Posthumanism and Russian Religious Thought Author(s): Jan Krasicki Source: Studies in East European Thought, Vol.

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM

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

symptom of philosophy waiting

for Embodiment. humanism, Overman,

KEY WORDS: manism,

Godmanhood, embodiment, of God' the 'death religious thinking,

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

horizon both at the end of the twentieth and the

a complex exhaustion 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

the present centuries is determined by most of which is a gradual the significant

Nietzsche's
at the very natural

idea of "the death of God."2 That is why nowadays,

outset of century and a new millenium, have come

fully aware of difficulties connected with the progress of social and

sciences and their accounts of man of man. We to realize Scheler, man is that our knowledge the father of modern is ever more elusive. As Max noted, "...

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

formula. Today, after the discoveries made by psycho

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

for us to speak about

of the tradi

not because

very way tion we define man for granted

our knowledge approach man. The

is specialized, but because our Western is in that point being, known animal and

as a metaphysical is already that its essence

rationale, taking that we do not have

to question
mental anthropology. is said not

it.8 The Question

According

of Being

{Seinsfrage) ismore funda

than the questions

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

The author of Thus Spake Zarathustra provided us with a genealogy

of modern departure. posthumanism his analyses point

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

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

in their works.9 What

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

characteristics Russian ideas and

event thought which

religious categories

helpful

in our understanding
fundamental

of the problem of man;

category seems

the most
that

and important of Godmanhood.

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

confirms (though in a different, distorted manner)

historical eternal is an affirmation as the eternal as well

the reality of the

the truth of the of man,"13

"divinity

of the Reality which,

"eternal

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

the "suprahuman element" perspective is attractive because idea of the Over-Man

"Is not thismiserable Nietzsche

and worth of man results from

right when he claims that all dignity

its being more than man, its being

passage to something higherVx% But if we take a theological

Over-Manhood, i.e. if we understand

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,

to tran its ability the one Nietzsche

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

image and likeness (Gn 1, 26), or in

the latter being What emerges of the Cross two

likeness, image of God" (Evdokimov19). of madness: the madness the Cross. words "...

or the madness

rejects

to Pascal's Referring wrote: Paul Evdokimov

that man Pascal's

transcends man, infinitely an imperative words became

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

The dilemma discovered

idea of and man the Incarnation is not only man. after

by Evdokimov
the Incarnation

results from the very

God is not only God "the Incarnated

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM

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

it: 'Mankind masks

carrying

of the beast'

This understanding of human being is informed by the notion of

"person." As term persona, of autonomous being or the author just like of The Eastern the Greek Church writes: "The Latin mask. The prosopon, existence a man means first means

term betrays a deep philosophy of man. It implies the non-existence

human order since nothingness."22 an Image Being is participation either being in either an Icon,

an image of the living God, or being an image of nothingness,

not having in the theological sense.23

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"

of the twentieth century prove

has brought about one result,

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

an "earthly flea" much in return. No

is "invincible,"28 and Solov'?v

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

to the category of Godmanhood

Over-Man is not a living

one might
person, not

say that
even a

person (Russian lichnosf)

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

themselves are devoid of cognitive quality and do not

they only express are the moral values is why Zarathustra's

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

the ardent defender of Nietzsche's

"Nietzsche's not transform overloaded themselves

philosophy Karl Jaspers puts it,

withering flowers which do

tree has many into fruit."38

In the context of the idea of Godmanhood

Russian thinkers as Frank, Berdayev or Solov'?v)

(as postulated by such

Nietzsche's postu

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

for the "only Christian" who

on the cross,"40 Nietzsche

has
never

found his way

Incognito, "Redeemer"

to Christ. Christ remained for Nietzsche

the incarnated puts this word "Gospel into quotation of marks),

a great
love," the who, was

the Unrecognized, (Nietzsche "Jewish"

wrongly
and

for Nietzsche,

smuggled into Christianity

ideal.41 Nietzsche's

"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

in a fully rational way (The Idiotl).42 Yet

at the price the contrary, he was of heresy."43 The evidence for On

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

to err in the "infinite nothingness"

madman.45 right when because knew he wrote he was

proclaimed by

the Nietzschean Berdjaev

"great anthropologist" The Russian novelist

that man

a was that Dostoyevsky a "great christologist."46 as well himself may accept

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

to his and open of man's soul, or when at the bottom.

He was

and particles the seeds of consolation

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.

but also in the context of Christ's Good News

had many reasons (including personal

about
to

Dostoyevsky

reasons)

be disgusted by man. He had a look at the human podpolie

ground), he penetrated dark passages of the human

(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

purely human. He regarded man with a look that was described by

the Eastern Fathers of the Church as cardiognosis.50 Dostoyevsky

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

the evil of freedom and consequently to

to destruction

self-annihilation The because

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,

knew that in order to believe

Over-Man and as man. Unlike

inman you have to believe not in the

always Dostoyevsky comes knew

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

Solov'?v asks in the Preface

a third way" the moral for man,

to the second edition of Justification of

the one beyond the choice between

good and evil?53 Where

From basic "choice,"

does such a way lead?

i.e. from notices, the perspective only two ways: of man's the way

point of view, there are, Solov'?v

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 the Truth, and the

on Godmanhood: teaching "If we of Christ,

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

(puf) is inGod-man. The way of Over-manhood

of God-manhood.

is forman the destroyed. As

In Nietzsche's
Berdayev Over-Man complete as God has because man

philosophy
he

man

is completely
from man the

it, Nietzsche

ran away never reached

and

invented

the

be reached may find him only lets man

in God, only as God-man.

The man.56 complete or rather in God-man Solov'?v says: "God

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

HEIDEGGER AND THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHY

accusation be the whole of the

Berdjaev's writes,

may has

brought reached

against man

German philosophy. As
that philosophy

the author of The Philosophy

never just as

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

"faith alone." Man was

Hegel place for whom in which

lost and absorbed by the Absolute God of

not his an full individual, a person but a "self-consciousness." He was not

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM

135

of man. What
by contemporary Nietzsche's

is left is the "empty space,"62 the subject of analyses

place postmodern "a-theologians."63 in this dialectics is exceptional and that and peculiar:

in him the dialectics

and man (G. Colli) die there

of God and man reaches its end. Both God

Berdjaev was able is why "after Nietzsche" "The way of German writes:

in the Over-Man is no man.

metaphysics
die. That

has led after all toNietzsche"64

Heidegger

for whom God andman

the onto-theological

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

failure because one can hardly say that the philosophy

of Godmanhood, the secret are united but not mixed."67 secret of two-unity

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

godless thinking about God. As Berdjev remarks, for Heidegger

the bottom of human existence: "the

it isNothingness
separation

which

lies at is not

of human

existence

(Dasein) and the Divine

only in-der-Welt-Sein.

has found its final stance. Dasein

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

ophy, writes thatHeidegger

but rather in the existence the statement Godmanhood

"is not interested in the existence of God

of man."78 is not wholly of the perspective since the question

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM other. One cannot understand man

137

i.e. the perspective in which Dasein and in which the world Welt-Sein, it.79

is seen replaces

from Heidegger's perspective, in the context of in-der God, as Berdjaev puts

In terms of both the philosophy

tionism one can say that for man

of dialogue and deep incarna

is never devoid of face. God

God

is turned toward us with

Person, Face, the Eternal the Face of His

the face of His Son, the Second Divine

God is turned toward us with looks His for Second,"80 and one who

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

of "pure Divinity"81 which

(Abgrund, Ungrund)

is God as Nothing
mysticism and

of German

German idealistic philosophy. Once the principle of Godmanhood

to accept one may sion its irreplaceable His manhood. to man: will results. While

has been rejected, one has

overlooking same overlook hermeneutic the human the manhood

of Christ one overlooks his Divinity; while overlooking his Divinity

overlooks applied of man we the way be But when his we the principle dimen

overlook

is why

of German

offspring

- German

idealistic philosophy - looks on to the Abyss

No wonder (Protestanten Paul Tillich wrote

and vice versa. That humanum, Protestantism and its of mysticism, that "protestants sind Grenzg?nger)^2 The way of

(Abgrund, Ungrund). are border-walkers"

German philosophy
beyond exists man,

and mysticism
end "beyond and

leads after all beyond God and

good as and evil."

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

the proper from man

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

JANKRASICKI not Over-Man, who is the vocation of man.

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

is to accept of Good." connected of

an awareness when

the good.

In other words, Now

is in search and posthu of man" which the existence

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,

"last man" for man. The

or Heidegger's evil.

actual abyss for man is involved in his vacillation between good and
Ontology replace ethics, as Thomas Mann

wrote,

is not an enemy of life (as it is postulated

and the nineteenth century's man

in the Nietzschean
of ethics and

immoralism

opposition is the

life): "In fact ethics and life belong

foundation life."87 of life, and the moral

to each other. Ethics

legitimate

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

responsi Dante's rule, the

Grand Inquisitor and the Grand Exploiter

contemporary demons, man has not been

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

to be a bad man. to do, man death

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

spite of the the actual is

lyri

cism of evil! We have got to know it in all itsmisery and we are no

as to be afraid of access to good and be ashamed longer so aesthetic as truth, freedom, and justice."91 of such trivial notions and patterns we are not to for the be born; we Over-Man Therefore, waiting are waiting are awaiting the birth of man. We for the ethical man, not who the man would beyond be able are waiting and evil. We for the man good to choose between and evil, and would good the Good evil are waiting for the (Levinas). We and bear the burden of his humanum. expands," as Nietzsche says. It

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

takes familiar shapes of postmodernity:

"man without of reaching qualities," the ultimate the endless ground

the loss of identity, Musil's

without any ontology, hope and

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
...

are approaching is but one more narrative, is murdered, the narative

their

ends

the narrative each of us

(as of is

narrating, without any guarantee that its Beginning

known

and its End are

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

140 Graczyk, W. Rymkiewicz,

passim.

JANKRASICKI C. Wodzi?ski, Warsaw, 1998, vols. 1-2,

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,

eds. J.M. Szymusiak,

Poczatki doktryny

S.G. Glowa,

Poznan
trans.

1964, p. 280.
J. Mruk?wna,

chrzescijanskiej,

Warsaw,
17 W.

1988, pp. 252-255.

Solov'?v, Literatura czy prawda?, soczinienij, p. p. 161. Brussels, 163. Warsaw, 1986, p. 99. Also: W.S. 1966, vol. Solov'?v, 10, p. 268. Idieja in: Sobranije Literatura Prawoslawie,

swierchczelowieka, 18 W. Solov'?v, 19 P. Evdokimov,

czy prawda?, trans.

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.

20 Ibid., 21 Ibid., 22 Ibid., 23 Ibid.,

J. Klinger,

p. 404. pp. 98-99. pp. 98-99. p. 109. Also:

27
28

F Nietzsche,
F Nietzsche,

Wiedza
Tako

radosna, p. 168.
Zaratustra, p. 12.

rzecze

29
pp.

W. Solov' ?v, Literatura

59-86.

czy prawda ?, pp. 161-163

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM

32 F. Nietzsche, Wola trans. S. Frycz and K.

141
1910?

mocy,

Drzewiecki,

Warsaw,

1911,p. 11. 33 F. Nietzsche, Z genealogii moralnosci, 34 M.P. Markowski, Nietzsche. Filozofia

35

p. 102. interpretacji, Cracow,

p. 85.

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

humanizmu wedlug R. Przybylski,

"Braci Kara Warsaw, 1979,

mazow?w",

F. Dostojewski, pp. 114-115.

F. Nietzsche,

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

translation of the Russian word podpolie.

p. 25.

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

AND RUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT POSTHUMANISM

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,

1992. Cracow, 94 C.K.Norwid, Warsaw, 1968, vol.

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