Culture and Recreation: N.A. Berdyaev and N.F. Fyodorov on the Crisis of Humanism

This article is dedicated to the little-studied problem of the reception of N.F. Fyodorov's cultural ideas by N.A. Berdyaev in the context of his philosophy of creativity. It analyzes Berdyaev's works that address the theme of the crisis of humanism and the religious understanding of the essence of future culture. This theme is reflected in many of his writings, particularly in such works as “The Religion of Resurrection (“The Philosophy of the Common Cause” by N.F. Fyodorov)”, “The Philosophy of Freedom”, “The Meaning of Creativity”, “The End of the Renaissance and the Crisis of Humanism”, “On Spiritual Bourgeoisness” and others. A comparative analysis of Berdyaev's philosophy with the ideas of Fyodorov's universalist project allows us to see the differences in the thinkers' positions regarding the origins of the crisis in culture and humanism. Berdyaev perceives the specificity of Fyodorov's religious-philosophical views as being determined by a projective image of active apocalypticism and sobornost (spiritual community) in the creative transformation of the world. In his reception of Fyodorov's teachings, as presented in “The Philosophy of the Common Cause”, ideas from the philosophy of freedom, creativity, personality, individuation, and objectivation become relevant. The comparison of Berdyaev's views with Fyodorov's utopian project of “recreation” reveals a closeness in the perspectives of both thinkers. They see the roots of the crisis in the metaphysics of value substitution in the bourgeois world, where the connection with religious and liturgical origins of culture has been lost. The advent of bourgeois civilization is regarded as a triumph of profanation in the realm of culture. Fyodorov's critique of European ideals of humanism resonates with Berdyaev's ideas, who wrote about the transformation of humanism into anti-humanism. He envisions the image of future culture in Fyodorov's philosophy as a theurgic project. At the same time, while acknowledging the significance of Fyodorov's teachings, Berdyaev finds that it does not adequately express the idea of individuality and creative freedom of the person. In Fyodorov's “aesthetic supramoralism” and Berdyaev's vision of a “new medievalism”, paths to overcoming the crisis of humanism and creativity were outlined. These ideas remain relevant for understanding the foundations of Christian universalism in 20th-century culture.