Development of the Will ⇒

One of the earliest works of Vladimir Solovyov, published when he was 24, was The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge. There, he tackles the meaning of historical development, integral knowledge, the Absolute, and the Idea. Solovyov’s doctoral thesis was a survey of Positivism and similar movements in which he was highly critical of Auguste Comte. Nevertheless, the chapter on historical development seems to owe something to Comte, perhaps in an attempt to bring Positivism into a higher understanding. In the latter part of his life, Solovyov ameliorated his opinion of Comte.

He begins by asking the question of the purpose of human existence, which is really a question about the final cause of existence, something ruled out of bounds by the modernist project. Everyone, I suppose, has asked himself that question. However, Solovyov wants to go beyond the personal to the general and asks about the goal of human existence in general. Since man is always in community, Solovyov claims that “the dignity of the personal and immediate goals of a human life can define itself only by its relationship to that common and final goal for which it serves as the means.”

The question of a goal naturally leads to the question of development, the process of achieving that goal. If the “changing phenomena [of world events] linked with each other merely in an external manner,” then clearly a common goal is a meaningless concept. Of course, that is what the Baconian project entails. Hence, progressives are always in a state of perpetual development without any articulated goal.

First and foremost, “development presupposes a specific subject”; it is the subject that develops. First, he distinguishes between an aggregate (or heap) and an organism (or system). An aggregate cannot be said to develop. Only an organism, “a single being that contains in itself a multitude of elements that are internally connected to each other” can develop. However, the organism exists not in isolation and the “material of development and the impelling source of its realization come from the outside”. This “impelling source can act only in conjunction with the peculiar nature of the organism. In traditional terms, the external elements constitute the material and efficient causes of development whereas the formal and final causes are contained in the subject of development.

Change by itself, without a known point of origin that continues indefinitely, not having any specific purpose, cannot be considered to be development. Here, Solovyov defines development.

Development is that series of immanent changes in an organic being that proceeds from a known origin and directs itself toward a known, definite goal.

Endless development, then, is a logical absurdity. In nuce, the Law of Development contains three stages:

1. A known primary condition, from which it is initiated
2. Another known condition, which is its goal
3. A series of intermediate conditions, as a transition or means

We note some consequences of this. First, there is a unity in the subject, which is its Form or defining characteristic. Then, the defining characteristic is transferred to the separate components.

Historical Development

Solovyov next seeks to apply the Law of Development to humankind as a real, collective organism, a task he claims had never been satisfactorily carried out. Let’s be clear that this is not an obvious project. For example, libertarian philosophers, such as Friedrich Hayek, are consistent nominalists and hence deny the real existence of humankind or any collective. He regards the individual as a real existent, but the group as such is a convenient fiction and no more than a mere name for an aggregate of individuals.

Solovyov anticipates this objection and notes that every being and every organism possesses a necessarily collective character. He points out, for example, that the cells in your body are themselves individual entities and they exist oblivious to being a part of the human organism. Hence, the individual man can be a real, individual being while still participating in a higher system. At this point, readers may want to reconsider Boris Mouravieff’s description of a series of higher order worlds or systems, considered as an aspect of orthodox theology.

An organism has a static part, its components, and a dynamic part, its subsystems. The component parts of the organism of humankind are not individuals, however, but rather tribes and peoples. Solovyov will proceed to develop the common formative systems of humankind.

Like Comte, Solovyov identifies three basic forms of being: feeling, thinking, and active will. Personal and subjective expressions of these forms of being cannot serve as formative principles. Only objective expressions can be part of the process of development.

• Objective Beauty. That feeling that strives to strengthen its existing condition by an objective expression of it.
• Objective Truth. That kind of thinking that strives for a specific objective content.
• Objective Good. That will that has in mind definite general goals.

Next: The process of development in each of those three areas.
Development of the Will ⇒