Explore the vast range of titles available.

The article analyses Nikolai Berdyaev’s approach to occultism of the Silver Age, which he regarded as an ambiguous phenomenon. For Berdyaev, occultism was not merely charlatanism or psychopathology but a realm of unexplained phenomena that might have significant spiritual importance. Berdyaev distinguished positive aspects of esotericism from negative influences of occultism. In his era, dominated by mysticism and Gnosticism, occultism and theurgy were subjects of intense spiritual quests. Berdyaev emphasised that magic, as a form of deterministic control over the world, differs from mysticism, which leads to divine freedom. The philosopher criticised the fascination with occultism, perceiving it as lacking true freedom. Berdyaev also explored the connections between occultism and magic, astrology, and demonology, analysing them in the context of personalism and spiritual freedom.

“Theosis in Soloviev and Berdyaev” will look at the deification concepts of these Russian philosophers. Deification ideas in both these writers had a strong social side and included a sharp critique of institutional churches. Sources that influenced each author will be examined. In speaking of deification, both thinkers drew upon the philosophy of Jacob Boehme. Both Soloviev and Berdyaev affirmed Orthodox principles but reacted against the authoritarianism of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy and wanted the church to return to its legitimate spiritual mission of fostering the Kingdom of God on earth. I first examine Soloviev, reacting, in part, to Jeremy Pilch’s penetrating study of Soloviev’s use of Maximus the Confessor during Soloviev’s middle and late periods. Soloviev pictures deification as a restoration of harmony with God. I argue that Soloviev also drew upon Origen’s concept of apokatastasis, which relates to theosis. Boehme’s philosophy is briefly examined in order to highlight what the two philosophers utilized from him. Berdyaev‘s philosophy is studied, including his usage of Boehme’s notion of the Ungrund. Ruth Coates offers a sophisticated analysis of Berdyaev. I argue that Berdyaev’s work is prophetic rather than Nietzschean. Berdyaev articulates a strongly theistic and anti-Nietzschean philosophy of cooperation with God. For both thinkers, deification is initiated by God, but free human cooperation is required for it to be realized. Both authors assert that Christ made deification possible. Both authors speak of a deification of the flesh, although their meaning is unclear.

This study aims at showing how at the basis of Nikolai Berdyaev’s criticism of capitalism and Marxism lays the concept of Imago Dei. The Russian religious philosopher puts forward the Imago Dei as fundamental to the Christian understanding of human dignity. Berdyaev believes that in both capitalism and Marxism an objectification of the person takes place, and therefore a denial of basic human dignity. Berdyaev’s criticism of capitalism refers to its internal principles, partly building on Marx’s early criticism of capitalism. Although he shared some of the same concerns with Marx and other Marxist theorists, ultimately his was a critique from a Christian perspective that was deeply humanistic, whereas Marxism in its Hegelian orientation had failed in achieving what Berdyaev understands as true humanism. Having confronted and engaged both systems of thought during his own life, Berdyaev’s insights are most interesting, and I argue in this paper that they are also relevant for our own reflections on these subjects today.

Nicolas Berdyaev's spiritual autobiography was, unfortunately, the least well-known of his publications. Therefore, we will try to shed light on it, emphasising its philosophical and political value. We will describe the manner in which the author speaks in order to deepen our understanding of it. We will also consider the genesis of some of his works, noting the influence his spiritual experiences had on them. We will emphasise some of the main political aspects his spiritual autobiography contains, showing its usefulness in areas like political theology. Therefore, we will present the interdisciplinary value of this autobiography, together with its potential for building bridges between spirituality and different areas of science (theology, psychology, philosophy, politics, history, philology and possibly sociology) in an analysis dedicated to providing a holistic understanding of his work. We will observe how his spiritual experiences informed his way of thinking, allowing him to critique topics like modernity, a system based on freedom, love and human dignity and a profound understanding of eschatology as the accomplishment of the world and its mission.Contribution: The research investigates Berdyaev's memorial work showing why it can be considered a spiritual autobiography and it emphasises also its relevance for the philosophical area.

The paper argues that Nikolai Berdyaev’s doctrine of theurgy has remained relevant in today’s cultural-historical context because it highlights a continuing problem in the philosophy of art. The problem is the misunderstanding of the ludic nature of art, its role in the evolution of consciousness and transformation of reality. The author questions the idea that artistic play is deficient compared with religious expression. As a result of this critique, he proposes that the theurgic quest for a radically new form of creativity was misguided and that the true meaning of the aspiration behind it is the need to comprehend culture as a dialectically articulated integral system of the cultural forms that constitute it.

Romano Guardini and Nicolaj Berdjaev find in the Middle Ages a political model for contemporary society. They do not want to replicate the medieval world, but they highly regard the union of 'faith and world' that they consider typical of the Middle Ages and useful to avoid any nazi or communistic dictatorship in the post-war Germany and in the post-revolutionary Russia. Nicolaj Berdjaev, referring to the Bolshevik Russia, speaks about an incoming religiously-dominated New Middle Ages. According to Guardini's analysis, however, a society in which God is present as a 'political element' is immune to any totalitarianism. This matters even after the Nazi era.

Artykuł dotyczy kwestii natury poznania w filozofii Mikołaja Bierdiajewa (1874-1948). Część pierwsza artykułu jest próbą określenia relacji między religią i filozofią (ujęcia filozofii jako rozwinięcia doświadczenia duchowego) i wskazania na motywy leżące u podstaw odrzucenia stanowiska gnozeologizmu w filozofii (sprowadzenia filozofii do teorii poznania). Uznając konieczność doświadczenia bezpośredniego (intuicyjnego), Bierdiajew wprowadza pojęcie wiary. Wiara poprzedza wiedzę. To właśnie dzięki wierze poznanie może przeniknąć do sfery bytowej (pierwsze ujęcie) i wolnościowej, bowiem wolność poprzedza byt (drugie ujęcie). Poznanie możliwe jest więc tylko w warunkach źródłowej wolności. Posiada naturę personalistyczną i soborową (duchową i wspólnotową). To prowadzi do kolejnych poziomów Bierdiajewowskiego myślenia o poznaniu: personalizmu poznania, soborowości poznania, pojęcia prawdy integralnej, eschatologizmu gnozeologicznego. Część druga artykułu dotyczy projektu socjologii poznania opartej na przekonaniu, iż stopnie poznania prawdy są uzależnione od stopni wspólnoty ludzi. W ten sposób socjologia poznania uzupełnia rozważania z zakresu gnoseologii filozoficznej ( duchowej). The article deals with the epistemology of Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948). In the first part of the article I attempt to specify the relation between religion and philosophy (philosophy understood as a development of the spritual experience) and examine the motives that lead the Russian philosopher to reject gnoseologism (the position that reduces philosophy to epistemology). Acknowledging the necessity of direct experience, Berdyaev introduces the concept of faith. Faith precedes knowledge. It is thanks to faith that knowledge can reach the sphere of being (the first approach) and freedom, because freedom precedes being (the second approach). Knowledge is possible only in the situation of primordial freedom. The act of knowing is personalistic and conciliar (It has a spiritual and communal dimension: '), which leads to the futher levels of Berdyaev's epistemology: epistemological personalism as well as conciliarism, the notion of the integral truth, gnoseological eschatology. The second part of the article concerns Berdyaev's project of the sociology of knowledge ( ), which is based on the conviction that the degree of the knowledge of the truth people possess depends on the degree of community coherence. Thus the sociology of knowledge completes the reflections on philosophical (i.e. spiritual) gnoseology.

Spór o rozumienie filozofii toczy się od początków jej powstania. W myśli rosyjskiej przełomu XIX i XX wieku kwestia ta odżyła z niezwykłą mocą w związku wyzwaniami, jakie rzuciła filozofii efektywnie rozwijająca się nauka. Znalazło to odbicie w polemice N.A. Bierdiajewa z ideałem tzw. filozofii naukowej, w tym przede wszystkim z ideałem filozofii jako \"ścisłej nauki\" E. Husserla oraz ideałem filozofii przedstawionym przez neokantyzm. W studium wykazuje się, że ów spór wykraczał poza ramy czysto akademickiej polemiki i w istocie był sporem o rozumienie podstaw europejskiej kultury oraz europejskiego pojmowania filozofii. The question about how we should understand philosophy has been asked since its beginnings. The problem was revived by the Russian thinkers at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries as they tried to meet the challenge mounted by the effectively developing science. It can be seen in Berdyaev's polemic with the ideas of the so-called \"philosophy of science\" as represented mainly by Husserl's notion of philosophy as a rigorous science and by the idea of philosophy voiced by some representatives of the German Neo-Kantianism. The article argues that the discussion was more than academic and touched upon the issue of the foundations of the European culture as well as the European understanding of philosophy.

Rule by knowledge, the domination of experts who act in their areas of specialization according to objective criteria, bureaucratic rationality subsumes cases under norms and weighs ends and means. The means-ends rationality of the bureaucrat brooks no insight into the despair and selfloathing that lies at the root of the rising crime rate that is calculated so adroitly. The differential between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge is analogous to that between both kinds of knowledge together and what Levinas calls \"proximity,\" the overwhelming arrival of the other that strips me of the distance to the event that consciousness requires in order to know it.