Vladimir Solovyev and Max Scheler: Attempt at a Comparative Interpretation by Helmut

Dahm; Kathleen Wright

Review by: Joseph L. Navickas
Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Oct., 1977), pp. 253-257
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20098750 .
Accessed: 09/10/2014 16:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in Soviet Thought.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS
Helmut Dahm, Vladimir Solovyev and Max Scheler: Attempt
trans, by Kathleen Wright.
tive Interpretation,
D. Reidel, Dordrecht-Holland,

at a Compara

1975, 324 pp.

The gradual rise of interest in Marxism and in contemporary Soviet thought

in recent years has somehow overshadowed and bypassed the Russian philo
sophy of the prerevolutionary period. There are, of course, exceptions, and
perhaps the most striking one is Nicolai Berdyaev. In addition to the trans
lations of Berdyaev's original works, we have a handful of books, articles, and
dissertations dealing with the various aspects of his thought. But we are still
facing an overwhelming dearth of material on the thought of L. Lopatin,
N. Lossky, S. Frank, L. Shestov, and V. Solovyov ? to mention but a few.
Helmut Dahm's Vladimir Solovyev and Max Scheler, recently translated by
Kathleen Wright, brings a feeling of relief and promises to be a solid contri
bution towards filling an onerous gap.
We have before us a complex scholarly work and a penetrating constructive
study. It is safe to say that the work is too intricate for the beginner and, of
course, too difficult for the uninitiated. But itmight be a real gold-mine for
advanced graduate students, especially for those interested in Scheler and
Solovyov.

is a comparative study with the intent of isolating the

of
in
contact
the thought of two original and important thinkers. The
points
idea of such a comparison is not new, since similar projects have been attemp
ted before by both Russian and Western scholars. For example, almost three
H. Dahm's work

decades ago Professor Ludolf M?ller of Marburg made an attempt to compare

Solovyov, Nietzsche, and Scheler (Cf. Zeitschrift f?r philosophische Forschung,
Band I, Heft 4, 1947), but the work by Dahm ismuch more systematic and
thorough both in structure and scope.
There is a sense in which this single volume may be regarded as containing
two relatively independent studies. The first one comprises the first five
chapters and ends with Chapter Six, entitled Retrospect. The three subsequent
chapters form a novel study, transcending the original theme and the task of
comparison. These additional chapters deal with the history of Russian philo
sophy from Shestov to Solovyov, the Soviet re-examination of Solovyov, and
the constructive Soviet evaluation of Max Scheler, respectively. Clearly, this
latter part of the work ismore critical and more historical than the compara
tive one. Although the second portion of the book is no less important than
Studies
Copyright

in Soviet
?

1977

17 (1977)
253-257.
All Rights Reserved
Thought
Dordrecht-Holland
by D. Reidel Publishing
Company,

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

254

REVIEWS

the first, in this brief review I shall concentrate

problematic issues contained therein.

on the first chapters and the

The work begins with a discussion of the idea of philosophy, and this issue
leads to the question of the relation of religion and metaphysics. When Dahm
for guaranteeing the
speaks of the 'essential inadequacy' of metaphysics
credibility of absolute truth, he is asserting that for both
Solovyov and Scheler philosophy and religion are two distinct and separate
spheres. This might be true for Max Scheler, for he makes a rigorous distinc
tion between knowledge of salvation (Erl?sungswissen)
and knowledge of

unconditional

essence (Wesenswissen). However, it is unlikely that Solovyov, the philosopher

of total-unity and reconciliation, would cling to such a formal distinction.
Already in his early work, The Crisis of Western Philosophy,
Solovyov sugges
ted that science, philosophy proper, and theology should be dialectically
integrated and internally unified, thus giving rise to a system of supreme and
ultimate

wisdom.

To clarify Solovyov's position on this point, we have to re-examine his

notion of faith. It seems to me that Solovyov has borrowed his notion of
faith from Khomyakov. Now, it should be noted that for this Slavophile
thinker faith is not a strictly and specifically religious act, but a natural
cognitive apprehension by unaided human reason. In his letter to Yuri
states that he "gave the name
Samarin, Khomyakov clearly and unequivocally
faith to that faculty of reason which apprehends actual (real) data and makes
them available for analysis and awareness by the understanding (Verstand)".
ed. by J. M. Edie, Vol. I, p. 251). Solovyov's idea of
(Russian Philosophy,
faith is rooted in precisely the same outlook and position. And there is no
reason to suppose that he had any intention to distinguish between philo
sophical faith and religious faith, as Dahm seems to suggest. For Solovyov,
faith is an indivisible act revealing with an apodictic evidence the reality of
the Absolute Being. Still, faith is not determined by the subject's inward
decision and relation to the Absolute Being. Faith, like truth, cannot be
decision or relation, but it is also that which is given in that relation.
is given in the act of faith is the unconditioned
Now,
reality of the
this apprehension of the Absolute Being is the
Absolute Being. Accordingly,

merely

that which

fundamental condition of the possibility of true cognition, for the meaning

of truth presupposes absolutely unconditioned
reality. Thus, when Solovyov
talks of the trustworthy character of sense knowledge, he is assuming that
ultimately

its justification

is grounded

in the primordial act of faith. Evidently,

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

255

REVIEWS

neither sense powers nor reason can function for him in isolation and indepen
dently of the supreme cognitive insight of faith. Therefore, the emphasis on
faith is never misplaced.
Dahm,

however,

moves

within

a narrow

and more

context,

fragmentary

and he quotes Solovyov to the effect that "truth is reality, but for us reality
can only be guaranteed by immediate sense certainty", (p. 34). This statement
makes sense only when related to what Solovyov has to say about faith - as
follows:
of ourselves
and independently
of ourselves
exists outside
that we can
anything
that is to say, all that we experience,
all that we know
know, because
(actually),
of us (as our sensations
is not
exists within
and our thoughts);
and what
us, not outside

That
not

the limits of our experience

us, but is in its own self, is thereby beyond
and, con
of our actual knowledge;
it can be asserted,
outside
thus, only by an act of
sequently,
can reach beyond
of this reality of ours - and it is this
the spirit which
the boundaries
on
trans, by P. Zouboff,
act of spirit that is called faith. (Lectures
Godmanhood,

within

pp.

105-106.)

In brief, our immediate sense certainty and our rational thinking derive their
? faith.
essential cognitive validity from the act of spirit
and epistemic
Solovyov's conception of faith is essentially metaphysical
or theological. This is not to say, however, that
rather than phenomenological
in any sense. My impression is that Solovyov's
manifests
itself most distinctly in his attempts to
genius
phenomenological
essence
of
love
the
and
moral relevance of reverence, pity, and
elucidate the

he was no phenomenologist

shame.

In hisMeaning of Love, especially in the first chapter, Solovyov prefers

illustrations from novels and great works of poetry to actual, dated love affairs,
seeing that they exhibit not isolated cases of love but pure, essential types.
love for Juliette yield a
of love than, say, Christopher
love for lady Beatrice Anreches. We don't have to make here any
congruencies between Solovyov and Scheler, for on the issue of

Thus, Werther's love for Charlotte and Romeo's

deeper and richer understanding of the meaning
Columbus'
far-fetched

investigation of essences they came close to one another.

methodological
to
Seeking
apprehend the nature of love in ideal, pure, and essential types,
came
very close to Scheler's distinction between ens reale and ens
Solovyov
Still, there is no complete congruence between Scheler's
apriori and Solovyov's experience of reverence, shame, and pity. It

intentionale.
material
is true,

however,

that

one

can

relate

Solovyov's

acts

of

reverence,

pity,

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

REVIEWS

256

shame to Scheler's act of preference (Vorziehen), since the latter reveals and
indicates both the height and the rank of the given value.
Indeed, Solovyov's acts of reverence, pity, and shame have to do with the
recognition of the objective hierarchy and scale of values. They reveal which
values transcend the human level, which values manifest themselves within the
human sphere, and which things are below man and remain inappropriate to
human nature and behaviour. I do not think we can call them 'material apriori',
but they are surely the discoverers of true values and our moral guides.
Another important point of contact lies in the phenomenon and problem
of love. For Solovyov and Scheler, love is an essential act of the person with
and cognitive implications. It is not surprising that this act
scene in both thinkers. Although
the entire anthropological
role
of
love
in the thought of both philos
the
central
recognizes

affectionate

should dominate
H. Dahm

ophers, the abundant material in this area is not sufficiently explored. The
author devotes only ten pages to the issue of love, and the comparison remains
somehow very general and limited.
To say this does not imply that H. Dahm is a careless or a superficial in
vestigator. On the contrary, he is a cautious analyst. He would never press an
analogy of ideas into their identity, and he would never transform a hint into
a fact. He knows only too well that a comparative study is in no way an
attempt at reduction and simplification. Nor does he succumb to the temp
tation of verbal maneuvering. He patiently listens to his philosophers and lets
them speak for themselves. He deserves solid praise in this respect.
The translator, the diligent Miss Kathleen Wright, has captured H. Dahm's
style and his striving for clarity and precision. She did an excellent job, and
we are grateful to her for providing us with a much needed work. Perhaps her
challenge was a technical one: the task of properly transliter
terms. She has chosen to adopt a modern transcription with
the
Russian
ating
to
terms, but she clung to a more traditional
regard
properly philosophical

most

and

difficult

less

correct

transliteration

It is a well-known
his

translators

and

of

Solovyov's

name.

fact that the transcription of Solovyov's

commentators

is not

uniform.

Basic,

perhaps,

name among
the

among

reasons for this diversity of transliteration and transcription is that Solovyov's

name is spelled with the letter ? and not with the regular e (pronounced 'yeh').
The ? is neither a well familiar 'e' nor an Umlaut, but a distinct and novel
'yoh'. To the English reader the transliterations
sign, which is pronounced
'Solov'ev',

'Solovyev',

'Soloviev'

are

simply

misleading

and

incorrect,

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to

say

257

REVIEWS
the least. Too long, indeed, we were
basic linguistic fact.

ignorant and negligent of this simple and

There are a few noticeable misprints

If Plato's

name

appears

as Plata,

the

and typographical

error

is well

noticeable,

errors in the work.

easily

detectable,

and forgivable. However, when Aleksandr Gizetti's name is printed as

Aleksandra Gizetti (p. 15), that is not an easily recognizable error. But, again,
errare humanum est. The reader will tolerate all these imperfections. Thus, in
the final analysis, we can say with
it is really to be welcomed.
Boston College

true confidence

that the work

is good and

JOSEPH L. NAVICKAS

This content downloaded from 130.91.117.169 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:29:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions