Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
54, No. 1/2, Polish Studies on Russian Thought (Mar., 2002), pp. 125-143 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099786 . Accessed: 19/12/2013 04:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in East European Thought.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JANKRASICKI
ABSTRACT.
ical horizon erosion of the humanist idea, i.e. 'posthumanism'. Russian religious philosophy is pervaded by considerations of humanism and posthumanism (antihumanism). The latter ascribes central significance to the category of 'Godmanhood' with
I argue that one of the central aspects characterizing the philosoph at the threshhold of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is the
which the leading Russian philosophers opposed the Nietzschean category of the Overman. But all of Germany philosophy can be reproached for having forsaken
man. The 'posthumanist' narrative about man and God is an extreme, indeed
pathological
posthu
Man wants
Man
to become God without God, but God did not want to be God without
F. von Baader
POSTHUMANISM
The philosophical
beginning of
of phenomena, and which may be termed "posthumanism" the idea of humanism, or even The process is strictly connected with "antihumanism."1 of Western and the history the deconstruc metaphysics resulting tion of its fundamental notions, a new the most conspicuous aspect being we are
Nietzsche's
at the very natural
philosophical
anthropology
Studies inEast European Thought 54: 125-143, 2002. ? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126
so vast [and] and he has
JANKRASICKI that he cannot be defined in an adequate way, gaudy .. ."3 to be confined a too many in aspects unifying
philosophical
analysis and
and poststructur structuralism, neo-psychoanalysis, an aporia which seems for incredible alism, we have come across on the advocates of Scheler's the very discourse "idea of man" as man himself has become impossible problem we cannot atic. Accordingly, the Kantian "What is pose question must Our question be more "Is there anything radical: like man?"4 has become man
man?"5 That is why Heidegger, who did notice the exhaustion of traditional thinking "according to values" (Wertdenken)6 and of the
metaphysical so much and idea of man, so many was able things to write: "We have as we never known various about man do nowadays.
No epoch has presented its knowledge of man in such an incisive and exciting way. No epoch has been able to offer the knowledge so
as our epoch. and quickly easily less about man. Man has never (emphasis man, J.K.).7 Yet been no epoch but ours has known as dramatic as he is today"
According
we
to Heidegger,
it is impossible
not because
is specialized, but because our Western is in that point being, known animal and
to question
mental anthropology. is said not
of Being
Schelerian, posed by traditional, including to Heidegger, the question of man may be his time but also to advocate it, thus
posed only after the question of Being has been posed. Heidegger
only to recognize
opening modern philosophical perspectives upon the problem of man. But his critique of the traditional idea of humanism (fully 1946) would be impossible expressed in his Letter on Humanism,
without had Nietzsche whose anticipated already to posthumanism inevitable transition and of Will-to-Power concepts of modern the exhaustion (or perhaps will and Over-Man humanism and an
over-humanism?). be our of
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
127
GODMANHOOD AND POSTHUMANISM First we have to question the view thatRussian religious thought has
had nothing in common and "meaninglessness" with the Western discussion When of modern humanism. on "meaning" we carefully
analyze the issue we will see that the problem of both humanism and posthumanism (antihumanism) has been constantly raised by
Russian religious thinkers, and even if the term "posthumanism" is not
mentioned
the
is more,
the way
of the
they perceive
of "post be provides may to be
nature, genealogy, humanism" may prove valuable. a number one with of crucial
religious categories
helpful
in our understanding
fundamental
the most
that
interpretative
As Semyon Frank put it, if you forget about the "antireligious and anti-Christian pathos" of the Nietzschean idea of the Over Man, itwill prove to be true and vital (though in a distorted way).
Nietzsche's formula "man should be overcome" is for Frank a nega
tion of the false, autotelic, and lay humanism which has opposed the true notion of both God andMan. Frank writes: "The truly human is
in man that which is a higher, overhuman, godhuman creature .. ."10
Russian religious thinkers do justice to the idea of the Over-Man but they do not wholly approve of it.As Nikolai Berdjaev remarks,
Nietzsche wants to "create" in spite of has already the Divine,"11 true Over-Man" to "make of him the Over-Man, the fact that revealed sets not who is a "pseudonym of as Solovyov has it "the himself and one does not have his own mythical that his literary of version creation
up."12 Nietzsche the Over-Man, and he does Over-Man. "humanity Godman."14 The of God" latter
forth realize
"divinity
according
to Berdjaev
and Bulgakov,
is the
For Solov'?v, it was St Paul who, in his discourse in the Areopagus (Acts 17), reminded us of the truth of the suprahuman element within ourselves.15 The Eastern Fathers of the Church made this truth the foundation of their teachings about the "divination" of man (theosis). The simplest and most beautiful expression of it is
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128
JANKRASICKI
included in the golden maxim of the Church Fathers: "God became man to let man become God." The dogmatic foundation of the idea was given by the Fourth Universal Council in Chalcedon (451 A.D.) which depicted the nature of the Incarnation and of Godman. The Christian dogma implies the unity and indissolubility of the divine and the human in the person of Godman ("without confusion,
without without exchange, to Solov'?v, According of and without division, separation").16 one cannot as seen from that, deny in man, of the fashionable truth:17 a its ostensible the
perspective
upon
the idea of
sense of
it in its existential
of man towards and transcendence, "opening" a new then there scend itself, emerges problem,
also had to solve. The idea of Over-Manhood can be realized either in theoforic or in demonic way. The former provides a fulfillment
of God's other idea of man, while non the latter possibilities. own Tertium datur. are no it. There opposes In other words, the creation a kind are of "demonic alternative of one
is accomplished
one's aping kinds who
either inGod's
and
likeness, image of God" (Evdokimov19). of madness: the madness the Cross. words "...
or the madness
rejects
and made him set up the only possible choice of for Nietzsche two kinds of madness. One indeed has to go mad to accept the
Nietzschean 'madness idea of eternal of the Cross': recurrence as well as St. Paul's are the only idea of possible demonism or holiness
passages to the other dimension. The dilemma is fundamental: either locking the earthly dimension in itself or opening it towards the
other world."20
by Evdokimov
the Incarnation
According
to Evdokimov,
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
129
God
cuts
is not only God, but God and man at the same time. Yet it
both man ways namely, creature. and demonic consists of men ."21 is not only St. Gregory with faces of angels and merely man, is clear of Nisa and men but about a
theandric
carrying
of the beast'
thus
From the point of view of the "anthropology of divinization" ideal of the Over-Man makes both (Evdokimov), the Nietzschean
man homo chants and God sound of dead. Requiem aeternam and can deo be and heard simultaneously from the madman aeternam requiem in the mourning "God's is death"
The Gay
Science.24
at the same time "the death of man." By reducing God Nietzsche reduced man; by reducing heaven he reduced earth. After "God's
death" and after new horizons have been revealed (post mortem
Dei) Nietzsche is no longer interested inman. In The Genealogy of Morals he would express it in a direct way: "We have become bored
with man Nietzsche .. ."25 Why has neither this boredom? faith nor love Is there any hope for man (since answer for him)? Nietzsche's is it is the Over-Man who is the only death" it is the Over-Man who is sense of the earth. Zarathustra
after "God's death" unequivocal: man. for "God's hope Following of man and the only the only meaning
is but a herald of this lightning which is called Over-Man.26 But does Nietzsche fulfil his promise? Does he keep his word? Is it possible to become an Over-Man beyond good and evil? What horizon is opened after "God's death"? What horizon is opened - as the Nietzshean madman beyond good and evil? Is it that we
cried "roam in a kind of infinite nothingness? not seem Aren't we in an empty void?"27 Nietzsche promises
much
but he does
to keep and
his word.
Totalitarian
Nietzschean
experiences
"breeding"
that the
that is the
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
an "last man," and made man, he does not inevitable him
JANKRASICKI effect of nihilism. which wonder Nietzsche has reduced but other
give
Russian religious philosophers approach the traditional description of Nietzsche's philosophy as the "philosophy of life" (Lebens an ironic way - for them the philosophy is almost in philosophie) completely devoid of life. The tree of Nietzsche's philosophy is not the Tree of Life, and the figure of the Over-Man is, as Solov'?v puts it, "a paper one," "a fiction" devoid of actual life which has its
sources elsewhere, not where Nietzsche tried to find them.29
Referring
the Nietzschean
one might
person, not
say that
even a
but a mask
(lichina). He is an "idol," as
a god who Jean-Luc Marion is nothingness. would Despite say,30 one horizon Zarathustra's declarations there is only up opening - a Dei monotonous and grey horizon of nothingness post mortem
and evil. The Nietzschean "MM-Nothing" is, as Cezary Wodzinski rightly notices, "identical with evil."31 The evil which does not name itself evil, does not name anything since for Nietzsche traditional categories had lost their meaning good and evil, truth and falsity,
being and non-being, are "fictions."
Nietzsche's path of thinking is governed by irrefutable logic: if the link of sign and being is broken, if signs do not refer us
to actual
evil we have to differentiate it from good - evil must be specified i.e., by means of the "axiological difference" (Cezary Wodzinski), means of the of and evil. Now for Nietzsche by opposition good
have "objects there is only no absolute a moral value,"32 explanation "there of are no moral phenomena,"33 phenomena, their moral
meanings,
then
evil
cannot
be
named.
In order
to name
interpretation (Nietzsche's philosophy has been rightly called the "philosophy of interpretation"34). As Zarathustra has it: "All of the
names of good and evil are allegories."35 For Nietzsche the moral
judgements
discover
of phenomena any constant qualities the attitude of the one who and evaluates, informed character. That by their functional
Speeches
evil
are followed
"Zarathustra's
not by a moral
Trance"36 and
choice between
"dancing
good and
or evil
but by
evil,"37
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM which does not care about human moral dilemmas and values.
13 1 It is
the "dance" which affirms theWill to Power. Evil which dances, dance as an affirmation of theWill to Power - this is the last word
of the advocate of the Over-Man. Nietzsche promises much but, as
late of the Over-Man, the one living "beyond good and evil" and destroying the tables of traditional values, turns out to be a kind
we get a creature of errors." Instead of the Over-Man "tragedy we the worst of committing instead of the Over-Man evils; capable .39 get the Antichrist.. of
Despite
existed, i.e.
his warm
the one
feelings
who "died
has
never
a great
love," the who, was
wrongly
and
for Nietzsche,
"Jewish values"
tragedy
the "novel,"
personal
that the beginning of Christianity (Jesus) was for him the end of it. For Nietzsche "the Gospel died on the cross." For Nietzsche Jesus
remained devoid of God-human like Nietzsche, his ideal Incarnation. regarded of Christ. Jesus as someone who Dostojevskij, he "never
cannot be comprehended
renounced ready to defend it, even
this may be found in his letter to Natalya Fonvizin: "I will tell you I am a child of the age, the child of faithlessness and doubt up to this day, and even, I know this, till the day of my death. How many tortures have I suffered inmy longing for faith, the longing which is as strong in my soul as is the evidence in me against it.
Yet At at times God sends me I love moments and when I come I am such moments people absolutely to the conclusion quiet. that
it is also other people who love me. At such moments I shape in myself the symbol of my faith, and everything is bright and holy for me in it. The symbol is very simple, and here it is: to believe
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132
JANKRASICKI
reasonabe that there is nothing more beautiful, nicer, more deeper, and to tell oneself with ardent than Christ, love that and courageous to me if someone is more, that Christ there cannot be. What proved
is beyond truth, and if itwere the case that Christ was beyond truth, Iwould rather stay with Christ than with truth."44
As Dostoyevsky a God-man, said, even if there had been no Christ, one
would have had to invent him. The writer knew that without Christ,
without without "God with us," without Emmanuel,
man
is destined
was
proclaimed by
that man
as the Other only in Christ and through Christ, and that Christ is the only Key which opens the doors to the enigma of man. That
is why Dostoyevsky, was never bored with by man depths Beauty unlike him. Nietzsche, On never condemned he remained he revealed man and the contrary, truth,47 be it when he found able some to sow fascinated monstrous of Good
He was
and hope in the ashes of doubts and disappointments with man: "If
the grain does not.. ."48 human knew souls as he was Let us repeat: Dostoyevsky man not He described in the context only "great christologist." the of
psychology
man.
about
to
Dostoyevsky
reasons)
(under
He
"dungeon."49
might have lost his belief quickly but he resisted this temptation, not only because of his own human powers but also because of Christ as it is only Christ who gives power to accept man as he is. And only through Christ could Dostoyevsky have noticed inman something that was unknown to Nietzsche: the living image of the living God.
He understood man not only in the supra-human but also in the
knew that evil is an inevitable price of freedom, but just as he did not deceive man about his freedom which tends to distort itself, so he did
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM not deceive leads man about its consequences; of "God's image" and nihilism. affirmed be for him in man, man
133
to destruction
great "writer-prophet"51 that man may he knew but in God-man. Nietzsche, God
received
despite man's misery He in God-man. only to us both not only as God Jesus,
but also Christ, not only knew the "Galilean rabbi" (Nietzsche) but, as Jerzy Nowosielski would put it, had "his Christ."52
Nietzsche i.e. beyond Good is in search good not of man but of a creature is such a creature? and evil. But what beyond man, - as Is there
of life and the way of death, the choice between good and evil. Looking for any "third way," the way beyond good and evil, as Nietzsche dreamt, is descending into nothingness, losing oneself in the wilderness of nihilism. The third way may ostensibly be viewed
as the second way, the "way of death." For man "there is only one"
way leading towards Life: "I am theWay, Life" (John 14, 6).54
This is what Solov'?v the whole wrote in Lectures take into account theoretical
and moral
included in theGospel, the only element distinguishing it from other religions is Christ's message about Himself, pointing to Himself as the living and incarnated truth. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
no one Solov'?v comes as well to the Father but through me."55 This Frank is the lesson ... For man of the as of Dostoyevsky, Berdjaev,
Way
way
In Nietzsche's
Berdayev Over-Man complete as God has because man
philosophy
he
man
is completely
from man the
it, Nietzsche
and
invented
the
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134
has no reality such because took. Man
JANKRASICKI for us but as God-man Christ". ' Nietzsche loses man that he under beyond, good that he "was in search of man,
is the logic of the fundamental choice a being between, is in his essence and not tells us, was and evil. Nietzsche's mistake, Berdjaev ... of the Over-Man one should be in while search the complete man."58
Berdjaev's writes,
may has
brought reached
against man
German philosophy. As
that philosophy
of Creation
it has never
reached God, and this is because it situated itself - already at its Meister Eckhart and Christian mysticism, in Boehme and sources, in Silesius beyond the principle of Godmanhood.59 ?ngelus
Man Berdayev writes - was lost at the very beginnings of
German philosophy. He was lost in Eckhart who wrote that while man is nothingness and his existence is a kind of "sin,"60 God is everything, the only Being. He was lost in Luther's theology
where "God absorbs man" and where "the secret of God-mankind
disappears
independence
as it disappeared
and initiative man God was
in Eckhart"; man
concerning God, and
is devoid of his
he is saved by
achieves
lost in Feuerbach who claimed that what exists is species and not individual. He was lost in Max Stirner who perceived man as a
"pseudonym of divinity." He was also lost in Marx for whom a
human being is absorbed by society, and finally lost in Nietzsche - in his idea of the Over-Man both "God and man die" and "the internal dialectics of humanism is dissolved." According to Berdjaev, the rejection of man discloses the Fate philosophy and the entire German governing both Nietzsche's philosophy from Eckhart to Heidegger. But this ontological totali
tarianism, or, as Emmanuel Levinas would say, this philosophy of
the Same (which cannot open itself to the Other),61 has its inevitable end - it leads both to the annihilation of God and to the destruction
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
135
of man. What
by contemporary Nietzsche's
metaphysics
die. That
is why
to reject
and metaphysical notion of God (God as das Seiende) and replace it with the notion of Being (Das Sein).65 For Heidegger God is
Nothingness.
From the perspective of the Christological dogma this dialectics of German philosophy, finding its peak in Nietzsche's and a is kind of As antihumanism, Heidegger's monophysitism. was the reality of human nature in God rejected, the Divine
"absorbed"66 Hegel), man (the way case or the other of Eckhart, German and mysticim, man case round: "absorbed" God of (the
Feuerbach and Marx). In both cases the basic drawback of German - it was not changed by the reality of the philosophy is disclosed
Incarnation. Berdjaev concludes: "German philosophy in which is a spiritual
accepts the
two natures
For Berdjaev
manifestation not of because
it is Heidegger's
philosophy which
is the extreme
man and God. With does losing man Heidegger cannot he Nor does God. That is appear appear. why is silent about man and God. But when Heidegger ques Heidegger tions onto-physico-theology that silence tells us more suggesting
about God and man than philosophical and theological discourses, he does not tell the whole truth about the situation in which he himself thinks.68 To put it simply: Heidegger is silent about God and man not because he does not want to speak but because he cannot speak.69 As Heidegger's philosophy is for Berdjaev the "metaphysics of the ultimate withdrawal of God (bogoostavlen
nost')? God does Stirner, That is why expression) not Feuerbach, appear. appear Nietzsche one - as in it "under a pseudonym"70 in or Marx cannot because God simply can describe "Heidegger's metaphysics" metaphysics of the "absence of
(Berdjaev's
as both
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
God"
God
JANKRASICKI
of the "absence of man" (Gottlosigkeit) and metaphysics a It is kind of hitherto unknown, thought after (Menschlosigkeit).
and after man at the same time.
Berdjaev rightly notices that when Eckhart says that "God revealing Himself in the world is not an Absolute" because "the
Absolute cannot be dependent on anything, and it is the unspeak
able secret, Divinity (Gottheit), in which everything will find its conclusion,"71 then he in fact heralds the negative apophantics of Heidegger's "empty space" after God as transformed by
Nietzsche.72 Paraphrasing Heidegger's famous words one can say
that with him man is not so much a "shepherd of Being" as he is a "shepherd of Nothingness." Heidegger, like Eckhart centuries
earlier, subordinates man to Nothingness as he wants to reject
it isNothingness
separation
which
lies at is not
of human
existence
It is founded This is the upon Nothingness. of Dasein the It also nothingness. philosophy replaces subject."73 not mention the person. That is why Heidegger does "replaces" and personalism and man, and both humanism for God disappear nor nor is neither in Heidegger. him: "there freedom person spirit Das Man, the everyday is the subject of an everyday and existence, no out of it (...). The world is the world of care, fear, there is way - a No wonder mundane existence terrible world."74 separation, philosophy has been compared to gnosis.75
Heidegger's
Nietzsche and Heidegger destroyed God and man - this is the ultimate sublation of the dialectics of God and man in German philosophy. If we reject Godmanhood or, as Berdjaev suggests, "God-mankind,"76 if we start with a negative idea of God and man (Eckhart), then we have to reach the negative idea (Heidegger).77
J?zef Tischner, a magnificent interpretator Yet of Heidegger's from correct philos
of the being of man cannot be posed without posing the ques tion of God (and vice versa). The secret of God and the secret
of man are interrelated and we cannot understand one without the
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
137
i.e. the perspective in which Dasein and in which the world Welt-Sein, it.79
is seen replaces
God
God-man. "Eternally
God beyond His Face, will find neither God nor man. The one who looks for God beyond the Face which is the Face of his Firstborn Son, will inevitably find nothingness. God is accessible for us only as God Incarnate, and it is only in the Face of His Son that we can
the Face recognize And since we know of God's "God-with-us" "God-for-us," (Emmanuel). Face we do not have to delimit ourselves
to contemplation
ness, Desert, Abyss
is God as Nothing
mysticism and
of German
overlook
is why
of German
offspring
- German
and vice versa. That humanum, Protestantism and its of mysticism, that "protestants sind Grenzg?nger)^2 The way of
German philosophy
beyond exists man,
and mysticism
end "beyond and
into a dead
The philosophy
for us only
of dialogue
as God-man
offers
similar conclusions.
the God of Conscience.
God
In
The Ethics of Solidarity J?zef Tischner wrote: "God who does not
speak book84 results is not the real God."83 In his last conscience through man's to that Tischner Nietzschean manages prove posthumanism to face the ethical of from man's idea and that man, inability aim of man is man, not the Over-Man. man is more Man difficult to the Over-Man because away than Over runs
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
Man. It is man, and
Man runs away from himself and his humanum and is attracted by various forms of modern posthumanism as he feels repelled by the very notion of man which implies ethical choices between good and evil as well as responsibility for himself and for the Other.
Man runs into the "death of Man" because he does not want to be
good, does not want to respond to the call of the Good which,
Levinas himself, Tischner with himself manism, results puts it, previously Tischner notices, "The continues: of "chose" he has awareness man.85 to have of But if man "an experience is strictly identity man antihumanism
as
an awareness when
the good.
he feels
any good."86
"the death following proclaim as not justified, in perceiving human existence of someone who is but should not be. Nietzsche, Therefore, it is not an anonymous crowd, Das Man, which constitutes cannot and Nietzsche's an abyss ethics,
or Heidegger's evil.
actual abyss for man is involved in his vacillation between good and
Ontology replace ethics, as Thomas Mann
wrote,
in the Nietzschean
of ethics and
immoralism
opposition is the
is the
of
citizen
to run away from his conscience and capacity is Tischner writes: "It is bility amazing. interesting. Despite to Kant's the hell, Descartes' demon, exceptions general Man's
as well
annihilated
as some minor
... It is man
who has become a player in the game and thus has annihilated himself. Why? Because he discovered that he could not be good.
Be it weakness situation than In this or ignorance, there seems is always to be only one Or, does; he wants man a carrier solution: puts to prove of an evil."88 it is better it, "what that his not hell evil
to be man has
as Tischner
not managed
actions have not been done by him since he has not existed. This is
how the idea of man's is born."89
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM That fashionable and is why one can the view that in
139
accept
of the "death of man" argument postmodern man not and that man "is born" yet complete (Berdjaev),90 us. Thomas Mann "How anachronistic, still before rightly noticed: theoretical, and naive is our understanding of the Nietzschean
lyri
be able to reject evil in the name of the Good which had chosen
man man Until before who man would chose oppose is born,
that man
the "desert
descending in epistemology,
ethics.92 Accordingly, the earth is never reached by the force of the earth itself (Zarathustra) - it is reached by the force of Heaven as Heaven may be reached only by the force of the Earth. The force of Incarnation.93 As Cyprian Norwid put it: "Thus Mankind, without
Divinity, betrays itself."94 is waiting for the Incarnation. The posthumanistic Philosophy even patho man most is its and of God and radical, story palpable If there is no Incarnation, there is no God logical, manifestation. and there is no man, or at least we Foucault the There notices). lost man, and God who
...
their
ends
(as of is
NOTES
Cf. Banasiak, A. Mis, O genezie 1994. wsp?lczesnego antyhumanizmu, in: Derridiana, ed. B.
Cracow,
Cf. M. Heidegger, Powiedzenie Nietzschego "B?g umarV\ trans. J. Gierasimuk, trans. A. Gniazdowski, P. in: Drogi 1997, p. 171; Nietzsche, lasu, Warsaw,
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
M. Werner,
in: Pisma z antropologii Scheler, O idei czlowieka, trans. A. W?grzecki, i teorii wiedzy, Warsaw 1967, p. 8. filozoficznej 4 M. Heidegger, Kant iproblem metafizyki, trans. B. Baran, Warsaw 1989, p. 231. 5 Cf. M. Siemek, Mysl drugiej polowy XX wieku, in:Drogi wsp?lczesnejfilozofii, ed. M. Siemek, Warsaw 1978, p. 4 6 iproblem zla, Warsaw 1994, pp. 516-532. C. Wodzi?ski, Heidegger 7 M. Heidegger, Kant iproblem metafizyki, pp. 233-234. 8 M. Heidegger, List o humanizmie, trans. J. Tischner, in: Drogi lasu, Warsaw 1997. 9 But the term "antihumanism" is mentioned in Berdjaev's commentaries on
Nietzsche and Marx. Cf. Berdjaev's Nowe Sredniowiecze, trans. M. Reutt,
3 M.
Warsaw 1936, p. 49. 10 S. Frank, Swiet wo fmie, Paris, 1949, p. 56. 11 M. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja dialektika bozhestwiennogo i chelovecheskogo, Paris, 1952, p. 50. 12 W. Solvyov, Literatura czy prawda?, in: Wyb?r pism, trans. J. Zychowicz,
Poznan
dialektika, p. 35. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 14 W. Hryniewicz, in: Encyklopedia Bogoczlowiecze?stwo, 1985, vol. 2, p. 714.
15 W.
13 M.
1988,
vol.
3, p.
163.
katolicka,
Lublin,
16
Also:
Solov'?v,
Literatura
czy prawda?,
p.
163.
Breviarium fidei,
J.N.D. Kelly,
S.G. Glowa,
Poznan
trans.
1964, p. 280.
J. Mruk?wna,
chrzescijanskiej,
Warsaw,
17 W.
J.-L. Marion, B?g bez bycia, trans. M. Frankiewicz, Cracow, 1996, pp. 27-48. 24 F. Nietzsche, Wiedza radosna, trans. L. Staff, Warsaw, 1906-1907, p. 169. 25 F trans. L. Staff, Warsaw, Nietzsche, Z genealogii moralnosci, 1905-1906,
p. 40. 26 F Nietzsche, Tako rzecze Zaratustra, trans. W. Berent, Warsaw, 1905, p. 11.
J. Klinger,
27
28
F Nietzsche,
F Nietzsche,
Wiedza
Tako
radosna, p. 168.
Zaratustra, p. 12.
rzecze
29
pp.
Duchowe ;
podstawy
zycia,
30 J.-L. Marion, B?g bez bycia, pp. 27-48. 31 C. iproblem zla, pp. 124-128. Wodzi?ski, Heidegger
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
141
1910?
mocy,
Drzewiecki,
Warsaw,
1997.
iEros, Warsaw, 1997, pp. 169 213. 37 C. Wodzinski, Swiatlcienie zla, Wroclaw, 1998, p. 88. 38 K. trans. D. do rozumienia jego filozofii, Jaspers, Nietzsche. Wprowadzenie Stroinska, Warsaw, 1997, p. 344. 39 in: Wyb?r pism, vol. 3. Also: W. Solov'?v, Kr?tka opowiesc o Antychryscie, L. M?ller, Nietzsche und Solovjev, "Zeitschrift fur Philosophische Forschung", Trans Zaratustry, 1947, vol. 1,No 4; J. Krasicki, W cieniu Antychrysta, "Znak" 1986, No 11-12; G. Przebinda, Od Czaadajewa do Bierdiajewa. Sp?r o Boga i czlowieka w mysli rosyjskiej (1832-1922), Cracow, 1998, p. 324. 40 F. Nietzsche, Antychryst, p. 55. 41 F. Nietzche, Z genealogii moralno ci, p. 28. 42 i chvzescijanstwo, Cf. K. Jaspers, Rozum i egzysterija. Nietzsche transi. Cz.
Piecuch,
36 C. Wodzinski,
F. Nietzsche,
Tako
rzecze
Zaratustra,
in: Hermes
43 D. Kulakowska, 44
45 Wroclaw,
Warsaw,
1981,
p.
190.
Dostojewski.
1987, p. 18.
Antynomie
mazow?w",
Listy,
trans. Z.Podg?rzec,
p. 168.
Wiedza
46 M. Dostojewskogo, Prague, 1923, p. 42. Berdjaev, Mirosoziercanije 47 The 18-years-old Dostoyevsky wrote to his brother Michail: "Man is amystery. It needs to be solved, and if you devote your life to solving it, do not say that you waste your time; I'm solving the mystery because Iwant to
be a man." Cf. H. Paprocki, Lew imysz czyli tajemnica czlowieka. Esej o bohat
radosna,
erach Dostojewskiego, 1997, p. 7. Bialystok, 48 "I assure unless the grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it you, solemnly remains just a grain of wheat. But if it dies, it produces much fruit" (Jn 12, 24).
The 50 words were
49 This 51
engraved
upon
Dostoyevsky's
grave-stone.
is a possible
P. Evdokimov,
Prawoslawie,
was called by A. Walicki in Rosyjska filozofia As Dostoyevsky i my si od do 451. Oswiecenia 1973, marksizmu, Warsaw, p. spoleczna 52 Z. Podg?rzec, Moj Chrystus. Rozmowy z Jerzym Nowosielskim, Bialystok 1993. 53 W. Solov'?v, Priedislowije ko wtoromu izdaniju, in: Sobranije soczinienij,
p. 5.
Ibid. in: Sobranije W. Solov'?v, Chtenija o Bogochelovechestve, 112-113. pp. 56 M. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja dialektika, p. 52. 55
54
sochinienij,
vol. 3,
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142
57 W. Solov'?v, Przedmowa,
JANKRASICKI
12.
58 M. dialektika, p. 52. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 59 J. i problem humanizmu, 'Archiwum Historii Krasicki, Mikolaj Bierdiajew No. Filozofii i 43, pp. 178-179. 1998, Mysli Spolecznej", 60 M. dialektika, p. 41. All of the quotations in the Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja are taken from Berdjaev's book, pp. 42-56. following paragraph
61 E. L?vinas, Cal?se i nieskonczonosc. Esej o zewnetrznosci, trans. M.
in: Duchowepodstawy
zycia,
p.
Kowalska, Warsaw 1998. 62 C. Trans Zaratustry, pp. 211-213. Wodzi?ski, 63 B. "konca filozofii". Dekonstrukcja Banasiak, Filozofia
Warsaw,
Jacquesa
Derridy,
dialektika, p. 56. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 65 M. o humanizmie. Also: J. Tischner, Martina Heideggera Heidegger, List o milczenie Bogu, in: Myslenie wobec wartosci, Cracow, 1993. 66 M. dialektika, p. 35. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 67 Ibid., p. 39. 68 M. (1929), trans. K. Pomian; "Czym jest Heidegger, Czym jest metafizyka in: Znaki drogi. metafizyka". Poslowie (1943), trans. K. Wolicki, 69 J. Tischner, Martina Heideggera milczenie o Bogu. 70 M. dialektika, p. 58. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 71 Ibid., p. 60. 72 Trans Zaratustry, pp. 211-213. C. Wodzi?ski, 73 M. dialektika, p. 57. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 74 Ibid., p. 58. 75 H. nihilizm, in: Religia gnozy, Jonas, Epilog: Gnostycyzm, egzystencjalizm,
trans. M. Klimowicz, Cracow, 1994, pp. 337-358. Also: P. Marciszuk, Heidegger
64 M.
1997,
p.
199.
i gnoza, 'Archiwum Historii Filozofii i 1989, No. 34. Mysli Spolecznej", 76 M. dialektika, p. 35. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja 77 Of course Heidegger might disagree with such an interpretation of his philos ophy. See List o humanizmie, pp. 158-159; O istocie racji, trans. J. Nowotniak, in: Znaki drogi, p. 53 (footnote 57). 78 J. Tischner, Martina Heideggera milczenie o Bogu, p. 133. 79 M. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja dialektika, p. 57. 80 Ibid., p. 59. 81 St. Theresa of Avil - as John Paul II noticed during his journey to Spain was aware of the fact that we get to know God only through God Incarnate, God in his manhood. "Theresa was against the books which suggested contemplation as a kind of indefinite absorption in divinity or thinking of nothing. That is why she cried once: "Reject Christ's manhood? No, I cannot stand such a thing!" Strzec
sie. otchlani. Drodze", Wywiad 1991, No. z kardynalem 2, p. 16. J. Hamerem OP, trans. A. Klonowicz, "W
82 Cf. T. Waclawski, Protesta?ci chodzpo granicach, "Znak" 1992, no 7. 83 J. Tischner, Etyka solidarnosci, Paris, 1982, p. 12. 84 J. Tischner, Sp?r o istnienie czlowieka, Cracow, 1999. 85 E. 1978. Also: de l'autre homme, Montpellier L?vinas, Humanisme
A.
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
143
i bycie, Cracow 1994, p. 58; E. L?vinas, Cal?se i nieskon Jarnuszkiewicz, Milosc czonosc\ J.Krasicki, Emmanuel L?vinas iproblem zla, in: Studia z dziej?w filozofii Torun 1999. zla, ed. R. Wisniewski, 86 J. Tischner, Sp?r o istnienie czlowieka, pp. 266-267. 87 Quoted after B. Baran, Postnietzsche, Cracow, 1997, p. 198. 88 J. Tischner, Sp?r o istnienie czlowieka, p. 64. 89 Ibid., p. 57. 90 M. Berdjaev, Egzistencyalnaja dialektika, p. 52. 91 Quoted after B. Baran, Postnietzsche, p. 198. 92 Cf. O. Marquard, Rozstanie z filozofiq pierwszych zasad, trans. K. Krzemi
eniowa,
93 Cf.
Warsaw,
1994.
J. Tischner,
Filozofia
czeka na wcielenie,
slowa, in: Pisma
in: Swiat
ludzkiej nadziei,
?d. J. Gomulicki,
Rzecz
o wolnosci
wybrane,
2, p. 252.
45-285 Opole
ul. Szarych Szereg?w 52, m. 3
Poland
This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions