“O humanismo não fortaleceu, debilitou o homem — tal é o término paradoxal da história moderna. Através de sua auto-afirmação, o homem perdeu-se ao invés de se encontrar.”
Nos quatro ensaios que compõem o livro, Berdiaev busca encontrar a ligação entre o fim do Renascimento e a debacle geral da humanidade nos séculos posteriores; identifica esse processo com o surgimento duma nova “Idade Média”, caracterizada por uma volta ao sobrenatural, às aspirações coletivas, uma volta à religiosidade, mas à religiosidade do Anti-Cristo. Vê ainda o socialismo como coroamento da história moderna e como conseqüência direta do liberalismo do século XIX e assevera: “à Rússia será dado um papel todo especial; ela dará nascimento ao Anticristo”.
No último ensaio, ainda, o autor analisa três formas de governo — o socialismo, a democracia e a teocracia — encontrando em cada uma dessas formas o germe do forma de governo precedente, isto sendo como que uma linha mestra que vai das teocracias nacionais até o advento da revolução russa de 1917.
Há ainda no livro um apêndice, “O espírito burguês”, ensaio escrito posteriormente que pretende delimitar o que é o espírito burguês, que o autor define como “um estado espiritual, uma orientação da alma para uma certa direção, um gênero peculiar de auto-conciência”.
Nikolai 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.
Doskonałe! Chwilami nieco niedzisiejsza, ale warto czytać całość, bo w ogólnym rozrachunku zadziwiająco aktualna. Niektóre myśli, jak choćby kwestia utopii (kto tak naprawdę był w historii utopistą i jaki świat dziś zbudować łatwiej), nabierają dziś nowych znaczeń. Sama koncepcja Nowego Średniowiecza (nie w prymitywnym, ale właśnie bierdiajewowskim rozumieniu) nad wyraz aktualna. Przydałby się kolejny Lech Jęczmyk, który przyłożyłby tę koncepcję do świata za oknem, żeby pokazać, jak bardzo jest celna.
Interesting essay about a coming new "religious", "irrational" world, a new "middle ages." Some Maistrian notes perhaps??? Contact with the Bolshevik revolution, woman's role in the new age and the Tyutchev citations that tie this new period to the force of "twilight", "night."
"В предчувствии ночи нужно духовно вооружиться для борьбы со злом, обострить способность его различения, вырабатывать новое рыцарство. Прилив растет и быстро нас уносит / В неизмеримость темных волн... / И мы плывем, пылающею бездной / Со всех сторон окружены..."
"Kaźda rewolucja jest ohydna. Każda rewolucja jest nieudana. Nigdy w historii nie było udanych rewolucji." Wyprawa z Bierediajewem w lata 20 rosyjskiej myśli emigracyjnej to zmierzenie się z dziełem tak bliskim Spenglerowi, a jednocześnie tak mocno nacechowany, myśleniem teologiczny, prawosławnym. Wielu sprowadza jego sławny esej o Nowym Średniowieczu, że chce jego powrotu, widać mało kto dokładnie go czyta... Wielu widziało gloryfikacje rycerstwa, które madchodzi od strony faszyzmu, ale to jest jego krytyka, pokazuje faszyzm, jako drugą stronę komunizmu, kolejny projekt humanizmu, u skraju nowożytności, której widać już koniec.