Freedom and the Spirit

by Nikolai Berdyaev

In this book, Berdyaev tells us that the creative development of the spirit and the free exercise of man's powers can be conceived only as the free cooperation of man with the work of God. Creative spiritual development represents a new principle which signifies an offering of human freedom to God, an offering which God expects from us. The life of the spirit is a creative and dynamic process. Spiritual development is possible only because there is freedom. Spiritual development is not movement on the plane of the external world, but the bringing to birth of forces which lie hidden in the inner depths of existence. To quote Berdyaev, "the spiritual world is like a torrent of fire in free creative dynamism." The Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) was one of the greatest religious thinkers of the twentieth century. His philosophy goes beyond mere thinking, mere rational conceptualization, and tries to attain authentic life itself: the profound layers of existence that are in contact with God's world. Berdyaev directed all of his efforts, philosophical as well as in his personal and public life, at replacing the kingdom of this world with the kingdom of God. According to him, we can all attempt to do this by tapping the divine creative powers which constitute our true nature. Our mission is to be collaborators with God in His continuing creation of the world. This is what Berdyaev said about himself: "Man, personality, freedom, creativeness, the eschatological-messianic resolution of the dualism of two worlds - these are my basic themes."

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction

360 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1927

About the author

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.

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like and agreed with much of this book; but some of his views are problematic when seen through the lens of Christian orthodoxy. His dependence on Boehme, despite his clear reservations, is most of what I take issue with.
Berdyaev's notion of freedom is analogous to Boehme's ungrund or abyss. That wouldn't be such a problem if Berdyaev didn't make claims such as that "it existed before being" and that "God has no control over it". He comes dangerously close to making an idol out of his notion of freedom. I certainly agree with the importance of freedom within Christianity, I only part company with the kind of interpretation he gives to freedom. He should have been more circumspect when borrowing a concept from Boehme like this one. Most Christian thinkers who have liked Boehme (myself included), have also been cautious in approaching his thought. It borrows far too much from systems like Kabbalah and Hermeticism. This does compromise Boehme's orthodoxy; sometimes in subtle and not so subtle ways. This is evident in some of his writings, more than in others. I have an interest in some of his ideas, but he is an author that one has to be very cautious in being influenced by. Berdyaev recognized that Boehme's thought was heterodox in some points, yet he still allowed himself an over dependence on him when it came to concepts like the ungrund, which wind up being the most problematic for Boehme's orthodoxy, i.e. relating to his erroneous views on the Trinity and his dualistic theism.
Apart from the above problems, which are not altogether minor, I liked most of this book. His comments on theosophy and anthroposophy are quite accurate and mirror my own criticisms. I do feel that he did not sufficiently recognize that his more positive take on Kabbalah, and previous forms of theosophy, is not totally consistent with his negative views on 19th century and 20th century theosophy and anthroposophy. Both do have roots in earlier forms of theosophy; especially in Steiner. Blavatsky and Steiner are largely the fruit of Europe's interest in Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Neo-Platonism, Hinduism, occultism, secret societies, etc. While I agree that both (especially Blavatsky) are an even more spiritually tainted brew than what came before, I cannot in all honesty fail to recognize some continuity between earlier occultic movements and those found in anthroposophy and theosophy. This ties in to what I said above about Boehme; Berdyaev was appropriately critical of those two movements, but failed to sufficiently recognize the problems with Boehme and the esoteric movements he himself was influenced by.
As it stands, this book was well worth reading, but I am a little disappointed in the above errors. I liked much more of the book than I disliked I have to say. I probably do like The Meaning Of History more, but this was a good second book to read by Berdyaev. If it wasn't for my above reservations, it might have been on par with what I've read of Florensky and Bulgakov.

[David Withun · Rating 5 out of 5]

-

[Mariam Keshealshvili · Rating 3 out of 5]

ბერდიაევის 'გაცნობა' საკმაოდ უცნაური რამ აღმოჩნდა. ნაწილობრივ თანხმობა რიგ საკითხებში ნაწილობრივ კი სრული გამიჯვნა. ეს კაცი მართალია იმაში, რომ ყველაზე ხშირად უტოპიები ისხავს ხორცს და გვევლინება სიცხადეში, იქნება ეს პოლიტიკური თუ სოციოლოგიური ხასიათის, თუმცა მაშინ როდესაც ბერდიაევს შემოქმედებითი აღმავლობა ჰქონდა (1874 – 1948) ის თვლიდა, რომ დემოკრატიამ ამოწურა საკუთარი თავი. კარზე 21-ე საუკუნეა და ყოველდღე ვხდებით იმის მოწმე თუ როგორ იცვლება მსოფლიოში პოლიტიკური წყობები, მათ შორის დემოკრატიული ფასეულობებიც. ამიტომ ბერდიაევის ვარაუდი, რომ რუსეთში რევოლუციის ქარცეცხლში დემოკრატია გაცვდა და ფასი დაკარგა ნაჩქარევი მეჩვენება, თუმცა მეორეს მხრივ თუ კონკრეტულად რუსეთის ქეისს შევხედავთ დემოკრატია ნამდვილად მოიკოჭლებდა და ისტორიაა იმის დასტური თუ როგორ გაუჩინარდა ადამიანის უფლებები რუსეთში.

პ.ს იგრძნობა ოლდოს ჰაქსლის გავლენა მის ნაწერებში.

მეორეს მხრივ საკმაოდ საინტერესოა ბერდიაევის რელიგიური ფილოსოფია. ეს ის ნაწილია სადაც ჩვენი ხედვები უპირობოდ დაემთხვა ერთმანეთს. კერძოდ: ობიექტივირებული ღმერთი არის ჩამოშორებული ადამიანს, მეტიც ღმერთის გაობიექტების შემდეგ ადამიანი საკუთარი ექსტერიორიზების და ობიექტივირების მონად იქცა. ღმერთსა და ადამიანს შორის დგას ადამიანის ცნობიერება და ამ ცნობიერების შეზღუდული მდგომარეობა.

დღეს რთულია ადამიანებს დააჯერო, რომ ღმერთი არ არის ბატონი და ის არ ბატონობს. ღმერთისთვის არ არის დამახასიათებელი ძალაუფლება და მას დიდებისკენ ლტოლვა არ აინტერესებს. ღმერთი არ მოითხოვს მონურ მორჩილებას. ღმერთი არის თავისუფლება, "ის განმათავისუფლებელია და არა ბატონი". თუმცა ჩენს ყოველდღიურობაში და საუკუნეების განმავლობაში ჩამოყალიბებულ მახინჯ სტერეოტიპებს ღრმად აქვს ფესვი გადგმული ჩვენს ყოველდღიურობაში.

ერთი სიტყვით ეს კაცი საინტერესოა საკუთარი რელიგიური ფილოსოფიით თუმცა, როგორც ავღნიშნე ბევრი რამ გვყოფს პოლიტიკური თვალსაზრისით.

[Miriam Cihodariu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Berdiaev is, simply put, beautiful. Especially when discussing the intricate spirituality present in Dostoevsky's prose, but also when talking about the Eastern soul in general.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Il n’est pas besoin de communion spirituelle dans l’amour pour reconnaître les vérités générales de la science et du droit. Leur caractère obligatoire s’adapte précisément à une société dans laquelle les hommes ne s’aiment pas mutuellement, sont hostiles les uns aux autres, ne s’unissent pas en esprit. Il faut donner des preuves à l’ennemi ; tandis qu’avec l’ami je m’unis dans la contemplation et dans la réalisation de l’unique vérité. La validité logique nécessaire et universelle et le besoin de preuve qui s’y rattache, possèdent une nature sociale. Elles offrent le moyen de réunir le monde divisé, de maintenir l’unité par la contrainte, de le préserver ainsi de la scission définitive. La science positive et le droit positif sont nés dans l’atmosphère du monde désagrégé et ils ont pour mission de maintenir l’unité dans l’ambiance d’animosité et de division qui y règne. L’obligation de se soumettre aux vérités de la science et du droit ne serait jamais née dans une atmosphère d’union spirituelle et d’amour, où la connaissance aurait été la contemplation œcuménique de la vérité, et où les relations entre les hommes auraient été déterminées, non par des normes juridiques, mais par l’amour même, par l’union en esprit."

"Dieu n’attend-il pas que l’homme, dans sa liberté, révèle sa nature créatrice ? Dieu ne s’est-il pas caché à Lui-même ce que l’homme manifestera dans sa réponse à l’appel Divin ?"

"Dieu attend de l’homme sa participation à l’œuvre de la création, à la victoire de l’être sur le non-être, Il attend de lui l’acte héroïque et créateur. Ceux qui s’élèvent contre cette pensée, en soutenant que la tâche de l’homme consiste uniquement en sa soumission à la volonté de Dieu et en l’accomplissement de cette volonté, pénètrent dans le cercle d’un formalisme sans issue [...] la volonté de Dieu n’exige-t-elle pas que l’homme, doué de cette liberté créatrice qui porte le sceau de l’image et de la ressemblance divine, participe à l’œuvre de création dans son huitième jour ? Dieu n’attend-il pas de l’homme l’acte créateur libre, l’épanouissement de toutes les forces qu’il renferme ?"

"La victoire la plus radicale sur le mal s'acquiert par la conviction de son vide, de son non-être, de sa vanité."

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 4 out of 5]

en ojämn men spännande text.

[Gero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Новото откровение!

[Liesl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is of the best books i've ever read.