The Truth of a Critique

  • Thomas Nemeth
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées book series (ARCH, volume 212)


Continuing with the analysis of his Critique of Abstract Principles, Solov’ëv’s excursion into epistemology largely mirrors Hegel’s treatment of similar issues in the Phenomenology, albeit with a different, though superficially similar, intent. However, we see that Solov’ëv’s Critique presupposes his own standpoint, even though he endeavors to portray a dialectical movement from one epistemological position under investigation to another. In this chapter, I show how Solov’ëv conceived this movement. We look at Solov’ëv’s own critique of epistemology as first philosophy and his idea that all that can be said to exist in whatever fashion has a possessor leading ultimately to an absolute existent. However, anxious to avoid the charge of pantheism Solov’ëv denies that this existent is simply identical with the universe. In this chapter, we will see that his reasoning involves a move that relinquishes the logical in favor of a speculative and religious ontological claim. Finally, in this chapter we will deal with Solov’ëv’s belief that faith is responsible for our immediate certainty in the objectivity of the intentional object of cognition. The emphasis here will be on contrasting his position with those of Kant and Hegel.


Sense Data External World External Object Sense Experience Intentional Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ameriks, Karl. 2000. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bezobrazova, M. S. 1908. Vospominanija o brate Vladimire Solov’ëve. In Bojkov. 2000. vol. 1: 302–339.Google Scholar
  3. Frege, Gottlob. 1918. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry. In Klemke 1968:507–535.Google Scholar
  4. Gajdenko, P. P. 2001. Vladimir Solov’ëv i filosofija Serebrajanogo veka. Moscow: Progress-Tradicija.Google Scholar
  5. Guyer, Paul. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hegel, G. W. F. 1904. The Logic of Hegel, trans. William Wallace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Hume, David. 1968. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Husserl, Edmund. 1982. Ideas pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, trans. F. Kersten. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1982Google Scholar
  10. Jurkevich, P[amfil]. 1859. Ideja. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenija, October: 1–35; November: 87–125.Google Scholar
  11. Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kant, Immanuel. 1970. Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science, trans. James Ellington. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Lopatin, Prof. L. M. 1916. The Philosophy of Vladimir Soloviev, trans. Alex. Bakshy. Mind, October: 426–460.Google Scholar
  14. Obolevich, T. 2010. Matematika i metafizika v sochinenijakh Vladimira Solov’ëva. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 2(26): 35–40.Google Scholar
  15. Pronina, T. S. 2001. Religioznaja metafizika V. S. Solov’ëva I problema filosofskoj tradicii. Solov’ëvskie issledovanija. Vypusk 1: 75–88.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, Oliver. 2011. Vladimir Soloviev and the Spiritualization of Matter. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Solov’ëv, Sergei M. 1997. Vladimir Solov’ëv: Zhizn’ i tvorcheskaja evoljucija. Moscow: Respublika.Google Scholar
  18. Speranskij, Ivan. 1901. Religiozno-filosofskie vozzrenija Vl. Solov’ëva. Vera i razum, 3: 103–132.Google Scholar
  19. Spinoza, [Benedict de]. 1958. Of the Improvement of the Understanding. In John Wild, ed. Spinoza: Selections. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1–44.Google Scholar
  20. Trubeckoj, E[vgenij] N. 1995. Mirosozercanie V. S. Solov’ëva. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ‘Medium’. 2 volumes.Google Scholar
  21. Wedenskij, Alexander [Vvedenskij, Aleksandr]. 1910. Ein neuer und leichter Beweis für den philosophischen Kritizismus. Archiv für systematische Philosophie, 2: 191–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Nemeth
    • 1
  1. 1.Old BridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations