburg)
SCHELLING AND SOLOVYOV ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
1. Solovyov and Schelling: Christianity versus Gnosticism
When dealing with the issue of interpreting the origins of evil in the philosophical conceptions of Friedrich Schelling and Vladimir Solovyov, we should first of all mention the Russian thinker’s „Schellingism” that became a matter of rather serious arguments giving rise to some radical misunderstandings. Some of Solovyov’s critics, both his contemporaries and modern-day scholars accused the Russian philosopher of outright plagiarism while others recognize that to use different philosophical traditions of thought and to make a synthesis thereof is natural for any outstanding thinker and creator of a sophisticated philosophical theory1.
1 It is a well-known fact that during Solovyov’s presentation of his Master’s Thesis on 6 April 1880, Professor of Theology Rozhdestvensky, his official opponent, commented on this very matter, i.e. closeness of Solovyov’s ideas to those of Schelling and Schlei-ermacher. In turn, the philosopher acknowledged the importance of Schelling’s „positive philosophy” for his own views but disowned the influence of Schleiermacher and early Schelling’s „pantheism”. Many a famous Russian scholar pointed out a clear link between Solovyov’s metaphysics and Schelling’s philosophical constructions; e.g., Evgeny N. Trubetskoy, Solovyov’s associate and connoisseur of his legacy, wrote, „Schelling made a turn from rationalism to Christian philosophy; he also raised the issue of synthesis between revelation and knowledge, of positive and negative elements in philosophy. He had foreseen a way out of the crisis in Western philosophy, which late became the subject of Solovyov’s first philosophical work” (E. N. Trubetskoy. Mirovospriatie V. Solovyova. Vol. I. Moscow: Medium, 1995. P. 66). Aleksei F. Losev emphasized that „both thinkers are profoundly united by their struggle against abstract rationalism and formal and strict logical metaphysics” (A.F. Losev. Vladimir Solovyov i ego vremya. Moscow: Progress, 1990. P. 193). Konstantin Mochulsky echoed the idea, „Solovyov’s philosophical system was created in the atmosphere of Schelling’s ideas. It would take too long to mention all the Schellingian elements in Solovyov’s writings” (K. Mochulsky. Gogol. Solovyov. Dostoevsky. Moscow: Republica, 1995. P. 127). An eminent historian of Russian thought Vasily V. Zenkovsky wrote, „As we have already seen, Solovyov’s metaphysics was deduced from the general doctrine of the Absolute and therein, he managed to merge
Besides, as a young man Solovyov indeed treated Schelling almost as a co-author and a mystic confrere who also had put into practice new religious and philosophical ideas. It is crucial that Solovyov and other Russian Slavophiles, e. g. Ivan V. Kireevsky and Aleksei S. Khomyakov, as well as the founder of Westernism Pyotr Y. Chaadaev, despite their disagreements, were brought up on Schelling’s philosophy of Revelation and a critique of Hegel’s rationalism and panlogism2. Consequently, it was due to Schelling and his philosophy that the original Russian thought entered the field of Western metaphysical concepts. Apparently, a reverse effect should not be underestimated, especially when it comes to Schelling’s later ideas, his philosophy of Revelation that focuses on the essential religious component of human consciousness.
However, the issue of the effect that Schelling’s later philosophical ideas had on forming Solovyov’s views is not that simple. It concerns the fundamental bases of both Russian religious metaphysics and Vladimir Solovyov’s unique philosophical position. Russian researchers hold radically different opinions on the matter; some think that Solovyov continued and developed rather orthodox Christian ideas while others say that as opposed to Schelling, the Russian philosopher appreciably deviated from the dogmatics of Christian theology. There are also whose who believe that both Solovyov and Schelling were under some exclusive
together Schelling and Spinoza...” (Zenkovsky V. V. Istoria Russkoy Philosophii. T. 2.Par-is: YMCA-Press, 1950. P. 45). However, Russian researcher V. Lazarev who refers to Losev’s viewpoint on this issue, calls upon scholars not to exaggerate the influence of Schelling on Solovyov (Lazarev V. O zaimstvovanijah. K sopostavleniu philosophii V. S. Solovyova
i Schellinga // Minuvshee i neprehodyaschee v zhizni i tvorchestve Vladimira Solovyova. Marerialy mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, 14-15 February 2003. The „Symposium” series, Vol. 32. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, 2003. P. 290).
2 It is known that Kireevsky attended Schelling’s lectures in Munich and Berlin and Chaadaev corresponded with him. In 1832, he enthusiastically wrote in a letter: „.I cannot find words to tell you how happy I was when I learned that the most profound thinker of our time had come to this great idea of conflation of philosophy and religion” (Chaa-daev P. Y. Statji i pisma. M.: Sovremennik, 1989. P. 255). Within this context, it stands to reason that A. V. Gulyga calls V. S. Solovyov „the last Russian follower of Schelling” (Gulyga A. V. Solovyov i Schelling // Istorichesky i Philosophsky ezhegodnik’87. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. P. 266).
gnostical influence.3 All of them are right in some respect, although one should not blame Solovyov or Schelling of inconsistency from a theological point of view, since they were religious thinkers who demonstrated a fundamental transformation in the 19th-century European philosophy when it reached its climax in Hegelian panlogism and turned to religion in search of solutions to its own unsolvable problems. Herein lies the core of the formation and development of non-classical Western metaphysics. One should also take into account the vivid dynamics of thought and prospects of fundamental changes in the philosophical conceptions of both outstanding thinkers, especially considering their truly unique examples of creativity.
The philosophical ideas of both Solovyov and Schelling had gone through a number of serious transformations. Solovyov’s spiritual development was going from one extreme to another; from the ardour for materialism and science when he threw away Orthodox icons to intimate friendship with Dostoevsky and pilgrimage to the Optina Desert
3 Fr. Georges Florovsky wrote, „The spirit of Solovyov’s philosophy is the spirit of innate Eastern Greek Orthodoxy, and ideas of his philosophy are ideas of the Incarnation, the Church, integral knowledge and free unity which are suggested by patristic thought. These ideas were discovered in the era of the ecumenical councils; they were kept in Byzantine monasticism, by conrtemplators from the Holy Mountain Athos — the He-sychasts, and thence through southern Slavonic lands penetrated into Russia in the time of domination of Moscow and were embraced by the first Russian original thinker, Rev. Nil Sorsky. These ideas were resurrected from oblivion in the 18th century by a thinker in the Slavonic South and through German elder Paisius Velichkovsky, entered the Russian religious thought again. The Optina Desert became their stronghold and it was from there that they affected the Slavophiles” (Cit.: Mochulskyi K. Vladimir Solovyov. Zhizn i uchenie. http://vehi.net/mochulsky/soloviev/07.html#_ftn5 12.09.2011). In solidarity with this interpretation, Mochulsky noted that „Schelling’s Christology was not of Christian but of Gnostic character” (Mochulskyi K. Op. cit.). Whereas Aleksei P. Kozyrev claims that „in Sophia, Solovyov is closer to Manichaeanism and further from Christian orthodoxy to a greater degree than Schelling who saw the source of evil in the free will of a man who elevates himself to the almighty ruling will” (Kozyrev A. P. Paradoksy neza-verschennogo tractata. K publikacii perevoda francuzskoi rukopisi Vladimira Solovyova „Sophia”. http://www.anthropology.ru/paradoxy.htm, 2001, „Logos”. 12.09.2011) Piama P. Gaidenko suggested to interprete philosophy of both thinkers through the lens of Gnosticism (Gaidenko P. P. Gnosticheskii motivy v ucheniah Schellinga i V. Solovyova // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2005. N 2. P. 202-208).
Monastery, from recognition of the substantiality of evil in the world to „The Justification of the Good” with its belief in the continual social progress of morality, from mediumistic apparitions of Sophia to phantasms of devil. All these contradictions were inexplicably combined in Solovyov’s truly amazing personality and manifested themselves in his quest for philosophical truths and metaphysical deliberations. It is therefore important to establish not only what the philosopher understood and how he understood it but also to appreciate how he really felt and perceive himself and the world. His philosophical interpretation of evil was a reflection of his inner spiritual struggle, his visions and painful affects which had been haunting him throughout his life. For Solovyov, evil was not so much a metaphysical concept as a kind of life drama with its struggle for good, a private religious confrontation that was probably not entirely orthodox from the viewpoint of Christian theology. In this respect, he bears no resemblance to Schelling.
2. Schelling: man and his freedom
Without a doubt, Schelling had introduced some entirely new philosophical motives and strategies of understanding that instigated the development of non-classical metaphysics. Within this context, his 1809 work „Philosophical investigations into the essence of human freedom and related subjects” was especially important. In this paper, he recognized the existentially discordant nature of human existence and maintained that ontological dualism between good and evil was typical for a man. First, he rejected the traditional concept of European rationalism and strived for different ways of interpreting the idea of freedom. In this regard, he came out against the Hegelian system which maintained the priority of logic over unconscious forces of nature and replaced interpretation of existence with sketchiness of abstract definitions and metaphysical concepts. This dialectical theory of Hegel’s naturally led to proclaiming progress in the kingdom of freedom in the history of European culture. As a result, his teaching did not allow for real fighting and negotiating as the world appeared to have been originally set in order by general and abstract notions, and all the content of history was reduced to fulfilling
the idea of freedom. Whereas according to Schelling, there was a super rational principle in the world that would not be brought under control by human mind or grasped by human reason. This highest ideal essence was God.
The incomprehensible nature of God means that „in order to exist, God also needs a basis”;4 this basis is an initial volition or pre-existence, which is a necessary element of the fulfillment of divine love. This concept can be traced back to Jacob Bohme’s idea of „Ungrund”, or „groundless abyss of Nothingness”. The will of the basis in God provides a revelation leading to features and contradictions that are reconciled by the will of love. Thereupon the will of basis and the will of love are two sides of a single process but the action of basis provokes self-will of a creature, which must be overcome in the unity of love. Thus, in the world there is an „incomprehensible basis of reality of things, a never vanishing residue, something that cannot be taken apart in the mind even through greatest efforts but always remains at the heart of things”.5
Schelling rejected the speculative premise of European rationalism on „harmony between the organization of existence and subjective organization of man”6 according to which a man is rooted in the infinite world order by this very organization and has a guaranteed place in this world order as its recognizing subject. Thus the world is objectified and deprived of mystery but a man also dissolves into universal rational and metaphysical definitions, into a triumph of reason as a universal tool of cognition, and requirements of moral imperatives. For Schelling, the essence of man is full of contradictions and this split cannot be overcome by reasonable strategies of logical cognition. „A man is a receptacle of both all the power of the dark and the whole force of the light. He is the deepest abyss and the highest heaven, or both”.7 As man, the most perfect of all creatures is still capable of evil, the philosopher opposed the traditional understanding of evil as „belittling” the good, which was characteristic of Christian theology. According to Schelling, evil is associated with the
4 SchellingF. W. J. Sochineniya. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl, 1989. P. 122.
5 Ibid. P. 109.
6 Mamardashvily M. K. Neobhodimost’ sebya. Moscow: Labyrint, 1996. P. 381.
7 Schelling. Op. cit. P. 112.
original basis of existence and „there is only higher potentiality of a basis operating in nature”8 which means it has an ontological source but is not a positive entity.
According to Schelling, understanding the metaphysical foundations of evil leads to comprehension of inherent human freedom. In his concept, freedom is rooted in „primordial and fundamental volition, which makes itself into something and appears to be the foundation and basis of any substantiality”.9 Therefore, the essence of man cannot be reduced to reason but is „his own act”10 which distinguishes man from the temporal nature of all created things and brings him closer to the eternal source of life. In every man, there is an incomprehensible principle of conscience which cannot be reduced to his mind. It is due to this principle that a man tends to act in a certain way and not otherwise, just as Martin Luther, the founder of Reformation declared at a crucial moment in his life, „Here I stand, I can do no other”. For Schelling, the ontological foundations of freedom are such that a man is deprived of choice. His freedom, in essence, is not a choice; but when a man acts the way he does, he implements himself as a subject of his guilt and unique personal conscience. Thus, the triumph of the dark principle in human soul is determined by the ontological foundations of human freedom. In this regard, the triumph of evil is only feasible in the field of religion which is guided not by psychological attitudes or moral and ethical laws, but „requires the highest confidence in what is right, the confidence which excludes any choices at all”.11 Piety leads a man to love where a dangerous unilateralism of self-will is overcome and the supremacy of a centripetal force drawing a man to God is maintained. Love implements an efficient self in a man, without which the good is ineffectual. The ultimate goal and a final truth of the world unfold within the prospect of divine love.
Evil must be fully actualized in itself in order to initiate a division between good and evil; this division will reveal the potential nature of evil that becomes non-existent beyond positive principles of good. Thus,
8 Ibid. P. 124.
9 Ibid. P. 131.
10 Ibid. P. 130.
11 Ibid. P. 137.
according to Schelling, the contradiction is solved and a triumph of love is maintained. But the basis of such a perspective is purely theological. In Schelling’s metaphysics, the ideal of the world’s fate acquired a theological dimension that became a universal sense of human destiny but dismissed any personal involvement in ontological definitions.
3. Solovyov: from Godmanhood to the kingdom of Antichrist
To both Solovyov and Schelling, man a being that is controversial, ambiguous, split apart, carried away and involved in constant pursuit and search. On the one hand, a man is plunged into the low valley of mortality or the material abyss of flesh; on the other hand, he rushes to the sky, to the vast metaphysical expanse. „Man is a deity and a nobody”, said the Russian thinker.12 In that sense, he is „a link between the divine and the natural world”.13 God arraigns the man for the world that He gave to him, for material reality. The Creator himself is „interested” in a man. In his turn, the man has to transform the world in the course of a universal Divine-human process. Thereupon everyone is unique in his personal way and has an absolute value. A man is „a second unity”, for „finding himself in fact as «it» he creates the idea of himself as «all»”.14 Only man has the ability to grasp the inner essence and meaning of all existence, the logos of all things. Herein a danger of self-will arises, that of affirmation of a man’s own significance and actions accomplished not by the will of the Creator. That was where Solovyov saw the fault of modern civilization, i.e. revealing infinite human abilities but depriving the man of any spiritual meaning of existence. He wrote, „A modern man believes himself to have an inherent freedom, to be above any external principle and proclaims himself the centre of everything, while in reality he is only one infinitesimal and vanishing point at the circumference of the universe”.15 This infinity is in fact a negative definition of man that demonstrates his inevitable problematical character and reduces his
12 Solovyov V. S. Sochineniya. Vol. 2. M.: Pravda, 1989. P. 113.
13 Ibid. P. 113.
14 Ibid. P. 140.
15 Ibid. P. 21.
essence to a pure fact or phenomenon, stripping him of any divine or metaphysical purpose. According to Solovyov, a person cannot be reduced to the factuality of the external world or to a circle of phenomena; he is above the existing reality, he is a receptacle of an irresistible quest for infinite perfection, a desire to search for an ideal. It is noteworthy that as early as 1874, at his lectures at the Higher Women’s Courses in St Petersburg, the young thinker clearly stated, „The world of human knowledge and will stretches for an infinity surpassing all the physical phenomena and ideas. A man has the ability to rise above any physical phenomenon or object as he critically appreciates them”.16
However, the superiority and greatness of a man remains only a possibility; in fact, it is always limited. This is the essence of the ontological drama of a human being. Following the tradition of Christian theology, Solovyov admitted primordial freedom in the sources of human soul, that being is only a negative, sinful side of our personality. Unrestricted freedom draws the man to evil and only God’s grace directs him to virtue. Transcendental conditions of freedom are determined by divine predestination, so the man has no choice in pursuit of goodness. The righteous are not compelled to a virtuous life, as their path is determined by goodness. Ernest L. Radlov wrote, „Solovyov said that a saint did not have freedom of choice, just as Schelling taught that religion destroyed freedom of choice”.17 Thus, an irreconcilable contradiction between the greatness of the requirements of mind and the pettiness of desires of the will becomes apparent. Reason leads humans to the heights of knowledge, to the absolute, while their will is possessed by forces of evil and in all its freedom cannot resist sin without God’s help. Only the will that throws itself into divine mercy become righteous, but not by its own choice and dignity, i.e. a person sins by himself but does good through God. A man drawn by virtue thus implements his true metaphysical destiny in the universe. His destiny is not only to believe in himself and not even only to believe in God but to actually implement the divine-human process
16 The rendering of E. M. Polivanova lecture. See: Lucjanov S. M. O Vl. S. Solovyove v ego molodye gody. Materialy k biographii. Book III. № 1. Reprint. Vol. 2. Moscow: Kniga, 1990. P. 45.
17 Radlov E. L. Vladimir Solovyov. Zhizn’ i uchenie. Saint-Petersburg, 1913. P. 122.
of transformation of the world and all existing things. In this universal divine perspective, faith in God and faith in man are united.
Solovyov’s interpretation of Godmanhood as a moral ideal of historical development was based on the fact that medieval metaphysics dealt primarily with the divine or „heavenly” while ignoring the human and temporal. Conversely, modern European thought made human mind its cornerstone, starting with the famous Cartesian principle „Cogito ergo sum” and consigning to oblivion or directly denying God. Thus, according to Solovyov, in the Middle Ages the universe was strictly determined by providence leaving no room for free actions and personal responsibility of a „fallen” man. In modern scientific and technological civilization based on the principles of modernity, the universe is deprived of law-governed dimension of existence conditioned by the presence of the Creator; it turns into an irrational battle of the elements. The Russian philosopher sought to overcome the shortcomings and unilateralism of both medieval theological traditions and modern scientific and philosophical theories through Christian and religious synthesis of the moral ideal of Godmanhood. He argued that genuine humanity is only possible in the presense of a Deity; without God, a man falls pray to fear and horror of conscience, moral devastation and moral disorder, and the principle of „permissiveness” will prevail.18 A man relying exclusively on his own abilities will inevitably come to ruin which means, according to Solovyov, a promise of „heavenly” existence without God. However, the metaphysical nature of humans prevents them from stopping in their development. An irresistible force of reason and cognition always draws the man, and in this fight he might get lost without moral and religious values and find himself in a situation of self-oblivion. Historical continuity and traditions would be broken and an abyss of emptiness and nothingness would open before the man threatening to engulf him. As per Solovyov, the only chance the
18 Fyodor M. Dostoevsky wrote, «Without God, conscience is horrible. It can lose its way and end up as something most immoral. It is not enough to determine morality through fidelity to convictions. We should also infinitely ask ourselves, are my beliefs true? And there is only one way to answer this question, that is Christ. But that is no longer philosophy but faith, and faith is branded with red” (Biographia, pis’ma i zametky iz zapisnoy knizhki F. M. Dostoyevskogo. St. Petersburg, 1883. P. 371).
man has to define himself lies within the horizon of the divine, for only God has true infinity, eternity and unconditionality.
According to Solovyov, implementation of humanity requires „a superhuman ideal, i.e. God-man who embodies both human and divine; this ideal is a fait accompli, an event that has determined the course of history”.19 God-man is everyone’s moral ideal; he opens the prospect of the kingdom of God that is recognized throughout the idea of Godman-hood. The latter relates not only to moral improvement of humanity, its social structure and interrelations, but also to the world of nature and physical universe. Consequently, nature is only a tool of establishing and implementing Godmanhood. Thus, this divine-human process of world transformation acquired a profound ontological sense in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov.
Like Schelling, the Russian thinker believed evil to be a necessary force in the imperfect material world; he wrote, „evil is essential for all nature”.20 He also disagreed with the traditional understanding of evil as „belittling” of good. This is how Ernest L. Radlov explained Solovyov’s position, „Although evil is not substantial and independent, it is nonetheless real and positive, i.e. it is not a simple invalidity”.21 A source of evil in the world is the World Soul that is burdened with a dichotomy between the creaturely and the divine. Divine unity admits imperfection because it includes not only an ideal and spiritual definition but is also in search of an actual implementation, a realization of love in the world. Thus, according to Radlov, assumption of evil in Solovyov’s writings is „necessary for manifestation of freedom, without which there is no true love”,22 since realization of all-conquering power of love is impossible under an external compulsion; it requires an act of free self-determination. However, the acknowledgement of freedom leads to an assertion of self-will and uniqueness, which separates the world from the Divine center, so along come discord and disunity, „primordial chaos” and „a yawning abyss of
19 Solovyov V. S. Op. cit. P. 156.
20 Ibid. P. 122.
21 Radlov E. L. Op. cit. P. 114.
22 Radlov E. L. Uchenie Vladimira Solovyova o svobode voli. St. Petersburg, 1911. P. 14.
every madness and ugliness”, „negative infinity” and universal confrontation. Instead of the Divine unity, a multiplicity of individual existence occurs, and all existing things seek to defend their right of a unique place in the universe, in the hierarchy of being. Solovyov wrote, „... this exclusive self-assertion, this contradiction of things and their mutual rejection are the essential evil of our nature. Since it is typical of all living things, as every living thing in nature, every animal, every insect and every blade of grass separates itself from all the others and strives to be everything to itself, absorbing or repelling others (hence the external, substantial existence), it follows that ... the whole of nature being a reflection of the idea of unity is in its actual, isolated and split existence, alien and hostile to this idea as something improper or bad”.23 Furthermore, the more isolation and exclusiveness is required by an individual being, the more it becomes aware of its own incompleteness, inadequacy and imperfection, resulting in painful suffering, which „is just a necessary consequence of moral evil”.24 An individual can never be everything in this world and capture the absolutely unconditional domination of existence; its power will inevitably be undermined and the divine unity will always be a magnet for everything that exists. Thus, the ontological depths of the World Soul give rise not only to a source of universal evil and suffering, death and decay but also to „a guarantee of victory”. It is the World Soul in its perfect and divine meaning (as „Sophia”25 or „perfect mankind”) that leads the man to a universal transformation of the world. In man, the World Soul is reconciled with the Divine Logos, and their ontological unity is revived.
In Solovyov’s teaching, man is a metaphysical mediator between God and material nature. In that sense, his goal is to become the organizer of the Universe. Man is called upon to understand himself and to restore his nature corrupted by sin, as well as the entire physical Universe through his free and conscious actions. Man must overcome the domination of
23 Solovyov V. S. Op. cit. P. 122.
24 Ibid. P. 123.
25 A. P. Kozyrev notes: „Even within a single Solovyov’s manuscript, it is often difficult to say what he means when he talks about Sophia, or rather which Sophia, the celestial one or the fallen one” (Kozyrev A. P. Op. cit.).
evil over this world, and that is the ethical meaning of Godmanhood. The idea of Godmanhood implies a revival of the free Divine unity, overcoming of evil and discord, chaos and struggle, plurality and individuality prevailing in our „fallen” world, as well as restoration of unity and wholeness, totality and perfection. Without man, this is impossible. According to Solovyov, it is he who is given a remarkable mission to transform the world, to deify it.26 Thus, ethics merges with metaphysics in his philosophical concept and a unique sense of Godmanhood as a moral ideal of history is revealed. Vasily V. Zenkovsky wrote, „Solovyov’s ethical determinism stands in close connection with his general metaphysics and his-toriosophy and can even directly traced back to them”.27 Implementing the ideal of unity is the goal of the whole world process, sociohistorical and natural development and formation of the universe, its highest idea being „theosis”, „deification”, actual embodiment of Godmanhood and a final victory of good over evil, restoration and revival of the „fallen” world harmony. Since his early years, Solovyov believed in a possibility of a new religious testament and universal transformation of humanity. In a letter written in 1873 he confessed, „I am... as sure as in my own existence, that the truth which I have been conscious of will have been sooner or later. realized by everyone, and then its inner strength will forever transform the whole world of lies. will destroy the whole untruth and evil of life both personal and social. the abyss of darkness, mud and blood, where humanity has been still struggling. and the kingdom of God will be revealed in all its glory — the realm of inner spiritual relations, the realm of pure love and joy — a new heaven and a new earth”.28 One of the most important foundations of his theory was the assumption that social institutions and social norms are indeed divine meanings of history through their implementation, and that God is always co-present in man’s moral achievements. For Solovyov, the divine was inseparable from the human, and man himself was summoned to implement universal harmony and cosmic unity, and to achieve the kingdom of God.
26 The theme of „deification” (theosis) is one of the most important in the Orthodox theology.
27 Zenkovsky V. V. Istoria Russkoy philosophii. Vol. 2. P. 67.
28 Solovyov V. S. Pisma Vol. III. Saint-Petersburg, 1911. P. 84-85.
The history of mankind was an actual justification of Divine Providence, a moral theodicy that did not need any other arguments or proof.
However, Solovyov’s later works were marked by apocalyptic experiences; his vision of the world had changed; he was filled with forebodings of a tragic end of human history, and future seemed bleak and inauspicious. His faith in Godmanhood was displaced by the idea of world destruction looming over mankind as a punishment for its sins and evilness, discord and wars dominating human society. His abstract ideal of the world development turned out unattainable in everyday life, and his definition of the objective course of history as a divine process proved meaningless and unjustifiable from the standpoint of society, for scientific and technical achievements, improvements of law and state do not fully exhaust moral requirements. Morality depends on the efforts of an individual man and cannot be determined through political declarations and religious prescriptions. The best and the most objective laws require, above all, a decent performer who would be a subject of law and morality.
Within this context, Solovyov’s famous work „The Drama of Plato’s Life” appears to be his own drama, his personal failure, a collapse of his hopes and aspirations. The Russian philosopher came to realize that the process of historical development was not a matter of divine will and that a man should bear the burden of responsibility, guilt and remorse for his actions without „leading strings” of external help and support. Therein lies the cause of both greatness and dignity of man, but also of his tragedy and contradiction. A man is summoned to act but this action is burdened with guilt and punishment from the very beginning; a man is guilty by the very fact of his being, and could not be granted „an alibi” for his existence.
The end of faith in Godmanhood led Solovyov to a crisis in his world vision, to recognition of domination of cosmic chaos, wars and discordance in society, to believing in the triumph of Antichrist in history. Evgeny N. Trubetskoy noted, „Solovyov’s forebodings of approaching disaster were always strong but now they have become concentrated and crystallized into a single entity and a vivid impression”.29 In a letter to Vasily
29 Trubetskoy E. N. Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 285.
L. Velichko dated 3 June 1897, Solovyov wrote: „The end of the world is imminent and I feel its distinct though subtle breath, as a traveller approaching the sea feels its breeze before he can see it”.30 His whole theory was based on the intuition of inherent goodness in a man; the main goal of human existence is the restoration of unity, reconciliation of existing things with their ideal prototypes, the one and the multitude in the Godmanhood process of the universe transformation. Failure of this religious and metaphysical prospect meant a collapse of all his hopes. His last work, „Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of History”, is a vivid reflection of this state of mind. In this dialogue, Solovyov showed that scientific and technological progress, economic achievements and social transformations were by no means unambiguous and their triumph and development could result in something completely unexpected, i.e. moral degradation and loss of dignity. Human conscience could be replaced by comfort and conveniences, and Christian values of love and mercy, by the kingdom of Antichrist. The Russian philosopher realized one of the main contradictions of his era, i.e. the one between advances in spiritual culture and emergence of technological civilization wherein a man is deprived of his genuine religious and metaphysical nature and his ontological status, and becomes a physiological being with a set of primitive desires and aspirations. This devastated man is close to the kingdom of Antichrist.
In the final part of his work „The Tale of Antichrist”, Solovyov pointed out that only the most spiritually strong people were able to resist the temptations of Antichrist and his powers. The strength of these righteous people is based on a supernatural grace. The kingdom of Antichrist is the last stage in human history; it rests upon moral impotence of people who are ready to surrender themselves to the devil but would not bear the burden of personal responsibility and guilt. On the one hand, a man tends to resist God and proclaims his own moral values beyond Godma-nhood. On the other hand, people always express their perfect willingness to submit to the power of bread, miracle and authority, and that is the mission of Antichrist. His kingdom is rather democratic and civilized
30 Solovyov V. S. Pisma Vol. I. Saint-Petersburg, 1908. P. C 232.
and, stressed Solovyov, under his dominion „will be united noble reverence for ancient traditions and symbols with broad and bold radicalism of social and political requirements and guidance, unlimited freedom of thought and the deepest understanding of the mystic, absolute individualism and fervent devotion to the common good, the most exalted idealism of guiding principles and complete unambiguousness and vitality of practical decisions”. In this society, all nations will be united and all social and economical contradictions will be solved, and material wealth will be granted to everyone, but it will all be done in a complete isolation from the moral image of Godmanhood and in the name of Ubermensch, in the name of triumph and domination of the Emperor of this world. According to Solovyov, this is the background for the denouement of our historical process that entails an appearance, glorification and downfall of Antichrist, for his power would inevitably be destroyed because evil and deception cannot provide a foundation for anything positive. The kingdom of Antichrist will be overwhelmed by a few righteous men but their victory will not be possible without divine assistance. The kingdom of goodness cannot exist beyond the mystic role of Godmanhood.
Thus, Solovyov entirely overturned his own early ideas. His world vision had undergone a profound metaphysical crisis but he came out of it transformed and confident in exceptional strength and powers of God. He rejected all attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable and to achieve the unachievable. He chose a new path of an unfathomable, unrationalized, inexhaustible, mystical and even apocalyptic faith. He came to believe that man was able to achieve the truth and moral perfection only through the Apocalypse and purification „by fire and sword”, and not by a peaceful and natural process of historical development.
