What do you think?
Rate this book
Svetovni nazor Dostojevskega
V duhovnem življenju Nikolaja Berdjajeva je imel Dostojevski odločilno vlogo. Njegovo dušo je ganil bolj ko katerikoli drug pisatelj. Berdjajev je vedno delil na ljudi Dostojevskega in na ljudi, ki so njegovemu duhu tuji. Zelo zgodnja težnja njegovega spoznavanja na filozofska vprašanja je bila povezana s “prekletimi vprašanji” Dostojevskega. Vsakokrat ko je prebiral Dostojevskega, se mu je odkrival z vedno novih vidikov. V mladosti se mu je s pronicljivo ostrino vtisnil v dušo problem “Legende o Velikem inkvizitorju”. Njegovo prvo spreobrnjenje h Kristusu je bilo spreobrnjenje k podobi Kristusa iz Legende. Ideja svobode je bila vedno bistvena za njegovo religiozno občutenje sveta in pogled na svet. In v tej začetni intuiciji svobode se je srečal z Dostojevskim kot s svojo duhovno domovino. Od nekdaj je čutil potrebo, da napiše knjigo o Dostojevskem, in uresničil jo je le delno na nekaj straneh. Seminar o Dostojevskem, katerega je izvajal na “Akademiji duhovne kulture” pozimi 1920/21, ga je slednjič vzpodbudil k temu, da zbere vse svoje misli o Dostojevskem. In napisal je knjigo, v kateri ni skušal razkriti le svetovnega nazora Dostojevskega, temveč je vanjo vložil tudi veliko svojega pogleda na svet.
238 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1923
46 people are currently reading
1470 people want to read
About the author
Nikolai Berdyaev
139 books270 followersNikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev was born at Kyiv in 1874 of an aristocratic family. He commenced his education in a military school and subsequently entered the University of Kiev. There he accepted Marxism and took part in political agitation, for which he was expelled. At twenty-five he was exiled from Kiev to the north of Russia and narrowly escaped a second period of exile shortly before the Revolution. Before this, however, he had broken with Marxism in company with Sergius Bulgakov, and in 1909 he contributed to a symposium which reaffirmed the values of Orthodox Christianity. After the October Revolution he was appointed by the Bolshevists to a chair of philosophy in the University of Moscow, but soon fell into disfavour for his independent political opinions. He was twice imprisoned and in 1922 was expelled from the country. He settled first in Berlin, where he opened a Russian Academy of Philosophy and Religion. Thence he moved to Clamart near Paris, where he lectured in a similar institution. In 1939 he was invited to lecture at the Sorbonne. He lived through the German occupation unmolested. After the liberation, he announced his adhesion to the Soviet government, but later an article by him published in a Paris (Russian) newspaper, criticising the return to a policy of repression, was tantamount to a withdrawal of this. He died at Clamart March 24, 1948.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
May 25, 2023
Totul e greșit în cartea asta: enormitățile și năucelile se înșiră ca mărgelele pe ață. Citești, te freci la ochi și nu-ți vine să crezi. Autorul vorbește serios sau, pur și simplu, e purtat de o logoree apodictică? Afirmațiile vor să lase impresia definitivului, tonul dogmatic irită. Eseistul nu e încercat de nici o îndoială. E atît de sigur pe sine, năzbîtiile sînt atît de mari și de evidente, încît îngheți. Îți piere orice urmă de umor.
Berdiaev e sigur că Dostoievski a fost un adevărat filosof și nu unul oarecare: „cel mai mare metafizician rus” (p.7). Și încă: Dostoievski „a dăruit filosofiei infinit de mult. Cugetarea filosofică e datoare să-și însușească contemplațiile sale” (p.22).
Dacă vrem să înțelegem abisurile sufletului rus e absolut necesar să-l citim pe Dostoievski. Din proza lui vom deduce numaidecît că rușii sînt un popor „apocaliptic” (p.103), „nihilist” (p.11) și „mesianic” (pp.119-120). Mesianismul presupune întotdeauna o „reiudaizare a creștinismului” (p.119). La rîndul lui, poporul polonez a trăit (și el) o formă de mesianism. Și, în măsura în care a trăit mesianismul, s-a „reiudaizat” (p.119). Căci „mesianismul nu poate fi decît evreu”. Dostoievski a fost „adevăratul vestitor al ideii mesianice ruse” (p.9).
Prozatorul rus nu s-a mulțumit să mediteze doar la mesianismul seminției sale. În romanele lui, a analizat temeinic și mecanismele iubirii. De la el am aflat că orice iubire este o tragedie și că are un principiu „demonic”. Iubirea țintește contopirea deplină a trupurilor și eurilor. Iar această contopire e un „mare mister”. Deși o iubește pe Ekaterina Nikolaevna, Versilov (umbrosul personaj din Adolescentul) nu va fi niciodată în stare să priceapă „misterul contopirii”, căci „natura masculină e criptică” (pp.78-79). Ar fi o greșeală să nu amintesc faptul că, în opinia lui Berdiaev, Dostoievski a fost un „clarvăzător spiritual” (p.7), „prorocul unui nou creștinism” (p.9).
Desigur, autorul acestui volum deduce „filosofia” lui Dostoievski din replicile personajelor sale: „În cuvintele lui Ivan Karamazov răsună însuși glasul lui Dostoievski” (p.100). Sau: „Firește, Dostoievski nu e Șatov, însă l-a iubit pe Șatov și ceva din Șatov este și în el. Toți eroii lui Dostoievski sînt crîmpeie din propriul lui suflet” (p.120). Așadar, autorul, naratorul și personajul sînt unul și același individ. Romanele lui Dostoievski se prezintă, în realitate, ca niște compuneri autobiografice...
Nikolai Berdiaev a fost un scriitor bombastic, incoerent și tautologic. Enorma lui notorietate interbelică rămîne, cel puțin pentru susiscălitul, un secret pecetluit. Firește, conferințele sale erau foarte urmărite în saloanele pariziene, probabil și pentru faptul că la răstimpuri, cînd își lingea buzele uscate de o elocință febrilă, din gura lui țîșnea o limbă de o lungime absolut impresionantă, ca de furnicar...
P. S. Ființa lui Svidrigailov este deslușită în această propoziție memorabilă: păcatul lui e că „s-a lăsat pradă idealului sodomit” (p.71). Tare mă tem că în acest volum numitul Nikolai Berdiaev sodomizează literatura lui Dostoievski fără nici o cruțare...
Berdiaev e sigur că Dostoievski a fost un adevărat filosof și nu unul oarecare: „cel mai mare metafizician rus” (p.7). Și încă: Dostoievski „a dăruit filosofiei infinit de mult. Cugetarea filosofică e datoare să-și însușească contemplațiile sale” (p.22).
Dacă vrem să înțelegem abisurile sufletului rus e absolut necesar să-l citim pe Dostoievski. Din proza lui vom deduce numaidecît că rușii sînt un popor „apocaliptic” (p.103), „nihilist” (p.11) și „mesianic” (pp.119-120). Mesianismul presupune întotdeauna o „reiudaizare a creștinismului” (p.119). La rîndul lui, poporul polonez a trăit (și el) o formă de mesianism. Și, în măsura în care a trăit mesianismul, s-a „reiudaizat” (p.119). Căci „mesianismul nu poate fi decît evreu”. Dostoievski a fost „adevăratul vestitor al ideii mesianice ruse” (p.9).
Prozatorul rus nu s-a mulțumit să mediteze doar la mesianismul seminției sale. În romanele lui, a analizat temeinic și mecanismele iubirii. De la el am aflat că orice iubire este o tragedie și că are un principiu „demonic”. Iubirea țintește contopirea deplină a trupurilor și eurilor. Iar această contopire e un „mare mister”. Deși o iubește pe Ekaterina Nikolaevna, Versilov (umbrosul personaj din Adolescentul) nu va fi niciodată în stare să priceapă „misterul contopirii”, căci „natura masculină e criptică” (pp.78-79). Ar fi o greșeală să nu amintesc faptul că, în opinia lui Berdiaev, Dostoievski a fost un „clarvăzător spiritual” (p.7), „prorocul unui nou creștinism” (p.9).
Desigur, autorul acestui volum deduce „filosofia” lui Dostoievski din replicile personajelor sale: „În cuvintele lui Ivan Karamazov răsună însuși glasul lui Dostoievski” (p.100). Sau: „Firește, Dostoievski nu e Șatov, însă l-a iubit pe Șatov și ceva din Șatov este și în el. Toți eroii lui Dostoievski sînt crîmpeie din propriul lui suflet” (p.120). Așadar, autorul, naratorul și personajul sînt unul și același individ. Romanele lui Dostoievski se prezintă, în realitate, ca niște compuneri autobiografice...
Nikolai Berdiaev a fost un scriitor bombastic, incoerent și tautologic. Enorma lui notorietate interbelică rămîne, cel puțin pentru susiscălitul, un secret pecetluit. Firește, conferințele sale erau foarte urmărite în saloanele pariziene, probabil și pentru faptul că la răstimpuri, cînd își lingea buzele uscate de o elocință febrilă, din gura lui țîșnea o limbă de o lungime absolut impresionantă, ca de furnicar...
P. S. Ființa lui Svidrigailov este deslușită în această propoziție memorabilă: păcatul lui e că „s-a lăsat pradă idealului sodomit” (p.71). Tare mă tem că în acest volum numitul Nikolai Berdiaev sodomizează literatura lui Dostoievski fără nici o cruțare...
August 13, 2016
دستويفسكي أعظم ميتافيزيقي أنجبته روسيا على لسان نيقولا، و أعظم مفكر روسي بالتأكيد.
واضح جدًا تأثر نيقولا و إعجابه الشديد فيه بحيث أفرد كتاب كامل يتناول دستويفسكي، كان معني و منغمس في الإله الحرية والشر ومصير الانسان، تطرق الكتاب لكل ما تطرقت له أعماله و أشار بيد خفية إلى مقارنة مابين دستويفسكي و تولستوي بالقول أن الأخير قد اخترع دينًا جديدًا و قام بتوجيه النقد للمسيحية أما دستويفسكي كان وافيا و مخلصا للمسيح.. هممم أعجبني كثير دسم و مثري وأشعر أن الريڤيو الي كتبته مش لائق به أبدًا..
واضح جدًا تأثر نيقولا و إعجابه الشديد فيه بحيث أفرد كتاب كامل يتناول دستويفسكي، كان معني و منغمس في الإله الحرية والشر ومصير الانسان، تطرق الكتاب لكل ما تطرقت له أعماله و أشار بيد خفية إلى مقارنة مابين دستويفسكي و تولستوي بالقول أن الأخير قد اخترع دينًا جديدًا و قام بتوجيه النقد للمسيحية أما دستويفسكي كان وافيا و مخلصا للمسيح.. هممم أعجبني كثير دسم و مثري وأشعر أن الريڤيو الي كتبته مش لائق به أبدًا..
Read
December 9, 2016Ha i suoi difetti, eh. Si ripete, qualche argomentazione fila così e così, il simbolismo è citato un po' a sproposito. Però sulle cose importanti centra il punto: sul ruolo della libertà, del male, di Dio si esprime in questo saggio più che una semplice opinione convincente. Si sente tutta la necessità di affrontare i temi ultimi, quelli decisivi:
Le idee di Dostoevskij sono un vero pane quotidiano dello spirito. Non si potrebbe vivere senza di loro. Non si può vivere senza aver risolto il problema di Dio e del diavolo, dell'immortalità, della libertà, del male; del destino dell'uomo e dell'umanità. Non è un lusso, questo, è il pane quotidiano.
Ancora più urgente si fa la riflessione su questi temi se si pensa alla data e al luogo posti a chiusura della prefazione: Mosca, 1921. Ragionare sui grandi temi dostoevskiani e smascherare così la dannosità della soluzione socialista (e di quella tolstoiana) in un contesto del genere vuol dire davvero difendere con le unghie e con i denti quello in cui si crede (Berdjaev è stato costretto all'espatrio, segno che le idee di Dostoevskij minano seriamente i totalitarismi, ma questo si sapeva).
Uno dei grandi sconfitti di questo libro è Tolstoj, secondo me a ragione: per quanto riguarda la concezione del cristianesimo è Tolstoj a prendere fischi per fiaschi, anche se scrive meglio. Io continuo a tifare per Dostoevskij. Per approfondire e confrontare le convinzioni dei due giganti del romanzo russo consiglio, come sempre, Tolstoj o Dostoevskij di G. Steiner.
Le idee di Dostoevskij sono un vero pane quotidiano dello spirito. Non si potrebbe vivere senza di loro. Non si può vivere senza aver risolto il problema di Dio e del diavolo, dell'immortalità, della libertà, del male; del destino dell'uomo e dell'umanità. Non è un lusso, questo, è il pane quotidiano.
Ancora più urgente si fa la riflessione su questi temi se si pensa alla data e al luogo posti a chiusura della prefazione: Mosca, 1921. Ragionare sui grandi temi dostoevskiani e smascherare così la dannosità della soluzione socialista (e di quella tolstoiana) in un contesto del genere vuol dire davvero difendere con le unghie e con i denti quello in cui si crede (Berdjaev è stato costretto all'espatrio, segno che le idee di Dostoevskij minano seriamente i totalitarismi, ma questo si sapeva).
Uno dei grandi sconfitti di questo libro è Tolstoj, secondo me a ragione: per quanto riguarda la concezione del cristianesimo è Tolstoj a prendere fischi per fiaschi, anche se scrive meglio. Io continuo a tifare per Dostoevskij. Per approfondire e confrontare le convinzioni dei due giganti del romanzo russo consiglio, come sempre, Tolstoj o Dostoevskij di G. Steiner.
June 14, 2019
هو لم يضيف أي شيء جديد ليا الحقيقة ،لكن أنا بحب دوستويفسكي، وبحب أي حاجة تتكتب عنه حتى لو كنت عارفاها.
February 28, 2019
This book was hard for me to get through. It was way over my head, but the chapters on socialism and The Grand Inquisitor were fascinating.
Want to read
April 2, 2016“Prin artă, Dostoievski penetrează înseşi principiile vieţii ideilor, iar viaţa pătrunde în arta sa. Ideile trăiesc la el o viaţă organică, au soarta lor inevitabil umană, iar această viaţă este dinamică, nu are nimic static, nu e pasivă, osificată. Dostoievski studiază procesele dinamice în viaţa ideilor. În creaţia sa se înalţă vârtejul de foc al ideilor care curge şuvoi. Ideile reci nu există şi nici nu-l interesează. La Dostoievski există ceva din spiritul lui Heraclit. Totul este incendiar, dinamic, totul e în mişcare, în contradicţie şi luptă. Ideile sale nu sunt categorii îngheţate, statice, ci torente pârjolitoare. Toate sunt legate de destinul omului, de destinul lumii şi al lui Dumnezeu. Ideile determină destinul, ele sunt adânc ontologice, existenţiale, energetice şi dinamice. În idee este concentrată şi ascunsă energia distrugătoare a dinamitei, iar Dostoievski arată cum exploziile ideilor distrug şi aduc moartea. Totodată, în idee este concentrată şi ascunsă energia regeneratoare şi izbăvitoare. Lumea ideilor lui Dostoievski este cu totul deosebită, o lume unică, mult deosebită de lumea ideilor lui Platon. Ideile lui Dostoievski nu sunt prototipuri ale existenţei, nu se constituie în esenţele primare şi, desigur, nu sunt norme, ci destine ale existenţei, energii incandescente primare. Dar, ca şi Platon, Dostoievski a recunoscut rolul determinant al ideilor. Şi, în ciuda modei actuale, înclinată să nege valoarea independentă a ideilor şi să suspecteze valoarea lor la fiecare scriitor, nu poţi să te apropii de Dostoievski, nu poţi să-l înţelegi, fără să te cufunzi în diversa şi bogata lume a ideilor lui. Creaţia lui Dostoievski este un adevărat ospăţ al cugetării. Iar acei care refuză să ia parte la acest ospăţ, bazaţi pe faptul că în reflecţiile sale sceptice bănuiesc valori comune ale gândului şi ideii, sunt sortiţi la o existenţă tristă, săracă, ajung în pragul inaniţiei spirituale. Dostoievski descoperă noi lumi. Aceste lumi se află în stare de mişcare clocotitoare. Prin intermediul lumilor şi prin mişcarea lor sunt dezlegate destinele omeneşti.”
December 30, 2021
“Dostoevskij è un grande pensatore. Ho cercato di dimostrarlo in tutto il mio libro. Egli è il più grande metafisico russo. Tutte le nostre idee metafisiche provengono da Dostoevskij. Egli vive in un’atmosfera di idee impetuose, infuocate. Quelle idee sono contagiose, attraggono nella loro cerchia. Le idee di Dostoevskij sono un vero pane quotidiano dello spirito. Non si potrebbe vivere senza di loro. Non si può vivere senza aver risolto il problema di Dio e del diavolo, dell’immortalità, della libertà, del male; del destino dell’uomo e dell’umanità. Non è un lusso, questo, è il pane quotidiano. Se non c’è l’immortalità, non vale la pena di vivere. Le idee di Dostoevskij non sono idee astratte, ma concrete. Le idee vivono in lui. La sua metafisica non è astratta, ma concreta. Egli ci ha insegnato questo carattere concreto, vitale e quotidiano delle idee.
Noi siamo i figli spirituali di Dostoevskij.”
Uno dei saggi più belli che io abbia mai letto, in cui l’autore si propone di raccontare e indagare lo spirito di Dostoevskij e ci riesce. Attraverso vari capitoli in cui si parla del male, della libertà, dell’uomo, della rivoluzione, dell’amore, della Russia, Berdjaev delinea una concezione profonda e illuminante che ha ampliato molto le mie riflessioni. Dopo aver letto molti romanzi di Dostoevskij volevo approfondire, avvicinarmi, e questo libro mi è stato di aiuto. Ciò che mi ha colpito di più è stata la possibilità di comprendere non solo lo spirito di Dostoevskij, ma anche lo spirito russo. L’autore ne traccia alcune linee fondamentali, per tutto il libro, perché è evidente che per comprendere Dostoevskij bisogna avere idea di cosa voglia dire essere un uomo russo. Ma d’altronde Berdjaev spiega bene anche l’universalità di Dostoevskij e di quanto egli sia il valore intellettuale primario con cui i russi si avvicinano al resto del mondo.
Noi siamo i figli spirituali di Dostoevskij.”
Uno dei saggi più belli che io abbia mai letto, in cui l’autore si propone di raccontare e indagare lo spirito di Dostoevskij e ci riesce. Attraverso vari capitoli in cui si parla del male, della libertà, dell’uomo, della rivoluzione, dell’amore, della Russia, Berdjaev delinea una concezione profonda e illuminante che ha ampliato molto le mie riflessioni. Dopo aver letto molti romanzi di Dostoevskij volevo approfondire, avvicinarmi, e questo libro mi è stato di aiuto. Ciò che mi ha colpito di più è stata la possibilità di comprendere non solo lo spirito di Dostoevskij, ma anche lo spirito russo. L’autore ne traccia alcune linee fondamentali, per tutto il libro, perché è evidente che per comprendere Dostoevskij bisogna avere idea di cosa voglia dire essere un uomo russo. Ma d’altronde Berdjaev spiega bene anche l’universalità di Dostoevskij e di quanto egli sia il valore intellettuale primario con cui i russi si avvicinano al resto del mondo.
September 29, 2021
Một bản hướng dẫn chi tiết về Dostoevsky. Cuốn sách tuyệt vời!
December 7, 2013
A really insightful book on Dostoevsky's philosophy, this book was a good reminder to me of just how great and emotionally and psychologically laden Dostoevsky's works were.
Dostoevsky's novels are easily among my very favorites, though it has by now been a decade or more since I read them.
Author Nicholas Berdyaev helped me gain better understanding of one seeming part of Dostoevsky's worldview that over the years I've had trouble accepting: the redemptive value of suffering. As a journalist who covers the criminal courts, I've interviewed enough murderers and their victims' grieving families to know that suffering breaks most people, not betters them.
But Berdyaek showed me the depth that Dostoevsky's take on suffering has:
"Only an immature or enslaved mind would deduce from Dostoevsky's thesis that we must choose to follow the path of wickedness in order to enrich our consciousness and profit from a new experience. The theory that evil is only a moment in the evolution of good cannot be imputed to him; this evolutionary optimism professed by so many theosophists is entirely opposed to his spirit. He was no evolutionist: evil for him was evil, to be burned in the fires of hell, and that is where he cast it. He teaches plainly that it is not a thing to be juggled with, that it is madness to think that a man can deliberately enter on a course of wickedness to get what he can out of it and then throw himself into the arms of good: such an argument cannot be taken seriously and indicates a worthless state of mind. Certainly the tragic experience of evil can profit a man and sharpen his understanding, certainly he cannot thereafter return to his former stage of development; but when a sinning man begins to think that evil is enriching him, that it is leading to good, that it is only a stage in his progress, from that moment he has fallen completely: he goes all to pieces and every door to improvement and regeneration is closed to him. Such a man can learn nothing from his experience, he can never rise above himself: self-satisfaction in evil is a sign of total loss. To climb from evil to a high spiritual level one must denounce the evil in oneself and suffer terribly, and these sufferings Dostoevsky depicted."
Dostoevsky's novels are easily among my very favorites, though it has by now been a decade or more since I read them.
Author Nicholas Berdyaev helped me gain better understanding of one seeming part of Dostoevsky's worldview that over the years I've had trouble accepting: the redemptive value of suffering. As a journalist who covers the criminal courts, I've interviewed enough murderers and their victims' grieving families to know that suffering breaks most people, not betters them.
But Berdyaek showed me the depth that Dostoevsky's take on suffering has:
"Only an immature or enslaved mind would deduce from Dostoevsky's thesis that we must choose to follow the path of wickedness in order to enrich our consciousness and profit from a new experience. The theory that evil is only a moment in the evolution of good cannot be imputed to him; this evolutionary optimism professed by so many theosophists is entirely opposed to his spirit. He was no evolutionist: evil for him was evil, to be burned in the fires of hell, and that is where he cast it. He teaches plainly that it is not a thing to be juggled with, that it is madness to think that a man can deliberately enter on a course of wickedness to get what he can out of it and then throw himself into the arms of good: such an argument cannot be taken seriously and indicates a worthless state of mind. Certainly the tragic experience of evil can profit a man and sharpen his understanding, certainly he cannot thereafter return to his former stage of development; but when a sinning man begins to think that evil is enriching him, that it is leading to good, that it is only a stage in his progress, from that moment he has fallen completely: he goes all to pieces and every door to improvement and regeneration is closed to him. Such a man can learn nothing from his experience, he can never rise above himself: self-satisfaction in evil is a sign of total loss. To climb from evil to a high spiritual level one must denounce the evil in oneself and suffer terribly, and these sufferings Dostoevsky depicted."
June 6, 2018
لا أدرى إن كان هناك من تناول ديستويفسكى بهذا العمق كما تناوله نيقولا برديائف. إن برديائف بروحه الجدلية المضطرمة يكاد يكون ديستويفسكيا تماما، ديستويفسكى نفسه، ولكن بوعى فلسفى أكبر. والكتاب فيه ربكة جدلية تميز كليهما، والفكرة الرئيسية فيه هى "حرية الروح". والمعضلة التى تتناولها روايات ديستويفسكى، فى رأى برديائف، هى الصراع بين حرية الروح، التى تجلب الاختيار، وبالتالى تحتوى على بذور شر، وبين التنظيم القسرى لسعادة بشرية تقوم على معاملة الناس كالقطيع. وهى المشكلة التى بلغ التعبير عنها ذروته فى أسطورة المفتش الاكبر فى الإخوة كارامازوف. ففى هذيانات "إيفان" ظهر رجل هو ضد للمسيح، وهو رجل له روح محبة للبشر، وله رسالة روحية تشبه رسالة المسيح، ولكنه يرى أن المسيح حمّل الناس آلاما أكبر منهم، ودافعه فى رسالته كان الغرور، لقد نمى غرور الروح البشرية للنخبة، وفى المقابل ترك ملايين البشر للشر. أما رسالته – المفتش الاكبر – فهى أن يقسم البشر لنخبة تمثل العشر، والتسعة أعشار المتبقية يُعاملوا كالقطيع ويُوزع الخبر عليهم بمساواة، وبذلك تتحقق "السعادة الاجتماعية المنظمة". 1
كان ديستويفسكى ناقدا حادا لفكرة السعادة الاجتماعية، سواء نظمتها سلطة الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الرومانية، أو نظمها نظام اشتراكى، ونقده لهذه الفكرة يبلغ ذروته فى رواية "رسائل من تحت الأرض"، فيقول : أعطوا الإنسان كل شىء، ولكنه بواعز من اللامعقول، وبدافع من حريته إلى أن يختار هذا اللامعقول، سيهدم كل شىء ويطلب لنفسه العذاب. أن حرية الروح، اللى تتضمن حرية اختيار اللامعقول هى الجوهر الوحيد للبشر، وهى الطاقة التى ستظل تحركهم فى مسار يحمل ما يحمله من إمكانيات للشر والظلمات. وهذه هى رسالة المسيح الحقيقية، فهو لم ينزل من الصليب كما تطلب المنكرون، لأنه كان "متعطشا إلى الحب الحر، لا إلى الفورات الذليلة التى يبديها العبد أمام قوة أفزعته مرة واحدة وإلى الأبد". وهكذا ظهرت الحقيقة الإلهية إلى العالم، مهينة ممزقة، مصلوبة بواسطة قوى هذا العالم، غير أن حرية الروح توطدت بهذه الواقعة نفسها. ذلك أننا لا نتطلب حقيقة إلهية باهرة القدرة، ظافرة فى العالم، ومسيطرة بالقوة على النفوس الإنسانية، لا نتطلب مثل هذه الحقيقة لفهم حرية الروح. وفى هذا كان سر الجلجثة هو سر الحرية. 2
النقطة الجوهرية والمميزة بشدة لفلسفة نيقولا برديائف هى "الشخصية"، فلقد أصر أن الحقيقة غير متعالية، وإنما تتبدى للإنسان فقط، كاملة، ومرتبطة بتحدده العينى باعتباره "شخصية". ولذلك فالحب يجب أن يكون شخصيا، ليس حبا عاما ومجردا، ولكن حب مرتبط بالظروف العينية لشخص المحب. وقد تناول برديائف نقطة "الشخصية" بعمق عند ديستويفسكى، حيث أن الروح لا تتحقق إلا بتحقق الشخصية بكل أبعادها، والشر بعد عميق وكامن فى الشخصية، فهو ليس خارجيا، ليس سلبا ناشئا عن تناول جزئى جاهل بالانسجام العام، ليس اجتماعيا، ولا مرتبط بظروف سياسية. إنه شخصى بالكامل، وبالتالى تحقق الشخصية يحمل بداخله بذور للشر والازدواجية، والطغيان البشرى الذى قد ينتهى إلى الانحلال وعبودية الروح. أى أن الروح لكى تتحقق عبر الشخصية، يجب ان تسير فى مسار حر يحمل مخاطرة تدمير نفسه ونفى أهدافه. وهذا هو ما يمثل المصير الفاجع للروح البشرية. 3
كان ديستويفسكى ناقدا حادا لفكرة السعادة الاجتماعية، سواء نظمتها سلطة الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الرومانية، أو نظمها نظام اشتراكى، ونقده لهذه الفكرة يبلغ ذروته فى رواية "رسائل من تحت الأرض"، فيقول : أعطوا الإنسان كل شىء، ولكنه بواعز من اللامعقول، وبدافع من حريته إلى أن يختار هذا اللامعقول، سيهدم كل شىء ويطلب لنفسه العذاب. أن حرية الروح، اللى تتضمن حرية اختيار اللامعقول هى الجوهر الوحيد للبشر، وهى الطاقة التى ستظل تحركهم فى مسار يحمل ما يحمله من إمكانيات للشر والظلمات. وهذه هى رسالة المسيح الحقيقية، فهو لم ينزل من الصليب كما تطلب المنكرون، لأنه كان "متعطشا إلى الحب الحر، لا إلى الفورات الذليلة التى يبديها العبد أمام قوة أفزعته مرة واحدة وإلى الأبد". وهكذا ظهرت الحقيقة الإلهية إلى العالم، مهينة ممزقة، مصلوبة بواسطة قوى هذا العالم، غير أن حرية الروح توطدت بهذه الواقعة نفسها. ذلك أننا لا نتطلب حقيقة إلهية باهرة القدرة، ظافرة فى العالم، ومسيطرة بالقوة على النفوس الإنسانية، لا نتطلب مثل هذه الحقيقة لفهم حرية الروح. وفى هذا كان سر الجلجثة هو سر الحرية. 2
النقطة الجوهرية والمميزة بشدة لفلسفة نيقولا برديائف هى "الشخصية"، فلقد أصر أن الحقيقة غير متعالية، وإنما تتبدى للإنسان فقط، كاملة، ومرتبطة بتحدده العينى باعتباره "شخصية". ولذلك فالحب يجب أن يكون شخصيا، ليس حبا عاما ومجردا، ولكن حب مرتبط بالظروف العينية لشخص المحب. وقد تناول برديائف نقطة "الشخصية" بعمق عند ديستويفسكى، حيث أن الروح لا تتحقق إلا بتحقق الشخصية بكل أبعادها، والشر بعد عميق وكامن فى الشخصية، فهو ليس خارجيا، ليس سلبا ناشئا عن تناول جزئى جاهل بالانسجام العام، ليس اجتماعيا، ولا مرتبط بظروف سياسية. إنه شخصى بالكامل، وبالتالى تحقق الشخصية يحمل بداخله بذور للشر والازدواجية، والطغيان البشرى الذى قد ينتهى إلى الانحلال وعبودية الروح. أى أن الروح لكى تتحقق عبر الشخصية، يجب ان تسير فى مسار حر يحمل مخاطرة تدمير نفسه ونفى أهدافه. وهذا هو ما يمثل المصير الفاجع للروح البشرية. 3
September 10, 2015
"Dostoyevsky takes us into very dark places but he does not let darkness have the last word; his books do not leave us with an impression of sombre and despairing pessimism, because with darkness there goes a great light."
These words perhaps summarize why I have always resonated deeply with the works of Dostoyevsky. I read this book very slowly as I am no Dostoyevsky scholar (nor philosopher), rather I read this book as one partakes in a multi-course meal rather than eating "on the run"; it took me a while but it was worth the slow digestion.
The "metaphysical" nature of my own humanity has always identified with the voice of this man, though this book left me hungering to read many more of his works (at present I've only scratched the surface). Berdayev's exegesis of Dostoyevsky's works confirmed a suspicion that I already had before knowing anything about the man: his faith manifests itself powerfully in his works, though the degree of permeation was at least partially unintentional if not subconscious. His faith was such a part of him it worked itself out into his art, his writing...sometimes purposefully but sometimes maybe more than he knew. Anyway, I know I won't proceed reading the Dostoyevsky canon in the same way as before, I will get much more out of it now.
I also have a feeling that this will not--indeed probably cannot--be the last time I open this book. As I read more of Dostoyevsky I will again dive into the articulated mind of Berdayev as well. Additionally, as this was written in the 20s I'm interested to find more research on the "prophetic" nature of Dostoyevsky's commentary on Russian society and see how it all played out during and after the wars subsequent the 20s.
Berdayev on Dostoyevsky: I recommend.
These words perhaps summarize why I have always resonated deeply with the works of Dostoyevsky. I read this book very slowly as I am no Dostoyevsky scholar (nor philosopher), rather I read this book as one partakes in a multi-course meal rather than eating "on the run"; it took me a while but it was worth the slow digestion.
The "metaphysical" nature of my own humanity has always identified with the voice of this man, though this book left me hungering to read many more of his works (at present I've only scratched the surface). Berdayev's exegesis of Dostoyevsky's works confirmed a suspicion that I already had before knowing anything about the man: his faith manifests itself powerfully in his works, though the degree of permeation was at least partially unintentional if not subconscious. His faith was such a part of him it worked itself out into his art, his writing...sometimes purposefully but sometimes maybe more than he knew. Anyway, I know I won't proceed reading the Dostoyevsky canon in the same way as before, I will get much more out of it now.
I also have a feeling that this will not--indeed probably cannot--be the last time I open this book. As I read more of Dostoyevsky I will again dive into the articulated mind of Berdayev as well. Additionally, as this was written in the 20s I'm interested to find more research on the "prophetic" nature of Dostoyevsky's commentary on Russian society and see how it all played out during and after the wars subsequent the 20s.
Berdayev on Dostoyevsky: I recommend.
December 11, 2025
Only a few years after World War I and the socialist revolution in Russia, Nikolai Berdyaev declares of Fyodor Dostoevsky, "All that he foresaw is here."
Berdyaev explores the major themes of Dostoevsky's work, exposes the ways in which readers have often misinterpreted his ideas, illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of Dostoevsky's prophetic vision, and helps the student of this Russian master to see "the light in our darkness".
As one who has enjoyed reading through all of Dostoevsky's major writings, I am thankful for how this book will help me better grasp these grand works of literature. As a lifelong student of the important questions in life, I am grateful for how Berdyaev has challenged me to grow and to think about faith, freedom, humanity, and Christ in new ways.
"Ideas are man's daily bread: he cannot live without pondering the questions of God, Satan, immortality, freedom, evil, the destiny of mankind; it is essential that he should do so, for if there be no immortality life is not worth the trouble of living." - N.B.
Berdyaev explores the major themes of Dostoevsky's work, exposes the ways in which readers have often misinterpreted his ideas, illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of Dostoevsky's prophetic vision, and helps the student of this Russian master to see "the light in our darkness".
As one who has enjoyed reading through all of Dostoevsky's major writings, I am thankful for how this book will help me better grasp these grand works of literature. As a lifelong student of the important questions in life, I am grateful for how Berdyaev has challenged me to grow and to think about faith, freedom, humanity, and Christ in new ways.
"Ideas are man's daily bread: he cannot live without pondering the questions of God, Satan, immortality, freedom, evil, the destiny of mankind; it is essential that he should do so, for if there be no immortality life is not worth the trouble of living." - N.B.
June 10, 2023
Dostoevsky (and Berdyaev) are apocalyptic prophets for an age in which man’s existential freedom places the battle between good and evil in his very soul.
July 2, 2019
بحث جيد، لكن يعيب عليه عبارات التفخيم.
March 14, 2021
Read this for an intellectual history seminar at Cal Berkeley headed by two top scholars in Russian history.
June 13, 2022
“All Dostoevsky’s heroes are really himself: they tread the path that he trod; the different aspects of his being, his difficulties, his restlessness, his bitter experience are all theirs.”
“It was a gift of Dostoevsky to be able to grasp and present man in all his passionate excited activity, and the reader himself is carried along by the hurricane. These upheavals are hidden in the depth of man’s being… Such art is prophetic: it unveils the secret of man, and for that purpose studies him in his unconsciousness, folly, and wickedness rather than in his stable surroundings, the normal and rational forms of his everyday social life. For the deeps of human nature are sounded not in sanity but in insanity, not in law-abidingness but in criminality, in obscure unconscious tendencies and not in daily life and in the parts of the soul that have been enlightened by the daylight of consciousness.”
“…Dostoevsky could not be a pessimistic and despairing writer; there is always light in his darkness, and it is the light of Christ.”💫
“Dostoevsky unveiled a new spiritual world: he restored to man the spiritual depth of which he had been bereft when it was removed to the inaccessible heights of a transcendent plane.”
“…the problem of man was his absorbing passion. For he did not see him as just a natural phenomenon, like any other though rather superior, but as a microcosm, the centre of being, the sun around which all else moves: the riddle of the universe is within man, and to solve the question of man is to solve the question of God.”
“The chief figure is the centre of a whirlpool of passions which is swirled up from the volcanic depths of human nature.”
“In the “Letters from the Underworld” Dostoevsky made many things clear about human nature. It is extreme, antinomian, and irrational; man is overwhelmingly attracted towards unreasonableness, towards a lawless freedom, towards suffering. He is not necessarily acquisitve, and at any moment may capriciously choose suffering rather than profit. He does not adapt himself to a rational organization of life and he puts freedom before happiness… This unlimied liberty is a torment and ruination to man, but its pain and disaster are dear to him.”
“Man is not an arithmetical expression; he is a mysterious and puzzling being, and his nature is extreme and contradictory all through.”
“There was a great difference between him [Nietzsche] and Dostoevsky, who, before him, had shown that the loss of man by the way of self-deification was the inevitable goal of Humanism. Dostoevsky recognized that this deification is illusory, he explored the vagaries of self-will in every direction, and he had another source of knowledge - he saw the light of Christ: he was a prophet of the Spirit. Nietzsche, on the contrary, was dominated by his idea of superman and it killed the idea of real man in him. Only Christianity has cherished and protected the idea of mankind and fixed the human image for ever and ever. The human essence presupposes the divine essence; kill God, and at the same time you kill man, an on the grave of these two supreme ideas of God and man there is set up a monstrous image - the image of the man who wants to be God, of the superman in action, of Antichrist. For Nietzsche there was neither God nor man but only this unknown man-god. For Dostoevsky there was both God and man: the God who does not devour man and the man who is not dissolved in God but remains himself throughout all eternity. It is there that Dostoevsky shows himself to be a Christian in the deepest sense of the word.”
"The world is full of wickedness and misery precisely because it is based on freedom - yet that freedom constitutes the whole dignity of man and of his world."
"A human soul had more significance for Dostoevsky than all the empires of the world, and in that he was thoroughly Christian."
"Our neighbor is more precious than an abstract notion, any human life and person is worth more here and now than some future bettering of society."
"The idea of God is the only supra-human idea that does not destroy man by reducing him to being a mere means."
“Coscience exacts more than the frigid civil law, and in this matter is more pitiless, for it knows that we do not kill our brother only when we put a violent end to his physical life: our secret thoughts, which sometimes hardly reach our consciousness, make us murderers in spirit, and we are responsible for them. To the public eye our lives may be beyond reproach, but inwardly we are criminals, longing to take the life of this or that person among our neighbours; open crime begins in such obscure desires.”
“Neither a man nor a nation can live without a “higher idea”, and there is only one such idea on this earth, that of an immortal soul; all the other “higher ideas” by which men live flow from that… Following on the loss of the idea of immortality, suicide appears a complete and ineluctable necessity for every man who is in the slightest degree above the level of the beasts of the field… The idea of immortality is life itself, the definitive formulation and the first source of the truth and integrity of conscience.” Thus does Dostoevsky speak of immortality in the “Diary of a Writer.”
“Dostoevsky saw that suffering is a sign of a greater dignity, the mark of a free creature. Suffering is a result of evil, but evil is not worn out by suffering alone. Dostoevsky’s heroes pass through hell and they reach the outer gates of paradise - which are less easily seen than hell.”
“So burdensome is the yoke of liberty to man that he has even tried to rid himself of it within Christianity itself. The principle of authority that plays so large a part in the history of the Church can easily be transformed into a denial of the mystery of Christian freedom, the mystery of Christ crucified.”
“A divine Truth panoplied in power, triumphant over the world and conquering souls, would not be consonant with the freedom of man’s spirit, and so the mystery of Golgotha is the mystery of liberty.”
“After he has tasted the bitter anguish of death and decay Alyosha is blinded by the dazzling truth of the religion of the resurrection; he no longer sees the staretz Zosima in his coffin, the breath of corruption is blown away: he is called to the marriage-feast.”
“Dostoevsky, who loved Christ consumingly and was immersed in the mystery of his atonement, him they regard as an unchristian, gloomy, disturbing writer who opens the pits of hell.”
“Shestov was wrong to regard him as a psychologist of the underworld soul; the life of even the lower regions of the soul were for him only a step in man’s spiritual journey, and he took us beyond it.”
"Ideas are man's daily bread: he cannot live without pondering the questions of God, Satan, immortality, freedom, evil, the destiny of mankind; it is essential that he should do so, for if there be no immortality life is not worth the trouble of living."
"Dostoevsky revealed many things to us and taught us a great deal; we are all his spiritual heirs, but he does not teach us how to live, in the strict sense."
"For him man's only road is through tragedy, inner division, the abyss, the attainment of light through darkness, and his greatness lay in that he showed the light shining in the darkness."
"Dostoevsky takes us into very dark places but he does not let darkness have the last word; his books do not leave us with an impression of sombre and despairing pessimism, because with the darkness there goes a great light."
"So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world."
“It was a gift of Dostoevsky to be able to grasp and present man in all his passionate excited activity, and the reader himself is carried along by the hurricane. These upheavals are hidden in the depth of man’s being… Such art is prophetic: it unveils the secret of man, and for that purpose studies him in his unconsciousness, folly, and wickedness rather than in his stable surroundings, the normal and rational forms of his everyday social life. For the deeps of human nature are sounded not in sanity but in insanity, not in law-abidingness but in criminality, in obscure unconscious tendencies and not in daily life and in the parts of the soul that have been enlightened by the daylight of consciousness.”
“…Dostoevsky could not be a pessimistic and despairing writer; there is always light in his darkness, and it is the light of Christ.”💫
“Dostoevsky unveiled a new spiritual world: he restored to man the spiritual depth of which he had been bereft when it was removed to the inaccessible heights of a transcendent plane.”
“…the problem of man was his absorbing passion. For he did not see him as just a natural phenomenon, like any other though rather superior, but as a microcosm, the centre of being, the sun around which all else moves: the riddle of the universe is within man, and to solve the question of man is to solve the question of God.”
“The chief figure is the centre of a whirlpool of passions which is swirled up from the volcanic depths of human nature.”
“In the “Letters from the Underworld” Dostoevsky made many things clear about human nature. It is extreme, antinomian, and irrational; man is overwhelmingly attracted towards unreasonableness, towards a lawless freedom, towards suffering. He is not necessarily acquisitve, and at any moment may capriciously choose suffering rather than profit. He does not adapt himself to a rational organization of life and he puts freedom before happiness… This unlimied liberty is a torment and ruination to man, but its pain and disaster are dear to him.”
“Man is not an arithmetical expression; he is a mysterious and puzzling being, and his nature is extreme and contradictory all through.”
“There was a great difference between him [Nietzsche] and Dostoevsky, who, before him, had shown that the loss of man by the way of self-deification was the inevitable goal of Humanism. Dostoevsky recognized that this deification is illusory, he explored the vagaries of self-will in every direction, and he had another source of knowledge - he saw the light of Christ: he was a prophet of the Spirit. Nietzsche, on the contrary, was dominated by his idea of superman and it killed the idea of real man in him. Only Christianity has cherished and protected the idea of mankind and fixed the human image for ever and ever. The human essence presupposes the divine essence; kill God, and at the same time you kill man, an on the grave of these two supreme ideas of God and man there is set up a monstrous image - the image of the man who wants to be God, of the superman in action, of Antichrist. For Nietzsche there was neither God nor man but only this unknown man-god. For Dostoevsky there was both God and man: the God who does not devour man and the man who is not dissolved in God but remains himself throughout all eternity. It is there that Dostoevsky shows himself to be a Christian in the deepest sense of the word.”
"The world is full of wickedness and misery precisely because it is based on freedom - yet that freedom constitutes the whole dignity of man and of his world."
"A human soul had more significance for Dostoevsky than all the empires of the world, and in that he was thoroughly Christian."
"Our neighbor is more precious than an abstract notion, any human life and person is worth more here and now than some future bettering of society."
"The idea of God is the only supra-human idea that does not destroy man by reducing him to being a mere means."
“Coscience exacts more than the frigid civil law, and in this matter is more pitiless, for it knows that we do not kill our brother only when we put a violent end to his physical life: our secret thoughts, which sometimes hardly reach our consciousness, make us murderers in spirit, and we are responsible for them. To the public eye our lives may be beyond reproach, but inwardly we are criminals, longing to take the life of this or that person among our neighbours; open crime begins in such obscure desires.”
“Neither a man nor a nation can live without a “higher idea”, and there is only one such idea on this earth, that of an immortal soul; all the other “higher ideas” by which men live flow from that… Following on the loss of the idea of immortality, suicide appears a complete and ineluctable necessity for every man who is in the slightest degree above the level of the beasts of the field… The idea of immortality is life itself, the definitive formulation and the first source of the truth and integrity of conscience.” Thus does Dostoevsky speak of immortality in the “Diary of a Writer.”
“Dostoevsky saw that suffering is a sign of a greater dignity, the mark of a free creature. Suffering is a result of evil, but evil is not worn out by suffering alone. Dostoevsky’s heroes pass through hell and they reach the outer gates of paradise - which are less easily seen than hell.”
“So burdensome is the yoke of liberty to man that he has even tried to rid himself of it within Christianity itself. The principle of authority that plays so large a part in the history of the Church can easily be transformed into a denial of the mystery of Christian freedom, the mystery of Christ crucified.”
“A divine Truth panoplied in power, triumphant over the world and conquering souls, would not be consonant with the freedom of man’s spirit, and so the mystery of Golgotha is the mystery of liberty.”
“After he has tasted the bitter anguish of death and decay Alyosha is blinded by the dazzling truth of the religion of the resurrection; he no longer sees the staretz Zosima in his coffin, the breath of corruption is blown away: he is called to the marriage-feast.”
“Dostoevsky, who loved Christ consumingly and was immersed in the mystery of his atonement, him they regard as an unchristian, gloomy, disturbing writer who opens the pits of hell.”
“Shestov was wrong to regard him as a psychologist of the underworld soul; the life of even the lower regions of the soul were for him only a step in man’s spiritual journey, and he took us beyond it.”
"Ideas are man's daily bread: he cannot live without pondering the questions of God, Satan, immortality, freedom, evil, the destiny of mankind; it is essential that he should do so, for if there be no immortality life is not worth the trouble of living."
"Dostoevsky revealed many things to us and taught us a great deal; we are all his spiritual heirs, but he does not teach us how to live, in the strict sense."
"For him man's only road is through tragedy, inner division, the abyss, the attainment of light through darkness, and his greatness lay in that he showed the light shining in the darkness."
"Dostoevsky takes us into very dark places but he does not let darkness have the last word; his books do not leave us with an impression of sombre and despairing pessimism, because with the darkness there goes a great light."
"So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world."
March 10, 2017
لم أكمله، إلا أنه بعيد عن المتعة وعن ما يتصوره القارئ قبل أن يبدأ
November 4, 2019
Da rileggere
January 20, 2026
Invaluable book on Dostoevsky and his religiosity.
Dostoevsky often plunges us into darkness, but the light of Christ is always shining through - if you can see him.
4.5/5.
Dostoevsky often plunges us into darkness, but the light of Christ is always shining through - if you can see him.
4.5/5.
February 10, 2025
دوستويفسكي واحد من أعظم أُدباء روسيا، يتناول نيقولاي حياة دوستويفسكي من ناحية فلسفية، أدبية و دينية. ليست كل المعلومات جديدة لكن الكتاب كان ممتع للغاية.
March 2, 2024
Nicolas Berdyaev's "Dostoyevsky" presents a profound examination of the Russian literary giant, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, through the lens of philosophical analysis. Berdyaev, a prominent Russian philosopher of the 20th century, offers a compelling interpretation of Dostoyevsky's works, delving into the philosophical underpinnings that shape the author's narrative and characters.
In this insightful work, Berdyaev explores Dostoyevsky's existential themes, moral dilemmas, and religious inquiries, illuminating the complex interplay between philosophy and literature in the Russian master's oeuvre. Berdyaev's scholarly approach sheds light on Dostoyevsky's exploration of the human condition, grappling with fundamental questions of existence, morality, and spirituality.
One of the central themes Berdyaev examines is Dostoyevsky's profound engagement with the nature of freedom and its consequences. Through a meticulous analysis of key works such as "Crime and Punishment," "The Brothers Karamazov," and "Notes from Underground," Berdyaev elucidates Dostoyevsky's exploration of the moral implications of individual autonomy and the struggle for redemption in a world marked by moral ambiguity.
Furthermore, Berdyaev delves into Dostoyevsky's complex portrayal of human psychology, highlighting the author's keen insights into the depths of the human soul. Berdyaev's examination of characters such as Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, and the Underground Man reveals Dostoyevsky's nuanced understanding of human nature, with its capacity for both greatness and depravity.
Moreover, Berdyaev situates Dostoyevsky's literary endeavors within the broader context of Russian philosophical thought, drawing connections to the existentialist tradition and the Russian religious renaissance. By contextualizing Dostoyevsky's works within the intellectual currents of his time, Berdyaev offers a comprehensive analysis that enriches our understanding of both the author and the philosophical milieu in which he operated.
Despite the profundity of Berdyaev's insights, some readers may find his prose dense and scholarly, requiring a familiarity with both Dostoyevsky's works and philosophical discourse. However, for those willing to engage deeply with Berdyaev's analysis, "Dostoyevsky" offers a rewarding journey into the philosophical depths of one of literature's most enigmatic figures.
Nicolas Berdyaev's "Dostoyevsky" stands as a formidable contribution to the study of Russian literature and philosophy, offering a rich and nuanced exploration of Dostoyevsky's enduring relevance in the realm of ideas. Berdyaev's erudite analysis invites readers to reexamine Dostoyevsky's works with fresh eyes, uncovering layers of meaning that resonate across time and space.
GPT
In this insightful work, Berdyaev explores Dostoyevsky's existential themes, moral dilemmas, and religious inquiries, illuminating the complex interplay between philosophy and literature in the Russian master's oeuvre. Berdyaev's scholarly approach sheds light on Dostoyevsky's exploration of the human condition, grappling with fundamental questions of existence, morality, and spirituality.
One of the central themes Berdyaev examines is Dostoyevsky's profound engagement with the nature of freedom and its consequences. Through a meticulous analysis of key works such as "Crime and Punishment," "The Brothers Karamazov," and "Notes from Underground," Berdyaev elucidates Dostoyevsky's exploration of the moral implications of individual autonomy and the struggle for redemption in a world marked by moral ambiguity.
Furthermore, Berdyaev delves into Dostoyevsky's complex portrayal of human psychology, highlighting the author's keen insights into the depths of the human soul. Berdyaev's examination of characters such as Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, and the Underground Man reveals Dostoyevsky's nuanced understanding of human nature, with its capacity for both greatness and depravity.
Moreover, Berdyaev situates Dostoyevsky's literary endeavors within the broader context of Russian philosophical thought, drawing connections to the existentialist tradition and the Russian religious renaissance. By contextualizing Dostoyevsky's works within the intellectual currents of his time, Berdyaev offers a comprehensive analysis that enriches our understanding of both the author and the philosophical milieu in which he operated.
Despite the profundity of Berdyaev's insights, some readers may find his prose dense and scholarly, requiring a familiarity with both Dostoyevsky's works and philosophical discourse. However, for those willing to engage deeply with Berdyaev's analysis, "Dostoyevsky" offers a rewarding journey into the philosophical depths of one of literature's most enigmatic figures.
Nicolas Berdyaev's "Dostoyevsky" stands as a formidable contribution to the study of Russian literature and philosophy, offering a rich and nuanced exploration of Dostoyevsky's enduring relevance in the realm of ideas. Berdyaev's erudite analysis invites readers to reexamine Dostoyevsky's works with fresh eyes, uncovering layers of meaning that resonate across time and space.
GPT
September 2, 2013
Whatever interest some of Berdyaev's ideas may have, such as his perspectives on creativity, this book is largely intolerable.
He is appallingly aristocratic, disavowing in Nietzsche (loudly, repeatedly) what he tacitly accepts; he plays fast and loose with the term "culture" in a way that I normally expect from right-wing American radio; he hates in Dostoevsky, not his nationalism, not his imperialism, not his will-to-dominance over the East, but his "populism" (!); other than pointing out, rightly, that the actually-existing Optina Elders could not accept Elder Zosima as exemplifying one of their own, he has very little sense of Orthodox theology or history—though he does remind us that the Orthodox have as much an imperial past in the Romans as Dostoevsky's hated Catholics do (for Catholicism, Berdyaev has a welcome amount of sympathy).
Worst, however, is his need to sanitize Dostoevsky. It is very important to Berdyaev that Ivan Karamazov, for example, not "have the last word." He spends, however, no time at all on Bobok or the death of Christ in The Idiot (nor does he seems to really understand that work's protagonist, Prince Myshkin). Berdyaev needs to be absolutely confident that there is a Resurrection Sunday for his vision of free will to work; he cannot abide Dostoevsky's fascination with Black Saturday and the dead, mute body of his God-man, a vision "that causes a man to lose his faith," as he said. Religious pursuit without the prior knowledge of a resurrection goes unconsidered by Berdyaev; it fits nowhere in his system.
Repeating, as so many like to do, the battle between Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, where the anarchist-pacificist-heretic Tolstoy comes out the loser because he is those three things and not in any way because he was an emotionally and physically abusive aristocrat, Berdyaev has no shame over the fact that "Dostoevsky's human is a man," that he cannot write female characters, concluding that what Russia needs—the concept of the Russian soul somehow is affirmed by Berdyaev, despite his anti-populist rant—concluding that Russia lacks n manhood and requires more virility.
Ultimately, Berdyaev's interpretation is more a testament to the wildly divergent inheritances a single author can leave, much like Nietzsche himself, with whom Berdyaev seems to be in frequent, seething tension.
It is not a particularly enlightening or encouraging book.
He is appallingly aristocratic, disavowing in Nietzsche (loudly, repeatedly) what he tacitly accepts; he plays fast and loose with the term "culture" in a way that I normally expect from right-wing American radio; he hates in Dostoevsky, not his nationalism, not his imperialism, not his will-to-dominance over the East, but his "populism" (!); other than pointing out, rightly, that the actually-existing Optina Elders could not accept Elder Zosima as exemplifying one of their own, he has very little sense of Orthodox theology or history—though he does remind us that the Orthodox have as much an imperial past in the Romans as Dostoevsky's hated Catholics do (for Catholicism, Berdyaev has a welcome amount of sympathy).
Worst, however, is his need to sanitize Dostoevsky. It is very important to Berdyaev that Ivan Karamazov, for example, not "have the last word." He spends, however, no time at all on Bobok or the death of Christ in The Idiot (nor does he seems to really understand that work's protagonist, Prince Myshkin). Berdyaev needs to be absolutely confident that there is a Resurrection Sunday for his vision of free will to work; he cannot abide Dostoevsky's fascination with Black Saturday and the dead, mute body of his God-man, a vision "that causes a man to lose his faith," as he said. Religious pursuit without the prior knowledge of a resurrection goes unconsidered by Berdyaev; it fits nowhere in his system.
Repeating, as so many like to do, the battle between Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, where the anarchist-pacificist-heretic Tolstoy comes out the loser because he is those three things and not in any way because he was an emotionally and physically abusive aristocrat, Berdyaev has no shame over the fact that "Dostoevsky's human is a man," that he cannot write female characters, concluding that what Russia needs—the concept of the Russian soul somehow is affirmed by Berdyaev, despite his anti-populist rant—concluding that Russia lacks n manhood and requires more virility.
Ultimately, Berdyaev's interpretation is more a testament to the wildly divergent inheritances a single author can leave, much like Nietzsche himself, with whom Berdyaev seems to be in frequent, seething tension.
It is not a particularly enlightening or encouraging book.
December 7, 2019
"Dostoievski a învățat, călcând pe urmele lui Hristos, să reverse lumina în întuneric, să-i descopere chipul Lui Dumnezeu în omul decăzut, a învățat iubirea de oameni, respectându-le libertatea. Dostoievski ne conduce prin întuneric, dar nu acesta îi este țelul. Creația lui nu lasă de loc impresia unui pesimism sumbru și disperat. Însuși întunericul iradiază lumină. Lumina lui Hristos biruiește lumea, străbate orice întunecimi. Creștinismul lui Dostoievski nu este unul întunecat, ci luminos, este creștinismul lui Ioan. Dostoievski a dăruit multe pentru viitorul creștinismului, pentru triumful Evangheliei, al religiei libertății și iubirii. Creștinismul este în pragul mortificării, din el emană miasme putrede ce otrăvesc izvoarele spirituale ale vieții. Multe lucruri în creștinism nu mai seamană a organism viu, ci mineral. A intervenit osificarea. Guri moarte rostesc cuvinte moarte din care spiritul a zburat. Spiritul nu vrea să răsufle în sufletele mortificate, osificate religios. Sufletele trebuie să se topească, să se supună celui de al doilea botez de foc pentru ca spiritul să respire din nou. Victoria duhului antihristic în lume, pierderea credinței și avântul materialismului sunt rezultate secundare și cinsecințe ale osificării instalate în interiorul creștinismului, al vieții religioase. Creștinismul, metamorfozat în scolastică moartă, în mărturisirea unor forme abstracte, indiferente, supus degenerării clericale, nu poate să fie o putere renascătoare. În creștinism trebuie sa vină vremea odrăslirii, a primenirii spirituale. Dacă este o religie eternă, el trebuie să devină religia vremurilor noi. În el trebuie să înceapă o mișcare creatoare pe care n-a mai simțit-o de mult. Dostoievski dezosifică sufletele, supunându-le botezului de foc. În felul acesta, el curăță terenul pentru renașterea creatoare a sufletului, pentru mișcarea religioasă în care se va ivi creștinismul cel viu, nou și veșnic. [...] Dostoievski nu inventează o nouă religie, rămâne credincios Adevarului etern și tradiției creștinismului. Însă el deșteaptă în creștinism un nou duh, o mișcare creatoare care nu distruge nimic."
Read
February 8, 2020#رؤية_دوستويفسكي_للعالم
#نيقولاي_برديائف
٢٣٩صفحة
ترجمة#فؤاد_كامل
كان لدوستويفسكي تأثير كبير على حياة برديائف الروحية وأثار فيها الحماسة والنشوة التي لم يثرها كاتب قبله ،وكان هذا السبب الرئيسي لتأليف هذا الكتاب الفلسفي حول رؤية دوستويفسكي وفلسفته في الحياة وما أثر على فكره ومعتقداته .
يتكون الكتاب من عدة فصول :
الفصل الأول :
الوجه الروحي لدوستويفسكي:
وأبرز ماتطرق له المؤلف مقارنة بين تولستوي ودوستويفسكي ،وكيف أن الأول يهتم بالجانب النفسي والآخر يهتم بالجانب الروحي.
هل كان دوستويفسكي واقعياً؟.
وإلى من ينتمي دوستويفسكي من الكتاب؟.
فلسفة دوستويفسكي.
الفصل الثاني:
الإنسان:
أبرز ماتحدث عنه في هذا الفصل هو مقارنة بين دانتسي وشكسبير ودويستوفيسكي.
أوجه الشبه بين دوستويفسكي ونيتشه وأوجه الإختلاف.
دوستويفسكي والعالم.
الفصل الثالث:
الحرية:
وأبرز ما تحدث عنه هو ملكة الإلتزام في سبيل الحرية.
الحرية عند أبطال دوستويفسكي.
جدله مع الحرية.
الفصل الرابع:
الشر:
كتبت نبذة بسيطة عنه في الصور .
الفصل الخامس:
الحب:
توجد نبذه بسيطة عن هذا الفصل في الصور في الأعلى .
الفصول السادس والسابع والثامن:
عن الثورة_الإشتراكية ، وروسيا،والمفتش الأكبر .
الفصل التاسع :
نحن ودوستويفسكي:
دوستويفسكي المفكر والكاتب العظيم ،ترك فينا تأثيراً مزدوجاً،مؤلفاته لم تترك فينا طابع التشاؤم ،وكانت الظلمات التي يرسمها تنتهي بنهاية النفق بنور التفاؤل .
؛
ملاحظة :
معظم الشخصيات التي رسمها دوستويفسكي في القرن التاسع عشر ،لم تكن شخصيات موجودة في عصرة ،وبدأ ظهور هذه الشخصيات في القرن العشرين .
تنبأ بها بناءً على نظرته التي تدخل لأعماق النفس البشرية(الروح).
؛
#مراجعة
#ضحى_المطيري✍🏻
#نيقولاي_برديائف
٢٣٩صفحة
ترجمة#فؤاد_كامل
كان لدوستويفسكي تأثير كبير على حياة برديائف الروحية وأثار فيها الحماسة والنشوة التي لم يثرها كاتب قبله ،وكان هذا السبب الرئيسي لتأليف هذا الكتاب الفلسفي حول رؤية دوستويفسكي وفلسفته في الحياة وما أثر على فكره ومعتقداته .
يتكون الكتاب من عدة فصول :
الفصل الأول :
الوجه الروحي لدوستويفسكي:
وأبرز ماتطرق له المؤلف مقارنة بين تولستوي ودوستويفسكي ،وكيف أن الأول يهتم بالجانب النفسي والآخر يهتم بالجانب الروحي.
هل كان دوستويفسكي واقعياً؟.
وإلى من ينتمي دوستويفسكي من الكتاب؟.
فلسفة دوستويفسكي.
الفصل الثاني:
الإنسان:
أبرز ماتحدث عنه في هذا الفصل هو مقارنة بين دانتسي وشكسبير ودويستوفيسكي.
أوجه الشبه بين دوستويفسكي ونيتشه وأوجه الإختلاف.
دوستويفسكي والعالم.
الفصل الثالث:
الحرية:
وأبرز ما تحدث عنه هو ملكة الإلتزام في سبيل الحرية.
الحرية عند أبطال دوستويفسكي.
جدله مع الحرية.
الفصل الرابع:
الشر:
كتبت نبذة بسيطة عنه في الصور .
الفصل الخامس:
الحب:
توجد نبذه بسيطة عن هذا الفصل في الصور في الأعلى .
الفصول السادس والسابع والثامن:
عن الثورة_الإشتراكية ، وروسيا،والمفتش الأكبر .
الفصل التاسع :
نحن ودوستويفسكي:
دوستويفسكي المفكر والكاتب العظيم ،ترك فينا تأثيراً مزدوجاً،مؤلفاته لم تترك فينا طابع التشاؤم ،وكانت الظلمات التي يرسمها تنتهي بنهاية النفق بنور التفاؤل .
؛
ملاحظة :
معظم الشخصيات التي رسمها دوستويفسكي في القرن التاسع عشر ،لم تكن شخصيات موجودة في عصرة ،وبدأ ظهور هذه الشخصيات في القرن العشرين .
تنبأ بها بناءً على نظرته التي تدخل لأعماق النفس البشرية(الروح).
؛
#مراجعة
#ضحى_المطيري✍🏻
June 3, 2017
This is an interesting little summation of the key themes in Dostoevsky's thought and works. And while Berdyaev digs into the heart of Dostoevsky's faith, he comes to taint it through his own christian beliefs. For Dostoevsky's faith is one tempered by much doubt and suffering - it is never a certainty. Its lightness or levity is of the greatest weight, tainted by an all pervading darkness. None of this is to speak ill of Dostoevsky - for his faith was one that was in touch with the darkness of the divine. He saw into the depths of the endless night, in the heart of man, and he affirmed the groundlessness of the divine. As Nicholas of Cusa wrote, the face of God, which transcends any concept of the face and yet moves beneath each and every face, can only be revealed through the silent darkness, which eludes the illumination of any unveiling (as in the endless night sky, the empty abyss of all space). Berdyaev's need for an end in light, grounded in the guarantee of resurrection, is his shortcoming - he misses the heights upon which Dostoevsky stands.
(This summit is also an abyss, and it is from this that Berdyaev shys away, unable to withstand its groundless rending.)
(This summit is also an abyss, and it is from this that Berdyaev shys away, unable to withstand its groundless rending.)
November 22, 2020
This was absolutely brilliant in every way possible and offered me a deeper insight into Dostoevsky's masterpieces.
★★★★★
I always looooved Dostoevsky and it was clear to me that his novels aren't a "one time lecture" kind of novels -also something that Berdyaev mentioned in the book-. So i read and reread "Demons" many many times throughout my teenage years, trying to understand it better and better. With every reading done I managed to grasp at other perspectives that I missed out on previously and that made me very happy.
I found out about this book by mistake, stumbling upon it and just randomly deciding to start reading it. I cannot explain to you how this mistake was the best one i have ever made. Reading this book immensely helped me figure out many enigmas that had formed with time. It gave me the chance to understand very complex matters that frequently appear in Dostoevsky's work and gave me a clearer explanation of how they should be interpreted.
I am genuinely happy I read this book and I cannot wait to go through my notes again as I read a new Dostoevsky book.
★★★★★
I always looooved Dostoevsky and it was clear to me that his novels aren't a "one time lecture" kind of novels -also something that Berdyaev mentioned in the book-. So i read and reread "Demons" many many times throughout my teenage years, trying to understand it better and better. With every reading done I managed to grasp at other perspectives that I missed out on previously and that made me very happy.
I found out about this book by mistake, stumbling upon it and just randomly deciding to start reading it. I cannot explain to you how this mistake was the best one i have ever made. Reading this book immensely helped me figure out many enigmas that had formed with time. It gave me the chance to understand very complex matters that frequently appear in Dostoevsky's work and gave me a clearer explanation of how they should be interpreted.
I am genuinely happy I read this book and I cannot wait to go through my notes again as I read a new Dostoevsky book.
July 3, 2024
كتاب الإنسان في ادب دوستوفيسكي
لـ نيقولاي بيردييف
الكتاب عبارة عن ثلاث أوراق نقدية، ثنتين متمركزتين عن عملين لفيدور وهم الشياطين و الأخوة كرامازوف والأولى في أعماله ككل وكيفية تغير وتطور ارائه ورؤيته الفلسفية النفسية، فيطرح الكتاب تشريح رؤية الإنسان لدى دوستوفيسكي ومن المعروف ان أعمال دوستوفيسكي متمركزه ومختصة في الإنسان والنفس الانسانية و المشاعر، بل وان الكاتب يقول انه لعله هو من وضح النفس الانسانية وبنى رؤية واضحة للنفس الانسانية(وانا اعتقد كذلك ان فيدور كان دقيق جداً في شرح النفوس) وكيف كان يشرح طبيعة الانسان الفطرية بشكل رائع ، واجمل ما فيه الكتاب المقارنة التي تمت في الكاتب بين تولستوي. ودوستويفسكي فالأول يرى العالم بقانون والثاني بحرية ، والأولى يرى من من الله إلى الانسان والثاني يرى من الانسان إلى الله وغيرهم بين فروقات في الرؤية الفلسفية لكل الأديبين، وقد وضح وبرهن الكاتب ان فيدور هو اول من حلل و بحث في علم النفس الجنائي فتشريح نفسية المجرم و المقتول وكيفية الحدث كان دقيق جدا جدا فيها .
لـ نيقولاي بيردييف
الكتاب عبارة عن ثلاث أوراق نقدية، ثنتين متمركزتين عن عملين لفيدور وهم الشياطين و الأخوة كرامازوف والأولى في أعماله ككل وكيفية تغير وتطور ارائه ورؤيته الفلسفية النفسية، فيطرح الكتاب تشريح رؤية الإنسان لدى دوستوفيسكي ومن المعروف ان أعمال دوستوفيسكي متمركزه ومختصة في الإنسان والنفس الانسانية و المشاعر، بل وان الكاتب يقول انه لعله هو من وضح النفس الانسانية وبنى رؤية واضحة للنفس الانسانية(وانا اعتقد كذلك ان فيدور كان دقيق جداً في شرح النفوس) وكيف كان يشرح طبيعة الانسان الفطرية بشكل رائع ، واجمل ما فيه الكتاب المقارنة التي تمت في الكاتب بين تولستوي. ودوستويفسكي فالأول يرى العالم بقانون والثاني بحرية ، والأولى يرى من من الله إلى الانسان والثاني يرى من الانسان إلى الله وغيرهم بين فروقات في الرؤية الفلسفية لكل الأديبين، وقد وضح وبرهن الكاتب ان فيدور هو اول من حلل و بحث في علم النفس الجنائي فتشريح نفسية المجرم و المقتول وكيفية الحدث كان دقيق جدا جدا فيها .
September 9, 2020
This is Berdyaev's personal interpretation of the spiritual and philosophical thought of Dostoevsky. He pursues what he considers the "enigma" of Dostoevsky's thought. It is in his "pathos"--an "unprecedented regard for man and his destiny" that Berdyaev places the focus of the work. By considering this aspect as central to Dostoevsky's creativity he provides a rich and thoughtful account of Dostoevsky's literary corpus. Seeing the central relationships of his characters in this light Berdyaev argues provides an important means for understanding Dostoevsky as a whole. It is a fascinating account and should prove useful to those studying the thought of Fyodor Dostoevsky.
September 2, 2018
يؤكد برديائيف أن دوستويفسكي لعب دورا حاسما في حياته الروحية، وكما يقول: «تلقيت منه - ولما زلت مراهقا - ما يشبه التطعيم، وأثار فيّ من الحماسة والنشوة ما لم يثره كاتب أو فيلسوف آخر، وكنت في كل مراحل حياتي أشطر الناس قسمين: أولئك الذين تأثروا بروح دوستويفسكي، وأولئك الذين كانوا عن هذه الروح غرباء، وإذا كانت المشكلات الفلسفية قد تمثلت لوعيي في وقت مبكر جدا، فما ذلك إلا بفضل تلك «الأسئلة اللعينة» التي أثارها دوستويفسكي بكل تأكيد.
انا من اولئك الذين تأثروا بروح دوستويفسكي♥️
انا من اولئك الذين تأثروا بروح دوستويفسكي♥️
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews