The title of this entry is the title of one of the great works of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948), and this is a very apt title, as the theme of freedom is central to his philosophy. One of his famous and frequently quoted thoughts about freedom ought to take its proper preambular place here, before we talk about everything else.--
“Liberation of man from nature is his victory over slavery and death. Man is first of all a spiritual substance, which is not an object. Man has more value than society, state, or nation. And if society and state should encroach upon personal freedom, it is his right to shield his freedom from such advances.”
(I understand what he is saying here, and I am even sympathetic with it, but taken as a straightforward unqualified statement, I certainly disagree with it completely.) His name is cited virtually on an equal footing with that of Vladimir Solovyev, but to me, Berdyaev was a far lesser figure. Although as an obsessive writer he was incredibly prolific, as a thinker he is certainly derivative from Solovyev although he did manage to develop his own philosophy.
Berdyaev started his intellectual life as a Marxist, but fairly soon became disenchanted, and interested in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev. Because of his anti-authoritarian views he was twice arrested by the old tsarist regime, and then twice arrested by the Bolsheviks, whom he also saw as authoritarian, and eventually in 1922 exiled from Soviet Russia, living the rest of his life first in Berlin, then, since 1924, in Paris. In 1926 he founded the journal Path, and until 1939 served as its editor-in-chief.
Of his numerous works the most significant were Philosophy of Freedom (1911), The Meaning of Creativity (1916), and The Meaning of History (1923). [Note Vladimir Soloviev's influence in these titles, as compared to his famous title The Meaning of Love.] Ironically, the title of one of his last works, The Russian Idea (1946) is identical to one of Vladimir Solovyev’s titles, although Berdyaev uses the advantage of following the development of the Russian idea for half-a-century after Solovyev’s time, in one of the most turbulent periods of Russian history.
In his Philosophy of Freedom, Berdyaev points out that his book is not a philosophical analysis of the term freedom, but an argument contrasting the philosophy of the free from the philosophy of the slave. Nietzsche, with his description of dual morality (master and slave morality), may well have inspired Berdyaev’s own description, although Berdyaev makes no acknowledgment of him (except for a couple of glowing general remarks regarding Nietzsche’s great daring and martyr’s spirit). His detailed treatment of the philosophy of freedom proper departs from Nietzsche completely, as he discusses these two different paths: mystical and magical, maintaining that only the former brings man closer to God, whereas the other one creates an idol.
To me, the most interesting part of his philosophy is his postulation of the three types of freedom: primeval irrational (which preexists Creation, contained in the Divine Nothing, from which [ex nihilo] God made the world); rational (which obeys moral duty), and the highest type of freedom, filled with love of God. He says that man’s freedom of choice, which is capable of creating either good or evil, was already contained in the Divine Nothing, and was not created by God, therefore God is not responsible for evil in the world. I have a very different, although commensurate treatment of freedom of choice as a created good, which outweighs the evil, which is the result of the wrong choice. (See the relevant entries in my Philosophy section.)
Although deprived of the right to ever see Russia again, Berdyaev commendably remained a stanch Russian patriot and professed a great world-historical role of Russia as the reconciler of East and West in fulfillment of her God-designed destiny. He laments, however, that the Russian soul has not been liberated from fetters, and remains confused about her predestination. He argues for the necessity of the liberation of the Russian soul from such fetters, and her resulting reconciliation with God’s great Plan for her.
In my view, he does say a lot of right words, but in a sort of shuffle, inadequately explained and woefully incomplete. Which of course does not lessen his significance as a major philosopher, as he makes us think about some very serious subjects, and now makes us talk about him as well.
“Liberation of man from nature is his victory over slavery and death. Man is first of all a spiritual substance, which is not an object. Man has more value than society, state, or nation. And if society and state should encroach upon personal freedom, it is his right to shield his freedom from such advances.”
(I understand what he is saying here, and I am even sympathetic with it, but taken as a straightforward unqualified statement, I certainly disagree with it completely.) His name is cited virtually on an equal footing with that of Vladimir Solovyev, but to me, Berdyaev was a far lesser figure. Although as an obsessive writer he was incredibly prolific, as a thinker he is certainly derivative from Solovyev although he did manage to develop his own philosophy.
Berdyaev started his intellectual life as a Marxist, but fairly soon became disenchanted, and interested in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev. Because of his anti-authoritarian views he was twice arrested by the old tsarist regime, and then twice arrested by the Bolsheviks, whom he also saw as authoritarian, and eventually in 1922 exiled from Soviet Russia, living the rest of his life first in Berlin, then, since 1924, in Paris. In 1926 he founded the journal Path, and until 1939 served as its editor-in-chief.
Of his numerous works the most significant were Philosophy of Freedom (1911), The Meaning of Creativity (1916), and The Meaning of History (1923). [Note Vladimir Soloviev's influence in these titles, as compared to his famous title The Meaning of Love.] Ironically, the title of one of his last works, The Russian Idea (1946) is identical to one of Vladimir Solovyev’s titles, although Berdyaev uses the advantage of following the development of the Russian idea for half-a-century after Solovyev’s time, in one of the most turbulent periods of Russian history.
In his Philosophy of Freedom, Berdyaev points out that his book is not a philosophical analysis of the term freedom, but an argument contrasting the philosophy of the free from the philosophy of the slave. Nietzsche, with his description of dual morality (master and slave morality), may well have inspired Berdyaev’s own description, although Berdyaev makes no acknowledgment of him (except for a couple of glowing general remarks regarding Nietzsche’s great daring and martyr’s spirit). His detailed treatment of the philosophy of freedom proper departs from Nietzsche completely, as he discusses these two different paths: mystical and magical, maintaining that only the former brings man closer to God, whereas the other one creates an idol.
To me, the most interesting part of his philosophy is his postulation of the three types of freedom: primeval irrational (which preexists Creation, contained in the Divine Nothing, from which [ex nihilo] God made the world); rational (which obeys moral duty), and the highest type of freedom, filled with love of God. He says that man’s freedom of choice, which is capable of creating either good or evil, was already contained in the Divine Nothing, and was not created by God, therefore God is not responsible for evil in the world. I have a very different, although commensurate treatment of freedom of choice as a created good, which outweighs the evil, which is the result of the wrong choice. (See the relevant entries in my Philosophy section.)
Although deprived of the right to ever see Russia again, Berdyaev commendably remained a stanch Russian patriot and professed a great world-historical role of Russia as the reconciler of East and West in fulfillment of her God-designed destiny. He laments, however, that the Russian soul has not been liberated from fetters, and remains confused about her predestination. He argues for the necessity of the liberation of the Russian soul from such fetters, and her resulting reconciliation with God’s great Plan for her.
In my view, he does say a lot of right words, but in a sort of shuffle, inadequately explained and woefully incomplete. Which of course does not lessen his significance as a major philosopher, as he makes us think about some very serious subjects, and now makes us talk about him as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment