War and Christianity: Three Conversations with Vladimir Solovyov

by Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov, Stephen Graham (Introduction)

This original translation of a key prophetic and apocalyptic work, written by Russia's greatest philosopher at the end of the nineteenth century, characterizes in bold strokes and with astonishing prescience the challenges that mankind faces as 'progress' races to bring history to an end, calling us to vigilance and resistance to evil. The passing of more than a century since it was first written has not caused this remarkable text to lose any of its lustre; indeed, it is more relevant today than when it was first penned. Solovyov describes three main trends of his (and our) time: economic materialism, Tolstoyan abstract moralism, and the kind of hubris that has grown so rampant in contemporary society. For him, over a century ago, the first was all too present, and about to explode in the rise of the Communist State. A hollow moralism, or a 'meaning' with no core, was beginning to develop and would soon replace almost all vestiges of traditional values. As for hubris, greed, and evil well-disguised as good, this is the touchstone of society at the turn of the twentieth to the twenty-first century, and is precisely what Solovyov describes as the apocalyptic precursor of the Antichrist. Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), one of the greatest philosophers of the nineteenth century. He helped establish a rich tradition of Russian spirituality, inspiring a whole generation of thinkers, who followed his many-faceted spirit into diverse realms, bringing together philosophy, mysticism, theology, poetry, and powerful visionary experience with a trenchant social message. Solovyov was also a prophet, having been granted three visions of Sophia, Divine Wisdom.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, History, Politics, Christianity, Russia, Nonfiction

204 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1904

About the author

Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov (Russian: Владимир Сергеевич Соловьёв) was a Russian philosopher, theologian, poet, pamphleteer and literary critic, who played a significant role in the development of Russian philosophy and poetry at the end of the 19th century and in the spiritual renaissance of the early 20th century.

Reviews

[booklady · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the September 2000 issue of "Touchstone" Fr Addison Hart wrote these words about Soloviev's "Tale of the Anti-Christ":

'In the face of the world we live in right now, it is blindness and sheer folly to be fighting with other Christians about ecclesiological matters that are daily becoming less defensible. "Catholic versus Orthodox" polemics would be wrong even in less troubled times, but in the context of the current cultural situation they are precisely what the devil ordered. An eschatological perspective ever keeps in mind how imperative it is "to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us;" for we are not"--or, at least, should not be--"ignorant of his designs" '(2 Cor. 2:11).

I would go on to add that all true Christians are on the same side, or should be, and that is the side of Truth. In Vladimir Soloviev's A Short Story of the Anti-Christ the three major divisions in Christianity -- Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism -- are finally drawn together by the arrival of the Anti-Christ.

'The superman' as he is called, with satanic inspiration writes a well-received book entitled, The Open Way to Universal Peace and Prosperity which, 'embraced everything and solved every problem. It united a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols with a broad and daring radicalism in socio-political questions. It joined a boundless freedom of thought with the most profound appreciation for everything mystical. Absolute individualism stood side by side with an ardent zeal for the common good, and the highest idealism in guiding principles combined smoothly with a perfect definiteness in practical solutions for the necessities of life. And all this was blended and cemented with such artistic genius that every thinker and every man of action, however one-sided he might have been, could easily view and accept the whole from his particular individual standpoint without sacrificing anything to the truth itself, without actually rising above his ego, without in reality renouncing his one-sidedness, without correcting the inadequacy of his views and wishes, and without making up their deficiencies.'

And nobody raised a voice against the book!

As the superman went about consolidating his power, he became the Emperor Superman and acquired a magician who 'learned, among other things, the semi-scientific, semi-mystic art of attracting and directing at will atmospheric electricity . . . i.e., (how to) bring down fire from heaven.' But the Emperor's goal was to obtain the total allegiance of the penultimate leaders of three major branches of Christianity: the Catholic Pope Peter II, formerly a preacher of the Carmelite Order; the unofficial but actual leader of the Orthodox members, Elder John, technically-speaking a bishop "in retirement"; and the very learned German theologian, Professor Ernst Pauli, who represented the Evangelical members of the congress, i.e., Peter, John and Paul.

The Emperor's questions only fool superficial Christians. True believers see through his not-so-subtle tricks. However, the importance of the story concerns the union of the separate churches under the pressure of persecution in this eschatological situation. Issues which currently divide the Christian world become nothing when it at last faces the true threat, the only real threat, Evil incarnate. In Soloviev's "Tale of the Anti-Christ", the spokesmen of Christianity are persecuted and killed, but they rise again; the last Christians journey to the wilderness, the Jews raise a revolt and the Christians join with them. They are slaughtered; but then Christ appears, robed in the imperial purple, his hands outspread with the marks of the nails upon them, to rule for a thousand years with those who are his own.

A must read for all believers!

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't quite describe the sensations I felt when reading this. The text is particularly inscrutable and esoteric, and while you're reading it you can't help but to feel like you are witnessing something momentous.

It is important to understand a few things about Solovyov before reading the book. Among these: that he was deeply moved throughout his life by a series of mystical experiences; he was a friend of Dostoevsky's (and, allegedly, inspiration for Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov in the Brothers Karamazov); he deeply disliked Tolstoy, who forms the basis for the Prince in the story.

Solovyov poses a number of questions and answers very few of them. Is the Prince in fact the Anti-Christ? What is the proper way to resist evil? How does the Christian pacifism espoused by the Prince relate to Solovyov's friendship to Dostoevsky (whose Grand Inquisitor exemplifies what Solovyov excoriates)? What is the role of repentance (in the second conversation, Solovyov tells us to sin without repenting)? What are the eschatological implications of Christ's failure to reform Judas?

I could try to summarize the text, but I have found no better summary of it than Ashtar Command's review on Amazon, which I will paste here:

"War, Progress and the End of History" is a small book in dialogue format, written by Russian mystic, philosopher and sage Vladimir Solovyov. It's most known for a section called "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ". The book was originally published in 1900.

This edition has a foreword by the well-known writer and dissident Czeslaw Milosz and an afterword by Stephan Hoeller, a Gnostic "bishop" well-known in his own circles. Neither really explains the meaning or context of Solovyov's book. The reader is therefore left pretty much on his own, for good or for worse.

"War, Progress and the End of History" is written in the form of three conversations, held at the French Riviera. The main protagonists are the Prince, the Politician, the General and Mr. Z. There is also a Lady, but she says nothing of importance. The Prince is obviously modelled on Leo Tolstoy, whose Christian pacifism Solovyov opposed. Mr. Z is Solovyov's alter ego. The exact roles of the Politician and the General are more unclear. The Politician is "liberal" by late 19th century standards (actually, he is a kind of "liberal" imperialist and purveyor of balance-of-power Realpolitik), while the General is an ultra-conservative Christian who fancies himself a crusader. During the third conversation, Mr. Z reads "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ", supposedly a document written by a learned Orthodox monk named Pansophius. Since Solovyov is mostly known for his veneration of Sophia, Pansophius is clearly another mouthpiece for the author. Perhaps it's also a subtle form of self-irony - unless I'm mistaken, "Pansophius" means "The All-Wise".

The standard interpretation of "War, Progress and the End of History" is that Solovyov had given up on reforming society, instead awaiting the arrival of the Anti-Christ and his eventual defeat by God. However, this interpretation doesn't seem to capture all the nuances of the three conversations, since Solovyov points out in an introduction that he agrees with both the General and the Politician, as far as it goes. This doesn't make us much wiser, since these characters frequently contradict each other. There is also a contradiction between the Politician's faith in "progress", Mr. Z's statement that progress is a symptom showing that the end of the world is near, and Pansophius' short story, which rather indicates that the 20th century will be marked by wars and revolutions, not peaceful progress. Indeed, the "progress" in the short story is inaugurated by the Anti-Christ!

One thing that *is* clear is Solovyov's belief that metaphysical evil exists and is a real force to be reckoned with and opposed. His alter ego's main opponent during the conversations is the Prince, who calls for non-resistance to evil, while interpreting the Bible in a purely symbolic manner (no resurrection, no second advent, etc). Solovyov considered non-resistance to evil to be absurd, pointing out that Jesus never managed to regenerate the heart of Judas and the Sanhedrin. Judging by context, Christian pacifists pointed to the Good Thief crucified with Jesus as proof that everyone could be regenerated. In response, Solovyov points out that (of course) there were *two* thieves crucified alongside Jesus. The other one - the truly wicked one - was unrepentant to the end. *How* evil should be resisted is a tactical matter, and this makes it possible for Solovyov to agree both with the warrior-prone General, the wily Politician or the meek Jesus (and, presumably, the less meek Jesus in the last chapters of Revelation). Unfortunately, this is a commonplace and thus ads little depth to the conversations. Of course evil can be resisted in different ways, but so what? Surely Jesus said more than this!

Solovyov makes the argument that moral and societal good isn't enough. Death is the ultimate evil, and as long as death isn't conquered, life is ultimately meaningless despite moral and societal good. Mr. Z accuses the Prince of being inconsistent in his rejection of the resurrection - if good really is the primary force in the universe (which the Prince claims), then the resurrection must be true as well, since this is the only way in which evil can be finally overcome and goodness reign supreme. Unfortunately, Solovyov argues for his position ex cathedra, apparently considering it obvious. It is far from obvious, however: if the soul is immortal, why bother with a resurrection? Why should death be seen as "evil" in the metaphysical sense, if we all live morally upright lives in a perfect society? These questions are never touched upon in the dialogues, but Pansophius' musings on the Anti-Christ shows that Solovyov probably didn't believe in progress in the first place.

While "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ" has become famous, its description of the Anti-Christ is the usual one: a counterfeit Christ who proclaims himself emperor, seduces the churches, launches a syncretistic world religion, brings peace and prosperity only to reveal himself as a demon-worshipper, etc. I think the real importance of the story is Solovyov's irenic ecumenism. Although Russian Orthodox, Solovyov was all in favour of talks with the Catholic Church, and Catholics occasionally claim that he converted to Catholicism, something his Orthodox admirers hotly deny. In the short story, three small groups of Christians withstand the seductions of the Anti-Christ. They are led by Pope Peter, Elder John and Ernest Pauli, obvious symbols for Catholicism (which claims apostolic succession from St. Peter), Orthodoxy (which places special emphasis on the Gospel of John) and Protestantism (which claims the mantle of Paul). Eventually, the three groups form a united Church in the wilderness, led by...Pope Peter. The Russian nationalists, Slavophiles and Black-Hundreds can't have been amused...

[Terese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why is this now? Change a couple of references, to contemporize examples more than anything, and this could be set in the present. Quite startling really.

The tale of the antichrist is striking too and admirably, similarly to Dostoyevsky, harbours this hope for a unified Christian church (tried and tested naturally by the fair weather believers of each branch and denomination).

I enjoyed it immensely partly because, again, like Dostoyevsky Solovyov gives his opponents their due and crafts good arguments on both sides, it is refreshing, especially in the present.

[eve · Rating 5 out of 5]

un poète russe du XIXe siècle dont la philosophie transparaît dans ce poème en trois parties : Moscou, Londres, Égypte, trois rencontres du poète avec un amour d'enfance, avec Dieu, avec ce qu'il nomme Sophia. une poésie d'une beauté flottante, à la fois empreinte d'une sublime légèreté et parsemée d'un comique assumé

[Ivan Nekrasov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating approach to eschatology. After reading and studying eschatology from a Western point of view, it was interesting to see Russian Christian philosophical view. It was also amazing to see how many things he got right knowing what happened since 1900.

[Bryan Boshoven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stumbled upon this book by excident, but it surpised me very much. I have never read any Russian theologian or scholar in general and this is a great introduction into metaphysics of evil. The last essay of the Anti-Christ is also relevant in contemporary debate because one Peter Thiel reclaimed concept, wrongly, for himself and is influencing people online with it.

Solovyovs main argument is that evil exists and the only way to counteract this is not through good deeds, but through the miracle of the resurrection shown to us by our lord Jesus Christ. While at first, this seems like a long shot, it is interesting how he defends this position against other Christians such as Tolstoy and materialists as Marx.

First, he examines what we mean by the existens of evil and how it manifests itself. His main argument is against Tolstoy who according to Solovyov believes that evil is made by humans as an concept and can only manifests in its interaction. If we are all pacifists their would be no evil, since nobody is enacting it. Solovyov goes against this by stating that not all people can be influenced by this kind of thought and evil non the less shows itself. People enact evil even if they think they are being good.

Secondly, he the ultimate evil for him is not what we do, but death itself! Everyone who does not believe in Jezus lives in the Kingdom of Death; all will perish through time into nothingness. Even with all the goods acts of civility and morals we will eventually still be here. The only way to counteract this is by the resurrection as the ultimate good of God which can only be done if we believe in the teachings of Christ.

What interests me here is not the particular argumentation if evil exist or how we need to believe Jezus to resurrect us all, but instead of the function of Christ. Later in the book Solovyov tells a small story of the Anti-Christ who is the perfect human being and who with his gifts brings worldpeace. Something amazing to most people, but something disastrous for Solovyov. They are fallen for the Kingdom of Death, since they take enough with earthly pleasures. Eventually, a few Christian bishops and scholars do not accept his power, since only Jezus should be served. They die are smitten by lightning, but eventually are being resurrected. This looks like a great analogy of what one-dimensional systems are. The problem is that when we find a certain logic we enforce it upon the world. Marxists believe all is made through labour, some Christians believe the divine law is already given or the ideas of Plato. Within this thinking we are not open for new phenomenon and it's logic will eventually run out until it destroys itself. Such as capitalism which will eventually die after it commodified reality. Here we need a third term to free ourselves (the subject under the objective law has ended) and this can only be given through logic which is not in the system itself: the resurrection of Jezus and all of man. To me this seems the core message of the work that we have to stay open some abstract entity to break free from our given categories. It is thus about freedom.

Should we then instantly believe in Christian doctrine? Not really, rather we should look at what it tries to tell us. Through our anticipation of Christ we must be ready. The reverse reading has been done by example by Martin Heidegger when he talks about being-towards-death where one owns understanding of death and nothing opens up possibilities. It function must be seen as something on our horizon of what we know, but never fully grasp.

More importantly I can see why people as Peter Thiel understand good people as Greta Thunberg be the Anti-Christ, while she brings good to the world she does not believe in the resurrection, but Thiel himself has overlooked the main function of Anti-Christ; that the world should be open to interpretation through the believe in christ and the followers of the Anti-Christ befall for the wordly reproduction of their given logic. I do not have to point out how a maga corporation based on algorithms is the ultimate singularity machine.... the summoner of the real Anti-Christ.

[Gerben · Rating 3 out of 5]

An essay in the form of a dialogue, making it slightly more readable. Several philosophical topics are touched upon, but although vaguely worded in abstract terms it doesn't get very deep. Still a nice read as Solovyovs explorations spur your own thinking.

At any rate, under no circumstances, do not watch the film adaptation. It's horrendous.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book. Vladimir Solovyov was an unorthodox thinker among Russia’s elite, combining a unique blend of Orthodox Christianity and its emphasis on eschatology with a somewhat conservative, somewhat liberal, somewhat optimistic, somewhat melancholic view towards people, society, and everyday life that characterises the best of late 19th century Russian literature. It is impossible to pin down. The book itself escapes categorisation.

Part polemic, part dialogue, Solovyov sets out his own vision of the 20th century through the means of a discussion between those of high society in Russia. The three conversations that make up the book are works of fiction. Yet the content within them are more than mere tales, for they are commentaries and prophecies on the fate of civilisation itself. The participants of the conversation each represent a certain stratum of society vying to lead Russia into the new century.

The first is the General. He represents aristocratic and chivalrous virtues of Russian and Christian militarism. He believes in an absolute Good, and fights for it. The second is the Politician. He is a more cynical, materialistic, legal-minded figure, clearly representing the ‘Classical Liberal’ worldview that dominated ‘Western’ imperial politics of the time. He has a purely materialistic conception of religion and thus neither understands nor cares to understand it, and he believes primarily that good manifests itself through the profit motive and through strong and stable legal systems. Then there is the Lady. She represents the chattering classes, those of much money and education who use both entirely for their own status. She is interested in worldly affairs and all talk about politics and religion, but mostly insofar as so she can converse with similarly high status individuals. Fashion and the drama of conversation interest her more than the ideas themselves.

Finally we have the two characters I believe Solovyov sets out as antagonist and protagonist, or perhaps apprentice and then master. The first is the Prince. He is a daydreaming academic-type, fascinated by all things philosophical and religious. He has many daring and fanciful ideas about Good and Evil (or the lack thereof). He is clearly something of a parody of Tolstoy, who Solovyov is characterising as being disconnected to the realities of his lofty ideas, and fundamentally cowardly. The final character is “Mr Z.” Mr Z is presented, as all self-ascribed heroes wish to be, as something of an enigma, with no high status education to speak of, and no such title. Yet he is always able to probe deeper into everything said by all other characters, and offer a very intricate and intelligent (and somewhat smug) conclusion to all conversations. Mr Z is, of course, the fictionalised Solovyov, who just wishes Russian high society could see the fundamental truths he speaks of.

The conversations are even more fascinating than the characters. The first is the title conversation – War and Christianity – in which Solovyov asks what it is to be Good and Virtuous in a confrontation. Solovyov puts General against Prince, with the Politician and Lady acting as mediators. Ultimately Mr Z delivers the hammer blow to the Prince. Solovyov, through his own fictionalised voice, reminds us of the third actor in a confrontation: Not aggressor, not judge, but innocent victim. Thus, force is a moral imperative if those we are protecting are innocent. We cannot be benevolent all of the time, as we can only control ourselves, not others. But only by accepting the reality of Evil can we truly understand what it means to use force for Good. Otherwise, as Solovyov says (in a point far more complex than I can sum up here), Christ fails to live up to his own alleged standards (standards ascribed to him by the Prince and other such pacifists) by allowing the crucifixion to occur.

The second conversation relates to order and God. Here, the Politician, attempting to steer the conversation away from religious themes, talks about politeness. Politeness and orderliness are the fundamental basis of any desirable civilisation, he argues. This ultimately manifests itself in the Politician’s dream for an international world order and international peace (quite how Solovyov predicted the transformation of 19th century liberalism into 20th/21st century globalisation and managerial politics is stunning). Solovyov argues that this is undesirable and, channelling Kierkegaard’s arguments, claims that this deprives people of the capacity to be Good. By removing God, politeness and order are devoid of any foundation, and thus serve as a façade. Mere orderliness without any justification is a sign of the end, says Solovyov. This argument is then bolstered by the final conversation.

The third and final conversation is the real show-stopper. Here, Solovyov unveils, again through fictionalised means, his prophecy of the Antichrist and fate of ‘Western’ civilisation. Whatever one may think of Solovyov’s ideas, the fact he can easily foresee many of the cultural themes that still dominate life today, well over 100 years on from his writing, is absolutely remarkable. The prescience of his writing mirror that of the greatest thinkers of his time, and in some way are more poignant and heart-wrenching than the writing of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (although I still adore Dostoevsky’s elaboration on ordinary life and suffering too much to want to compare the two writers).

Solovyov predicts the rise of Imperial Japan, and the rise of a 21st century “United States of Europe” as an international coalition with no distinguishing cultural features between each liberal democracy. He predicts the “absolute fall of theological materialism” (which I would argue is beginning), but also a corresponding death of religion (“The idea that God created the universe out of nothing, etc, ceased to be taught even in the primary schools.”) He predicts the ‘Europeanisation’ of global elites, and the “end of history” with its accompanying vision of materialist prosperity for all (alas, Solovyov saw all too well the subtle communist undertones in the 21st liberal worldview). Perhaps most surprising of all, Solovyov even predicts the rise of Israel as an independent Jewish state!

Amidst all of these all-too-real predictions lies the prophecy of the Antichrist. Solovyov argues that the above cultural trends are those of the Antichrist, being a corrupted, self-aggrandising version of Christian morality that places itself above all. The vision concludes with Christians either uniting with or against the Antichrist, embodied by one man, a global dictator of sorts, yet a popular and benevolent one with good intentions. By turning against the Jews and Christians, both revolt against the Antichrist, and despite the persecution win through divine providence to be greeted by the Second Coming of Christ. It truly is an ending of Biblical scale. Solovyov remains ambiguous as to whether he believes this will all happen as described, but perhaps telling is the line “the script has been written, and nobody is permitted to change it.” Alas, for us who live in the ascent of the Antichrist, we are in no position to tell.

[Drew Meisel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a phenomenal Christian-philosophical dialogue, written from the perspective of a Russian Orthodox man who has a great love for the study of end times and what they will entail. These dialogues do a phenomenal job at asking Platonic questions to issues of war, peace, and the like without ever giving a clear one sided position. The characters which include the Lady, Politician, Prince, general, and Mr. Z are each unique and make good points throughout. My personal favorite parts were the opening dialogue about war and if war is evil and peace the end goal of all mankind, and the end story about the Anti-Christ. I think this is an incredible explanation of what the anti-Christ will be, and despite it being such a short part of the end, it had me feel fear, awe, and joy at different parts of it all. I think every Christian should read this regardless of denomination, and that philosophers will also enjoy this great work. 5 stars

[Kat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting set of dialogues that cover the nature of good, justice, God, and the anti-Christ. Maybe not revolutionary, but definitely an enjoyable presentation of the ideas. Bonus points for most of the book being jabs at Tolstoy.

Of particular note, the short story of the Antichrist near the end is uncannily similar to Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World. I can’t tell if Benson had read Solovyov, or maybe they were just both divinely inspired? But it’s definitely an insightful view into the nature of the Antichrist. He will give everyone what they want, everything except what they NEED—God. His promises will be great but will ring irretrievably hollow and materialistic to those paying attention.

[Anomander Rake · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Three Discussions are poorly written and tedious. Very hard to read. I can't blame the translator, the form is just shitty. The ideas explored are interesting enough, but not well developed. A Short Story of the Anti-Christ is actually great. Oh yeah, kudos to the translator for using some of my favourite terms, like Moslem and Afrikaner.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in conjunction with the Malmkrog film.

[Tim Rosenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important, and prophetic, vision of the world to come

[Jelena · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best philosophical/fictional rendering of the Antichrist I have come across so far, described so realistically that it's frightening.

[Alan Braswell · Rating 5 out of 5]

When one assesses a book written over a hundred years ago one has the tendency to overlook the books potential as being revelant to the 21st century.
War and Christianity does belong in the 21st century as it had in the 20th century.

Five Russians meet in a villa in the Mediterranean cost. The reader is engaged in the verbal ' sword play' that goes on. Topics that are batted about include; War and Peace, Good and Evil and other topics which mankind has been trying to get a grasp of for centuries.

In sort of verbal sword play' the Prince states "that man is filled with the Spirit of the Gospel ..to awaken in thier dark souls the good which lies in every human being."
This a kin to saying that Hitler was himself good because he didn't kick his dog.

Mr. Z gives the best response to this abstract moralism
"And do you think that Christ was sufficiently penetrated by the true Spirit of the Gospel or no?
He further states:
'Why did not Christ bring the evangelical spirit to bear in such a way upon the souls of Judas, Herod, the Jewish Sanhedrin, and the unrepentant thief? Why did he did he bring out any good in them? You have given up two things: either your habit of taking refuge with Christ and the Gospel as highest authority, or your moral optimism, because the third way the well worn way of denying the the evangelical fact itself as a modern fiction or priestly interpretation is in the present instance closed to you."

In the end all is not gold that glitters.

[Jacques Paganel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aunque el libro fue publicado por primera vez en 1900, los temas que trata no han perdido actualidad. El tópico que articula todos los demás es la lucha entre el bien y el mal. Bajo ese paraguas aparecen la guerra, el uso de la violencia en la defensa de los inocentes, el progreso, la civilización y la protección de los Estados nacionales, asuntos que siguen siendo relevantes en nuestra época. La teología católica atraviesa toda la obra, pero se expresa con mayor fuerza en el capítulo final, el Breve relato sobre el anticristo. Por su estrecha relación con las Escrituras (especialmente, con el libro del Apocalipsis) y la oscuridad de sus referencias históricas, quizás este apartado sea menos cercano y universal que los demás, pero así y todo presenta acontecimientos que cualquier lector atento podrá relacionar con el presente, como la progresiva merma del cristianismo en Europa.

El libro está estructurado como una serie de conversaciones donde cada personaje expresa su postura con claridad. La lectura es amena a pesar de la complejidad de algunos planteos filosóficos.

La traducción de Shishkin y Batista es minuciosa y agrega muchísimas notas al pie, que le permiten al lector hispanohablante acercarse al contexto histórico de la obra, además de comprender el verdadero sentido de algunos términos rusos sin correspondiente cercano en nuestro idioma.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"War, Progress, and the End of History" is a philosophical work written by the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, first published in 1899. In this book, Solovyov examines the interplay between war, progress, and the ultimate destiny of humanity.

Solovyov argues that the concept of progress, which was popular in the 19th century, is flawed because it is based on a materialistic and technological view of history. He contends that true progress can only be achieved through the moral and spiritual development of humanity.

Solovyov also critiques the notion that war is an inevitable and necessary part of human history. He suggests that war arises from a lack of spiritual and moral development, and that it can be overcome by fostering universal love and brotherhood among all people.

The book also explores Solovyov's belief in the ultimate reconciliation of all religions and the unity of all humanity, which he sees as a necessary condition for the progress and ultimate fulfillment of humanity.

"War, Progress, and the End of History" is considered one of Solovyov's most important works and is recognized as a significant contribution to the philosophical and religious thought of his time.

GPT

[David Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imagine that, coming across the following passage in my reading on this particular day. Not that I think Trump is the Anti-Christ, just that the traits of the Anti-Christ mentioned here bear some resemblance to him: "The superman's previous books and public activity had always met with severe criticism, though these came chiefly from people of exceptionally deep religious convictions, who for that very reason possessed no authority (I am, after all, speaking of the coming of the Anti-Christ) and thus they were hardly listened to when they tried to point out, in everything that the 'coming man' wrote or said, the signs of a quite exceptional and excessive self-love and conceit, and a complete absence of true simplicity, frankness, and sincerity."

-Vladimir Solovyov, War, Progress and the End of History: Three Conversations including a short story of the Anti-Christ, pg. 169

[Will Daly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the history stuff is dated (I mean, uninteresting), and sometimes, maybe due to the translation or only my own ignorance, the arguments can be unclear.

But a towering, fantastic book, written with love for Christ. Between pseudo-spiritual sentimentality and bourgeois self-satisfaction, where is there to stand in this world? With Christ, with the truth of His gospel.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was not what I thought it would be,but it somewhat interesting.

[Joel · Rating 2 out of 5]

A couple good bits but mainly dull with a Left Behind like essay at the end.