The idea of evil in the work of Solovyov and Tolstoi

In the reflections about evil I quoted the several authors and Rudolf Steiner. Next week I will finish these reflections with quotes from the work of Nietzsche. Then I will come back to the theme of the angels, who are working in our souls, weaving moral intuitions.

Solovyov according to Rudolf Steiner

'Solovyov is actually an excellent spirit, but a quite Russian spirit. He is a spirit who is exceptionally hard to understand from the West-European point of view. But anthroposophists should get to know him. Those who stand on the ground of spiritual science should get to know him; they should be able to bring themselves to understand Solovyov to a certain degree. Now I want to put, I would like to say, a prime and central idea of Solovyov once before your souls from our intimate point of view. Solovyov is too much a philosopher, as that he could really accept the group-soul for himself so easily. The matter makes trouble for him, and he comes into various contradictions. But he is not completely controlled with an idea, so that one has to say: if this Solovyov is clairvoyant that he may behold in advance what his soul only can see on earth when it is incarnated in the sixth culture-epoch.

The idea which is hard to understand to the West- European from its starting point, of course, also to the Central European, became a prime and central idea with Solovyov. This is the following. We in Western Europe look just for that which we care for as the preparation of the sixth culture-epoch, among a lot of other things, to understand death in its significance for life. We try to understand how death is the appearance of a way of life, how the soul is transformed in death to another way of life. We describe how the human being lives in his body, and what he experiences between death and new birth. We try to understand death. We try to overcome death, while we understand it, while we show that it is only an appearance that the soul lives in truth, while it goes through death. But this is the main thing to us that we try to overcome death through understanding.

However, there we have, for example, one of the points, one of the most principal points, which distinguishes our spiritual-scientific striving completely from the idea of Solovyov, the great Russian spirit: there is evil in the world, there is the bad in the world. The bad, the evil is there in the world. If we look with our senses at the evil, the bad, then we cannot deny that the world is full of the bad. This contradicts the belief, Solovyov says, that the world is divine. Why can you believe in a divine world if you look at the world with your senses, because a divine world cannot explain the bad. But the senses see the bad everywhere and the worst is death. Because death is in the world, the world appears in its entire badness, in its entire evil. The primal evil is death.

This is Solovyov's characteristic of the world. He says — I quote almost literally: look at the world with your bare senses. Try to understand the world with your bare reason. There you can never deny the evil in the world. It would be absurd to strive for an understanding of death. Death is there. It appears. A sensory knowledge can never recognise death. Hence, the sensory knowledge shows a bad world, a world of the evil. Can we believe now — Solovyov says — that this world is divine if it shows us that it is full of evil? If it shows us death wherever we go? We can never believe that this world, which shows us death, is a divine one. Since the evil cannot be in God, cannot be the primal evil at all. Death cannot be in God. If God came to the world — I repeat almost literally what Solovyov says — if God came to the world if He appeared in the world, could we believe Him easily that He is God? No, we could not believe God easily that He is God. He would only have to prove His identity. If a being came and stated, he were God, then we would not believe him. Then he would only have to prove his identity. It would have to show only something — Solovyov speaks that way — as a world document, something through which we can recognise: this is God.

We cannot find such a thing in the world. God cannot prove His identity through that which is in the world, because everything that is in the world is contradictory to the divine. How can He prove His identity? He only can prove His identity that He shows when He came into the world that He defeated death that death can do no harm to Him. Never would we believe that Christ is God if He did not prove His identity. He did it, while He rose again, while He showed that the primal evil, death, is not in Him. — So we have a consciousness of God which is only based on a real, historical Resurrection of Christ, which legitimised God as God. Nothing in the world but the Resurrection reveals us that there is God. If Christ did not rise — this saying of St. Paul is principal, Solovyov quotes it repeatedly, — all our faith would be null and void. Everything would be null and void that we can say about something divine in the world.

Hence, the sentence of Solovyov: if we look at the world, we only see evil and bad, decay and futility everywhere in the world. If Christ did not rise again, the world would be pointless. So Christ rose again. — Notice this sentence well. For this sentence is a cardinal sentence of one of the greatest spirits of the East. If Christ did not rise again, the world would be pointless. So Christ rose again! — Solovyov said: there may be people who believe, it would not be logical if I say: if Christ did not rise again, the world would be pointless; so He rose again! — However, this is a much better logic — Solovyov means, — than all logic which you can hold out towards me. (GA 159, rsarchive)

And Tolstoi:
'In everything Tolstoi says, one thing is clear: he is not of the opinion that there dwells within the body a soul that has nothing to do with the body; it is obvious from his words that he regards the constitution of the body as the expression of the life of soul; the soul, when it is itself sick, causes sickness in the body; it is the soul that pours through the veins of the body. This is a portrayal of how life comes to its own. And here we find a remarkable understanding of death, not as theory or dogma but in the life of feeling. This conception of the soul makes it possible to think of death not as an end but as an outpouring of the personality into the universe, a merging into infinitude, and the rediscovery of the self in the great primal Spirit of the world. The problem of death is here solved by the artist in a wonderful way. Death has become a blessing in life. a dying man feels the metamorphosis from the one form of life to the other.

As a contemporary of the naturalists in the domain of art, Leo Tolstoy was one who sought for life, who enquired into the riddle of life in its different forms. This riddle of life — in its scientific as well as in its religious aspect — lay at the very centre of his soul, at the very core of his thinking and feeling. He strove to fathom this riddle, seeking for life wherever it encountered him. Hence he has become the prophet of a new era that must supersede our own, an era that in contrast to the trend of natural science will again experience and know the reality of life. In Tolstoy's whole judgment of Western culture we see the expression of a spirit who represents fresh, childlike life, a spirit who strives to imbue this life into evolving humanity, a spirit who cannot rest content with a mature, nay an over-mature culture manifesting in external forms. This indicates the nature of Tolstoy's antagonism to Western culture. It is from this point of view that he criticises the forms of society and of life — indeed everything else — current in the West; this is the point of view on which his judgment is based. GA 53, rsarchive)

'Let us examine an outstanding case and we shall find that, as regards the inmost life of the soul, even the most exalted and noblest are far from grasping what they will one day experience, when man's inmost thoughts, opinions, and feelings are steeped in Christianity. Think of Tolstoi and his work in the last few decades, as he strives to expose the true meaning of Christianity. Such a thinker must inspire the greatest respect, especially in the West, where whole libraries are filled with endless philosophical disquisitions on the same subject which Tolstoi treats in a few powerful touches in his one book On Life. There are pages of elemental strength in Tolstoi's works, which betray a deep knowledge of anthroposophical truths, certainly unattainable by a philosopher of Western Europe, or on which he must write an extensive literature, because something unusually powerful is expressed therein. In Tolstoi there is an undertone which we may call the Christ-impulse. Meditate on his words and you will see that the Christ-impulse it is, which fills him. Turn now to his great contemporary, who interests us for the reason that he soared upwards from a comprehensive philosophical conception of the universe to the boundary line of a life so truly visionary, that he could survey an epoch, as it were in perspective, apocalyptically. Even though his visions are distorted, because they lack the true foundation, Solovioff nevertheless rises to a visionary perception of the future; he places before us vistas of the future of the twentieth century. If we give him our attention, we find in his writings great and noble thoughts, especially with regard to Christianity. But he speaks of Tolstoi as of an enemy of Christianity, as of Antichrist! Thus two men of our day may believe in their deepest thoughts that they are doing the best for their time; their work may spring from the profoundest depths of their soul, and yet they may altogether fail to understand one another, and see, each in the other, nothing but an antagonist. No one today stops to think that if outward harmony and a life steeped in love are to be realized, the Christ-impulse must have penetrated to the utmost depths of human nature, so that human love becomes something entirely different from what it is at present, even among the noblest spirits.

The Impulse which was foretold, and then entered the world, is only at the beginning of its work, and an even deeper understanding for it must be shown. What is lacking to all those who, precisely in our time, cry out for Christianity and declare it to be a necessity, yet cannot bring it within their reach? Anthroposophy, spiritual science, is lacking to them — the present day way of comprehending Christ. For Christ is so great that each successive epoch must find new methods by which to know and understand Him. In earlier centuries other methods of striving for wisdom, and other forms were employed. Today Anthroposophy is a necessity, and, for long periods to come, what Anthroposophy now teaches will hold good for the purpose of understanding the Christ. For Anthroposophy will prove to be a stimulus for all human powers of cognition. Man will gradually find his way to an understanding of Christ. But even the anthroposophical presentation is only temporal: of this we are well aware. We know too that the great subject of our temporal representations will require still greater modes of representation. (GA 112, rsarchive)
 

Vladimir Solowjow (1853 - 1900) and Tolstoi, 1828- 1910The idea of evil in the work of Solovyov and Tolstoi by Mieke Mosmuller