Suchergebnisse

This article presents the first historiographical attempt to examine and analyze systematically all the newspaper and journal responses to the first edition of the basic treatise on the moral philosophy by Vl. Soloviev – The Justification of Good (1897). The first part of the article examines the positive reviews of the book that were submitted or published by the closest friends of the philosopher, supposedly, at his personal request. The analysis of the responses allows us to conclude that The Justification of Good was generally received by the Russian readership unfavorably. The reason for this was a problem of assigning the philosopher to one or another camp of Russian thought. Vl. Soloviev's moral metaphysics and especially his socio-political views did not satisfy either liberals or conservatives, much less representatives of the radical left movements in social thought. The article notes that among the closest friends of Vl. Soloviev who gave a positive review of this treatise only E.L. Radlov was ready to accept the philosophical conception contained in The Justification of Good and support Soloviev in his polemic with the ethical views of Leo Tolstoy. Additionally, an examination of the positive reviews of The Justification of the Good is also important, because their authors as Soloviev's friends could interpret some of the most difficult theses of the book based on the explanation given by the philosopher himself. It is possible to suppose that in preparing to publish his new philosophical work Vl. Soloviev expected that the first sympathetic reviews would contribute to a correct perception of his moral philosophy in Russian society.

This article is a reflection on the book published last year by the American scholar Thomas Nemeth devoted to an examination of the late work of Vl. Solov'ev. The article evaluates the work by Nemeth highly, reveals the most important theses of the book, and also attempts to formulate the basic investigative hypothesis, which underlies this work. It is also asserted that Vl. Solov'ev's late philosophical project is the least studied side of his work, if not the largest «blind spot!» in the historiography of Russian philosophy as a whole. The conclusion is that Nemeth's book is the first step toward the systematic study of the late Vl. Solov'ev, probably after the second volume of E.N. Trubeckoi's famous study. The article notes that Vl. Solov'ev's philosophy of all-unity retains its relevance, if not for world philosophy, then for Russian culture, all of which were marked by an influence from philosophical romanticism with imperative of wholeness and mystical penetration to the final context.

The conversation of the correspondent of "Lenta.ru" within the framework of the History of Russian Thought project, with Boris Mezhuyev, Associate Professor of the Department of History of Russian Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University, devoted to the modern significance of V. Solovyov's philosophy of unity, his social mission, as well as about the complex aspects of his religious worldview, which have recently caused acute controversy. It is reported that V. Solovyov managed to create a philosophical system that meets the deep features of the national consciousness, that he tried to give Christianity a kind of social mission and, on the other hand, point out that the main problems of humanity will not be solved if it rejects the Gospels and leaves the church. The conversation emphasizes that Vladimir Solovyov remained the number one thinker in Russia for his contemporaries throughout almost his entire life. And he strengthened his status as a prophet by predicting the coming unification of Europe, the power of China and even the confrontation of Western countries with the Islamic world. It is argued that the philosopher saw the future of humanity in the unification of all Christians, which would end the wars that were inevitable until then. And Russia and the Russian people, with their idea of self-denial and striving for integrity, had to play a key role in this unification. The conversation also tells how Solovyov explained the contradictions of the West and the East and how he saw the future of the Russian people.

The article continues the systematic review and analysis of newspaper and magazine responses to the first edition of the main work of V. Solovyov on moral philosophy "Justification of Good" (1897). In the third part of this series of articles, critical attacks on this book from the right wing of the Russian press and public thought are considered. The critical judgments by the employee of the "Historical Review", the publicist and jurist B.V. Nikolsky and the columnist of the "Moscovskie Vedomosti" Alexey I. Vvedensky are described in detail. The article claims that Nikolsky, a long-time and uncompromising detractor of V. Solovyov, in his critical response refused to argue with the philosopher's theoretical views and limited himself to pointing out his incompetence in a number of applied issues, in particular, with the history of legal thought. It is also said that Vvedensky, though sympathizing with V. Solovyov, condemned his departure from Russian conservatism, subjected the book to more thorough criticism. It is argued that Vvedensky was able to come to a correct understanding of the title of the work, linking the "justification" of goodness with the fullness of the embodiment of the foundations of morality in the earthly life of mankind. It is hypothesized that V.V. Solovyov could have reacted indirectly to B.V. Nikolsky's article by resorting to the help of one of the authors of the newspaper "Kavkaz", headed by a close friend of V.V. Solovyov – poet and publicist V.L. Velichko.

The article continues the systematic review and analysis of newspaper and magazine responses to the first edition of V. Solovyov's main work on moral philosophy "Justification of good" (1897). In the second part of the article we are talking about the scandal associated with a sharp response to the book of V. Solovyov on the pages of the "Novoye Vremya" regular columnist of the newspaper F.E. Shperk having questioned the necessity of moral philosophy and argued that good does not require any justification, and it is impossible to justify any system of morality with reasonable arguments. The article claims that Shperk's attack caused a big scandal in circles close to V. Solovyov. The reaction to this controversy from publications sympathetic to V. Solovyov is also described. It is noted that the publisher of the newspaper "Novoye Vremya" A.S. Suvorin himself had to politely dissociate himself from the speech of his columnist. The article also reveals the reasons that prompted Shperk to soften his position and his formulations. The article provides a new document - an unpublished letter from V. Solovyov to Suvorin, making why the philosopher's public reaction to this particular response clear. In conclusion, it is proved that the incident led to a serious mutual alienation Vl. Solovyov from V.V. Rozanov, whom the philosopher reasonably suspected of involvement in this publication.

The article continues the systematic review and analysis of newspaper and magazine responses to the first edition of the main work of V. Solovyov on moral philosophy "Justification of Good" (1897). The fourth part of this series of articles examines critical attacks on this book by representatives of the left, presumably Populist camp of the Russian press and public thought. It describes in detail critical responses of such authors as the regular columnist of the newspaper "Novosti", literary critic Evgeny A. Solovyov, an anonymous review published in the journal "Russian Thought", the reviews by the positivist philosopher Pavel V. Mokievsky in "Russkoe bogatstvo" and by the religious idealist Akim L. Volynsky in the "Severnyi vestnik". It is noted that the main tone of criticism from the left was the assertion that the philosopher took the position of a conformist acceptance of the state and the church in their existing forms. Based on the consideration of all the above responses, the article concludes that none of the aforementioned critics tried to understand the essence of V. Solovyov's views. For most of the left-wing critics, any correlation of philosophy with religion, at least in its traditional forms, was unacceptable. It is argued that certain objections of V. Solovyov's critics on the left against his concept of moral philosophy were not without persuasiveness, which the philosopher had to take into account in the second edition of his work.

В апреле 2023 г. в «Доме А.Ф. Лосева» состоялся международный круглый стол «Владимир Соловьев и будущее русской философии», посвященный 170-летию со дня рождения философа. Организатором выступила редакция журнала «Вопросы философии» при участии «Дома А.Ф. Лосева – научной библиотеки и мемориального музея» и научного проекта «Литература сквозь призму философии: история русской лирики в эстетике Вл. Соловье­ва» (ИМЛИ РАН). В обсуждении приняли участие философы, историки фи­лософии, филологи. В центре их внимания оказались следующие вопросы: значение философских идей Владимира Соловьева для осмысления тенден­ций современной русской философии; актуальность метафизики «всеедин­ства» Вл. Соловьева и современная эпистемология науки: против позити­визма; актуальные смыслы софиологии Соловьева: взгляд из будущего; вклад Вл. Соловьева в развитие «русского метафизического языка»; Вл. Со­ловьев в русской философской «сфере разговора»: собеседники и институ­ции; социально-философская доктрина Вл. Соловьева и ее современные интерпретации; «соборность» как проблема русской философии; истори­ческий опыт Вл. Соловьева как поиск «пределов»: как возможно «мыс­лить до конца»; Соловьев и его «Заслуженные современные собеседники»: А.Ф. Лосев, П.П. Гайденко, С.С. Хоружий; значение эстетических идей Вл. Соловьева для осмысления литературного процесса. Стержнем дискус­сий, завязавшихся при обсуждении указанной тематики, стал вопрос о кон­кретной роли Вл. Соловьева в становлении русской философии. Ниже пуб­ликуются материалы «круглого стола».