CC BY
37
УДК 1:27(438:470) ББК 87.3(2:4Пол)52
WALICKI'S ANALYSIS OF SOLOVYOV'S VIEWS
ANGELINA WEIMANN Uniwersitv of Zielona Gora, 71 A,Al,Wojska Polskiego, Zielona Gora, Poland E-mail: angel004@o2.pl
This article describes the analysis of ideas and works ofAndrzej Walicki, one of the most well-known Polish researchers of Russian philosophy and social thougkt, that deal with the interpretation ofV S. Solovyov's philosophy. The research focuses on Walicki's habilitation dissertation entitled Wkrqgu konserwatywnej utopii. Struktura iprzemiany rosyjskiego slowianofilstwa (1964) - an early attempt at the analysis of the structure and evolution of the Slavophile movement-is considered first. Analysing subsequent works by Walicki, the author shows the difficulties related to labelling Solovyov as a supporter of one of the distinguished philosophical doctrines; a task undertaken by Walicki He viewed such difficulties as being related to the multifaceted character and novelty of Solovyov's philosophy. The article ends with an analysis of Walicki's Rosyjska filozofia i mysi spoleczna od Oswiecenia do тагЫгти (2002), the work that has been translated into many languages. There, Walicki uses the analysis of Solovyov's ideas as a means of answering the most important problems of the nineteenth century.
Key words: Andrzej Walicki's works, KS. Solovyov's philosophy, Russian religious philosophy, research in Poland, the Slavophile movement, integral knowledge, metaphysical system, ethics, Godmanhood, Sophia-Divine Wisdom.
«ВЛАДИМИР СОЛОВЬЕВ В ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯХ АНДЖЕЯ ВАЛИЦКОГО»
АНГЭЛИНАВЭИМАНН Зеленогурский университет ул. Войска Польского, 71 А, Зелена lypa, Польша E-mail: angel004@o2.pl
Дан анализ идей и трудов одного из самых известных польских знатоков русской философии и общественной мысли Анджея Налиикого, основанный на хронологическом принципе. В качестве материала исследования взята докторская диссертация Валицко-го, ранняя его работа, посвященная структуре русского славянофильства «В кругу консервативной утопии» (1964), а также ряд других работ польского исследователя. В ходе анализа работ Ва/ищкого выявлены трудности, связанные с отнесением B.C. Соловьева к конкретному философскому течению, среди которых Валицки называет многообразие и новаторство философии B.C. Соловьева. В заключение представлен труд, переведенный на многие языки мира, - «Очерк русской мысли. От просвещения к религиозно-философскому ренессансу» (2005), где осмысление соловьевских идей помогает автору находить ответы на наиболее серьезные вопросы XIX столетия.
Ключевые слова: труды Анджея Валицкого, философия B.C. Соловьева, русская религиозная философия, польские исследования, славянофильство, целостное знание, метафизическая система, этика, Богочеловечество, София-Премудрость Божия.
In his monograph on Solovyov's works, Janusz Dobieszewski states that everyone dealing in Poland with Russian philosophy knows that „Andrzej Walicki is the first mover of the cause-and-effect chain leading to the possibility of a reasonable thinking and writing about Russian fascinations" [1, p. 2]1.This statement is a recurring theme in our analysis of Russian philosophy, more precisely in our treatment of Vladimir Solovyov's works - who was both a prominent Slavophile and Occidentalist. Andrzej Walicki is an author of many books devoted to the Russian thought, books that show the breadth and depth of Russian philosophical ideas and notions. Among the all his books, we focus on those that deal with multifarious and reach philosophical legacy of Solovyov e.g.: The Slavophile Controversy1-, A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism3; Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism4. Analysing Walicki's treatment of Solovyov's ideas we stay faithful to the principle of diachrony, allowing us to synthetically approach the intellectual legacy of this Russian thinker with the last point of our analysis being Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism.
In Russian philosophical thought, Solovyov is considered a complex and many-sided thinker, most likely owing to his ideological affiliation and the polemics he engaged with the thought schools of the time. What is important is that Solovyov as one of few Russian philosophers aimed at creating a systemic approach to philosophical problems comparable to those of the great German-idealists, notably HegeL Solovyov often supported his ideas with the triadic argument, so characteristic of the author of The Phenomenology of Spirit. Let us consider for a moment, however, how did this grand idea of creating a philosophical system come to his mind. It seems reasonable to assume that the systemic approach to philosophy had become popular
1 Andrzej Walicki - bom on 15 May 1930 in Warsaw. He was a professor, a member of PAN (Polish Academy of Sciences), historian of philosophy and social thought, one of the creators of the so-called Warsaw school of the history of ideas. He was a son of Michal Walicki (Polish art historian, decorated with the Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta), For many years (1960-1981) he was associated with the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. From 1981 he worked at Australian National University in Canberra and later on at Notre Dame University in Indiana (USA), where in 1986 he became head of O'Neill Chair of History. He is currently a professor emeritus of that university. In 2001 he was awarded a honorary degree of Lodz University. He is the winner of the prizes awarded by Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation (1983) and by the International Eugenio Balzan Foundation (1998). In 2005 he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta by President Aleksander Kwainiewski - «for his outstanding services to Polish science». He is the author of nearly four hundred scientific papers dealing with all aspects of Russian and Polish philosophy and social thought, history of Marxism, philosophy of politics and nation theory.
- First published in Polish as W kr^gu konserwatywnej utopil Struktura i przemiany rvsyjskiego slowianofilstwa in 1964, second edition 2002. Throughout the paper, we quote from the Polish editions of alt of the Walicki's publications.
3 First published in Polish in 1973 as Rosyfska filozofia i myslspoleczna od Oswiecenia do marksizmu, second edition 2002 as Zarys myili rosyjskiej od oswiecenia do renesansu religijno-filozoficznego.
4 Published in Polish in 1995 as FUozofia prawa rosyjskiego libemliimu.
in the eighteenth century Russia as a result of interaction of various factors including the occurrence of translation of the works of the so-called Western philosophers. It was since then that the interest in philosophical systems had greatly increased. Lilianna Kiejzik in a monograph entitled Wlodzimierz Solowjow mentions Lomonosov, Skovorod, Radischev and Spieranski as „the most original thinkers, yet using the material coming from the West" [2, p. 86]. The works by French authors and finally German idealisms were also important in shaping of the Russian philosophy of the time. The latter influenced the creation of the Slavophile movement5, which had made a great impression on Solovyov [2, p. 86].
Walicki's works devoted to Solovyov are presented here in the chronological order. First we deal with his The Slavophile Controversyy, which is a comprehensive source of history of nineteenth century Russian ideas. In the words of the author himself „this is not just a monograph on Russian Slavophile movement: it is something more and something less at the same time" [3, p. 1]. There, Solovyov, in a large chapter devoted to his ideas, was depicted mainly as a Slavophile.
As shown by Andrzej Walicki, Solovyov made a great impact on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. He played an important role in his life and as a result became a source for his Alyosha Karamazov. In turn, Dostoyevsky also greatly influenced Solovyov. The latter.for example, took his idea of „Godmanhood" from the „Brothers Karamazov" and made it the main idea of his own philosophical system [3, p. 411]. Konstantin Leont'ev considered him a genius, „whom he is not worthy enough to tie shoelaces" [4, p. 28]. According to Walicki, Solovyov's work was also considered highly by the classic Slavophiles, such as Yuri Samarin and Ivan Aksakov He was a kind of philosophical phenomenon, if one can be excused for using such term. Solovyov's Slavophile inspirations are very clear. It is enough to take a look at his master's thesis entitled The Crisis of Western Philosophy defended in 1874. According to Walicki, this work was aimed at comprehensive development and correction of the views of Ivan Kireevsky as presented in О необходимости и возможности новых начал для философии [On necessity and possibility of new philosophical principles]. The crisis of Western European philosophy was for Solovyov the crisis of rationalism but also of theoretical knowledge. For philosophy should be
5 Andrzej Walicki however, sees Ivan Kireevsky as the first among the classic Slavophiles, only considering Aleksey Khomiakov as the second one, whose publications are commonly believed to be the first Slavophile ones. It is problematic however, which of these two thinkers can be considered the first in terms of ideas. Bierdiajew claimed that «the Slavophile movement was not and could not have been created by a single individual, It was a consequence of group effort coming from the community of consciousness and creation. Yet, Khomiakov has to be considered a central figure of this collective effort that went beyond all individuals. He was the strongest, most versatile, most active and best dialectically suited representative of the school. Khomiakov's legacy includes Slavophile theology and Slavophile philosophy, Slavophile history and Slavophile philology, Slavophile journalism and Slavophile poetry» (quotation after Walicki A. Wkrqgu konserwatywnej utopii. Struktura iprzemiany msyjskiego slowianofilstwa. op.cit. P. 130-131). Andrzej Walicki also deals with social philosophy and the issues concerning the notion of a nation. Moreover Walicki is active in broadly conceived political and civil journalism, (vide Dobieszewski J.Jubileusz Profesora Andrzeja Walickiego//PrzegUtdFilozoficzny. I(77). Warszawa,2011.P.9-13).
„a moment of individual reflection, a link between primordial religious unity and the future restoration of the spiritual unity as the universal synthesis of science, philosophy and religion" [3, p. 412]. The Western philosophy was shaped by the conflict between individual mind and authority - says Walicki. Ibis conflict must have had far reaching consequences, including the appearance of Medieval scholasticism, which was an attempt at first rationalising faith, then in setting free of faith and finally in the total negation of direct knowledge, questioning the claims of substantiality of the world and eventually led, in Hegel, to identification of being with thinking. The critique of Heglism from the point of view of the Slavophiles is an important point of reference in terms of later works by Solovyov. The thinker also dealt extensively with the ideas of Edward von Hartmann and Schopenhauer. Hartmann's philosophy was considered by Solovyov to be an example of the final phase of decline of Western philosophy. For Von Hartmann, basing his ideas on Schopenhauer's, had reach the conclusion of the collective suicide of humankind. Young Solovyov on the one hand viewed this as the end of Western philosophy, while on the other hand considered this as the final element of the Hegelian triad, namely the moment when philosophy is unified with religion. Von Hartmann's philosophy meant for Solovyov a comeback to metaphysics, to the idea of „all-unity" After this comeback, the era of apokatastasis ton partton [3, p. 413] was to reign, which was to him the pinnacle of the Western thought.
After Solovyov had obtained the title of doctor of philosophy, he became friends with Ivan Aksakov,Yuri Samarin and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.This enormously influenced his subsequent work and the evolution of his ideas. We mean here his thoughts with regards to the historical mission of the Russian nation. Walicki claims that 1877 was a particularly important and fertile year for the Slavophile philosophy. Most likely this has a lot to do with the Russian-Turkish war fought under the slogan of „liberation of Slavs? It was also the time of Solovyov's talk entitled три силы [Three forces], where he presented the forces determining the development of humanity. These Were three historical worlds, the conflicted civilisations: East (Muslim), West and the Slavs. The third force is a synthesis of what is united and what is complex, of what is divine and what is human, this force wants to unify East and West [3, p. 414]. This force, according to Solovyov will present itself in a form of divine revelation through the chosen nation. This chosen nation must be distinguished by its faith in what is divine. Such features were, according to Solovyov, present in the Slavs, and Russians in particular. The originally of Solovyov's thought consisted in differentiating between these three forces. For, up until that point, the Slavophiles had considered the first two forces as identical, since „the Muslim East had, according to them, its counterpart in Roman Catholicism („unity without freedom")" [3, p. 415]. If we agree with Walicki that also Khomiakov tried to prove the parallel between Catholicism and Islam, we will arrive at an obvious conclusion that Solovyov brought to life the classic Slavophile tendencies [3, p. 415].
Walicki's The Slavophile Controversyу also contains the analysis of Solovyov's publication entitled Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge, written in a vein similar to his три силы [Three forces]. The title itself is very meaningful as it refers to the theory described by Ivan Kireevsky. This philosopher dealt not only
with the tendencies important for the Slavophile movement but also with the important issues related to the „humankind as the subject of history" [3, p. 416]. He showed that every civilisation is just a moment in the development of humankind. Solovyov took the Hegelian approach to the notion of development, as for him it went through three phases. These were in order: the phase of primordial undifferentiated unity, the differentiation and separation phase and the phase of liberated unity [3, p. 415]. It is hard not to notice the influence of Heglism in such ideas. It can be said that the Hegelian triad became the main motive present in the early works by Solovyov.
The idea of „free theosophy" that, according to Walicki, Solovyov called the „integral knowledge" Here too the triadic differentiation between the types of knowledge is present, namely into naturalism, rationalism and mysticism. „Empiricism and rationalism reach, via different routes, to the same final result: the negation of reality of both the external world and the experiencing subject, with the absurdity of this conclusion bearing witness to the bankruptcy of the „academic','that is purely theoretical, philosophy. Mysticism, relating to supernatural sources of knowledge, is a higher type of philosophical cognition, searching for the „living and integral" truths that involve not only intellect but also the „will for good" and the „sense of beauty'.'Yet, mysticism in itself is not identical to the „true philosophy" as it assumes an internal, organic synthesis of all three types of philosophical thought, analogous to the synthesis of science, philosophy and theology in the higher, liberated theosophical unity" [5, p. 294].
Let us move, however, to the main elements of Solovyov's „free theosophy'.' These are in order: the „organic logic',' the „organic metaphysics" and the „organic ethics'.'As it is shown by Walicki, Solovyov viewed logic as the science of the proto-principie, and a specific proto-principle in the second moment, which at the same time is related to the second person of the Trinity. Each cognizable thing, according to the tripartite division, is: of substantial primordial unity - in God, in self-differentiation - in Son, and hence in the process of realization and in the process of liberated unity - in the Holy Spirit. This science was a combination of his original conception with the idea of «Godmanhood», which was extremely eminent and at the same time popular at the time [3, p. 418].
After Walicki we claim that Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge is a work that best describes the ideas behind the Slavophile movement with marked ambitions toward creating a philosophical system. As there, Solovyov modified Kireevsky's ideas and thus gave the traditional Slavophile philosophy a fresh interpretation based on classic, romantic German philosophy with noticeable influences of Schelling's thought [3, p. 418].
The Polish researcher emphasises, however, the difficulties related to assigning Solovyov to a particular school of thoughts. TTiis is related to the fact that his philosophy was very reach, multifarious and colourful and groundbreaking at the same time. This has been observed by virtually everyone writing about Solovyov. Walicki calls Solovyov's proposition a „nobody's philosophy',' as it did not express anyone's views and it did not subscribe to or extend any kind of ideology developed before. „Solovyov was not rooted in the Russian life; the strength and integrity of the Slavophiles was alien to
him. He was not a man of the „land" tied to the old system of social relations between landowners and peasants. In his own eyes he had „neither a tribe nor a clan" and was a homeless vagabond, a kind of an abstract ,,all-human'.' Losing the connection to the land, to the organic elements of the world makes him a ghost-like, shapeless figure, giving him a quality of imponderableness. He does not bite into life but slides over it like a shadow. He is, as it were, „out of this world" [6, p. 142].These words of Konstanin Mochul'skiy, - a historian of Russian philosophy - fully describe the personality of Solovyov and help us understand his philosophical ideas. The Slavophile philosophy is the first attempt at Russian self-knowledge and at the same time, the very first independent Russian ideology. This doctrine aimed at broadening the understanding of the destiny of the Russian nation and its place in the world [3, p. 425]. Yet Solovyov, according to Moczulski, did not appreciate it enough.
Walicki in A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism continues to analyse the Russian thought and presents the most important features of the Russian idea, thus providing an overview of the points of view in the history of philosophy. Walicki emphasises that viewing philosophy focusing on national issues has its good as well as bad points. What is meant here, in general, is that the history of philosophy as the philosophy of a given nation is very hard to distinguish. Whereas, for somebody focused on a particular problem it becomes a notion tightly tied to a particular point of-view, influenced by historical and social conditions [7, p. 5]. The Polish version of A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism was first published in 1973 with the second edition in 2005, which can indicate a renaissance of interest in Russian philosophy. Tellingly, the author decided to modify the title of the 2005 edition slightly to read as Zarys mysli rosyjskiej od oswiecenia do renesansu religijno-filozoficznego [An Outline of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to the Religious and Philosophical Renaissance] Walicki decided that this title was more adequate. It suggests that only the social ideas are taken into account, which is however - as the author himself notices - not his aim. „In fact, I deal not with philosophy in Russia - says Walicki - that is the history of a given theoretical area within the Russian state, but with certain aspects of ideological pursuits of the Russian elites, feeling responsible for the fate of their country" [7, p. 5]. The second edition is much more ample and was extended, particularly in case of the description of Solovyov's views. In addition Walicki explains his interest in Russian philosophy in the following manner: „my interest in Russian thought comes from the claim that emphatic understanding of Russian culture is of utmost importance for Poland. This book builds on a certain Polish tradition, to which I am so greatly indebted. Contrary to a common view that Poles are allegedly hostile towards everything that comes from Russia, even during the partitions there were Polish scientists and writers fully appreciating, and sometimes even admiring, the great traditions of Russian intelligentsia, seeing their task as building intellectual connections between Russia and the West" [11, p. 11].
Given our aim of chorological description of Solovyov's views as presented by Walicki, we begin with the first Polish edition of A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Solovyov was - according to Walicki - „the most notable and colourful representative" of the thinkers dealing with idealistic approach
to metaphysics [7, p. 539]. Не was a „haunted man» but, differently to Tolstoy, not in a sense of a wrathful patriarchal prophet, but as a subtle, eccentric poet-romanticist" [7, p. 544]. Walicki describes Solovyov's philosophical inspirations, starting from the classic Slavophile philosophy, to the crisis of the Western philosophy, to the notion of integrity. As I have already dealt with this notion above, let us turn to the notion of Godmanhood and Sophia. «Godmanhood» - as Walicki call it - is the central point of Solovyov's philosophy. „Humanised God" is the deepest sense of Christianity, as only this way God can connect with man, without „absorbing" him. This is a peculiar synthesis of the views coming from the Eastern and Western philosophies [7, p. 552]. Godmanhood is strictly connected with the notion of Sophia; the eternal Divine Wisdom. The notion of Sophia was already present in the biblical tales of Solomon. By Sophia, Solovyov understood a mysterious feminine being that visited him in mystical visions - writes Walicki. He familiarised himself with what was known about her, analysing various literary sources, from Kabbalah to the works by Baader. Yet, he constantly modified what he considered to be the essence of Sophia. „Generally speaking, Sophia was for him the soul of the world, the ideal humankind and eternal femininity at the same time" as1 Walicki puts it [7, p. 554]. The very notion of Sophia as the soul of the world had been already known to Plato, to later emerge within Gnosticism, stoicism, among the Renaissance theosophist and is even present in the writings of the late Schelling. Yet - as Krasicki states, thus complementing the analysis by Walicki - these are not the sources used by Solovyov. The origin of his inspirations lay in the biblical Revelation. It seems as if Solovyov attempts to make Sophia „more orthodox" and place it within the Church tradition [8, p. 59]. „Sophia (it is claimed there) had existed before the creation of the world (that is the natural world), God had had her at the beginning of his creations, that is, it is the idea possessed by Him before Himself in the act of creation and which, as a consequence, is being realised" [8, p. 60].
Moving on with his analysis, Walicki says that Solovyov viewed the organisation of the God's Kingdom as a kind of „free theocracy"The authority should be of divine origin, as the authority of human origin is always tyrannical and unjust. God however, cannot rule directly, hence He does that through the highest priests, emperors and prophets. Here also, following Hegel, we recognise a triad. Only by keeping the tripartite division of the power, the humankind, led by the highest Priest, is able to fulfil its noble, messianic destiny. According to Solovyov, the pope was to be such a highest Priest [7, p. 556]. These considerations are quite naive, but the important thing is that Solovyov proved to be a thinker, who is able to admit his mistakes, which he did in his talk from 1881 entitled ОБ УПАДКЕ СРЕДНЕВЕКОВОГО МИРОСОЗЕРЦАНИЯ [On the Collapse of the Medieval Woridview], where he claims that the unbelievers played a greater role in the development of civilisation that Christians6.
His later disappointments with the emperor-and-pope Utopia found their way into print as five articles written under the single title The meaning of love (1882-1894). These concern mainly matters of Utopia and eroticism. This is important,
6 After this talk, Konstantin Leont'ev hated Solovyov, calling him a «scoundrel» and a «tool of the Antichrist».
as it is related to the notion of Sophia - the eternal femininity. As it was noted above, it is the main theme found in Solovyov's works. The vision of such conceived all-unity was the conception of „syzygial part-to-whole relation" [7, p. 559]. What is important, Solovyov distinguished between the sexual and physical love. Contrary to Schopenhauer, who had seen love as a mere illusion, a tool of self-sacrifice for the future generations, Solovyov did not reject it. Solovyov thought love something more, namely a reintegration, the unity of masculine and feminine. Such a man - according to Walicki - was considered a whole person, consistent with the image of God. For love is the desire for the „divination" of man, or even for making him immortal. „The physical love is then a degradation of love and a negation of its essential goal. A powerful force, which as a result of Sophia's fall found its escape outside - in procreation, should be directed „inwards'; become a force of divination, a tool for universal reintegration" [7, p. 560]. The difference between the sexual and physical love is clearly noticeable. The sexual love is treated idealistically, whereas the physical love is treated as the lower one and condemned. It is the source of all evil, a desire common among the lower species7. Human existence, according to Solovyov, is directed towards all-unity, which clearly sets us apart from animals [13, p. 14].
Hie Polish researcher in his A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism deals with yet another important feature of Solovyov's intellectual legacy, namely his approach to the questions of ethics. Walicki emphasises that the thinker, while working on Critique of Abstract Principles noticed that his own views had evolved to such an extent that is necessary to redefine his approach to ethics. This is the origin of The Justification of the Good (1897). Generally speaking, Solovyov states that ethics is autonomous and independent of religion or even of metaphysics [7, p. 563]. He attempted to derive ethics from empirical studies. Then he tried to define the issues related to morality on the basis of relations between nations. He derived views directly relating to the political scene, criticising nationalism. He did not consider however, cosmopolitism as something very positive, on a contrary - he emphasised that respect for nationality is tantamount to respect for personality as such. For him, the main goal of the state was to defend weak individuals, which was the source for a heated debate with Leo Tolstoy, who was a declared religious anarchist8 and for whom state meant „robbery" [7, p. 564-565].
7 It is important to note that Nikolai Fiodorov was an enduring inspiration for Solovyov, who even considered the former his teacher and looked into his theses for inspiration.
8 Justice, freedom and importance of moral matters - these are the main assumptions behind religions anarchism. Despite thinking about himself as a Christian and never identifying with the anarchists, whom he considered revolutionaries (and criticised them harshly) and atheists, Leo Tolstoy build a foundation foT religious anarchism. He considered the Bible a source of anarchist references, emphasising individual freedom. According to Wincenty Kolodziej ,Tblstoy's views show a real indication of anarchistic elements, such as the rejection of authority, state and all political structures. It was precisely church and state hierarchies that he saw as the sources of evil, injustice and social exploitation, The principle stating that love for God and others is the highest law for all humans. Tblstoy also emphasised the importance of the fundamental principle of Christianity - the rejection of evil. He also rejected violence, answering evil for evil and called for love as taught by Christ (Kolodziej W Anarchizm i anarchisci w Rosji i Krolestwie Pohkim.Torun, 1992. P. 23-24).
Whereas social ideas of Solovyov had often changed during his lifetime, his aesthetic ideas were remarkably stable. The philosopher, trying to describe the notion of beauty referred to the word of his friend, Fyodor Dostoyevsky „the beauty will save the world" [4, p. 424]. Similarly to sexual love, he viewed art as a source and tool of reintegration, since by the contact with higher art man can feel the theurgic force [7, p. 568-569]. „Beauty is something objective, inseparably connected with Good and Truth; this, what is beautiful should serve a real perfecting of reality. Hence, Solovyov objected the „art for the sake of art" theory, viewing it as an example of an „aesthetic separatism',' according to Walicki [7, p. 569]. Solovyov considered the works by Dostoyevsky as the deepest essence of art.
Faithful to our chronological assumption we now turn to Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism by Walicki, the chapter on Solovyov in particular. The book is an analysis of the views of five other Russian thinkers, namely Boris Chicherin, Leon Petrazycki, Pavel Novgotsev, Bogdan Kistiakowskii and Sergei Hessen, from our point of view however, the description of Solovyov is the most important one. Solovyov's philosophy can be described generally as a religious one. Hence, in order to analyse the philosophy of law we should first be aware that it is in a way based on the religious aspects of Solovyov's philosophy. The notion of all-union, given its meaning, is especially important, since it aids in understanding Solovyov's approach to the philosophy of law9. TTie mentioned Critique of Abstract Principles is the first outline of law given by the thinker. It does not tackle, however, the issues of law in a direct manner but rather describes the place of law in the holistic structure [10, p. 191]. Solovyov distinguished two types of rules. The fist are the „substantial" rules, otherwise known as religious rules; we get to know these directly in our internal experience but also as facts of divine revelation. The „abstract" rules are, in turn, the other type of rules discovered on our own but without the power of critical thinking. Hence, the substantial rules are otherwise known as the mystic rules, whereas the abstract rules are the empirical ones [10, p. 192].
As Walicki emphasises, Solovyov derives the most important ethical rule from the undeniable fact of mercy being the principal rule. Since mercy is the feeling that connects individuals. Morality,understood as empirical action e.g. feeling mercy, results in helping others but unfortunately this help is incomplete. It lacks a theoretical component, which would serve as a kind of guidance - here we see references to Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. This way, we are presented with a specific guidance, which in practical terms can be stated thus: individuals should not be treated as means to an end but always as an end [10, p. 192].
Solovyov appears also as a critic of socialism. Why did he take such a position? He did agree that existential and material claims of socialism have their merits, yet he disagreed completely with the rejection of law, the formal element of social life. This he viewed as the biggest ideological falsehood. A very important question, namely that Solovyov did try to understand the Narodnik socialists, representing at the time
9 A comprehensive analysis of Solovyov's philosophical system can be found in Walicki's Rosyjska filozofui imysl spnfaczna. P. 539-570.
the far left flank with their legal nihilism. Solovyov's critique of socialism also touched on economic matters10. Walicki also emphasises that Solovyov, in general, had a negative opinion of the supporters of the economic liberalism. As there is no major difference between a capitalist, using individuals for his own needs, and a socialist, treating these individuals objectively [10, p. 193].
The law, according to Solovyov, should define relationships between people and objects of law; hence it has to take into account the most important values, such as freedom, equality and a complete acceptance of freedoms of others. The most important aim of law - Walicki concludes - is the protection of freedom. The law is then tantamount to the „synthesis of freedom and equality" [10, p. 195]. We emphasise that the law, in this approach, serves morality by implementing the idea of justice in social life. Law is a means of human activity and is characterised by setting demands for others. For, it is rightful to give others what they deserve but mutual aid among people is not something to be expected11. The law, contrary to morality, does not reject egoism [10, p. 195]. Solovyov considered law to be very important and irreplaceable. This run contrary to the ideas of the Slavophiles, the movement Solovyov was indebted to so much. The Slavophiles treated law as a kind of a „necessary evil" acceptable only in its guise of a custom law. Solovyov disagreed with this - he thought that the autonomous character of law has to be maintained precisely because each individual has to be independent. This was to make sure - according to Walicki -mutual inviolability of individuals. This was considered by the Slavophiles a typically western perspective and deemed inconsistent with the principle of integral wholeness. As a consequence, they rejected it [10, p. 198].
Solovyov's philosophy of law is a very noble theory, yet it has too many Utopian elements preventing it from being implemented into social life12. Walicki emphasises
10 Solovyov thinks that private property and social division of labour are necessary conditions for progress.
11 Mutual aid was a main idea other Russian thinker - Peter Kropotkin (заимная помощь среди животных и людей как двигатель прогресса, 1902 г.) [Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution]. The thesis that contrary to appearances, cooperation is a dominant and major force in nature is a conclusion of his research A popular at the time theory of fight for survival was a direct stimulus for conducting his research. Bourgeois economist based their slogans of «woe unto poor» on false interpretations of the theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin. In their eyes, this justified all the injustices of the capitalist system. Kropotkin on the other hand based his views on the material he gathered himself during observations in Siberia, where climate is harsh and conditions of existence much more difficult - and showed that the mutual aid is a law of nature in the same sense as the fight for survival is; but the positive outcome demands the existence of the former, which is therefore no doubt the more important one. According to Kropotkin, mutual aid is something natural to all the animals (no matter, of higher or lower type, just as the self-preservation or maternal instinct Kropotkin considered mutual aid as a positive factor, whereas Solovyov (from the point of view of his philosophy of law) only egoism was admissible, since the law assumes that people should be given what is due to them. (Vide Walicki A. Fiiozopa prawa rosyjskiego libemlizmu. op. cit. p. 195).
12 Many contemporary thinkers were Utopian in thinking about their ideas. The Russian anarchists (M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, L. Tolstoy) can be mentioned here as the authors of beautiful and noble theories that were however so feeble in their assumptions that can be considered prime examples of Utopias.
that it seems nigh impossible to reconcile liberalism in the philosophy of law with the principle of mutual Christian love [10, p. 200]. It is worth noting that Solovyov, in his unconditional cult of law did emphasise the role of law and state in the history of Russia. All kinds of negation of law and playing down its role were for him acts of evil. He openly stated that if in Russia truly has more saints than decent men; it is a sign of the problems within the society and not a scientific tendency [10, p. 201]. Ancient Rome was for him an exemplary state where law is respected and where a relation between morality, respect for the law and social patriotism are maintained13. According to Walicki, Solovyov's contribution in terms of Russian liberalism was an enormous one - thanks to him we can now talk about the awareness of the existence of the tradition of the Russian philosophy of law. This tradition seems to be very important, taking into account a clearly defined focus on the problems of an appropriate relation between law and morality [10, p. 223].
Solovyov was a philosopher that cannot be confined to the limitations set out by a given philosophical trend. It was no doubt influenced by the fact that his philosophy has been prone to all kinds of interpretations. Krasicky notices that such interpretations can be made given many perspectives: from the point of view of Christian or European traditions, theological and philosophical considerations [8, p. 5]. The breadth and depth of Solovyov's knowledge and his erudition resulted in an attempt at creating a system of philosophy. Whereas his ideological wealth allows many interpretations and focusing on many interesting threads present in Solovyov's ideas, interesting from the point of view of the researchers dealing with Russian thought. For the Russian philosophers are so different in their creations, so open to influence and syncretic at the same time, that they never cease to inspire many researchers. Solovyov in his ideas also related to the problems of the human nature, making his proposition impossible to be analysed just from a single point of view. Godmanhood, Sophia, the philosophy of all-unity or the philosophy of law are just some of the aspects of his legacy we have focused on. Surely, Solovyov would have been less known in Poland if it had not been for the efforts of Andrzej Walicki, who through his works, created a comprehensive source of knowledge on the Russian thought. He is a pioneer of research on Russian philosophy and thought and not only in terms of Poland but also in terms of the entire world. According to Jan Dobieszewski, Walicki's research method used in analysis of Russian though is his historical and holistic attitude but above all the principle of empathy, which plays a crucial role in humanities. This empathy was accompanied by the principle of distance and constructive criticism, resulting in remarkable works that are comprehensive treatments of the chosen topic that is the Russian philosophy [12, p. 10-13]. We note that this is not the only are of Professor's interest. Given the character of our article, we do not however, touch upon those other, equally fascinating, topics.
13 The article Значение государства [The Meaning of State] contains a more detailed exposition of Solovyov's ideas.
References
1. Dobieszewski, J. Empatia, dystans i ani trochs „УНЫНИЯ? Profesor Andrzej Walicki a rosyjska mysl filozoficzna. Wok6) Andrzeja Walickiego. Almanach mysli rosyjskiej, (ed.) Bohun M., Dobieszewski J., Skoczyriski I Warszawa, 2009, p. 2.
2. Kiejzik, L. Wlodzimierz Solowjow. Wydawnictwo Wyiszej Sz.koly Pedagogicznej im.Tadeusza Kotrabiriskiego. Zietona Gora, 1997, p. 86.
3. Walicki, A. W kr^gu konserwatywnej utopil Struktum iprzemiany rosyjskiego slowianofilstwa [The Slavophile Controversy. By Andrew-Rusiecka H. Oxford 1975. The Clarendon Press. 600s.; Throughout the paper, we quote from the Polish editions of all of the Walicki's publications]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa, 2002, pp. 1,411-425.
4. Berdyaev, N. Konstantin Leont'ev. Paris, 1926, p. 28.
5. Solovyov, VS. Filosofskie nachala tsel'nogo znaniya [Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge], in Solovyov, VS. Sochineniya v2t,,L2 [Works in 2 vol., vol. 2], Moscow: Mysl', 1990, W Solowjow. Filosofskie naczalacelnogo znanija. In: SS vol. 1 (part of Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge.Translated into Polish as Filozoficzne podstawy wiedzy integralnej by Papieski R. in: Wokol Slowianofilstwa. Dobieszewski J. [ed.] Warszawa, 1998). P 294.
6. Mochul'skiy, K.V Vladimir Solovyov. Zhizn' i uchenie. [Vladimir Solovyov. The Life and Doctrine]. Paris, 1936. P.142.
7 Walicki, A. Rosyjska filozofia i mysl spoieczna od oswiecenia do marksizmu [A history of Russian Thought From the Enlightenment to Marxism. By Andrew-Rusiecka H. Stanford 1979. Stanford University Press, 456s.]. Wydawnictwo Wiedza Powszechna. Warszawa, 1973, pp. 5,539-570.
8. Krasicky, Y. Bog, czlowiek i zlo. StudiumfilozofliWlodzimierza Sohwjowa [Russian edition: Бог, человек и зло: исследование философии Владимира Соловьева]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego. Wroclaw, 2003, pp. 5,59-60.
9. Walicki, A. ZaTys mySli rosyjskiej od oswiecenie do renesansu religijno-filozoficznego. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloiiskiego. Krakow, 2005, pp. 11-14.
10. Walicki A. Ftlozofia prawa rosyjskiego liberaiizmu [Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. Oxford 1987. The Clarendon Press, 442s.]. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Studiow Politycznych PAN, Warszawa, 1995, pp. 191-223.
11. Walicki, A. Zarys mysli rosyjskiej od oswiecenie do renesansu religijno-filozoficznego. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Krakow, 2005. P. 11.
12. Dobieszewski, J. Jubileusz Profesora Andrzeja Walickiego. Przegl^d Filozoficzny. Warszawa, 2011, no. 1(77), pp. 9-13.
13. Solovyov, VS. The Meaning of Love (by Paprocki H.)as Sens miloSci. Wydawnictwo Antyk. K^ty, 2002. P. 14.
РЕФЕРАТ
Как правильно отметил польский исследователь русской философии и ученик Анджея Валицкого Янушь Добешевски, Валицки является первым «двигателем» всех причин и следствий, который позволил толковым образом говорить о русской философии. Все, кто сегодня занимается в Польше исследованием русской философии и общественной мысли, «прошли» школу Валицкого. В течение многих лет преподавательской и научной работы в Польше и США он высказывался по всем проблемам, которые раскрывают существо русской философии, издал аналитические труды, монографии, учебники, переводы. Неудивительно, что в кругу его интересов находилась философская система B.C. Соловьева. Тем более что сам русский философ - личность сложная, не вмещающаяся в известные интерпретационные рамки по причине неоднозначной идейной укорененности.
С использованием реферативного метода анализа рассматриваются отдельные аспекты философских взглядов B.C. Соловьева в трудах Валицкого, начиная с его ранней работы «В кругу консервативной утопии» (1964) и заканчивая двумя наиболее известными: книгой «Философия права русского либерализма» (1995) и учебником «Очерк русской мысли. От просвещения к религиозно-философскому ренессансу» (2005).-
Валицки обращает внимание на оригинальность системы B.C. Соловьева. Как известно, среди источников его философии называют немецкую классическую философию, прежде всего философию Гегеля, у которого он заимствовал диалектический метод. Но на творчество B.C. Соловьева оказали влияние также французский рационализм и позитивизм, немецкий мистицизм, гностические и каббалистические течения, взгляды старших славянофилов. Все это, по мнению Валицкого, привело к возникновению интереснейшей славянофильской концепции.
Работа Валицкого «В кругу консервативной утопии» посвящается отдельным аспектам теории Ивана Киреевского. В ней Валицки ие только представляет важные для славянофильства тенденции, но и поднимает вопрос о «человечестве как субъекте истории», показывает многообразие и богатство содержания теории B.C. Соловьева, указывает на трудность причисления его к конкретному философскому направлению - называет его философию «ничьей», так как она не выражала существующих взглядов, не продолжила существующих идеологических тенденций. Валицки констатирует, что русский философ так и не укоренился в жизни русского общества, сплоченность славянофилов была ему чуждой, он не был человеком «почвы». В своем освоении и ощущении мира он был «бездомным бродягой», «без рода», без корней. Можно было бы назвать его «абстрактным всечеловеком», но это не притягивало, а наоборот — отталкивало от него многих.
Работа Валицкого «Русская философия и общественная мысль от просвещения к марксизму» (1773), очередное, расширенное издание которой получило название «Очерк русской мысли от просвещения к ренессансу религиозно-философскому» (2005), - один из самых лучших учебников по русской филосо-
фии на польском языке. Создавая его, автор хотел показать, что мнение о будто бы враждебности поляков ко всему русскому и российскому является фальшивым, и нельзя распространять отдельные мнения представителей институционального сознания (СМИ) на всех поляков. Даже во времена разделов Польши существовали ученые и писатели, которые сумели правильно оценить великие традиции русской интеллигенции. Они понимали свое задание как построение интеллектуальных мостов между Россией и широко понимаемым католическим Западом. Валицки посвятил отдельные разделы своих книг взглядам B.C. Соловьева. Остановился на его философских вдохновениях, анализировал его идею Богочеловечества, софиологическую концепцию, теократическую утопию. Отдельным пунктом является анализ труда B.C. Соловьева «Смысл любви». Как подчеркивает Валицки, эта важная работа прямо связана с идеей Софии, представляет один из ее аспектов - вечную женственность. Валицки обращается также к этике и эстетике русского философа. Показывает эти аксиологические дисциплины как источники интеграции людей.
В работе Валицкого «Философия права русского либерализма» Соловьев рассматривается наряду с Борисом Чичериным, Львом Петражицким, Павлом Новгородцевым, Богданом Кистяковским и Сергеем Icccchom. Польский автор отмечает, что философия B.C. Соловьева - это, прежде всего, религиозная философия. Следовательно, его концепция права основывается на религиозной основе. В качестве определяющей Валицки называет категорию всеединства и считает, что Соловьев интерпретировал право как определяющее отношения между субъектами права, как синтез свободы и равенства, как должное хранить свободы других. Такой взгляд противоположен тому, что заявляли славянофилы. Ведь для них право - это «неизбежное зло», которое необходимо, однако, принимать. Соловьев с таким определением был не согласен. Он считал, что необходимо придать праву автономию именно для того, чтобы каждая личность чувствовала себя независимой. Это положение должно гарантировать неприкосновенность личности. Для славянофилов эта идея была не приемлема. Валицки заключал, что для трактовки права B.C. Соловьева, а следовательно, и его философии права характерны элементы утопии. Он отмечал, что нельзя согласовать либеральные тезисы философии права с принципом взаимной христианской любви. Несмотря на это, Валицки подчеркивал огромное значение B.C. Соловьева для русского либерализма и утверждал, что благодаря ему мы можем говорить о русской традиции в философии права.
Без всякого сомнения, именно благодаря Анджею Валицкому поляки познакомились с философскими взглядами B.C. Соловьева.
