Софиология

The question arises how Solov’ëv conceived history, or to be more exact, by which means history would arrive at Sophia′s prophetic incarnation? His short and disputed writing Smysl′ llubvl [1892–1894, The Meaning of Love] ends by regretting that during the «second era» nature has not yet been sufficiently spiritualised. Apart from singular «poets,» people did not afford the necessary type of love to «spiritualise nature.»[121] What time span did Solov′ёv have in mind when speaking of this «second era» and what did he mean by spiritualisiung nature? As for the first question, it is impossible to find in Solov’ëv′s work a single definition of history in the same register. He distinguishes a «theology of history» from a «philosophy of history.» As for the first register, there are three periods, viz. from Jesus Christ until the schism (33-1054), from then to Solov’ëv′s lifetime (1054–1880), and from this point of time until the end of history (1880′s-?). In the third period"…all efforts would, or at least should, be concentrated on unifying humanity, starting with the Christian community."[122] As for «philosophical history,» «.he posed that history is made up of three successive phases, undifferentiated unity, separation, and differentiated unity between and within these fields.»[123] Obviously the afore mentioned «second era» that is characterised by a «lack of love to nature» coincides with the second period in the historical and in the theological registers. What type of love did Solov′ev have in mind when he diagnosed a lack of it and how is related to prophecy? Discrediting the Marxian variant of materialism thoroughly[124] the young Solov’ëv introduced the notion of «religious materialism» in Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros, 1884. Christ′s advent to the Jews accounts, as he explains, for their deep religiosity, but also for the fact that they were people of law and order, and simultaneously a prophetic people. In this context, he distinguishes three forms of "materialism: " «practicalmaterialism» means no more than crude, egoistic, hedonistic, little sensible forms of life. As Solov’ëv sees it, practical materialism is equivalent to Marx′s "scientific materialism: " the «practical materialist» is a shallow type of personality that Marx objectified and prolonged into historical determinism, an eschatology that excludes liberty. A third type of materialism, «religious materialism,» describes the Hebrews′ thought and mentality. They did not separate «spirit» from its material appearance: «matter» did not have any independent existence, it was neither God nor devil, but represented rather a yet «undignified dwelling,» inhabited by God′s spirit sanctifying the vessel through man′s co-creativity. The faithful Hebrew desired the entire nature, the world he lived in, to have Gods «wholeness» at its disposal, given that He also is a «holy» or «spiritual corporeality.»[125] Because the Hebrews deeply believed in this type of «holy corporeality,» meaning in fact a permanent interrelation between God and man by means of spiritualised nature, they were the chosen people to whom Christ first appeared. Yet, as Solov’ëv affirms, Christ demanded from them a dual deed, namely the renunciation of national egoism and secondly a temporary, partially limited relinquishment of the world′s welfare[126].

His early anti-Marxian concept of "religious materialism" flows into his complex concept of spiritualising existence. Spiritualisation represents the "central element" in Solov’ëv′s religious philosophy.[127] In the Justification of the Good he indeed maintains the position that between spiritual and material being there is no dichotomy, but both are intrinsically bound to each other, which is why every transformative process is a development of "God′s material (protsess bogomaterialnyj)."[128] «(M)atter has a right to spiritualisation,» spiritualisation originates in love and leads to the moral organisation of material life.[129]