A Few Words about Solovyov as a Supplement to the Preceding Preface

on Vladimir Solovyov: Twelve lectures on the God-humanity, Stuttgart 1921

Anyone approaching Solovyov with Western or Central European concepts of the world and humanity and wanting to relive his worldview will feel as if they are in unsafe emotional waters. They have to find their way into ideas and contexts that are foreign to them. Ideas that discussions of worldviews with which he is familiar do not lead him to. You only need to let some of Solovyov's ideas approach you, and you will immediately experience this. Take the ideas of “grace,” “sin,” and the way the Russian thinker talks about the “experience of Christ.”

But Solovyov speaks in the terms of a philosopher educated on Kant, Schelling, Hegel, the modern positivists and natural science. He not only speaks differently in these terms than Western and Central European thinkers; he also talks about different things.

This otherness can be found by reading Scotus Erigena. The content and state of mind of this ninth-century thinker lives on in Solovyov. And in Solovyov it is steeped in an inner warmth that is no longer found in Scotus Erigena, but must have been present in his predecessors. And so, when reading Solovyov, one can feel transported back to the time of the development of the Christian worldview from the fourth to the eighth century. The spirit of modern European concepts is spread over everything that Solovyov's soul experience becomes for the reader as a result of this development.

In Western and Central Europe, too, one can still find thinkers of Solovyov's soul condition. Anyone who reads Willmann's important “History of Idealism” will feel this. But with such a thinker, something else prevails. He is burdened with all the nuances of concepts that arise from the rejection of Locke-Hume and Kantian-Protestant thinking. His soul is burdened by the intellectual experiences that Europe has undergone since the tenth century. This is not the case with Solovyov. He uses modern philosophical ideas as a tool of thought, but he lives untouched by those experiences of thought in the state of mind that still resonates with Scotus Erigena, but which in his case has already passed over into the coldness of abstract thought.

Ideas such as “sin”, “grace” and the “experience of Christ” appear in both Solovyov and Scotus. As a result, his idea of “nature” is also similar to that of the ancient philosopher. His concept of “nature” is different from that of Western and Central European thinkers. For them, “nature” is a much more comprehensive concept that is based on the results of observation, experiment and intellectual consideration. Everything that is thought about man and his relationship to the world must be incorporated into this concept. By reflecting on human soul experiences, one arrives at ideas about the way in which nature continues to develop in man. But one cannot arrive at the concepts of “grace” and “sin” through straight-line progressive thinking. If one wants to speak of these, then one must seek their origin in the purely ideal sphere of human consciousness. And if one wants to ascribe an objective meaning to them, then one must seek it in a world of which one is convinced in a different way than of the natural world. One must resort to a belief in addition to the knowledge of natural knowledge. From the knowledge one can form ideas about “perceiving”, “sensing”, “comprehending”; one can speak of a causation of “will” through thoughts; but one cannot say that “grace effects” take place in the human soul life. For these presuppose that, in addition to the natural world, there is an objective spiritual world in which man knows himself to be as in the world of air or weather.

Nor can the concept of “sin” be found in the series of concepts of nature. For, objectively conceived, “sin” is man's submergence in the natural order. In avoiding sin, man breaks away from the natural order, not merely to fit into an ideal order, but to fit into an objective spiritual order.

In Solovyov there lives a concept of nature that makes the ascent to such spiritual concepts possible. In Scotus too, the concepts of grace and sin are such that there is no gaping abyss between them and the concept of nature.

With the “Christ experience”, however, one enters a different realm. But in relation to Solovyov's attitude to the European state of mind, a similar thing applies. Within the Western and Central European view of life, the human being can sense within himself a spiritual foundation of the world order. He can say to himself: I am pointed to a divine in all of nature. This divine is then that which is called the “Father” in the religious creeds. But modern religious life does not provide any inner motives for progressing from this Father principle to the Christ. People who speak of the inner Christ experience on the basis of this experience actually only have the Father experience. They then relate the sense of the divine to the Jesus of historical tradition or dogma. But the actual inner experience they have in doing so cannot be distinguished from the experience of the general Deity, the Father-God. For such Christians, any possibility of gaining an understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son through knowledge is lost. It is quite understandable that modern theology has arrived at the point of seeing Jesus only as the bearer of the doctrine of the Father, that it takes the Gospel as a revelation about the Father through Jesus, no longer as a message about the nature of the Son. For Solovyov these things are quite different. For him there is a Christ experience so strictly separated from the Father experience that he, like the Christian Fathers of old, can philosophize about whether the Son has an essence with the Father or not. Such philosophical discussions are not in line with the path that leads from the newer philosophical worldviews into the realm of the spiritual world. In Solovyov's work, the philosopher speaks about these things in the conceptual language of the nineteenth century.

What lives in the human community through Christ is for Solovyov just as much an objective reality as what lives through gravity. In his state of mind, the power of Christ is no different than gravity. This is something else that can still be found in Western Europe in Scotus, but which can no longer be viewed in this way. For Soloviev, the Christ is a Being directly present in the whole of humanity. What He speaks in human souls must become the starting point for social structures. These structures have a right to exist only if Christ lives in them as the invisible ruler.

The historical development of Christian culture comes to life in the soul when a Westerner or Central European studies Solovyov. In him, the first centuries of Christianity come to life in a contemporary who is also philosophically at the height of the nineteenth century. And his world view radiates a wonderful warmth of soul. Philosophy has the effect of religious contemplation; religion has the effect of philosophy experienced in the soul. Russia and Europe in the nineteenth century appear in Solovyov's works as in a mirror of the mind. In Solovyov one feels a spiritual light that shone in earlier centuries and that has faded for Europe. One senses how the first Christian impulses were preserved in the East and how they progressed in the West, but at the same time fell into abstract coldness. One must think about how the thinking of the East and West can mutually enrich each other, and how something higher can arise from this enrichment in relation to both.

Solovyov, as a man of the East, speaks in terms that are more flexible and alive than those of a Western thinker. But at the same time he points the way to greater flexibility of thought. For he is a modern philosopher, but at the same time a sage in terms of ancient concepts.

In all this there is something that makes Solovyov a highly important personality for our present time in the West and in Central Europe.

With these remarks I did not want to give an exhaustive characterization of Solovyov; nothing that claims to treat him as a “thinker”. I only wanted to say what I felt about the treatises that I was able to get to know from him. How little it can be exhaustive, how much it is a very personal judgment, I feel from the fact that he has written a lot that I could not get to know.

Rudolf Steiner.