Scholarlink

<p>In this paper we analyze Nikolai Berdyaev’s critique of democracy as presented in <i>The New Middle Ages</i> (1924), which is grounded in his philosophy of history. Berdyaev bases his historiosophical views on his philosophy of freedom. In the nature of democracy, the author sees a merely formal expression of the popular will, one that is unconcerned with the content or direction of that will. In the phenomenon of democracy itself, he identifies a fundamental indifference to questions of good and evil. This moral neutrality is reflected in democracy’s characteristic tolerance and skepticism. Berdyaev asserts that due to its secular character, democracy leads, through relativism, to the negation of everything absolute. Berdyaev views the people’s will as an organic phenomenon, while democracy is something arithmetic and mechanical, based on humanism and progress as the ultimate forms of the triumph of individualism. From heteronomy (theocratic society), through autonomy (democratic society), the path should lead to theonomy (the Kingdom of God), for Berdyaev. He concludes that autonomy (democratic society) has not become a path to theonomy but rather to anomie and an even worse heteronomy. In his analysis of democracy and humanism, Berdyaev sees a rebellion of man against God and the depersonalization of man himself. Instead of the triumph of the whole person, he recognizes the triumph of individualism and human idolatry. The formal character of freedom present in modern democracy has been noted by numerous contemporary authors after Berdyaev, such as Cornelius Castoriadis, Ingeborg Maus, and Alexander Panarin. The weakening of the state and the disappearance of popular sovereignty and the people’s will have been accompanied by the phenomena of globalization and internationalization as a caricature of universality. Berdyaev sees the way out of the crisis into which the world has fallen in a return to true spiritual life and asceticism, which will emerge after passing through the night of the new Middle Ages, in line with his philosophy of history.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The contemporary context of Nikolai Berdyaev’s New Middle Ages

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月26日

查看全文
  • Neda Andrić

摘要

In this paper we analyze Nikolai Berdyaev’s critique of democracy as presented in The New Middle Ages (1924), which is grounded in his philosophy of history. Berdyaev bases his historiosophical views on his philosophy of freedom. In the nature of democracy, the author sees a merely formal expression of the popular will, one that is unconcerned with the content or direction of that will. In the phenomenon of democracy itself, he identifies a fundamental indifference to questions of good and evil. This moral neutrality is reflected in democracy’s characteristic tolerance and skepticism. Berdyaev asserts that due to its secular character, democracy leads, through relativism, to the negation of everything absolute. Berdyaev views the people’s will as an organic phenomenon, while democracy is something arithmetic and mechanical, based on humanism and progress as the ultimate forms of the triumph of individualism. From heteronomy (theocratic society), through autonomy (democratic society), the path should lead to theonomy (the Kingdom of God), for Berdyaev. He concludes that autonomy (democratic society) has not become a path to theonomy but rather to anomie and an even worse heteronomy. In his analysis of democracy and humanism, Berdyaev sees a rebellion of man against God and the depersonalization of man himself. Instead of the triumph of the whole person, he recognizes the triumph of individualism and human idolatry. The formal character of freedom present in modern democracy has been noted by numerous contemporary authors after Berdyaev, such as Cornelius Castoriadis, Ingeborg Maus, and Alexander Panarin. The weakening of the state and the disappearance of popular sovereignty and the people’s will have been accompanied by the phenomena of globalization and internationalization as a caricature of universality. Berdyaev sees the way out of the crisis into which the world has fallen in a return to true spiritual life and asceticism, which will emerge after passing through the night of the new Middle Ages, in line with his philosophy of history.