Философский диалог в творчестве Жозефа де Местра и Владимира Соловьева («Санкт-Петербургские вечера» и «Три разговора»: опыт сравнительного анализа)

Abstract

The article examines the reflection of the philosophical ideas of the “St. Petersburg’s Evenings” by Joseph de Maistre in “Three Conversations” by Vladimir Solovyov. Both of these works, created in the genre of philosophical dialogue, are the final works of their author. Solovyov and Maistre reflect on the same problems of evil and violence, war and peace, the end of world history. Solovyov's ideas are largely polemical in relation to those of Maistre. Maistre is interested in the question of the origin of evil and the responsibility of God for it. For Solovyov, the problem of resistance to evil is more important. In this respect, he takes an intermediate position between L. Tolstoy with his idea of non-resistance and Maistre with his idea of resistance to violence by forse. Solovyov considers good to be the only means of resisting evil, which in some cases does not exclude violence. In matters of war and peace, Solovyov also takes an intermediate position between Tolstoy’s pacifism and Maistre’s view of the divine origin of war as a punishment for people. Solovyov does not consider war an absolute evil, just as he does not consider peace an absolute good. War, from his point of view, is the creation of people, but it is justified and necessary when it is waged in defense of Christianity. In questions of the end of world history, Solovyov polemics with the idea of the third Testament, which goes back to the teachings of Joachim of Flores, which is expressed by Maistre. In the ideological structure of “Three Conversations”, Maistre takes the place of Tolstoy's antipode. Their ideas are presented to Solovyov as two abysses that distort the truth in opposite directions.