Love and recognition: towards on the question of the influence of erotosophy by Vl. Solovyov on the anthropology of A. Kozhev

The creativity of Vladimir Solovyov, more specifically his work “The Meaning of Love”, is considered as one of the origins of Alexander Kozhev’s philosophical anthropology. Attention is drawn to the fact that Kozhev addressed this Solovyov text not only in his dissertation “The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov” (1926), but also in his article “The Religious Metaphysics of Vladimir Solovyov” (1934‒1935), that is, at the time of his lecture course, later called “Introduction to the Reading of Hegel”. The general characterization of Solovyov’s philosophy of love and its comparison with Kozhev’s doctrine of man and concept of history are given. As a result of comparative analysis of both philosopher’s views, four conceptual moments present in both Solovyov’s erotosophy and Kozhev’s philosophical anthropology are revealed. Attention is drawn to the fact that Solovyov’s “love” and Kozhev’s “desire for recognition” are related by the fact that they are both removed from the material, natural order. It is noted that both of these concepts can function only in the presence of the figure of the other, whose absolute individuality they produce. It is emphasized that both “desire for recognition” and “love” presuppose reciprocity and universality (“universal recognition” / “sisygic unity”). It is fixed that their full realization is possible only after the end of the historical process. At the same time, it is argued that it is impossible to identify Kozhev’s “desire for recognition” and Solovyov’s “love”, since in Kozhev’s texts, in addition to passages bringing love closer to recognition, there is also a consistent philosophical critique of love (its lack of “Action”, risk, struggle, universality). In conclusion, we identify four main differences between Kozhev’s anthropology and Solovyov’s erotosophy (individualism, antagonism, atheism, sexual indifference) and hypothesize that Kozhev combines both Hegelian and Solovievian components in the “desire for recognition”, which is why he brings this notion closer to love and then draws strict distinctions.