Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/279

253 theless the explanation he gives is Kantian in character. For Solov'ev considers that the apprehension of objectively existing things is a combination of belief, imagination, and creation. The belief is the inward and immediate apprehension of the object. In the belief that the object exists objectively, independently of our sensuous perception and conceptual thought, we manifest ourselves as free cognising subjects, as existing beings, who inwardly apprehend another existing being. This inward apprehension is a species of union of the knower with the known; it is something distinct from sensation and from comprehension in thought. The immediate apprehension is belief, faith; it is absolute, mystical cognition.

Further, in this act of belief, imagination plays its part. In our understanding we construct the idea of the object, we imagine what the object is. Ultimately, the ideal image of the object becomes incorporated in sensations. Solov'ev, thus inverts the formula of rationalism, and contends, nihil est in sensu, quod non fuerit prius in intellectu.

As I have pointed out, this psychological analysis of the process of cognition reminds us of Kant. We have here what Kant terms the spontaneity of the active understanding, the self-birth of our reason; we have the synthesis of the various elements of cognition in connection with which for Kant, too, the force of imagination had so great a part to play; and, further, the Kantian transcendental apperception, the "I think," comes into its own in Solov'ev's system. The great distinction between Solov'ev's doctrine and Kant's, is that for Kant the thing-by-itself is no more than imaginatively cognised, whereas Solov'ev effects an inward union with the thing-by-itself.

The dependence of Solov'ev's thought upon that of Kant is sufficiently indicated by the title of the work, we are considering. It is a critique of abstract principles. In other words, it is a critique of pure reason; but pure reason does not suffice Solov'ev, and he transforms it into the direct mystical apprehension of reality.

With Plato, Solov'ev is an ultra-realist. Plato looked upon being as pure soul before incorporation; Solov'ev transformed Plato's pre-existent contemplation into an existent contemplation, and considered that man contemplates the truly existing in this life.

What is this that really exists? Solov'ev answers, like