What do you think?
Rate this book
The Destiny of Man
In The Destiny of Man, Nikolai Berdyaev sketches the plan of a new ethics. This new ethics will be knowledge not only of good & evil, but also of the tragedy which is constantly present in moral experience & complicates all moral judgments. It will emphasize the crucial importance of the personality & of human freedom. The new ethics will interpret moral life as a creative activity; it will be an ethics of free creativeness, an ethics that combines freedom, compassion & creativeness.
318 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
19 people are currently reading
1111 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 6, 2017
One of my top 5 underappreciated, scandalously and immensely neglected - crucial classic works of all time.
May 30, 2018
I discovered Nikolai Berdyaev as a regularly cited source in the works of Terryl Givens (others I have found include Elie Wiesel and Julian of Norwich. Givens has given me a whole bibliography of spiritual writers I have yet to get to!). Berdyaev was officially a Russian Orthodox Christian who wrote both before and after the Communist revolution. He wasn't the church-going type, and his Church sometimes didn't agree with everything he had to say. Givens seems to like him a lot, and points out many of the similarities in his thoughts to Mormon doctrine, particularly surrounding freedom, or agency in Mormon lingo.
I, too, found Berdyaev very engaging as he wrestles with spiritual problems. He is not uncritical of Christianity, and points to some areas where we have gone down the rabbit hole. I am grateful for authors like Berdyaev that remain firmly in the camp of the saints, but who also seek to re-direct it when it seems to go astray.
There are two central ideas that Berdyaev develops in The Destiny of Man:
The ethics of creativity. Unlike a traditional explanation of commandments and sin in which moral decisions are merely a choice to adhere or disobey a pre-defined checklist of rules, Berdyaev argues that every moral decision should be a creative experience, an act to consciously create good. He describes it so:
The ethics of creativeness differ from the ethics of law first of all because every moral task is for it absolutely individual and creative. The moral problems of life cannot be solved by an automatic application of universally binding rules. It is impossible to say that in the same circumstances one ought always and everywhere to act in the same way. It is impossible if only because circumstances are never quite the same. Indeed, the very opposite rule might be formulated. One ought always to act individually and solve every moral problem for oneself, showing creativeness in one's moral activity, and not for a single moment become a moral automaton. A man ought to make moral inventions with regard to problems that life sets him. Hence, for the ethics of creativeness freedom means something very different from what it does for the ethics of law. For the latter the so-called freedom of will has no creative character and means only acceptance or rejection of the law of the good and responsibility for doing one over the other. For the ethics of creativeness freedom means not the acceptance of the law but individual creation of values. Freedom is creative energy, the possibility of building up new realities. The ethics of law knows nothing of that freedom. It does not know that the good is being created, that in every individual and unrepeatable moral act new good that had never existed before is brought into being by the moral agent whose invention it is. There exists no fixed, static moral order subordinated to a single universally binding moral law. Man is not a passive executor of the laws of the world order. Man is a creator and an inventor. His moral conscience must at every moment of his life be energy. Life is based upon energy and not upon law. It may be saw, indeed, that energy is the source of law. The ethics of creativeness takes a very different view of the struggle against evil than does the ethics of law. According to it, that struggle consists in the creative realization of the good and the transformation of evil into good, rather than in the mere destruction of evil. The ethics of law is concerned with the finite: the world is for it a self-contained system and there is no way out of it. The ethics of creativeness is concerned with the infinite: the world is for it open and plastic, with boundless horizons and possibilities of breaking through to other worlds. IT overcomes the nightmare of the finite from which there is no escape.
This captures well the contrast between the ethics of law and the ethics of creativity. Some again may cringe or accuses Berdyaev of moral relativism, but he is clear that that is not what this is. I think again to Christ's explanation that he comes not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The higher law demands more, not less. But Berdyaev argues that the most difficult moral decisions are not between good and evil, but between varying goods that will ultimately require a sacrifice of one good over another. These will differ for different individuals.
Berdyaev doesn't hold much for what he refers to as normative ethics, the application of a single set of ethical standards on the whole population. He describes it so:
I should like to work out a system of ethics which is not tyrannical i.e. not normative. All normative theories of ethics are tyrannical... Ethics is bound to contain a prophetic element. It must be a revelation of a clear conscience, unclouded by social conventions.
I was thinking of certain Mormon cultural norms that become equated on the same level as eternal principles: certain prescriptions of dress, no tattoos or excess piercings, no swearing, etc. We are very good at normative ethics, aren't we?
The second idea that also might make some turn their heads is his development of the idea of beyond good and evil. The distinction between "the good" and "the evil" is a direct result of the Fall. "The good" is not the ultimate aim of the gospel, and its pursuit results in Pharisaism and doesn't have saving power. God isn't the ultimate "good" person, but is on the other side of good and evil. Berdyaev, of course, got this concept from Nietzche, who was a critic of Christianity. I was uncomfortable pulling any ideas from Nietzche, but Berdyaev believe that Nietzche had a legitimate qualm with Christianity, or at least Christian tendencies towards legalism. But when Nietzche criticized traditional morality, he sought to supercede it with evil, rather than moving to something beyond it.
I appreciated how willing Berdyaev was to acknowledge the real quandary posed to religion by the existence of evil, and that he didn't try to explain it away. He writes:
The very distinction between good and evil which is the result of the Fall becomes the source of atheism. Ethics springs from the same source as atheism, and this throws a sinister light upon it. The traditional doctrines of theology do not solve the painful problem of evil. The ordinary theological conception of the creation of the world and the Fall turns it all into a divine comedy, a play that God plays with Himself. One may disagree with Marcion, the Gnostics and the Manichees, but one cannot help respecting them for their being so painfully conscious of the problem of evil. Evil is generally said to be due to the abuse of freedom with which God endowed his creatures. But this explanation is purely superficial. The freedom through which the creature succumbs to evil has been given to it by God i.e. in the last resort is determined by God. Freedom is a fatal gift which dooms man to perdition. It is impossible to rationalize this idea and to express it in terms of positive theology. It is precisely the traditional theology that leads good men, inspired by moral motives, to atheism. The ordinary theological conception of freedom in no way saves the Creator from the responsibility for pain and evil.
Berdyaev takes issues what he refers to as rationalistic theology, the attempt to explain everything into first principles in a coherent system. This ultimately results in over-simplifications or outright absurdities e.g. Calvinism and predestination. Berdyaev seeks to preserve mystery, the existence of two opposing facts that cannot be reconciled to each other but must exist together e.g. hell and universal salvation. It reminded me of the many discussion I have read recently calling this by a different name: paradox or religious tension, for instance.
Berdyaev has a lot to say about the herd-man, the socially driven individual that relies on external motivators e.g. law to stay in line. He doesn't try to split society into lower and upper strata, but recognizes that we all to some extent have a bit of the herd-man in us.
Berdyaev expects a lot more from "the good"-- more than just looking out for their personal salvation. He believes we can't be satisfied until we have all redeemed the wicked from hell. Hell, to him, is ultimately going to be accounted not by only the wicked, but the good as well. We are responsible for hell by creating it for the wicked and condemning them there. I found this very profound, as it should move us beyond the self-centered doctrines of personal salvation. It reminded me too of Mormonism's doctrine of baptisms for the dead, ultimately seeking to redeem all mankind.
Berdyaev certainly gets you thinking! A great read.
I, too, found Berdyaev very engaging as he wrestles with spiritual problems. He is not uncritical of Christianity, and points to some areas where we have gone down the rabbit hole. I am grateful for authors like Berdyaev that remain firmly in the camp of the saints, but who also seek to re-direct it when it seems to go astray.
There are two central ideas that Berdyaev develops in The Destiny of Man:
The ethics of creativity. Unlike a traditional explanation of commandments and sin in which moral decisions are merely a choice to adhere or disobey a pre-defined checklist of rules, Berdyaev argues that every moral decision should be a creative experience, an act to consciously create good. He describes it so:
The ethics of creativeness differ from the ethics of law first of all because every moral task is for it absolutely individual and creative. The moral problems of life cannot be solved by an automatic application of universally binding rules. It is impossible to say that in the same circumstances one ought always and everywhere to act in the same way. It is impossible if only because circumstances are never quite the same. Indeed, the very opposite rule might be formulated. One ought always to act individually and solve every moral problem for oneself, showing creativeness in one's moral activity, and not for a single moment become a moral automaton. A man ought to make moral inventions with regard to problems that life sets him. Hence, for the ethics of creativeness freedom means something very different from what it does for the ethics of law. For the latter the so-called freedom of will has no creative character and means only acceptance or rejection of the law of the good and responsibility for doing one over the other. For the ethics of creativeness freedom means not the acceptance of the law but individual creation of values. Freedom is creative energy, the possibility of building up new realities. The ethics of law knows nothing of that freedom. It does not know that the good is being created, that in every individual and unrepeatable moral act new good that had never existed before is brought into being by the moral agent whose invention it is. There exists no fixed, static moral order subordinated to a single universally binding moral law. Man is not a passive executor of the laws of the world order. Man is a creator and an inventor. His moral conscience must at every moment of his life be energy. Life is based upon energy and not upon law. It may be saw, indeed, that energy is the source of law. The ethics of creativeness takes a very different view of the struggle against evil than does the ethics of law. According to it, that struggle consists in the creative realization of the good and the transformation of evil into good, rather than in the mere destruction of evil. The ethics of law is concerned with the finite: the world is for it a self-contained system and there is no way out of it. The ethics of creativeness is concerned with the infinite: the world is for it open and plastic, with boundless horizons and possibilities of breaking through to other worlds. IT overcomes the nightmare of the finite from which there is no escape.
This captures well the contrast between the ethics of law and the ethics of creativity. Some again may cringe or accuses Berdyaev of moral relativism, but he is clear that that is not what this is. I think again to Christ's explanation that he comes not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The higher law demands more, not less. But Berdyaev argues that the most difficult moral decisions are not between good and evil, but between varying goods that will ultimately require a sacrifice of one good over another. These will differ for different individuals.
Berdyaev doesn't hold much for what he refers to as normative ethics, the application of a single set of ethical standards on the whole population. He describes it so:
I should like to work out a system of ethics which is not tyrannical i.e. not normative. All normative theories of ethics are tyrannical... Ethics is bound to contain a prophetic element. It must be a revelation of a clear conscience, unclouded by social conventions.
I was thinking of certain Mormon cultural norms that become equated on the same level as eternal principles: certain prescriptions of dress, no tattoos or excess piercings, no swearing, etc. We are very good at normative ethics, aren't we?
The second idea that also might make some turn their heads is his development of the idea of beyond good and evil. The distinction between "the good" and "the evil" is a direct result of the Fall. "The good" is not the ultimate aim of the gospel, and its pursuit results in Pharisaism and doesn't have saving power. God isn't the ultimate "good" person, but is on the other side of good and evil. Berdyaev, of course, got this concept from Nietzche, who was a critic of Christianity. I was uncomfortable pulling any ideas from Nietzche, but Berdyaev believe that Nietzche had a legitimate qualm with Christianity, or at least Christian tendencies towards legalism. But when Nietzche criticized traditional morality, he sought to supercede it with evil, rather than moving to something beyond it.
I appreciated how willing Berdyaev was to acknowledge the real quandary posed to religion by the existence of evil, and that he didn't try to explain it away. He writes:
The very distinction between good and evil which is the result of the Fall becomes the source of atheism. Ethics springs from the same source as atheism, and this throws a sinister light upon it. The traditional doctrines of theology do not solve the painful problem of evil. The ordinary theological conception of the creation of the world and the Fall turns it all into a divine comedy, a play that God plays with Himself. One may disagree with Marcion, the Gnostics and the Manichees, but one cannot help respecting them for their being so painfully conscious of the problem of evil. Evil is generally said to be due to the abuse of freedom with which God endowed his creatures. But this explanation is purely superficial. The freedom through which the creature succumbs to evil has been given to it by God i.e. in the last resort is determined by God. Freedom is a fatal gift which dooms man to perdition. It is impossible to rationalize this idea and to express it in terms of positive theology. It is precisely the traditional theology that leads good men, inspired by moral motives, to atheism. The ordinary theological conception of freedom in no way saves the Creator from the responsibility for pain and evil.
Berdyaev takes issues what he refers to as rationalistic theology, the attempt to explain everything into first principles in a coherent system. This ultimately results in over-simplifications or outright absurdities e.g. Calvinism and predestination. Berdyaev seeks to preserve mystery, the existence of two opposing facts that cannot be reconciled to each other but must exist together e.g. hell and universal salvation. It reminded me of the many discussion I have read recently calling this by a different name: paradox or religious tension, for instance.
Berdyaev has a lot to say about the herd-man, the socially driven individual that relies on external motivators e.g. law to stay in line. He doesn't try to split society into lower and upper strata, but recognizes that we all to some extent have a bit of the herd-man in us.
Berdyaev expects a lot more from "the good"-- more than just looking out for their personal salvation. He believes we can't be satisfied until we have all redeemed the wicked from hell. Hell, to him, is ultimately going to be accounted not by only the wicked, but the good as well. We are responsible for hell by creating it for the wicked and condemning them there. I found this very profound, as it should move us beyond the self-centered doctrines of personal salvation. It reminded me too of Mormonism's doctrine of baptisms for the dead, ultimately seeking to redeem all mankind.
Berdyaev certainly gets you thinking! A great read.
August 4, 2013
For most of the books written throughout history, it would have been better if the text was condensed to an essay or a short essay (or not written at all). Then there are those that are gems, where the first third or half of the material is golden, but then the quality thereafter dips and it seems that it's just filler. Or maybe it's an excellent treatise on some subject, but then the final concluding chapters descent into inanity. Or perhaps an insightful book replete with treasures is annoyingly padded with needless fat. But *The Destiny of Man* doesn't fit any of these qualifiers -- the start and opening chapters were a rough trodden trail and I nearly gave up on the book. But this book, kept getting better and better, all the way to the final sentence.
Books on ethics are hardly compelling reads but I found Berdyaev illuminating and profound. And even though this was penned 80+ years ago by a Russian philosopher, the words are still timely and resonate today. Berdyaev sketches out a manner of which faithful Jesus followers live creatively in a fallen world. And riffs on Dostoyevsky (tries not to show overt adulation for, but it evident), Tolstoy (whom he seems to appreciate but skewers his embrace of legalistic thinking regarding Sermon on the Mount) and other thinkers I am not too familiar with. The final chapters on Hell and paradise are still percolating in my mind, but again, profound stuff that struck my cognitive keys.
Books on ethics are hardly compelling reads but I found Berdyaev illuminating and profound. And even though this was penned 80+ years ago by a Russian philosopher, the words are still timely and resonate today. Berdyaev sketches out a manner of which faithful Jesus followers live creatively in a fallen world. And riffs on Dostoyevsky (tries not to show overt adulation for, but it evident), Tolstoy (whom he seems to appreciate but skewers his embrace of legalistic thinking regarding Sermon on the Mount) and other thinkers I am not too familiar with. The final chapters on Hell and paradise are still percolating in my mind, but again, profound stuff that struck my cognitive keys.
December 23, 2025
Many thanks to my friend who inspired me to read this. Started with the passages on beauty and then read this as my personal book over the semester. I'm so sad to see this end. I guess I can return to it. N.B. has an exquisite view on so many topics, the intersection of the social, political, individual, religious and psychological, and a helpful perspective of how to navigate, as he says, living in a fallen world, but with a consciousness seeking freedom, beauty, and the Kingdom of God. So many more thoughts, but I'l leave it here for now.
Want to read
December 14, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 20, as one of Ten Books on the Humanities.
January 28, 2019
This Book is *EVERYTHING*!
February 12, 2024
“The analysis of knowledge shows that man is quite a special kind of being, not on a par with other realities. Man is not a fragmentary part of the world but contains the whole riddle of the universe and the solution of it.”💫
“Love does not require or expect any reward, it is a reward in itself, it is a ray of paradise illumining and transfiguring reality.”❤️
“Man is a profound riddle to himself, for he bears witness to the existence of a higher world. The superhuman principle is a constituent element of man’s nature. Man is discontented with himself and capable of outgrowing himself. The very fact of the existence of man is a break in the natural world and proves that nature cannot be self-sufficient but rests on a supernatural reality.”
“It might be said that man is sincerely insincere, deceiving himself and others. The most remarkable thing is that he deceives himself.”
“Man is human only as a bearer of spirit which manifests itself in personality. Man is a being who transcends himself and the world. He is a continual protest against reality.”
"Man is the key to the mystery of knowledge and of existence. He is the enigmatic being which, though a part of nature, cannot be explained in terms of nature and through which alone it is possible to penetrate into the heart of being.”
“It is extraordinary how limited is the human conception of God. Men are afraid to ascribe to Him inner conflict and tragedy characteristic of all life, the longing for His “other”, for the birth of man, but have no hesitation in ascribing to Him anger, jealousy, vengeance and other affective states which, in man, are regarded as reprehensible.”
“What is essential to knowledge is that we should know God Himself and not ideas about God, i.e. that we should know the spirit and in the spirit. In this respect there is an essential difference between natural sciences and sciences of the spirit. In natural sciences objectification does not destroy the object of knowledge, since nature, which these sciences study, is itself the result of objectification. In making its discoveries physics deal with the actual real objects and not with their reflections in the human mind. In natural sciences objectification means finding the real object. They do not mean the same devastation as do the historical or the psychological inquiries into the spirit. In the realm of the spirit objectification means destruction of the reality which we seek to know, for that reality is not an object.”
“Atheism as the cry of the indignant human heart can only be conquered by a suffering God Who shares the fate of the world.”
“Man may renounce the Creator out of pity and compassion for the creature. Atheism may have a very lofty source… Out of pity for the groaning and travailing creation I may rise against the Creator and deny Him. This is Ivan Karamazov’s problem which so tortured Dostoevsky. The experience of pity is one of the most overwhelming and transcendental of human experiences. It may possess a man’s whole being, it may lead to death, it may lead to a rejection of God, of the world and of man. At the same time pity is the strongest proof of man’s belonging to a higher world.”
“It is impossible to be reconciled to the thought that God could have created the world and man if He foresaw hell, that He could have predetermined it for the sake of justice, or that He tolerates it as a special diabolical realm of being side by side with His Own Kingdom. From the divine point of view it means creature is a failure. The idea of an objectified hell as a special sphere of eternal life is altogether intolerable, unthinkable and indeed, incompatible with the faith in God. A God who deliberately allows the existence of eternal tornments is not God at all but is more like the devil. Hell as a place of retribution for the wicked, which is a comfort to the good, is a fairy tale; there is not a shadow of reality about it; it is borrowed from our everyday existence with its rewards and punishments. The idea of an eternal hell as a rightful retribution for holding false and heretical beliefs is one of the most hideous and contemptive products of the triumphant herd-mind.”
“Man is an egoistical and egocentric being, but that does not mean that he loves himself. Frequently people do not love themselves at all, and indeed feel an aversion for themselves. And if a man does not love himself, he cannot forgive it to anyone and vents upon other people the bitterness which he feels against himself. The most vindictive people are those who do not love themselves. People who have a liking for themselves are generally kinder and more tolerant of others. This is a moral and psychological paradox. A man may be hard and heartless egoist but neither love nor like himself; indeed he may feel a positive aversion for himself.”
“Christianity preaches love for one’s neighbour and not for “those far off”. This is a very important distinction. Love for “the far off”, for man and humanity in general, is love for an abstract idea, for the abstract good, and not love for man. And for the sake of this abstract love men are ready to sacrifice concrete, living beings.”
“The Christian ethics of the Gospel is founded upon the recognition of the significance of each human soul which is worth more than all the kingdom of this world. Personality has unconditional value as the image and likeness of God. No abstract idea of the good can be put above personality.”
“If I regard that which is “beyond good and evil” as higher than that which is “on the side of good and evil”, I distinguish between the higher and and the lower, I condemn, I appraise, I draw conclusions. And, of course, Nietzsche was a moralist, though he denied it.”
“The supreme value and the highest good is not life as such, but spiritual life rising up to God - not the quantity, but the quality of life. Spiritual life is not in the least opposed to, or destructive of, mental and physical life; it transfers the mental and the physical to a higher plane, imparts a higher quality to them and raises them towards the heights, towards that which is beyond life, beyond nature, beyond being.”
“When we pass to negative theology, we begin to breathe more freely as though coming out of a prison-house. Mystery, docta ignorantia have a profound significance. The whole meaning, importance and value of life are determined by the mystery behind it, by an infinity which cannot be rationalized but can only be expressed in myths and symbols. God is the infinite mystery that underlies existence - and this alone makes the pain and evil of life endurable. They would be unendurable if the world and man were self-sufficient, if there were nothing beyond, higher and deeper and more mysterious. We come to God not because rational thought demands His existence but because the world is bounded by mystery in which rational thought ends.”
“Man rejected the bliss and wholeness of Eden and chose the pain and tragedy of cosmic life in order to explore his destiny to its inmost depths. This was the birth of concsciousness with iths painful dividedness.”
“Paradise is the unconscious wholeness of nature, the realm of instinct. There is in it no division between subject and object, no reflection, no painful conflict of consciousness with the unconcious.”
“Consciousness which involves dividedness and loss of wholeness appears to be the result of the Fall. We are faced with the fundamental question: is consciousness an indication of man’s fallen state? The fruits of the tree of knowledge have proved bitter, and that bitterness has been transferred to the very birth of consciousness. Consciousness is born in pain and suffering. Consciousness is pain, and loss of consciousness appears to us as the cessation of pain. Dostoevsky says that suffering is the only cause of consciousness. Consciousness involves a painful division. From its very nature it can never embrace the whole of our being, which includes the realm of the subconscious and the superconscious.”
“The paradoxs spring from the fact that we apply categories of good and evil, i.e. categories engendered by the Fall, to Divine being which is beyond good and evil. The doctrine of original sin, with which ethics begins, has a very different meaning from the one usually ascribed to it. The myth of the Fall does not humiliate man, but extols him to wonderful heights… The myth of the Fall is a myth of man’s greatness. But theologians are apt to regard original sin as a kind of hereditary disease.”
“Nietzsche did not know or understand true Christianity. He had before him the degenerate Christian society which had lost the heroic spirit. And he rose with passionate indignation against this decadent, bourgeois Christianity.”
“Nietzsche says that it is not so much the suffering as the senselessness of it that is unendurable. Man can go through the most terrible sufferings if he sees a meaning in them; human powers of endurance are enormous. Christianity gives meaning to suffering and makes it endurable. It gives meaning to it through the mystery of the Cross.”
“Evil is a return to non-being, a rejection of the world, and at the same time it has a positive significance because it calls forth as a reaction against itself the supreme creative power of the good.”
“The herd life for which Heidegger has invented a special category of “das Man” is social in character. It means the domination of society with its general norms and laws over the inner, intimately personal and unique life of the individual. Herd life means the cooling down of the creative fire; moral consciousness in it is determined not by what the person himself thinks or feels, but by other people’s ideas and conscience ( “on dit”, “man sagt”, “they say”).
“Tolstoy regards the Gospel as an expression of the moral law and norm, and the realization of the Kingdom of God is for him on a par with abstension from tobacco and alcohol. Christ’s teaching consists for him of a number of moral precepts which man can easily carry out, once he recognizes their rationality.”
“According to the ethics of law a man becomes good because he does good works. But in truth a man does good works because he is good.”
“Creativeness is bound up with imperfection, and perfection may be unfavourable to it. This is the moral paradox with regard to creativeness.”
“When the soul feels empty it experiences boredom, which is a truly terrible and diabolical state.”
“Nietzsche is clearly the victim of reaction against degenerate legalistic Christianity and against the bad spirituality which in truth has always meant suppression of the spirit. Nietzsche mistook it for the true spirituality. He rejected God because he thought God was incompatible with creativeness and creative heroism to which his philosophy was a call. God was for him the symbol not of man’s ascent to the heights but of his remaining on a flat surface below. Nietzsche was fighting not against God but against a false conception of God, which certainly ought to be combated.”
"Fear experienced by the creature is a consequence of original sin and of separation from God."
"Life in this world has meaning just because there is death ; if there were no death in our world, life would be meaningless. The meaning is bound up with the end. If there were no end, ie. if life in our world continued for ever, there would be no meaning in it."
“Death cannot be understood merely as the last moment of life followed either be non-being or by existence in the world beyond. Death is an event embracing the whole of life.”
“Death proves to be the greatest paradox in the world, which cannot be understood rationally.”
"It (the herd-mind) organizes the life of the race and knows only one remedy against death—birth. Life seems to conquer death through birth. But the victory of birth over death has nothing to do with personality, with its fate and its hopes ; it is concerned with life of the race only. The victory over death through birth is an illusion. Nature does not know the mystery of conquering death ; the victory can come only from the supernatural world."
“When Origen said that Christ will remain on the cross so long as a single creature remains in hell, he expressed an eternal truth. And yet we must admit that to regard salvation as a predetermined is to rationalize the eschatological mystery. But is it possible to maintain the opposite and say that hell and perdition are predetermined in God’s creation? That certainly is still less admissible.”
“It is hard to understand the psychology of pious Christians who calmly accept the fact that their neighbours, friends and relatives will perhaps be damned. I cannot resign myself to the fact that the man with whom I am drinking tea is doomed to eternal torments... Paradise is impossible for me if the people I love, my friends or relatives or mere acquaintances, will be in hell - if Boehme is in hell as a “heretic”, Nietzsche as “an antichrist”, Goethe as a “pagan” and Pushkin as a sinner. Roman Catholics who cannot take a step in their theology without Aristotle are ready to admit with perfect complacency that, not being a Christian, Aristotle is burning in hell. All this kind of thing has become impossible for us, and that is a tremendous moral progress.”
“Hell is nothing other than complete separation from God.”
“The idea of an eternal realm of bliss by the side of an eternal hell is one of the most monstrous human inventions - an evil invention of “the good”. We live in a world of sin, on this side of good and evil, and it is extremely difficult for us to conceive of heaven. We transfer to it the categories of our sinful life, our distinctions between good and evil. But paradise lies beyond good and evil and therefore is not exclusively the kingdom of “the good” in our sense of the term.”
“This liberation from hell cannot, however, be an act of violence towards the “wicked” who are there. This is the extraordinary difficulty of the problem. It cannot be solved by human and natural means; it can only be solved through the God-man and grace. Neither God nor man can do violence to the wicked and compel them to be good and happy in paradise. But the God-man in Whom grace and freedom are mysteriously combined knows the mystery of liberating the wicked.”
“Salvation is the reunion of man with man and with the cosmos through reunion with God. Hence there can be no individual salvation or salvation of the elect. Crucifixion, pain and tragedy will go on in the world until all mankind and the whole world are saved, transfigured and regenerated.”
“Love does not require or expect any reward, it is a reward in itself, it is a ray of paradise illumining and transfiguring reality.”❤️
“Man is a profound riddle to himself, for he bears witness to the existence of a higher world. The superhuman principle is a constituent element of man’s nature. Man is discontented with himself and capable of outgrowing himself. The very fact of the existence of man is a break in the natural world and proves that nature cannot be self-sufficient but rests on a supernatural reality.”
“It might be said that man is sincerely insincere, deceiving himself and others. The most remarkable thing is that he deceives himself.”
“Man is human only as a bearer of spirit which manifests itself in personality. Man is a being who transcends himself and the world. He is a continual protest against reality.”
"Man is the key to the mystery of knowledge and of existence. He is the enigmatic being which, though a part of nature, cannot be explained in terms of nature and through which alone it is possible to penetrate into the heart of being.”
“It is extraordinary how limited is the human conception of God. Men are afraid to ascribe to Him inner conflict and tragedy characteristic of all life, the longing for His “other”, for the birth of man, but have no hesitation in ascribing to Him anger, jealousy, vengeance and other affective states which, in man, are regarded as reprehensible.”
“What is essential to knowledge is that we should know God Himself and not ideas about God, i.e. that we should know the spirit and in the spirit. In this respect there is an essential difference between natural sciences and sciences of the spirit. In natural sciences objectification does not destroy the object of knowledge, since nature, which these sciences study, is itself the result of objectification. In making its discoveries physics deal with the actual real objects and not with their reflections in the human mind. In natural sciences objectification means finding the real object. They do not mean the same devastation as do the historical or the psychological inquiries into the spirit. In the realm of the spirit objectification means destruction of the reality which we seek to know, for that reality is not an object.”
“Atheism as the cry of the indignant human heart can only be conquered by a suffering God Who shares the fate of the world.”
“Man may renounce the Creator out of pity and compassion for the creature. Atheism may have a very lofty source… Out of pity for the groaning and travailing creation I may rise against the Creator and deny Him. This is Ivan Karamazov’s problem which so tortured Dostoevsky. The experience of pity is one of the most overwhelming and transcendental of human experiences. It may possess a man’s whole being, it may lead to death, it may lead to a rejection of God, of the world and of man. At the same time pity is the strongest proof of man’s belonging to a higher world.”
“It is impossible to be reconciled to the thought that God could have created the world and man if He foresaw hell, that He could have predetermined it for the sake of justice, or that He tolerates it as a special diabolical realm of being side by side with His Own Kingdom. From the divine point of view it means creature is a failure. The idea of an objectified hell as a special sphere of eternal life is altogether intolerable, unthinkable and indeed, incompatible with the faith in God. A God who deliberately allows the existence of eternal tornments is not God at all but is more like the devil. Hell as a place of retribution for the wicked, which is a comfort to the good, is a fairy tale; there is not a shadow of reality about it; it is borrowed from our everyday existence with its rewards and punishments. The idea of an eternal hell as a rightful retribution for holding false and heretical beliefs is one of the most hideous and contemptive products of the triumphant herd-mind.”
“Man is an egoistical and egocentric being, but that does not mean that he loves himself. Frequently people do not love themselves at all, and indeed feel an aversion for themselves. And if a man does not love himself, he cannot forgive it to anyone and vents upon other people the bitterness which he feels against himself. The most vindictive people are those who do not love themselves. People who have a liking for themselves are generally kinder and more tolerant of others. This is a moral and psychological paradox. A man may be hard and heartless egoist but neither love nor like himself; indeed he may feel a positive aversion for himself.”
“Christianity preaches love for one’s neighbour and not for “those far off”. This is a very important distinction. Love for “the far off”, for man and humanity in general, is love for an abstract idea, for the abstract good, and not love for man. And for the sake of this abstract love men are ready to sacrifice concrete, living beings.”
“The Christian ethics of the Gospel is founded upon the recognition of the significance of each human soul which is worth more than all the kingdom of this world. Personality has unconditional value as the image and likeness of God. No abstract idea of the good can be put above personality.”
“If I regard that which is “beyond good and evil” as higher than that which is “on the side of good and evil”, I distinguish between the higher and and the lower, I condemn, I appraise, I draw conclusions. And, of course, Nietzsche was a moralist, though he denied it.”
“The supreme value and the highest good is not life as such, but spiritual life rising up to God - not the quantity, but the quality of life. Spiritual life is not in the least opposed to, or destructive of, mental and physical life; it transfers the mental and the physical to a higher plane, imparts a higher quality to them and raises them towards the heights, towards that which is beyond life, beyond nature, beyond being.”
“When we pass to negative theology, we begin to breathe more freely as though coming out of a prison-house. Mystery, docta ignorantia have a profound significance. The whole meaning, importance and value of life are determined by the mystery behind it, by an infinity which cannot be rationalized but can only be expressed in myths and symbols. God is the infinite mystery that underlies existence - and this alone makes the pain and evil of life endurable. They would be unendurable if the world and man were self-sufficient, if there were nothing beyond, higher and deeper and more mysterious. We come to God not because rational thought demands His existence but because the world is bounded by mystery in which rational thought ends.”
“Man rejected the bliss and wholeness of Eden and chose the pain and tragedy of cosmic life in order to explore his destiny to its inmost depths. This was the birth of concsciousness with iths painful dividedness.”
“Paradise is the unconscious wholeness of nature, the realm of instinct. There is in it no division between subject and object, no reflection, no painful conflict of consciousness with the unconcious.”
“Consciousness which involves dividedness and loss of wholeness appears to be the result of the Fall. We are faced with the fundamental question: is consciousness an indication of man’s fallen state? The fruits of the tree of knowledge have proved bitter, and that bitterness has been transferred to the very birth of consciousness. Consciousness is born in pain and suffering. Consciousness is pain, and loss of consciousness appears to us as the cessation of pain. Dostoevsky says that suffering is the only cause of consciousness. Consciousness involves a painful division. From its very nature it can never embrace the whole of our being, which includes the realm of the subconscious and the superconscious.”
“The paradoxs spring from the fact that we apply categories of good and evil, i.e. categories engendered by the Fall, to Divine being which is beyond good and evil. The doctrine of original sin, with which ethics begins, has a very different meaning from the one usually ascribed to it. The myth of the Fall does not humiliate man, but extols him to wonderful heights… The myth of the Fall is a myth of man’s greatness. But theologians are apt to regard original sin as a kind of hereditary disease.”
“Nietzsche did not know or understand true Christianity. He had before him the degenerate Christian society which had lost the heroic spirit. And he rose with passionate indignation against this decadent, bourgeois Christianity.”
“Nietzsche says that it is not so much the suffering as the senselessness of it that is unendurable. Man can go through the most terrible sufferings if he sees a meaning in them; human powers of endurance are enormous. Christianity gives meaning to suffering and makes it endurable. It gives meaning to it through the mystery of the Cross.”
“Evil is a return to non-being, a rejection of the world, and at the same time it has a positive significance because it calls forth as a reaction against itself the supreme creative power of the good.”
“The herd life for which Heidegger has invented a special category of “das Man” is social in character. It means the domination of society with its general norms and laws over the inner, intimately personal and unique life of the individual. Herd life means the cooling down of the creative fire; moral consciousness in it is determined not by what the person himself thinks or feels, but by other people’s ideas and conscience ( “on dit”, “man sagt”, “they say”).
“Tolstoy regards the Gospel as an expression of the moral law and norm, and the realization of the Kingdom of God is for him on a par with abstension from tobacco and alcohol. Christ’s teaching consists for him of a number of moral precepts which man can easily carry out, once he recognizes their rationality.”
“According to the ethics of law a man becomes good because he does good works. But in truth a man does good works because he is good.”
“Creativeness is bound up with imperfection, and perfection may be unfavourable to it. This is the moral paradox with regard to creativeness.”
“When the soul feels empty it experiences boredom, which is a truly terrible and diabolical state.”
“Nietzsche is clearly the victim of reaction against degenerate legalistic Christianity and against the bad spirituality which in truth has always meant suppression of the spirit. Nietzsche mistook it for the true spirituality. He rejected God because he thought God was incompatible with creativeness and creative heroism to which his philosophy was a call. God was for him the symbol not of man’s ascent to the heights but of his remaining on a flat surface below. Nietzsche was fighting not against God but against a false conception of God, which certainly ought to be combated.”
"Fear experienced by the creature is a consequence of original sin and of separation from God."
"Life in this world has meaning just because there is death ; if there were no death in our world, life would be meaningless. The meaning is bound up with the end. If there were no end, ie. if life in our world continued for ever, there would be no meaning in it."
“Death cannot be understood merely as the last moment of life followed either be non-being or by existence in the world beyond. Death is an event embracing the whole of life.”
“Death proves to be the greatest paradox in the world, which cannot be understood rationally.”
"It (the herd-mind) organizes the life of the race and knows only one remedy against death—birth. Life seems to conquer death through birth. But the victory of birth over death has nothing to do with personality, with its fate and its hopes ; it is concerned with life of the race only. The victory over death through birth is an illusion. Nature does not know the mystery of conquering death ; the victory can come only from the supernatural world."
“When Origen said that Christ will remain on the cross so long as a single creature remains in hell, he expressed an eternal truth. And yet we must admit that to regard salvation as a predetermined is to rationalize the eschatological mystery. But is it possible to maintain the opposite and say that hell and perdition are predetermined in God’s creation? That certainly is still less admissible.”
“It is hard to understand the psychology of pious Christians who calmly accept the fact that their neighbours, friends and relatives will perhaps be damned. I cannot resign myself to the fact that the man with whom I am drinking tea is doomed to eternal torments... Paradise is impossible for me if the people I love, my friends or relatives or mere acquaintances, will be in hell - if Boehme is in hell as a “heretic”, Nietzsche as “an antichrist”, Goethe as a “pagan” and Pushkin as a sinner. Roman Catholics who cannot take a step in their theology without Aristotle are ready to admit with perfect complacency that, not being a Christian, Aristotle is burning in hell. All this kind of thing has become impossible for us, and that is a tremendous moral progress.”
“Hell is nothing other than complete separation from God.”
“The idea of an eternal realm of bliss by the side of an eternal hell is one of the most monstrous human inventions - an evil invention of “the good”. We live in a world of sin, on this side of good and evil, and it is extremely difficult for us to conceive of heaven. We transfer to it the categories of our sinful life, our distinctions between good and evil. But paradise lies beyond good and evil and therefore is not exclusively the kingdom of “the good” in our sense of the term.”
“This liberation from hell cannot, however, be an act of violence towards the “wicked” who are there. This is the extraordinary difficulty of the problem. It cannot be solved by human and natural means; it can only be solved through the God-man and grace. Neither God nor man can do violence to the wicked and compel them to be good and happy in paradise. But the God-man in Whom grace and freedom are mysteriously combined knows the mystery of liberating the wicked.”
“Salvation is the reunion of man with man and with the cosmos through reunion with God. Hence there can be no individual salvation or salvation of the elect. Crucifixion, pain and tragedy will go on in the world until all mankind and the whole world are saved, transfigured and regenerated.”
June 20, 2023
Nikolai Berdyaev's philosophical masterpiece, "The Destiny of Man," offers a profound exploration of the human condition, addressing themes of freedom, creativity, and the spiritual dimensions of existence. Berdyaev delves into the complex interplay between human freedom and transcendence, examining the existential dilemmas that shape human destiny. This review aims to provide an academic evaluation of Berdyaev's arguments, discussing the book's strengths, weaknesses, and its significance within the fields of philosophy, theology, and existential thought.
"The Destiny of Man" by Nikolai Berdyaev delves into the intricate tapestry of human existence, contemplating the ultimate purpose and meaning of human life. Berdyaev delves into themes of freedom, creativity, and the spiritual dimensions of existence, exploring the tensions between individual freedom and the quest for transcendence. He reflects on the existential dilemmas faced by humanity, grappling with questions of faith, morality, and the nature of human destiny in a world marked by uncertainty and spiritual longing.
Berdyaev's work stands out for its profound insights and its ability to challenge conventional perspectives on the human condition. He combines philosophical and theological perspectives, drawing upon existentialist thought, Christian theology, and personal reflections to craft a comprehensive understanding of human destiny. Berdyaev's analysis fosters critical reflections on the complexities of human existence, urging readers to confront their existential dilemmas and actively engage in the pursuit of authentic meaning.
One of the notable strengths of "The Destiny of Man" lies in Berdyaev's philosophical depth and his ability to provoke deep introspection. He explores the intricacies of human freedom, emphasizing the transformative power of individual choice and the responsibility it entails. Berdyaev's insights on the existential significance of human creativity and the longing for transcendence offer profound reflections on the human condition, inspiring readers to reflect on their own spiritual and philosophical journeys.
Moreover, Berdyaev's synthesis of philosophical and theological perspectives enriches the book's intellectual rigor. He engages with a wide range of philosophical traditions, drawing upon the works of Kant, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, among others, to construct a nuanced argument that resonates with readers from diverse backgrounds. Berdyaev's interdisciplinarity expands the scope of his analysis and fosters a broader understanding of the human quest for meaning.
While "The Destiny of Man" offers a thought-provoking analysis, it is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that Berdyaev's arguments can be abstract and metaphysical, potentially distancing readers who prefer a more grounded and concrete approach to philosophical inquiry. A more explicit engagement with empirical evidence, social analysis, or examples from everyday life could enhance the book's accessibility and applicability to a wider audience.
Additionally, Berdyaev's writing style can be dense and intricate, making it challenging for some readers to fully grasp his arguments. A more concise and structured presentation of ideas, clearer organization of concepts, and explicit connections between chapters would enhance the book's readability and facilitate a broader readership's engagement with the content.
"The Destiny of Man" holds significant importance within the fields of philosophy, theology, and existential thought as a profound exploration of the human quest for meaning. Berdyaev's analysis prompts critical reflections on the complexities of human freedom, the longing for transcendence, and the existential dilemmas that shape human destiny. The book's contribution lies in its ability to foster discussions on the intersections between philosophy and theology, and the spiritual dimensions of human existence.
GPT
"The Destiny of Man" by Nikolai Berdyaev delves into the intricate tapestry of human existence, contemplating the ultimate purpose and meaning of human life. Berdyaev delves into themes of freedom, creativity, and the spiritual dimensions of existence, exploring the tensions between individual freedom and the quest for transcendence. He reflects on the existential dilemmas faced by humanity, grappling with questions of faith, morality, and the nature of human destiny in a world marked by uncertainty and spiritual longing.
Berdyaev's work stands out for its profound insights and its ability to challenge conventional perspectives on the human condition. He combines philosophical and theological perspectives, drawing upon existentialist thought, Christian theology, and personal reflections to craft a comprehensive understanding of human destiny. Berdyaev's analysis fosters critical reflections on the complexities of human existence, urging readers to confront their existential dilemmas and actively engage in the pursuit of authentic meaning.
One of the notable strengths of "The Destiny of Man" lies in Berdyaev's philosophical depth and his ability to provoke deep introspection. He explores the intricacies of human freedom, emphasizing the transformative power of individual choice and the responsibility it entails. Berdyaev's insights on the existential significance of human creativity and the longing for transcendence offer profound reflections on the human condition, inspiring readers to reflect on their own spiritual and philosophical journeys.
Moreover, Berdyaev's synthesis of philosophical and theological perspectives enriches the book's intellectual rigor. He engages with a wide range of philosophical traditions, drawing upon the works of Kant, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, among others, to construct a nuanced argument that resonates with readers from diverse backgrounds. Berdyaev's interdisciplinarity expands the scope of his analysis and fosters a broader understanding of the human quest for meaning.
While "The Destiny of Man" offers a thought-provoking analysis, it is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that Berdyaev's arguments can be abstract and metaphysical, potentially distancing readers who prefer a more grounded and concrete approach to philosophical inquiry. A more explicit engagement with empirical evidence, social analysis, or examples from everyday life could enhance the book's accessibility and applicability to a wider audience.
Additionally, Berdyaev's writing style can be dense and intricate, making it challenging for some readers to fully grasp his arguments. A more concise and structured presentation of ideas, clearer organization of concepts, and explicit connections between chapters would enhance the book's readability and facilitate a broader readership's engagement with the content.
"The Destiny of Man" holds significant importance within the fields of philosophy, theology, and existential thought as a profound exploration of the human quest for meaning. Berdyaev's analysis prompts critical reflections on the complexities of human freedom, the longing for transcendence, and the existential dilemmas that shape human destiny. The book's contribution lies in its ability to foster discussions on the intersections between philosophy and theology, and the spiritual dimensions of human existence.
GPT
January 26, 2021
Vrsna knjiga, riznica duhovnosti i mudrosti. Jedna strana ove knjige posjeduje više smisla i istine od 95% svjetske literature, za one koji imaju uši da čuju. Nepojmljiva dubina, koja se u ovakvom obliku, u literaturi pisanoj od strane čovjeka, nalazi samo kod Berđajeva. Ogroman gubitak za sve koji sa ovim izvrsnim stvaraocem nisu upoznati, a svoj um zasićuju beznačajnim trivijalnostima koje im služe jedino na pogibelj, a ne i za spasenje. Postoji čovjekova svrha, i ona je uzvišena, najuzvišenija - stvaralaštvo!
November 14, 2016
Upustio sam se ljetos u ovo djelo ne znajući ništa o ovome autoru niti pretjerano o kršćanskom egzistencijalizmu. Svako poglavlje je za mene bilo dimenzija više i sve više me je intrigiralo. Jako mi se svidio način analiziranja Nikolaja, a osobito usporedbe između totalitarnih sustava 20. stoljeća. Za svakog kršćanina koji želi promišljati svoju sudbinu u našem vremenu, preporučam ovu knjigu. Nećete se razočarati :)
March 28, 2012
This is for me the most difficult of Berdyaev's books. The physical edition is quite hard to read too with small print crowded on to the page. Its best feature is that it is well-indexed and not too much of a rave as many of Berdyaev's books are. When it was released it was given very favourable reviews by theologians, but I would take some of his other books first.
August 27, 2012
Очень классная книга о назначении человека в этом мире. Книга очень глубокая и заставляет задуматься о самых разных вещах.
August 24, 2021
Бог творит, но только в свободе и только до тех пор, пока она разрешает ему это делать.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews