Introduction:
Both Tolstoy and Soloviev’s philosophies for agape stem from a similar philosophical position which involves the Christian faith and the goal of spirituality otherwise known as the “universal ideal”[1]. Their opinions on eros could not be further from each other as Soloviev theorises how sexual love brings Man closer to the “knowledge of truth”, which leads to self-affirmation and a better understanding one’s consciousness[2]. Furthermore, sexual love also enables the individual to approach the world creatively because “the beloved” and “the lover” realise their creative potential when immersed in this type of love[3]. By contrast, Tolstoy believed sexual love, specifically sexual intercourse, to be motivated by lust and therefore a distraction to humanity from the higher purpose in life to which they should adhere, namely the “universal ideal”[4]. For Tolstoy, therefore, this combination of both “carnal desire and self-deception” defined eros as a deceitful love, characterised only by possessive ownership and indulgence of one another[5]. The definitions for agape, although somewhat similar, were also opposing in that Tolstoy associated this type of love closely with Christianity, connecting it to the principal virtues and doctrines of that faith. In fact, Tolstoy argued that an all-encompassing love was metaphysically “the principle of everything”[6]. Conversely, Soloviev introduced agape as a positive result of eros, highlighting the fact that Man can only reach a spiritual type of love when both the spiritual and the physical body “conjoin”, guiding mankind through a necessary transformation formed by love, further understood as an “active self-realisation” through “mutual love”[7]. Therefore, by not applying Christian doctrine to decipher agape, Soloviev brings forth the concept of “Sofia” which is symbol of mankind’s soul as well as of the “ideal” version of humanity, both individualistically and as a collective entity[8]. This concept of Sofia develops to breaking down the ego within Man, enabling a development of his spirituality and thus his progression toward agape. However, both Tolstoy’s and Soloviev’s analyses of the roles which agape and eros play within this world, arguably stem from a quest for spirituality and self-affirmation which would further define the individual, society and humanity.
Soloviev:
Eros:
Soloviev argued that eros, also known as sexual or erotic love, was a vital part of coming to terms with one’s consciousness and overall identity, labelling erotic love as “the justification and salvation of individuality through the sacrifice of egoism”[9]. In his view, ideal love was grounded in the “reconciliation of body with soul”, further developing to the individual’s “spiritual love”[10]. This would further lead to “love of faith” and finding “truth”, which Man can only strive towards through eros[11]. This defines eros as an “indispensable and irreplaceable foundation of all further perfection, as an inescapable and permanent precondition only under which Man can effectively be in the truth”[12]. Soloviev uses the concept of “truth” as a defining “living power” which is what Man consists of, as well as what “saves him from false self-affirmation”, also known as “love”[13]. Moreover, he creates a definition which attempts to rescue erotic love from its rejection by the church by identifying it as “the type and ideal of all other kinds of love”[14].He goes as far as to say that the closest mankind can get to the “actual realisation of true human individuality” and the abolition of egoism is found in sexual love[15]. This is because sexual love consists of “homogeneity, equality, and interaction between the lover and the beloved”, making it an important part of the process towards perfection for the individual, as it brings Man closer to being “actually in truth”[16]. In order for Man to know his own consciousness, he must gain “the knowledge of truth” because Man’s consciousness is “determined not only by empirical facts”, but also by truth which aligns with a “higher consciousness”[17]. This enables Man to “infinitely perfect his life and nature without transcending the human form”[18]. In other words, only by fully understanding oneself and accepting one’s consciousness will the individual find his/her own “affirmation and justification”[19]. Therefore, truth is perceived as a “living power”, not only aligning the individual with their own inner selves but, most importantly, “saving him/her from false self-affirmation”[20].
Creativity:
Soloviev also looks at eros in relation to what sort of love is required of Man in order to “approach the world creatively”, as well as what human creativity can add to the “beauties of the natural world”[21]. He argues that erotic love opens the other individual’s potential to the lover, urging the lover to “invest that degree of true faith, active imagination and real creativeness”, all of which are necessary to bring forth the good traits in the other[22]. Therefore, the state of being in love, as opposed to simply loving someone, adheres to the beloved and the lover realising their creative potential, using up an “intense concentration of energy and work”[23]. This further aligns with Soloviev’s assertion that sexual love is not only a means to an end for procreation, but rather it is also a tool to uncover the best traits within Man, using them in the best way possible and further feeding into the knowledge of truth. Furthermore, sexual love is important, not only in terms of feelings, but also as “the transfer of all our interest in life from ourselves to another”, thus pushing Man to acknowledge an important significance in the beloved, without which we are otherwise only conscious of in ourselves[24]. Therefore, the purpose of sexual love is to show how Man is “not merely an instrument of his species”, but an “end itself – and thus, as a moral being, unable to defer any of its responsibility and moral accountable”[25].
Agape:
Soloviev theorised that love has everything to do with religious faith, in particular Christianity and its values, which he believed needed to be imbedded in society in order to “preserve the worth and autonomy of the individual”[26]. Furthermore, he conveys how Christian teachings were concerned with “active love” because “the work of love is based first of all upon faith”[27]. This faith consists of a “moral endeavour and effort in order to preserve, strengthen and develop” the concept of love[28]. In stating that the “actual feeling of love” is a “stimulus” which guides us to re-create “the wholeness of the human-being”, Soloviev conveys how in creating this wholeness, the beneficial abolition of the ego is possible, and light is shed on the truth of knowledge for mankind[29]. However, Man’s “ego” clouds the vision of truth which, in turn, distances mankind from the truth of, not only himself, but also his faith in God and the tasks which true love demands[30]. Soloviev therefore, defines egoism as the “self-negotiation and destruction” of individuality, as he theorises that it distorts truth when it seeks human independence[31].
Egoism:
Soloviev talks of Man’s ego and how it is a negative, “fundamental force rooted in the deepest centre of our being, spreading from there to the whole of our reality”, making it the “self-negation and destruction” of reality[32]. The only way to “undermine” this force is through the counteraction power of love[33]. However, Soloviev suggests this can only be done through sexual love, as the internal emotions which are developed in the loved and the beloved enable them to recognise for themselves the significance of the other. Henceforth, leading to the abolition of the ego and the “true realisation of the human individuality”[34]. He explains how:
“Through love we come to know the truth of another not in abstraction but in reality… we manifest and realize our own truth, our own significance, which consists precisely in the power of transcending our actual phenomenal existence and of living not in ourselves but also in another[35].“
This concept of human individuality is understood as Man’s consciousness, further determined by truth and, therefore, an individual must be capable of “knowing and realising truth” in order to gain true self-affirmation[36]. In doing so, the ego will be undermined and “abolished”, enabling the creation of “a new human being” both in the spiritual and natural order[37]. Therefore, egoism is both the opposite of eros and agape, as it clouds truth and prevents Man from achieving the spiritual, active love. “True spiritual love” is powerful in itself because Soloviev believed it “triumphs over death”, enabling the “transformation of the mortal into the immortal, the reception of the temporal into eternity”, progressing towards truthful self-affirmation for mankind[38].
Sofia:
Soloviev theorised that mankind has three “distinct subjects of being”: the “pure spirit…intellect… [and the] soul”[39]. These three ideas relate to the general determination of the “divine essence” as a singular concept, which in turn, coincides with “accord” and “harmony”, also known as love[40]. In other words, “truth is love”, “beauty is love” because love is the “object of will and desire”[41]. This stems from Soloviev’s belief that love, in a pre-eminent sense, is seen as the idea of ideas because its unity is essential in terms of achieving truth and individuality. This is because the “universality of an entity stands in direct relation to its individuality”, also seen as Christ as [he is also the “actualised expression of God”[42]. In relation to Christianity, Soloviev explains that every organism is made up of two unities; the unity which produces and the unity which is produced. The unity which produces is defined as “Logos” meaning “Word” in Greek, or God, whereas the unity which is produced is known as the “divine wisdom” which Soloviev calls “Sofia”, meaning wisdom in Greek, representing the principle of humanity[43]. Sofia is depicted as a vision of the beauty of the “transfigured world and the divine cosmos”, representing eternal beauty and a vital part of “total-unity”[44]. This also means Sophia resembles “the active principle of the creative process and as its realised goal, the kingdom of God”[45]. Therefore, the concept of Sophia is Soloviev’s “attempt to embody the spiritual”, the soul of mankind and the “ideal” version of humanity, creating a bridge between humanity and God[46]. This version of humanity must encompass all three orders of living forces: the spirit, the intellect, and the soul, all of which are made up of “the inner unity of love”[47]. This type of love can be interpreted as “active love” because mankind must actively search for through truth, unity, and spirituality in order to find it[48].
Tolstoy:
Eros:
Tolstoy, on the other hand, argued that eros (erotic love) clouded one’s vision, producing a loss of the self and so misdirects and manufactures a “consequence of thought focused on lust”, adhering to a “lover’s attempts to justify sexual hunger”[49]. This is clear in his text “The Kreutzer Sonata”, published in 1998, as he links eros to the baseness of physical lust and clouding of the vision, as he believed sexual intercourse was based on lust, therefore inevitably distracting Man from the higher purpose in life, known as the “universal ideal”[50]. In depicting romantic love in a two-fold manner, Tolstoy suggests it is a combination of both “carnal desire and self-deception”, defining eros as a false type of love characterized only by possession and gratification, rather than “stripping down, conditions of satiety [and]…arduous processes of purification essential” which he deems essential for “personal progression toward truth”[51]. Instead, Tolstoy defined unconditional and self-sacrificing love as the opposite of eros, thus, concluding that absolute absence was best, as it would enhance the individual’s conscience[52].
In Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata, eros ultimately represents “deception and disintegration”, whereas “spiritual love stands for unity, clarity, and truth”; as the “love and union with the object of that love” make the achievement of Man’s goal much more difficult[53]. In stating that Man has a “goal” to achieve, Tolstoy is referring to “the service of mankind, of one’s country, of science or of Art” and, in particular, “the service of God” in Christianity[54]. He further implies that adultery is “a condition inherent to all amorous relations”, even within marriage, as it is perceived as “a sin grounded not in the violation of a supposed sacrament”[55]. However, at the start of The Kreutzer Sonata, Tolstoy contradicts his argument by stating that “sexual intercourse is an activity indispensable to health” and therefore, “extramarital sexual intercourse…is something perfectly natural… [and] encouraged”[56]. Nevertheless, in stating that sexual intercourse is allowed outside of a marriage, Tolstoy is perhaps using marriage as a symbolic union in the eyes of God, therefore based around Christian faith, enabling Man to reach the universal, in turn bringing him closer to God. Therefore, sexual love, or “carnal desire”, distracts and obscures the path toward society’s “moral awareness”, pushing toward a greater degree of chastity for mankind[57]. Tolstoy’s described chastity as “an ideal”, or “the preconditions of an ideal”, which can only be attainable in “the infinite” and when the “possibility of approaching it is infinite”[58]. Moreover, Tolstoy offers what he claims to be the one “true” ideal, namely defined by the impossibility of its achievement, that of Christ and Christian love[59]. He describes this as:
“The establishment of the Kingdom of God upon earth, the ideal…when all men, instructed by God, will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks, the lion will lie down with the lamb and all beings will be united by love”[60].
In other words, Tolstoy believed the entire meaning of human existence to be contained by the movement of this ideal. Mankind should therefore strive towards the totality of the Christian ideal with chastity as one of the “preconditions”, in order for mankind to move forward[61]. Eros is, therefore, worth less than Tolstoy’s ideal of absolute love, as it is “all too readily at hand” and, thus, “characterised by possession and gratification rather than… satiety rather than ongoing, arduous processes of purification which is essential for personal progression toward truth”[62].
Agape:
Tolstoy’s opposition to eros, or “carnal love” and “desire”,is an unconditional and self-sacrificing love resulting from the Christian doctrine and faith in God[63]. His central argument is based around a type of love which is more profound than carnal love because he depicts love as, “the essence of human life and the supreme law that should guide it”[64]. His association with this profound love is based on the principal virtues of Christianity, as he argues that an all-encompassing love was formed which metaphysically created “the principle of everything”[65]. This is described as a “dynamic and personalised” moral guidance, instead of a matter of external laws, bringing forth the concept of the “universal idea” which is often misunderstood as “an obscure, mystical demand which has no definite object of love”[66]. However, this ideal is not supposed to be achieved or set as a goal for us to follow, it is meant to be “loved”[67]. Only in doing so will mankind achieve this agape type of love that is able to guide him. Tolstoy relates this love back to the Christian faith by explaining that it is a “valuable and necessary condition of human life”, enabling Man to be “divine” and “free”, thus, resulting in “salvation from… enslavement” as it can only be removed by the “substitution of the law of violence for the law of love”[68].
Christianity/God/faith:
As noted previously, Tolstoy uses the Christian doctrine to define not only love, but also “human life”, stating that it is a “clearer and more definite expression” of life[69]. He does so by explaining how the doctrine is made up of a law defining love, only known to be “love” when it “does not admit of any exceptions and is directed equally to men of other countries and faiths… to enemies who hate us and do us evil”[70]. This further conveys why this concept of love is perceived as “the supreme law of life” for Tolstoy, as it grants mankind the type of love which is needed in order to move forward and develop as a unity[71]. It is only through this unity that humanity can proceed to the concept and goal of the “universal ideal”[72]. Furthermore, this concept of love guides Man away from “evil”, as it extolls “love towards everyone and even of returning good for evil”, which Tolstoy states makes it the highest doctrine for, not only Christianity, but also Buddhists and Taoists[73]. However, Tolstoy also writes that in order to adhere to these conditions of “growth”, it is necessary for mankind to “suffer”, just as the “men of the Christian world have undergone”[74]. Here one could argue that he contradicts himself in stating that violence is needed in order to achieve love, as his main argument on the agape type of love is that it is based on the “law of love” replacing the “law of violence”[75]. Tolstoy further explains how suffering would lead to Man “adopting the religious outlook appropriate to their time”, enabling them to understand the meaning of human life, as well as “the rule of conduct flowing from it” also known as love[76]. Furthermore, this reaffirms Tolstoy’s belief that the “essence” of human life is the “conscious, progressive, manifestation” of the principle of love conceived through faith in God and faith of Christianity[77].
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Soloviev and Tolstoy differ in their interpretations of eros, but their theories on agape are somewhat similar, as they both refer back to a spiritual type of loved based on Christianity. In fact, “both Soloviev and Tolstoy frequently refer to the “unity” (edinstvo) of which all individuals are a part” of, creating the cohesive union of mankind which further enables the progress toward the universal[78]. Furthermore, Tolstoy and Soloviev conceive human nature in a similar way because they both believed that “all individuals carry a spark of the divine within them”, and that this spark is “manifested in an array of diverse forms”[79]. However, these forms applied mostly to the material world of appearances, therefore, cannot result in the goal of the “ideal” or “universal knowledge” to which mankind should strive towards[80]. In order to maintain agape, or spiritual love, Man must strip away from the material world until “an ideal relationship of fundamental identity between self and other is attained”[81]. However, for Soloviev this involves sexual love, known as eros, whereas Tolstoy believed eros was a distraction categorised through “possession and gratification”, distorting the true type of love to which Man should adhere[82]. Soloviev contrastingly perceived “human differences as indissoluble from their own transcendence”, referring to a “true union” which “presupposes true separateness among those parts which are to be united”[83]. Moreover, stating that “love as the restoration of wholeness” is only conceivable through the “conjoining of two complementary halves”[84]. Therefore, Soloviev believes eros to be a path toward agape, which would further lead to necessary “universal knowledge” and spiritual understanding of mankind. Meanwhile, Tolstoy refers back to Christianity for mankind to achieve a “universal ideal”, depicting it as a “valuable and necessary condition of human life” which is otherwise known as “love”[85].
[1] Hooper, Cynthia. 2001. “Forms of Love: Vladimir Solov’ev and Lev Tolstoy on Eros and Ego.” The Russian Review, vol. 60, no. 3, [Wiley, Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review], pp. 360–80, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2679666.
[2] Solovyov, V. and Beyer, T., 1985. The Meaning of Love REVISED Edition. Lindisfarne Books
[3] Emerson, Caryl., 1991. “Solov’ev, The Late Tolstoi and the Early Bakhtin on the Problem of Shame and Love,” Slavic Review, 50.3, 663-71
[4] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983. Translated by David McDuff. The Kreutzer Sonata and other stories. Penguin Classics
[5] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[6] Tolstoy, L., 1970. Translated by Anthony Blond, The Law of Love and The Law of Violence. Brimstones, Lewes, UK
[7] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[8] Matich, O., 2005. Erotic Utopia: The Decadent Imagination in Russia’s Fin de Siècle
[9] Emerson, C., 1991
[10] Hooper, C., 2001
[11] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[12] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[13] Solovyov, V. and Beyer, T., 1985
[14] S Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[15] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[16] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[17] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[18] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[19] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[20] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[21] Emerson, C., 1991
[22] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[23] Emerson, C., 1991
[24] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[25] Emerson, C., 1991
[26] Sutton, J., 1988 & Soloviev, V.,1892
[27] Sutton, J.,1988 & Soloviev, V.,1892
[28] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[29] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[30] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[31] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[32] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[33] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[34] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[35] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[36] Hooper, Cynthia. 2001. “Forms of Love: Vladimir Solov’ev and Lev Tolstoy on Eros and Ego.” The Russian Review, vol. 60, no. 3, [Wiley, Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review], pp. 360–80, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2679666. & Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[37] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[38] Solovyov, V. & Beyer, T., 1985
[39] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948. Vladimir Solovyev’s Lectures on Godmanhood. London: Dennis Dobson, Ltd.
[40] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[41] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[42] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[43] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[44] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[45] Copleston, F., 1998, Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects. Notre Dame: Search Press
[46] Matich, O., 2005. Erotic Utopia: The Decadent Imagination in Russia’s Fin de Siècle & Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[47] Solovyov, V. and Zouboff, P., 1948
[48] Sutton, J.,1988 & Soloviev, V.,1892
[49] Hooper, C., 2001
[50] Emerson, C., 1991, Soloviev, The Late Tolstoy and the Early Bakhtin on the Problem of Shame and Love,”. Slavic Review
[51] Hooper, C., 2001
[52] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983. Translated by David McDuff. The Kreutzer Sonata and other stories. Penguin Classics
[53] Hooper, C., 2001
[54] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[55] Hooper, C., 2001
[56] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[57] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[58] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[59] Hooper, C., 2001
[60] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[61] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[62] Hooper, C., 2001
[63] Tolstoy, L., 2001 & Tolstoy, L., 1970
[64] Tolstoy, L., 2010. The Kingdom of God is with you. Translator: Constance Garnett, Watchmaker publishing
[65] Tolstoy, L., 2010
[66] Hooper, C., 2001 & Tolstoy, L., 2010
[67] Hooper, C., 2001
[68] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[69] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[70] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[71] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[72] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[73] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[74] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[75] Hooper, C., 2001
[76] Tolstoy, L., 1970
[77] Tolstoy, L., 1970 & Hooper, C., 2001
[78] Hooper, C., 2001
[79] Hooper, C., 2001
[80] Emerson, C., 1991
[81] Hooper, C., 2001
[82] Tolstoy, L., et al, 1983
[83] Solovyov, V. and Beyer, T., 1985 & Hooper, C., 2001
[84] Hooper, C., 2001
[85] Tolstoy, L., 1970
Dolphinmind 