I have been saying all the time throughout these pages that Russia has a particular affinity with Nietzsche’s blessed spirit, and that I am apparently a part of that tradition. In today’s Russia, despite the cultural, social, economic, and political difficulties still experienced by the nation reeling from the cataclysm of the 1990’s, the typical Intelligent philosophizing is going on in full swing, and Nietzsche is of course second to none in the amount of attention given to him in the intellectual and philosophical circles.
Looking through the enormous amounts of Nietzsche-related philosophizing, I was especially struck by the curious comparison of Nietzsche to the historic Russian Yurodivy, the Holy Fool, made by the well-known modern Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Borisovich Mikushevich (born in 1936). It has been usual for the Russian Yurodivy to be perceived as not just ranting and raving like a lunatic, but doing it purposely, for a reason, like the best of the European court jesters were known to speak truth to power in an offensive and highly controversial manner. In Pushkin’s and Mussorgsky’s drama/opera Boris Godunov, the Yurodivy speaks one offense after another to Tsar Boris’s face, to all of which Boris replies by asking the Yurodivy to pray for him. To which the Yurodivy replies: “One must not pray for Tsar Herod, Mother of God forbids!”
Comparing Nietzsche to a Yurodivy is an immensely powerful comparison. It turns out, for Russian mystics (by no means for Mikushevich alone!), that Nietzsche is actually religiously akin to the great Prophets of the Bible, that his attack on Christianity is a Jesus-like attack on the Pharisees, that is, an attack on all religious hypocrisy, on behalf of Christianity. Nietzsche’s Antichrist is in fact a fighter for Christianity, perhaps, even Jesus himself!!!
Terribly interesting, I have looked through the Russian philosophical sites on Nietzsche, and they all seem to agree that Nietzsche as a moralist (or immoralist, if you like) is by no means a denouncer of morality, but, on the contrary, he is a warrior on behalf of morality, seeking its liberation from hypocrisy and coercion, calling for its purification. It is Nietzsche’s quest, the Russians argue, to make morality take root within one’s soul, rather than being imposed on the individual by the force of social custom, religious power, and the authority of the State.
My opinion on this matter is as complex as Nietzsche wants this to be. (He is the unsettler of commonplace platitudes, the revolutionist on behalf of the human mind, which he indeed believes to be capable of morality without coercion.) Remembering the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, God was proud of His creation, yet He chose to allow them to make their own choices, realizing that even immorality is better than morality under coercion. On the other hand, I believe that the moral authority of the State, religion, and custom is necessary for social guidance, even to the point of allowing coercion. As the reader can see, I am of two minds about this, and perhaps, this has to be the case with all complex moral and philosophical problems. Unfortunately, accepting one side of the complex controversy closes the mind on the merits of the opposite side, leading to oversimplification and doctrinairism. These latter qualities are useful for the shepherds of the herd, but they are anathema to the free spirit.
Looking through the enormous amounts of Nietzsche-related philosophizing, I was especially struck by the curious comparison of Nietzsche to the historic Russian Yurodivy, the Holy Fool, made by the well-known modern Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Borisovich Mikushevich (born in 1936). It has been usual for the Russian Yurodivy to be perceived as not just ranting and raving like a lunatic, but doing it purposely, for a reason, like the best of the European court jesters were known to speak truth to power in an offensive and highly controversial manner. In Pushkin’s and Mussorgsky’s drama/opera Boris Godunov, the Yurodivy speaks one offense after another to Tsar Boris’s face, to all of which Boris replies by asking the Yurodivy to pray for him. To which the Yurodivy replies: “One must not pray for Tsar Herod, Mother of God forbids!”
Comparing Nietzsche to a Yurodivy is an immensely powerful comparison. It turns out, for Russian mystics (by no means for Mikushevich alone!), that Nietzsche is actually religiously akin to the great Prophets of the Bible, that his attack on Christianity is a Jesus-like attack on the Pharisees, that is, an attack on all religious hypocrisy, on behalf of Christianity. Nietzsche’s Antichrist is in fact a fighter for Christianity, perhaps, even Jesus himself!!!
Terribly interesting, I have looked through the Russian philosophical sites on Nietzsche, and they all seem to agree that Nietzsche as a moralist (or immoralist, if you like) is by no means a denouncer of morality, but, on the contrary, he is a warrior on behalf of morality, seeking its liberation from hypocrisy and coercion, calling for its purification. It is Nietzsche’s quest, the Russians argue, to make morality take root within one’s soul, rather than being imposed on the individual by the force of social custom, religious power, and the authority of the State.
My opinion on this matter is as complex as Nietzsche wants this to be. (He is the unsettler of commonplace platitudes, the revolutionist on behalf of the human mind, which he indeed believes to be capable of morality without coercion.) Remembering the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, God was proud of His creation, yet He chose to allow them to make their own choices, realizing that even immorality is better than morality under coercion. On the other hand, I believe that the moral authority of the State, religion, and custom is necessary for social guidance, even to the point of allowing coercion. As the reader can see, I am of two minds about this, and perhaps, this has to be the case with all complex moral and philosophical problems. Unfortunately, accepting one side of the complex controversy closes the mind on the merits of the opposite side, leading to oversimplification and doctrinairism. These latter qualities are useful for the shepherds of the herd, but they are anathema to the free spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment