The riddle of the world

Previously posted on this blog on July 26, 2018 under a different title. This is what I want to believe in, when I´m not entirely awake or something!

"Lectures on Divine Humanity" by Vladimir Solovyov is a somewhat difficult book, in which the Russian philosopher-mystic expounds his particular version of Christian panentheism. I nevertheless felt right at home. But then, I've been immersing myself (somewhat haphazardly) in panentheist literature for some time. Solovyov draws from a wide variety of sources when spinning his own philosophy: I recognized obvious affinities with Plotinus, Leibniz, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte and Schopenhauer. However, his main font of inspiration must have been more mystical sources. The kabbalists are the usual suspects. Indeed, some of the other names on the panentheist laundry list were probably also inspired by such sources. Finally, I recognized affinities between Solovyov and later writers, including Steiner, Barfield, Grant-Watson and even the process philosophers.

It seems Solovyov is the best blend! He is also believed to be the prototype of Alyosha Karamazov. Both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were present when Solovyov delivered his lectures on divine humanity. Dostoevsky obviously paid attention - at least to Solovyov's personality (he seems to have been quite a character), while Tolstoy rejected him as absurd and childish.

Solovyov's philosophy is difficult to summarize, so what follows are just a few short sketches.

The most fundamental metaphysical objects, simply called "entities", have three aspects: the atom, the living force or monad, and the idea. The most basic mode of knowledge is a form of subconscious, intellectual intuition which predates both rational thinking and empirical observations. This reminds me of the panpsychism of Whitehead, with its "creative occasions" and "prehension" or "radical empiricism". However, Solovyov's version seems to be a form of idealism, since neither the "atom", the monad nor the idea seem to be really material. At one point, he even says that the existence of the outside world can't really be known for sure, except through faith, a position presumably taken from Fichte. I'm not sure if Solovyov really believed this, since his metaphysics sound very "objective" and centered on God rather than individual consciousness. But then, perhaps Solovyov didn't see any necessary contradiction between an objective and a subjective perspective? In his system, God and the world are con-substantial, and the Trinity is somehow reflected everywhere in creation. The Trinity is the solution to the problem of unity-multiplicity.

There doesn't seem to be any point at which creation "began". Rather I got the impression that Solovyov believed in a constant creation in the Neo-Platonist fashion. Thus, there is permanent unity-multiplicity, rather than creatio ex nihilo. Solovyov explicitly argues for a compatibilist view of divine freedom. Creation and love are necessary for God.

The cosmic fall is the fall of the world-soul or Sophia away from its true source in God. The world-soul is also a unity-multiplicity: both a single organism and a collection of many different entities. (This is presumably similar to the Primal Man, Purusha or Adam Kadmon.) By falling away from God, the world-soul looses its unity and fractures into complete chaos. However, the love of God works to lure the world-soul back to its original state. Our universe is the result of divine love working on the fractured, chaotic multiplicity of fallen Sophia. It's slowly evolving back to God. (Note both the similarity and difference with process philosophy, really a truncated version of this more supra-cosmic vision.) Many of the beings regarded as "spirits" or "gods" are former aspects of our own selves, which have been separated from us as a result of the fall. They are said to be in charge of the evolutionary process. Presumably, they used to be our higher selves. A similar position can be found in Anthroposophy and Theosophy.

In contrast to Schelling, Solovyov doesn't seem to locate the origin of evil in God himself. Rather, evil is the result of the world-soul's free will to fall away from God. Evil results from the fragmentation and finitude of each living creature, which strives to expand itself and survive in hostile competition with other creatures. In the fallen world, evil is inevitable. Everyone is born with radical evil in his heart, and the problem is therefore metaphysical.

At several points in his lectures, Solovyov discusses the evolution of religion. He sees several different stages in this process, which have a dialectical relation to each other in a scheme of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Original paganism is negated by Buddhism. Greek philosophy and the Judaism of the Law are both negated by the Judaism of the Prophets, with Christianity as a grand synthesis of everything that went before. There are also different stages in original pagan religion: star worship, sun worship, etc. Solovyov's attempts to squeeze the history of religions into a Hegelian (?) scheme aren't very convincing, but his main point seems to be that Christianity is a natural, evolutionary zenith of previous religious traditions, rather than a completely unique revelation de novo. He even attempts to trace the Trinity to pre-Christian notions, Philo in particular. Clearly, Solovyov wouldn't feel threatened by parallels between Christ and the deities of mystery religions. One is reminded of C.S. Lewis in this respect.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear whether the actual person Jesus Christ is a product of internal cosmic evolution or a divine personage coming "from the outside" to the fallen world. Perhaps he's both, or perhaps it really doesn't matter. The universe is, after all, "in" God even in its fallen state. The entities simply doesn't realize it, having posited themselves as completely autonomous. Also, Christ is not simply a person (human or divine), but a kind of collective organism or Primal Man presumably similar in character to the original world-soul before its fall. Solovyov says that the incarnation was natural, in the sense that the world was ready for the incarnation of Christ due to its upward evolution. The end-goal of the process is less clear, but the author does suggest that the Church, or rather the Universal Church (perhaps a mystical category) is a divine organism which wants to freely convert and hence unite with all men on Earth.

Solovyov's view of history is also, I take it, Hegelian. He doesn't reject modernity and secularism out of hand. Rather, he sees the modern West as a necessary antithesis to the institutionalized Christianity of the Middle Ages and Russia, which is no longer based on love. The synthesis will be a voluntary Christian union and society, and Solovyov hopes that his own motherland will lift itself up and bring in this happy state of affairs. (He later lost faith in intra-historical salvation, as seen in his famous "Short Story of the Anti-Christ".) While I consider Solovyov's political ideas the weakest spot in his entire philosophical edifice, he did have two sympathetic traits: he seems to have rejected the most virulent forms of Russian and pan-Slavist nationalism, and he doesn't sound anti-Semitic. Indeed, at one point he writes that the Jewish prophets' combination of positive patriotism and universalism should be a model for Russia!

For more on Vladimir Solovyov, see Frederick Copleston's "History of Philosophy. Volume 10: Russian Philosophy" and N.O. Lossky's "History of Russian Philosophy", which also mentions Solovyov's mystical side and somewhat peculiar personal habits.

Meanwhile, I will give this panentheist best blend five stars.

Unjustly famous?

"War, Progress and the End of History" is a small book in dialogue format, written by Russian mystic, philosopher and sage Vladimir Solovyov. It's most known for a section called "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ". The book was originally published in 1900.

This edition has a foreword by the well-known writer and dissident Czeslaw Milosz and an afterword by Stephan Hoeller, a Gnostic "bishop" well-known in his own circles. Neither really explains the meaning or context of Solovyov's book. The reader is therefore left pretty much on his own, for good or for worse.

"War, Progress and the End of History" is written in the form of three conversations, held at the French Riviera. The main protagonists are the Prince, the Politician, the General and Mr. Z. There is also a Lady, but she says nothing of importance. The Prince is obviously modelled on Leo Tolstoy, whose Christian pacifism Solovyov opposed. Mr. Z is Solovyov's alter ego. The exact roles of the Politician and the General are more unclear. The Politician is "liberal" by late 19th century standards (actually, he is a kind of "liberal" imperialist and purveyor of balance-of-power Realpolitik), while the General is an ultra-conservative Christian who fancies himself a crusader. During the third conversation, Mr. Z reads "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ", supposedly a document written by a learned Orthodox monk named Pansophius. Since Solovyov is mostly known for his veneration of Sophia, Pansophius is clearly another mouthpiece for the author. Perhaps it's also a subtle form of self-irony - unless I'm mistaken, "Pansophius" means "The All-Wise".

The standard interpretation of "War, Progress and the End of History" is that Solovyov had given up on reforming society, instead awaiting the arrival of the Anti-Christ and his eventual defeat by God. However, this interpretation doesn't seem to capture all the nuances of the three conversations, since Solovyov points out in an introduction that he agrees with both the General and the Politician, as far as it goes. This doesn't make us much wiser, since these characters frequently contradict each other. There is also a contradiction between the Politician's faith in "progress", Mr. Z's statement that progress is a symptom showing that the end of the world is near, and Pansophius' short story, which rather indicates that the 20th century will be marked by wars and revolutions, not peaceful progress. Indeed, the "progress" in the short story is inaugurated by the Anti-Christ!

One thing that *is* clear is Solovyov's belief that metaphysical evil exists and is a real force to be reckoned with and opposed. His alter ego's main opponent during the conversations is the Prince, who calls for non-resistance to evil, while interpreting the Bible in a purely symbolic manner (no resurrection, no second advent, etc). Solovyov considered non-resistance to evil to be absurd, pointing out that Jesus never managed to regenerate the heart of Judas and the Sanhedrin. Judging by context, Christian pacifists pointed to the Good Thief crucified with Jesus as proof that everyone could be regenerated. In response, Solovyov points out that (of course) there were *two* thieves crucified alongside Jesus. The other one - the truly wicked one - was unrepentant to the end. *How* evil should be resisted is a tactical matter, and this makes it possible for Solovyov to agree both with the warrior-prone General, the wily Politician or the meek Jesus (and, presumably, the less meek Jesus in the last chapters of Revelation). Unfortunately, this is a commonplace and thus ads little depth to the conversations. Of course evil can be resisted in different ways, but so what? Surely Jesus said more than this!

Solovyov makes the argument that moral and societal good isn't enough. Death is the ultimate evil, and as long as death isn't conquered, life is ultimately meaningless despite moral and societal good. Mr. Z accuses the Prince of being inconsistent in his rejection of the resurrection - if good really is the primary force in the universe (which the Prince claims), then the resurrection must be true as well, since this is the only way in which evil can be finally overcome and goodness reign supreme. Unfortunately, Solovyov argues for his position ex cathedra, apparently considering it obvious. It is far from obvious, however: if the soul is immortal, why bother with a resurrection? Why should death be seen as "evil" in the metaphysical sense, if we all live morally upright lives in a perfect society? These questions are never touched upon in the dialogues, but Pansophius' musings on the Anti-Christ shows that Solovyov probably didn't believe in progress in the first place.

While "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ" has become famous, its description of the Anti-Christ is the usual one: a counterfeit Christ who proclaims himself emperor, seduces the churches, launches a syncretistic world religion, brings peace and prosperity only to reveal himself as a demon-worshipper, etc. I think the real importance of the story is Solovyov's irenic ecumenism. Although Russian Orthodox, Solovyov was all in favour of talks with the Catholic Church, and Catholics occasionally claim that he converted to Catholicism, something his Orthodox admirers hotly deny. In the short story, three small groups of Christians withstand the seductions of the Anti-Christ. They are led by Pope Peter, Elder John and Ernest Pauli, obvious symbols for Catholicism (which claims apostolic succession from St. Peter), Orthodoxy (which places special emphasis on the Gospel of John) and Protestantism (which claims the mantle of Paul). Eventually, the three groups form a united Church in the wilderness, led by...Pope Peter. The Russian nationalists, Slavophiles and Black-Hundreds can't have been amused...

Despite its fame, "War, Progress and the End of History" really isn't a good introduction to the thoughts of Vladimir Solovyov. Try "Lectures on Divine Humanity" instead.

From Russia with love

"Russian Spirituality and Other Essays" is a book containing articles by Valentin Tomberg, a Russian-born esotericist who started out as an Anthroposophist, but later converted to Catholicism, which he attempted to amalgamate with Hermetism. Tomberg's most famous work is "Meditations on the Tarot", published anonymously. "Russian Spirituality", by contrast, contains relatively unknown articles written during the 1930's, when Tomberg was still an Anthroposophist.

The articles are extremely difficult to comprehend, unless you are very familiar with the Anthroposophical worldview. In the main essay, Tomberg discusses how Anthroposophy could be introduced into Russia, reaching the conclusion that it must somehow be connected to the thought of Vladimir Solovyov. The Russian sage spoke about Sophia, and this "semi-incarnate" spirit-entity has now appeared on Earth in the form of Anthroposophy (Anthropo-Sophia). This balance between individual freedom and social cooperation is threatened by the utter materialism of Bolshevism, but also by "Chinese" or "Mongolian" spirituality which Tomberg fears might replace (or fuse with?) Bolshevism.

Unfortunately, Tomberg lost me about here, and I didn't really comprehend the rest of his work...I'm not sure how to rate a book I don't really understand, but since I don't wish to scare off anyone interested in Tomberg, I eventually decided on the OK rating (three stars).

Cosmists, kooks and Anti-Christs

"The Russian Cosmists" is a scholarly overview of a rather broad current of thought known as Cosmism. In many ways, the Cosmists were early Russian equivalents of today's transhumanists and other peculiar, super-cornucopian groups on the far side of American cyberspace (Ray Kurzweil and his "singularity" comes to mind).

Cosmism originated with Nikolai Fedorov (pronounced Fyodorov), a 19th century Russian intellectual and - some would argue - crank, who attempted to influence both Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Solovyov with his "Philosophy of the Common Task". Typical of Cosmist thought is a strong belief in "active evolution" and eternal progress through super-technology, the conquest of outer space and physical immortality. This is often coupled with quasi-spiritual ideas derived from Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy and garbled Orthodox Christianity. Thus, Fedorov believed in a general resurrection of the dead going back to Adam, but accomplished through an advanced technology, rather than by supernatural means. An interest in subjects considered heretical by establishment science, such as reincarnation or the search for Shamballa, is another defining trait. The prominent Soviet rocket scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky semi-secretly harboured ideas similar to those of Theosophy, but expressed in pseudo-scientific language ("atom-spirit" for monad, "ethereal being" for Mahatma, etc).

With some notable exceptions, Cosmists broadly defined had an authoritarian political streak. Fedorov supported Czarist autocracy and longed for a time when all Earth would be under the suzerainty of a single autocrat and a single "Orthodox" Church. His geopolitics were "Eurasianist", pitting a continental-collectivist civilization against both the Atlantic West and the nomadic barbarians of the East. Tsiolkovsky believed that future human evolution necesserily means weeding out the weak and unfit. Modern Russian Cosmists are nostalgic about the Soviet era, especially the halcyon days of Stalin. This is richly ironic, since many of the original Cosmists were sent to the gulag or executed by Stalin's regime! Yet another defining trait of Cosmists seem to be their sheer personal weirdness. Let's be honest: Fedorov and many other luminaries mentioned in this volume were kooks, pure and simple. A psychologist would love to poke into the heads of these people, and might even discover a new syndrome or two!

"The Russian Cosmists" is an interesting book, but I sometimes get the feeling that the author attempts to find connections between thinkers that were really very different. In what sense is Vladimir Solovyov a "Cosmist", for instance? As the author points out himself, Solovyov argued against Fedorov's materialist-technological conception of the resurrection. On this point, Solovyov's ideas strike me as similar to Steiner's Anthroposophy or Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga, with humanity slowly evolving towards godmanhood through purely spiritual techniques. Apparently, the figure of the Anti-Christ in Solovyov's famous short story is to some extent based on (perhaps parodically) Fedorov! And while the author does place Cosmism in an early 20th century Russian intellectual context, he says very little about the obvious parallels to Communism and fascism. Fedorov's ideas could also be seen as a particularly bizarre and self-conscious "immanentization of the eschaton", complete with faux references to Christianity and Orthodoxy. (Reverend Straik from C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" comes to mind here.) Indeed, Cosmism is probably best understood as a materialist or materialistic form of messianism, promising this-wordly salvation through science fiction technology.

But yes, the author is probably on to something important when he investigates the Cosmist-occult interface. It's difficult *not* to sound supernatural when proposing "naturalist" solutions to physical death, universal decay, etc. Arthur C Clarke famously quipped that a sufficiently advanced technology would look like magic to the uninitiated. Clarke's statement could be altered to state that a really advanced "technology" *would be* magic. Compare this to Steven Greer's UFO books, or the rather odd combinations of New Age and dreams of super-technology that were once popular on the alternative spirituality scene. Once again, I'm also reminded of C.S. Lewis' novel, where a group of scientists believe they have cracked the riddle of immortality, when actually their laboratory is under the control of supernatural demonic forces! It's almost as if religion forces itself on the Cosmists, but - unfortunately for them, and perhaps for us, too - it's the wrong kind of religion, a cult of the divinized Overman who extirpates the weak, or who graciously resurrects everyone in the name of a eternal Czarist autocracy...

Perhaps Solovyov was right. Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov really was the Anti-Christ.

From a Russian mystic with love

This is a translation of Vladimir Solovyov's "The Meaning of Love", with an introduction by Owen Barfield. Solovyov was a prominent 19th century Russian philosopher, perhaps most known for his "Short Story of the Anti-Christ". Working within the Christian tradition, he was nevertheless inspired by "occult" sources, which may explain why Barfield (a lifelong student of Rudolf Steiner) found him interesting.

Despite being short, "The Meaning of Love" is difficult to summarize in a review, containing many interesting ideas and speculations. The main idea is that love between man and woman (including sexual love) is a reflection of the Divine, and in some sense points forward to union with God and the restoration of true humanity, which Solovyov pictures as androgynic. For this reason, Solovyov rejects homosexual unions, since they aren't complementary and hence can't restore the androgyne. Solovyov further argues that only rapturous, ecstatic love can overcome egoism, both in the lover and the beloved, since only such love makes it possible for us to feel that our individuality (and that of another) has absolute and infinite worth. Since our empirical, earthly selves obviously cannot have such worth, all by themselves, love points towards a perfect human archetype, which can only exist in God.

Solovyov rejects a purely biological, evolutionary explanation of love (in the above sense of the term). Most living organisms procreate without love, some don't even have sexual reproduction. Humans usually also procreate without love. Even stable families are possible without love. Yet, love in the highest degree undoubtedly exists among humans. Where does it come from? Its sources must be spiritual. Thus, the Russian sage rejects the biologistic notion (common even among religious believers) that the only function of sex is the begetting of children.

But why is sex needed at all? Why not have a purely spiritual, "Platonic" love? Solovyov believes that sexual love is higher since it's directed towards both the body and soul of the beloved. Humans aren't pure spirits, and the goal is the resurrection of the whole human, including the physical aspect. Thus, Solovyov connects his positive view of the sexual aspect of love with a distinctly Christian anthropology. He further argues that even spiritual love, when it's directed to a personal conception of the divine, seems distinctly "sexual". His examples are the Song of Songs and Revelation, but he could also have mentioned Bernhard of Clairvaux or Bernini's famous sculpture of Theresa of Avila. An interesting take on a tradition usually regarded as semi-celibate or fully celibate!

Sometimes, "The Meaning of Love" is difficult to comprehend. Thus, Solovyov connects love between two partners with love towards the entire community, nation or humanity. However, such love surely lacks the erotic aspect of love between spouses. There is also a tension between emphasizing the individuality of humans, and the perfect unity of the Divine, the ultimate goal even of humans. Solovyov somehow wants to synthesize individual freedom and a more "organic" collectivity (a bit like Steiner), but it's not clear from this particular text how this can be achieved concretely. At times, the author sounds patriarchal, depicting women as "passive", while at other times, the Divine Feminine (Sophia) is the *active* mover behind or within God. It's almost as if Solovyov wants to reconcile potentially radical notions (androgyny, a female aspect of the Divine, sex without procreation) with the everyday realities of conservative, 19th century Russia.

Neither Solovyov himself nor Barfield says anything about Solovyov's sources, but as already indicated, some kind of "Tantric", "heretical" source is a prime suspect. (See Arthur Versluis' study "The Secret History of Western Sexual Mysticism" for some real or purported examples of such "heresies" in a Western context.) Solovyov's view of the cosmos as slowly evolving towards perfection is reminiscent of Theosophy (which existed during Solovyov's lifetime - his brother Vsevolod was briefly a member of Blavatsky's society) or Anthroposophy (which was created by Steiner only after Solovyov's death). Here, too, there might be earlier sources in the background, perhaps Goethe and the Romantics? (For a more comprehensive introduction to Solovyov's ideas, see his "Lectures on Divine Humanity".) Solovyov may also have been inspired, although perhaps in a more roundabout or negative way, by his contemporary Nikolai Fyodorov and his curious ideas about overcoming death through technology and hence also through "evolution" (see George Young's study "The Russian Cosmists").

"The Meaning of Love", though written in a deceptively easy style, is really a hard read, unless you have been exposed to this kind of ideas before. Ultimately, of course, it's difficult to "prove" (or disprove) Vladimir Solovyov's speculations by empirical research or formal logic. They can only be lived. Barfield hopes that at least *somebody* reading the work will experience a "Beatrician moment" and act accordingly.

Somehow, I find that hard to believe. But then, cosmic evolution is a slow process... ;-)

From Solovyev to Stalin

A review of a somewhat peculiar philosophy book...

This is the 10th volume of Frederick Copleston's monumental series "History of Philosophy". This time, Copleston tackles Russian philosophy. The volume is intended as a general overview and introduction, not a detailed study. In my opinion, it fulfils this role admirably.

There seems to be two major differences between Russian philosophy and "regular" Western philosophy. One is the religious strand, often connected to Orthodox Christianity (although not necessarily "orthodox" in credal matters). Solovyev, Bulgakov and Berdyaev are typical examples, and both Frank and N.O. Lossky should probably be placed in this category, as well. The religiously-inspired philosophers straddle the fence between philosophy and theology proper, usually by way of Neo-Platonic and even Gnostic influences. Apparently, Berdyaev even admitted that he lacked the systematic mind typical of philosophers, and saw himself more like a visionary. But then, Solovyev and Berdyaev might strike the reader as more interesting than Heidegger or Wittgenstein!

The other (obvious) difference between Russian and Western philosophy is the strong connection to revolutionary politics. Readers might be surprised to find Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin in this volume, along more obviously philosophical people, such as Plekhanov ("the father of Russian Marxism"). Indeed, the author describes the philosophical ideas of these people, better known from other theatres, in a surprisingly charitable manner.

Lenin's main philosophical work, "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" was written during a factional fight within the Bolshevik party. Ironically, one of the philosophers mentioned in Lenin's work, one Avenarius, would probably have been unknown today, had it not been for the Bolshevik leader's relentless attacks. As for Stalin, his bizarre pamphlet "Marxism and the Problem of Linguistics" actually made it somewhat easier for Soviet philosophers to question the most petrified Marxist dogmas...but only after the dictator himself had died! (Stalin was forced to revise Marxist theory on a number of points, in order to bring it up to date with the Soviet system, which didn't always square with Marx' own ideas.) There is also a concluding chapter on post-Stalin Soviet philosophy.

From Solovyev to Stalin. Well, how's that for an original history of philosophy book?

The history of Russian religious speculation

"History of Russian Philosophy" is a book by N.O. Lossky. The book covers the most important Russian philosophers, including Lossky himself. Soloviev, Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank are prominently featured. There is a shorter chapter on Pavel Florensky. Lossky also mentions his own son, Vladimir Lossky!

While the book does mention materialist and Neo-Kantian philosophers, its main emphasis is on thinkers who were fundamentally religious. In the West, they would have been regarded less as philosophers and more as theologians or even mystics. Lossky himself was a self-avowedly Christian philosopher, whose system sounds similar to Theosophy or Anthroposophy, although he claims to have based it on Leibniz and Biblical revelation. When Lossky mentions Bulgakov, he quotes extensively from Bulgakov's famous description of his mystical visions. Soloviev was another essentially Christian thinker who had visions of various kinds. Lossky also retells anecdotes that come close to miracle stories, emphasizes how ascetic and contrite some of the "philosophers" were, etc.

Lossky does make some interesting observations concerning religiously inspired Russian philosophy. Apparently, virtually all philosophers of this type are a kind of naïve realists. They believe that man has unmediated access to an objective, external reality. Kantian or Lockean notions of something imposing itself between the outside world and our minds are rejected. However, Russian religious philosophy doesn't connect naïve realism with materialism. Rather, they argue that realism presupposes a fundamental wholeness between subject and object. Otherwise the direct perception of an outer world would be impossible. This wholeness is interpreted in a pantheist or panpsychist manner, and thus opens the door to theological speculations about God. Further, mystical intuition is seen as realist, i.e. it gives us direct and unmediated access to a divine reality. Another important notion similar to many thinkers is consubstantiality between matter and spirit, or between unity and multiplicity. This consubstantiality is connected to the creedal statements about the Trinity, which is a "consubstantial" unity-in-diversity between three persons of the same Godhead. It's also used politically, as in the idea of sobornost, which is supposedly a unity of free individuals, everyone voluntarily serving the same goal ultimately derived from God. (On more critical interpretations, sobornost is really a collectivist, absolutist notion. Indeed, the concept is used in modern Russia by enemies of liberal democracy.)

Lossky also points out that while many Russian philosophers accept evolution, they emphasize cooperation rather than competition. This is true even of materialist philosophers, such as the anarchist Kropotkin, whose most famous work is called "Mutual aid". It's not clear where the evolutionary notions of the more religious thinkers came from, but Theosophy would surely be the prime suspect, although Lossky is silent on this point. Jesus is often seen as the perfect God-man at the apex of evolution, incarnating on Earth not simply for soteriological reasons but also for ontological ones, completing the evolutionary process by uniting spirit and matter within one person. Here, medieval theology have been fused with cosmic evolution.

The holistic perspective of many religious philosophers leads them to regard all human knowledge as a unity. Lossky talks about "integral" knowledge which somehow unites science, philosophy, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Thus, somebody like Soloviev or Bulgakov wouldn't see any difficulty in blending philosophy and theology.

Something not mentioned by the author is the obviously heretical character of much "Christian" speculation in Russia. Ideas about Jesus being some kind of primordial Heavenly Man, perhaps even a created being distinct from the unfathomable God, sound Kabbalistic: Adam Kadmon emerges out of the Ain Soph as its first creation. Soloviev's and Bulgakov's visions of Sophia sound like attempts to introduce a goddess into Christianity. Lossky's own philosophy includes Sophia. Soloviev's positive view of Catholicism would also count as heretical in Russia, which is dominated by the Orthodox Church. Even philosophers who were ordained priests, such as Bulgakov, often strayed from strict Orthodox orthodoxy (pun intended).

As a sidepoint, I noticed that Lossky considers dialectical materialism to be a contradictory jumble, and predicts that it will eventually be transformed into a form of realist idealism. He has a point: dialectical materialism is a unique form of materialism, since it seems to be teleological. But how on earth can a *materialist* system be teleological? This is obviously a trait taken over from Hegel, whose World Spirit could still be given a religious interpretation as a pantheist god.

"History of Russian Philosophy" might be too complicated for the absolute beginner, while still being too basic for more advanced students of philosophy. I read it after first digesting large chunks of Frederick Copleston's history of Russian philosophy. It did help with some background information. Perhaps Lossky's book could serve as a kind of mini-encyclopaedia of Russian philosophers, mostly of the religious persuasion. I found it immensely interesting and stimulating. 

Panentheist best blend

"Lectures on Divine Humanity" by Vladimir Solovyov is a somewhat difficult book, in which the Russian philosopher-mystic expounds his particular version of Christian panentheism. I nevertheless felt right at home. But then, I've been immersing myself (somewhat haphazardly) in panentheist literature for some time. Solovyov draws from a wide variety of sources when spinning his own philosophy: I recognized obvious affinities with Plotinus, Leibniz, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte and Schopenhauer. However, his main font of inspiration must have been more mystical sources. The kabbalists are the usual suspects. Indeed, some of the other names on the panentheist laundry list were probably also inspired by such sources. Finally, I recognized affinities between Solovyov and later writers, including Steiner, Barfield, Grant-Watson and even the process philosophers.

It seems Solovyov is the best blend! He is also believed to be the prototype of Alyosha Karamazov. Both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were present when Solovyov delivered his lectures on divine humanity. Dostoevsky obviously paid attention - at least to Solovyov's personality (he seems to have been quite a character), while Tolstoy rejected him as absurd and childish.

Solovyov's philosophy is difficult to summarize, so what follows are just a few short sketches.

The most fundamental metaphysical objects, simply called "entities", have three aspects: the atom, the living force or monad, and the idea. The most basic mode of knowledge is a form of subconscious, intellectual intuition which predates both rational thinking and empirical observations. This reminds me of the panpsychism of Whitehead, with its "creative occasions" and "prehension" or "radical empiricism". However, Solovyov's version seems to be a form of idealism, since neither the "atom", the monad nor the idea seem to be really material. At one point, he even says that the existence of the outside world can't really be known for sure, except through faith, a position presumably taken from Fichte. I'm not sure if Solovyov really believed this, since his metaphysics sound very "objective" and centered on God rather than individual consciousness. But then, perhaps Solovyov didn't see any necessary contradiction between an objective and a subjective perspective? In his system, God and the world are con-substantial, and the Trinity is somehow reflected everywhere in creation. The Trinity is the solution to the problem of unity-multiplicity.

There doesn't seem to be any point at which creation "began". Rather I got the impression that Solovyov believed in a constant creation in the Neo-Platonist fashion. Thus, there is permanent unity-multiplicity, rather than creatio ex nihilo. Solovyov explicitly argues for a compatibilist view of divine freedom. Creation and love are necessary for God.

The cosmic fall is the fall of the world-soul or Sophia away from its true source in God. The world-soul is also a unity-multiplicity: both a single organism and a collection of many different entities. (This is presumably similar to the Primal Man, Purusha or Adam Kadmon.) By falling away from God, the world-soul looses its unity and fractures into complete chaos. However, the love of God works to lure the world-soul back to its original state. Our universe is the result of divine love working on the fractured, chaotic multiplicity of fallen Sophia. It's slowly evolving back to God. (Note both the similarity and difference with process philosophy, really a truncated version of this more supra-cosmic vision.) Many of the beings regarded as "spirits" or "gods" are former aspects of our own selves, which have been separated from us as a result of the fall. They are said to be in charge of the evolutionary process. Presumably, they used to be our higher selves. A similar position can be found in Anthroposophy and Theosophy.

In contrast to Schelling, Solovyov doesn't seem to locate the origin of evil in God himself. Rather, evil is the result of the world-soul's free will to fall away from God. Evil results from the fragmentation and finitude of each living creature, which strives to expand itself and survive in hostile competition with other creatures. In the fallen world, evil is inevitable. Everyone is born with radical evil in his heart, and the problem is therefore metaphysical.

At several points in his lectures, Solovyov discusses the evolution of religion. He sees several different stages in this process, which have a dialectical relation to each other in a scheme of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Original paganism is negated by Buddhism. Greek philosophy and the Judaism of the Law are both negated by the Judaism of the Prophets, with Christianity as a grand synthesis of everything that went before. There are also different stages in original pagan religion: star worship, sun worship, etc. Solovyov's attempts to squeeze the history of religions into a Hegelian (?) scheme aren't very convincing, but his main point seems to be that Christianity is a natural, evolutionary zenith of previous religious traditions, rather than a completely unique revelation de novo. He even attempts to trace the Trinity to pre-Christian notions, Philo in particular. Clearly, Solovyov wouldn't feel threatened by parallels between Christ and the deities of mystery religions. One is reminded of C.S. Lewis in this respect.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear whether the actual person Jesus Christ is a product of internal cosmic evolution or a divine personage coming "from the outside" to the fallen world. Perhaps he's both, or perhaps it really doesn't matter. The universe is, after all, "in" God even in its fallen state. The entities simply doesn't realize it, having posited themselves as completely autonomous. Also, Christ is not simply a person (human or divine), but a kind of collective organism or Primal Man presumably similar in character to the original world-soul before its fall. Solovyov says that the incarnation was natural, in the sense that the world was ready for the incarnation of Christ due to its upward evolution. The end-goal of the process is less clear, but the author does suggest that the Church, or rather the Universal Church (perhaps a mystical category) is a divine organism which wants to freely convert and hence unite with all men on Earth.

Solovyov's view of history is also, I take it, Hegelian. He doesn't reject modernity and secularism out of hand. Rather, he sees the modern West as a necessary antithesis to the institutionalized Christianity of the Middle Ages and Russia, which is no longer based on love. The synthesis will be a voluntary Christian union and society, and Solovyov hopes that his own motherland will lift itself up and bring in this happy state of affairs. (He later lost faith in intra-historical salvation, as seen in his famous "Short Story of the Anti-Christ".) While I consider Solovyov's political ideas the weakest spot in his entire philosophical edifice, he did have two sympathetic traits: he seems to have rejected the most virulent forms of Russian and pan-Slavist nationalism, and he doesn't sound anti-Semitic. Indeed, at one point he writes that the Jewish prophets' combination of positive patriotism and universalism should be a model for Russia!

For more on Vladimir Solovyov, see Frederick Copleston's "History of Philosophy. Volume 10: Russian Philosophy" and N.O. Lossky's "History of Russian Philosophy", which also mentions Solovyov's mystical side and somewhat peculiar personal habits.

Meanwhile, I will give this panentheist best blend five stars.