The aim of the following paper is to examine the problem of evil in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. The paper is not supposed to be an analysis of the problem but an attempt to show how it shaped Solovyov’s thought, and how it influenced his Weltanschauung. From this perspective, Solovyov’s philosophy may be distinctly divided into two contradictory periods: the optimistic (1874–1891), and the pessimistic (1891–1900) during which his previous ideas underwent so fundamental a revision that one can speak about a “turning point” or a “breakthrough”

The origin, presence and existence of evil in the world, as well as the question of possibility of its overcoming (as suggested by Solovyov), have been shown in the perspective of two contradictory philosophemes: a “philosopheme of death” and a “philosopheme of life”. These may be associated with, respectively, the principle that manifests itself as the rule of the law of sin, and of the metaphysical egoism – which results in the lack of unity of being and the state of war of all against all – and the principle of Logos that combines scattered potentials of being, and leads the world to unity with the Absolute God; the latter is a manifestation of the triumph of life over death as guaranteed by the fact of Christ’s Resurrection.

The paper consists ofthree parts which are dedicated, respectively, to theosophy, theocracy, and eschatology. In the first part the author shows the origin of evil in the perspective of the Fall of the World’s Soul, and the return of the fallen world (the Other God) to the original All-Unity. The origin of evil is said to be resulting either from the Fall of the Being mediating between God and the world (Solovyov’s World’s Soul, which in his late works was separated from its Heavenly Model), or from God opening towards all potentials of being, including the potentials of evil and chaos. In both cases Solovyov’s theosophy led to an inevitable acknowledgement of the limita-tions of God’s Power (like in gnostic or theosophic systems), while the act of creation was regarded as a negative act.

In the second part the author considers a project of fighting evil in the social, political and ecclesiastical dimensions – the project becomes synonymous with the ideals of ecumenism and theocracy as realized on Earth, of Godmanhood made “here and now”, in the historical, terrestrial order (A. Walicki). It turns out that the “failure of theocracy” (E. Trubetzkoy) and Solovyov’s project of ecumenism are due not to empirical factors but to the crucial error of forgetting about both active presence of the metaphysical element of evil in history and the real nature of human freedom that is freedom to do good and evil. Solovyov’s idea turns our to be a Utopia.

The third part presents evil in the perspective of Solovyov’s eschato-logy and apocalyptical thinking. It is argued that the presentation of the metaphysical evil (as introduced in Three Conversations) is not only a critique of Solovyov’s previous theocracy but also a critique of each utopia as well as of each earthly eschatology. In this context the earthly reality is perceived not as a space of advancing Good and Godmanhood realized but a space of the metaphysical conflict between Good and Evil. A temptation of earthly theocracy hides a spectre of satanocracy, and Godmanhood realized as a cover of Satanmanhood. Rejecting the temptation of eschatological gnosis leads to a rift between history and eschatology, history and meta-history. For Solovyov the mystery of the end is associated with the mistery of evil (mysterium iniquitatis); the former will be solved by way of the apocalyptic “Judgement of the World” the ultimate clash of Christ and Antichrist.

While setting the lessons of Tolstoy’s and Nietzsche’s “messengers of Antichrist” (D. Stremooukhoff) against the background of death, or the greatest evil, one can see the failure of their philosophical projects. The way of overmanhood is not that of Nietzsche’s Over-Man but that of God-Man, the one who has conquered death. Dialogic, or synergic, cooperation of God and man, who want to liberate the world from evil, gives rise to the triumph of Good over evil as accomplished by way of Incarnation. The real Good is not that of Utopia realized but that which acts through human conscience and is incarnated by means of moral actions.

In the last part the author shows that in the age of Postmodernism and destruction of metaphysics Solovyov’s philosophy turns out to be a justification of Good and of Man.

The Russian defender of Good turns out to be a contemporary thinker.