did this in order that he might stress more effectively the pietas erga parentes, But since he admitted (following Darwin and others) that even the dog and the monkey, in their feelings towards the master, display the rudiments of religious sentiment, we must ask why man, who in religious matters stands so far above the beasts, should need revelation. We must ask what proofs there are of the existence of revelation. What need has Solov'ev of dogma, to which, as we shall shortly see, he attaches so much importance?
By Schopenhauer, too, Solov’ev was won over to the cause of asceticism, or rather Schopenhauer led him to esteem religious asceticism even more highly than before. The entire superstructure of his free theocracy is founded upon asceticism. For him, church, state, individual morality, the entire moral organisation of mankind, are ascetic. In asceticism, in the sentiment of shame, man realises himself to be man, therein he finds himself to be higher than the beasts and higher than matter; and in asceticism Solov'ev seeks the essence of genius. (Here, too, he borrows to some extent from Schopenhauer.)
It is impossible to expound Solov'ev's individual doctrines or to recapitulate his prescriptions for asceticism. Suffice it to say that he conceives of marriage as a form of asceticism, characterising it as a great deed and as an act of martyrdom. Russian theologians refuse to accept Solov'ev's ascetic principle. Solov'ev, they say, exaggerates the significance of this principle in the spiritual life of mankind, and they insist that he is wrong in regarding it as a primary, not as a secondary principle. Finally they reproach him because his teaching is not in accord with Holy Writ, though it may be endorsed by that of some of the fathers of the church. Solov'ev does in fact come to the same conclusions as Eduard von Hartmann. Solov'ev demands absolute sexual continence, and the dying out of the human race would not conflict with his outlook.
Solov'ev's psychological interpretation of the sentiment of shame was fallacious, and his moral estimate of the sentiment was no less erroneous. We may admit that he showed a fine understanding of the feeling for another's individuality, the feeling that induces the reflective man to discover within himself something akin with all other individuals and even with non-living things, but Solov'ev errs when he interprets this sentiment as a manifestation of shame.
I must also draw special attention to the fact that he fails
