Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

THE PROJECT OF A “NEW MAN” IN THE RUSSIAN NIETZSCHEANISM*

Yu.V. Sineokaya

Yulia Vadimovna Sineokaya – Doctor of Science (Philosophy), Professor of RAS, Deputy Director for Research of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Head of the Department of the History of Western Philos- ophy of the Institute of Philosophy at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

E-mail: [email protected]

The article examines the comprehension of the concept of the Übermensch by Russian philos- ophers. The author demonstrates that the Nietzschean project of creating “The New Man” has sig- nificantly affected the various trends of Russian philosophy, since the end of the nineteenth century and up till nowadays. The concept of the “Superhuman” provides a powerful lens and a tool for the scrutiny of the paradigm shift in Russian philosophy at the turn of 19th and 20th and 20th and 21st centuries, respectively.

Key words: Russian philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche, the Übermensch, the New Man, the Posthuman, the new myth, paradigm shift in philosophy, young conservatism, transhumanism, perspectivism, philosophical anthropology.

DOI: 10.31079/1992-2868-2018-15-2-209-224 First, the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some people are born posthumously. Friedrich Nietzsche

Idols and Ideals of Russian Intellectuals* cles to the works of Nietzsche – that his legacy was More than a century ago, Nikolai Berdyaev was promised no easy lot: “Nietzsche was virtually taken to shrewd enough to speculate in “Landmarks: A Collec- pieces; everybody utilized him for their own – domes- tion of Essays on Russian Intelligentsia” (Vekhi) tic – needs. It turned out, all of a sudden, that Nietzsche (1909) that Russian philosophical thought routinely was most applicable for the refreshment and resuscita- searched for goals and ideals in the domain of the tion of Marxism…I am afraid that the most metaphysi- Western philosophical tradition – perceiving these cal and mystical doctrines will also be employed in this philosophical doctrines in a subjective fashion, adapt- country for domestic use whilst the evil of the Russian ing them to the psychological distinctiveness of Rus- life, the malevolence of despotism and slavery will not sian intellectuals. “Marxism in Russia was subjected to be defeated through this, because it cannot be over- the populist reformation (narodnichestvo); economic powered by the distorted assimilation of versatile po- materialism was transformed into a new form of “sub- larized dogmas.” (Бердяев 1991, 25) It can hardly be jective sociology” … The conditions of Russian life refuted that Nietzsche‟s ideas, having vigorously made the flourishing of the objective social philosophy forced their way into Russian culture in the last decade and science impossible. Philosophy and science were of the 19th century, played a significant part not only in conceived of in a subjective manner, “a la intelligent- the field of abstract reasoning, but largely defined – sia”. (Бердяев 1991, 22) Among the philosophical and still continue to define – ideological and practical movements which affected the intellectual life in Russia constructs of Russian intellectuals. the most, N. Berdyaev recognized Leibnizianism, posi- The angles of reception and appreciation of the ide- tivism, Marxism, Neo-Kantianism, empirio-criticism, as of the German thinker by his Russian followers used and Nietzscheanism. These days, it seems reasonable to to change dramatically over the course of time: the add to this list existentialism, phenomenology, postmod- polarity stretches from scathing criticism and denuncia- ernism, and analytical philosophical tradition (Миронов tion (the end of the 19th century) to the exalted ac- et al 2017, 76) as well as the ideologies of traditionalism ceptance (the beginning of the 20th century) which, in and neoconservatism. Ultimately, it appears that nowa- its turn, was altered for the sixty-year-long ban and st days, at the close of the second decade of the 21 centu- taboo forbidding to read and quote him in Soviet Rus- ry, Berdyaev‟s assumptions turn out to be valid – true sia, that was alleviated only once, in the thirties and bona fide philosophy is the one that assists in solving forties of the twentieth century, when Nietzsche was current socio-political issues. converted into one of the most in-demand and sought It appeared indisputable – even at the very start, after – of all the German philosophers – targets: accu- upon the very introduction of Russian intellectual cir- sations of militarism, racism, chauvinism, and fascism poured forth from the pages of Soviet editions of pre- * Translated by E.Y. Malneva, Candidate of Science (Philology). 209 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

war and war epochs. The liberal Perestroika, initiated is to follow orders and instructions of legislators, who by Mikhail Gorbachev, which served as an impetus for create a hierarchy of values that fit their needs. the scrutiny and popularization of the philosopher‟s The second phase – the symbol of which is, argua- essays at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, came to bly, a lion – is a challenging moment of “great libera- an end, having given way to the “Conservative Revolu- tion”. At this stage, the human spirit, shedding the skin tion” at the dawn of the new millennium that prompted and load of benumbed and “necrotized” ideals and an avalanche of passionate protests against neo-heathen idols, conquers freedom – in order to create “new val- slogans and the overall message of Nietzsche‟s philos- ues”; to substitute those reigning in contemporary soci- ophy, which were allegedly destroying European val- ety. The symbolic transmutation of a camel into a lion ues. Alongside this, for the past ten years the name of signifies the metamorphosis of Man into Superman. Nietzsche has been alluded to more and more often The next step would be the metamorphosis of a lion within the confines of our domestic research of trans- into a child; this is the stage of the genesis of the humanism. Übermensch. This is a moment of crisis and a turning Nevertheless, whatever the intellectual vogue and point. The person overcomes pessimism, depriving the appeal of Nietzsche‟s legacy in Russia, whatever him/her of life force and vigor. Having overthrown the connotations his name has evoked amongst our Rus- feeling of burden, having learned the art of triumphant sian scholars – the name of the “philosopher of the laughter and joyful acceptance of life, Man striving to problem, not of the system” 1 – for more than a century become Superman, ought to discard the yoke, throw now, the most discussed and inspirational idea of the away the iron heel of those doctrines which diminish latter has been his concept of the Übermensch; that is, the rights of an individual to free development and by all accounts, an intention addressed to the existen- growth under the auspices of egalitarianism of all peo- tial future of the humankind, expressed via formula ple. Aspiration to free will is a categorical imperative from his book Beyond Good and Evil: Man is an ani- of Nietzsche‟s new morality, the first formula of which mal – still not defined, still unidentified species. is denunciation of all morals and ethics existing prior. The idea of the emergence of a “New Man” – Homo The state of infancy symbolizes the dawn of a new life. sapiens perfectus – has been overwhelming the minds of A person initiates the conception of “new moral val- Russian revolutionary thinkers ever since 1860s – way ues”: goodness and truth are recognized as categories before the name of the German philosopher became sought for; not as given, once and for all, life land- well-known in Russia. The most perfect type of human – marks and reference points. in accordance with the fashionable evolutionary theories This ideal image of the forthcoming Übermensch – of the period in question – was seen qua the fruit of the so anticipated and desired by the Russian intelligentsia advanced development. That is the reason why Nie- – right since its inception was in possession of Nie- tzsche‟s claims – expressed in his work Schopenhauer tzschean features of a free, creative, and heroic nature. as Educator – regarding the goal of the advance of the This was definitely an antagonist of the human type human species being seen in the ultimate expansion and that Nietzsche condemned in his writings, dubbing the growth of the latter and in transcending the limits, be- latter “The Last Man”, for that person was seen as a coming the superior form on Earth; and that other idea selfish philistine, concerned with his/her own safety, expressed in his book The Dawn of Day – that Man is comfort, and wealth exclusively. the finite point of biological evolution, and his progress An important element for the Russian followers of is only possible within the confines of the existing spe- Nietzsche was the juxtaposition of the Übermensch – cies – turned out to be in tune with the spiritual quest of an individuality surpassing a mere human, hovering Russian intelligentsia. over (ὒber) – and his precursors, free liberated men, The famous myth of the transformation of the hu- free spiritually, not with the “Underhuman” (Unter- man spirit “The Three Metamorphoses” (from the first mensch), but with an all-too-familiar type of a bour- book of Thus Spake Zarathustra) was perceived by geois philistine (“the last man”). Despite the discrepan- many qua a symbolic path leading to the Superhuman. cy in features ascribed to the image of the New Man, During the first phase of ascension, the human spirit that several generations of Russian intellectuals fanta- is not unlike a camel, saddled and burdened, exhausted sized about, all of them beheld him qua a figure that and dog-tired. It is an unhappy lot – for someone to surpassed his contemporaries and peers, a Super- pine away amid external pressure factors such as public human. morality and social conventions. At this point, Man The evolution of the image of the Superhuman, sus- resembles an infant wrapped up in swaddling clothes, tained and cherished on the Russian soil, as it were, lulled away in a golden crib. His lot is submission; he can be traced back to the worship and cult of the saints; to the veneration of the creators and demiurges de-

1 scribed by Nikolai Berdyaev in his “The Meaning of This definition by Walter Kaufmann is to be found in his book Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (1950). the Creative Act”; from V. Solovyov‟s ideal of eternal 210 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

femininity to the desired and sought (especially in the there has been formed a serious academic trend which Symbolist circles of the Silver Age) “New Man”, who not only excludes Nietzsche from the anthropological superseded his/her gender, having become, akin to tradition of European philosophy (Martin Heidegger, God, an androgynous entity. Among Russian radical Michel Foucault and certain contemporary Nietzsche intellectuals, ranging from populists (narodniks) to scholars such as Werner Stegmaier, Andreas Bertino, Marxists, The New Man was imagined to be a heroic and Marc Rölli) but also demonstrates the efficiency and personality, replete with jubilant energy and enthusi- effectiveness of the anti-anthropological interpretation asm, a Prometheus who had overcome egotism and of the philosopher‟s ideas – to such an extent that it [the self-centeredness. To the artists of post-revolutionary trend] resorts to Nietzsche as a weapon against modern Russia, the New Man appeared as a mighty and daring philosophical anthropology – to the degree that they [the – if slightly mad (since madness and creativity are in- academics in question] proclaim the necessity to abolish extricably linked) – artist-warrior. The futurists – “bu- the aforementioned undertaking altogether. detlyane” – people of the future – were creating their Nietzsche qua the Gauge of Change own idiosyncratic image of the Superhuman – a new Two pinnacles of interest towards the works of Nie- species, if I may, a “Beyond-Man” (a being who had tzsche in this country (those being the turns of the nine- broken free from the manacles of the ordinary), the teenth and twentieth, and the twentieth and twenty first master and lawmaker of his/her own life. centuries, respectively) one can conceive of as endeav- Many of the debatable and compelling issues of ors to give answers to perpetual “Russian” questions: Nietzscheanism including nihilism, reevaluation of “Who is to blame?” and “What ought one to do?” values, and will to power, haven‟t acquired proper elu- In the Fin de Siècle epoch, at the close of the nine- cidation and exposure in Russia. Still, the appreciation teenth century, Nietzsche was hailed in Russia as a of Nietzsche as one of the brightest representatives of preacher of immorality, the prophesier of the biologiz- perspectivism in the field of ethics, aesthetics, psy- ing view of humanity, as a concentrated expression of chology, and political science, who gained renown recessionary phenomena of the time in question and as globally in multiple academic studies as well as in the a symptom of degradation of the ultimate Christian sphere of popular science and education, is quite estab- morals and values. The public verdict declaring him lished in the Russian Nietzschean canon. guilty was repeatedly republished in many editions of Nietzsche‟s doctrine of the Superman – the Über- the period. The Übermensch was viewed merely as a mensch – however, holds a special place in philosophi- pagan paragon, the image of the "human brute”, “a cal rhetoric. Dissimilar from Russian interpretations, trained animal”, as it were, “the blond beast” that anni- wherein this Nietzschean concept was perceived qua an hilated everything on his/her way to personal perfec- anti-ideal and anti-goal of the evolvement of humanity tion. Nietzschean Übermensch was functioning under (in times of post-revolutionary aspirations it was also numerous aliases in Russian belles-lettres: “decadent”, viewed as an edict and a directive to generate a new “Satan”, “Antichrist”, “misanthrope”, “a narcissistic type of human), in the European milieu this teaching being glorifying slavery and serfdom”, “usurper of was seen as a rejection of the anthropological principle power, scornful of the weak and the sick.” Being able in philosophy, whilst the idea of the Superhuman was to foresee such estimations, Nietzsche is known to understood as the path to overcoming Man. have said – and not merely on a singular occasion – The anthropological approach to the scrutiny of Nie- that neither his contemporaries, nor those who would tzsche‟s legacy which interprets his work as a link be- follow in their footsteps would be able to comprehend tween the anthropological projects of German classical him: “Who knows how many generations must pass philosophy and philosophical anthropology of the 20th before those select few will appear who will be truly century is fairly novel. 2 By the start of the 21st century, capable of realizing what I have accomplished? And even then, I fear, my authority will be resorted to by 2 One of the brightest Nietzsche scholars in this country is A. those in the wrong, and for no good reason, unjustifi- Zhavoronkov who is a representative of the anthropological ap- ably.” (Ницше 2007, 222) proach to the analysis of Nietzsche‟s philosophy (see in: Edito- However, already in the first decade of the twenti- rial // Internationales Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthropolo- eth century – which was the time of searching for the gie. Bd. 7. Nietzsche und die Anthropologie / hg. von Th. Ebke und A. Zhavoronkov. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter 2018, V– answer to the question “What to do?” via creating new XIV.) Nietzsche und die „experimentelle‟ Anthropologie der ideals and cultural models that were to substitute the Antike // Internationales Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthro- classical Cartesian-Kantian paradigm – Nietzsche was pologie. Bd. 7. Nietzsche und die Anthropologie / hg. von Th. reinvented again as a precursor of the future, as a finely Ebke und A. Zhavoronkov. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter 2018, tuned seismograph, it appears, of the imminent ap- 17–31. Жаворонков, А.Г. Границы человека и границы со- proaching catastrophes, calling for the reevaluation of общества: Антропология Ф. Ницше и ее влияние на фило- old values and the generation of the new ones in the софию Хельмута Плеснера. Историко-философский еже- годник‟2016. Москва. 2016. P. 187–205. conditions of the total loss of ideals. The concept of the 211 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

Übermensch – owing to V. Solovyov‟s good graces – involved in political games he had nothing to do with came to be construed in the mystical and religious whatsoever. It is common knowledge these days how vein. The given approach granted the Russian readers his so-called “magnum opus” Will to Power was falsi- of the philosopher‟s essays with the new horizons of fied – which in all actuality is nothing but a rather creative capabilities and self-experimenting. At this doubtful from the textological perspective compilation point, Nietzschean Superhuman came to represent: 1) of sketches, drafts, and marginalia. Referencing this the incarnation of the Christian ideal, more than this, particular thesis is deemed bad taste in the domain of God-man, Jesus Christ; 2) the collective principle and academic Nietzschean scholarship. It may pose inquiry source, communal collegiality which surpasses the in- and be subjected to scrutiny only as a stage in the his- dividual identity; 3) the creative impulse liberating tory of reception of Nietzsche‟s ideas. from the oppressive burden of the lifeless authorities. In the Russia of today, preoccupied with medita- The project “Übermensch” delineated the direction of tions on the issue of “Who Is to Blame” for the loss of the immense pursuit, expanded the boundaries of the “true classical spiritual values” in the European com- quest, simultaneously creating a new myth of the era – munity, the gaze of many is unavoidably drawn to Nie- thus constructively contributing to the discussion of the tzsche, yet again. The way I see it, these days the fa- “Russian question” regarding what to do, in the larger mous adage by Boris Groys – “Russia as the subcon- scheme of events. It is quite apparent that even after scious of the West” – should be recalibrated into “West the ban of Nietzsche‟s books in 1923 (Glatzer Rosen- as the subconscious of Russia”, the point being that the thal 1994, 11), one could still behold the echoes of the interpretations of the “Europe” phenomenon which are tenets of the teaching of the philosopher in the Bolshe- all the vogue today appear to be, for the most part, viks‟ political platform – when it came to the transfor- quite romantic and defensive in spirit. Europe is mation of people into communist heroes – in the course viewed not as a historical phenomenon, the one that of the post-revolutionary experiments in the education causes stigmata and avid rejection alongside accusa- of minds of the Socialist type. tions of being fake and phony, a complete sham, that At the turn of the millennia, history repeated itself. has perverted Christian ideals, but as a cradle and the When rethinking the catastrophes of the waning centu- guardian of authentic values, as that “chosen” Europe ry, some intellectuals appealed to Nietzsche pondering which does not even exist; more specifically, has never the sempiternal question as per who was to blame; who actually existed in reality. This is the vision aspired to was held accountable for the atrophy of old sensibili- – obstinately – by the ideologists of “Russia-qua- ties, rampant nihilism, and the replacement of prior successor-of-classical-Europe”. Russia‟s young con- ideals of Truth, Goodness and Beauty by neo-heathen servatives are attempting to contrapose the Christian values. These days, though, the issue appears to be past of Europe to its neo-heathen present, to find such larger and more intimidating; being more precise, it all axiological foundations that might allow Europe to comes down to the issue of responsibility assigned to the remain loyal to the classical canons of the 19th century philosopher for the realization and manifestation of his when, in all truthfulness, they virtually have passed ideas in real life. Is Plato liable for our belief in truth, into nothingness, and time itself calls for their reevalu- even though we know for certain what we can never ation, not their restoration. claim it for our own and, consequently, for more than Simultaneously, these days Nietzschean philosophy two millennia we have been treading the wrong path? Is acquires great resonance – being understood in the con- Thomas Hobbes culpable for his definition of the state text of the affirmation of the principal attention paid to that still inspires authoritarian leaders? Is Voltaire to the subjective core of human personality. This aspect blame for all the blood that was being shed in revolu- of Nietzsche‟s legacy predetermines the positive out- tionary France? Is Saint-Simon to feel guilt-ridden for come of the re-investigation of his ideas. Seeking es- his vision of the commune transformed into carnage and cape from an ideological vacuum and nihilism conun- tragedy for countless souls decimated during the con- drum, some Russian intellectuals redirect their focus of struction of the Soviet Communism? Is Marx responsi- attention onto Nietzsche‟s legacy again – with the hope ble for the efforts to bring his economic and political of finding new answers to ages-old questions such as theory into practice – which resulted in genocide? And “What to Do?” finally, are Nietzsche and Heidegger to answer for the The idea of the “Superhuman”, with its aspirations ideology of national socialism, i.e. Nazism? to the future, its scale and limitless prospects, defines a Allow me to make myself very clear on this point – new vector of search; boosts the drive for experiment- that of groundless accusations of Nietzsche: the thinker ing with our own boundaries and limitations. In the who openly expressed his contempt for the patriotic preface to The Case of Wagner (1888), Nietzsche in- babble describing one‟s love of one‟s Vaterland; who quires: “What is it that a philosopher demands of him- proclaimed that he knew no filthier animal than an an- self, first and foremost? He strives to overcome his ti-Semite and a shallower ideology than socialism, got own time in himself, to become anachronic.” (Ницше

212 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

2012, 385) Could it be that these words hide the secret belonged to a young philosopher and theorist V.P. of the essential relevance, appeal, and timelessness of Preobrazhensky who claimed having inherent spiritual Nietzsche‟s legacy? Expressly non-academic philoso- affinity with the German thinker; this article set the phy of Nietzsche still liberates us and broadens our tone for the subsequent consideration of the concept of mental horizons. And in truth, Nietzsche consistently the Übermensch in Russia. The major emphasis for inspires new generations of artists and creative people Preobrazhensky – whose ultimate conviction was that from diverse spheres, be it philosophy, art, science, Man ought to be the Captain of his life, the “Master of politics, etc. His intellectual heritage still grants atten- his sea”, as it were; Man must be free to follow his/her tive readers with stimulating ideas, leaving, simultane- own heart and not follow in somebody else‟s footsteps, ously, freedom of self-expression intact. blindly accepting regulations imposed by the society ‒ Nietzsche as an author is unique in a way that he was the realization of the meaning of life that was more never restricted himself by specific obligations and sublime than merely happiness or even freedom: “by promises to alter society or humanity. More than this, means of ascension and magnification of Personality to in his works not only did he abstain from defining the achieve the most powerful progress and splendor of the term “Übermensch”; he desisted from specifying the human being and human culture.” (Преображенский notion of “human”, to begin with. He employed only 1892, 152) metaphors and symbols, demonstrating this way that Preobrazhensky‟s opponents, the respectable repre- Man is not a finite, evolved construct; his evolution sentatives of Russian classical idealism, detected in cannot be foreseen. Nietzsche‟s work symptoms of moral decay and axio- When taken literally, qua an instruction manual and logical crisis and, thus, glossed over the issue of the an incentive, Nietzschean mythologeme of a Superhu- meaning of life. Nikolai Grot who was distinguishing man is perilous owing to its provocativeness; it should Leo Tolstoy‟s and Friedrich Nietzsche‟s doctrines on not be perceived as an ideological valediction, a pam- the premise of their being moral antagonists, antipodes, phlet or a sermon. Interpretations of this kind lead – in and who was quite unforgiving when it came to ethical all too obvious a fashion – not merely to the distortion postulates of the German philosopher, still posited that of the word of the philosopher but also to the assertions both Tolstoy and Nietzsche were united by their will- and evaluations which are diametrically opposed to ingness to educate a new, free, independent spirit, and those which corresponded to the credo of Nietzsche on that foundation to create a new society and new himself. Suffice it to recall the sad story of his being humankind. However, Grot‟s vision of the Nietzschean appropriated by the ideology of Nazism in Germany, as concept of the Superhuman was extremely negative, well as the obsession with his ideas at the dawn of the being based on the assumption that anti-religious pro- Socialist era in Russia. clivities of the philosopher degraded humans to the We happen to know from classical interpretations animal level of being, turning Man into a trained beast: of Nietzsche‟s legacy honed in the persisting philo- “Nietzsche considers Man an animal – the deadliest sophical debates of Karl Löwith, Karl Jaspers, Martin and the angriest beast of all, and he believes that a Heidegger and others – and also from post-classical stronger Man-beast will surpass himself and form the readings accomplished by Michel Foucault, Gilles lineage of a new breed of perfected animals whom he Deleuze, and Jacques Derrida – and even from the con- designates via notion “Übermensch”…One does not current studies undertaken by Wolfgang Müller-Lauter need “Übermensch”; Man is already one – a Super- and Friedrich Kaulbach – that Nietzsche‟s idea of the animal, for he is an image and likeness of God.” (Грот Übermensch ought to be viewed not as an element of 1893, 132) Tolstoy, in his turn, being one of the most some systemic doctrine but as a means of critical anal- uncompromising and irreconcilable critics of Nie- ysis and perspectivization of meanings. If perceived as tzsche, viewed the idea of the Übermensch as a mani- a stern dogma, this basic insight of Nietzsche is para- festation of the typical tendencies of his time – which doxical, therefore it should be best considered as a vec- he was harshly condemning; something that he be- tor of thought, as a project, aimed into the future. lieved was amounting to the substitution of ethical ide- Let us scrutinize more thoroughly the evolution of the als by the ideals of beauty, which Tolstoy equaled with apprehension of the Nietzschean project “Superhuman” pleasure, a principle which he deplored. by Russian scholars. I believe that the central premise of One of the most significant and consistent antago- this tradition was best expressed by Andrei Bely: “Only nists of Nietzsche was the philosopher of “the common Christ and Nietzsche knew the whole might and grandeur cause” Nikolai Fyodorov. Despite the radical dissimi- of a human being.” (Белый 2001, 885) larity of their mental perspectives, for Nietzsche is ori- The Russian Portrait of Nietzsche’s Übermensch ented towards the future whilst Fyodorov is focused on The first analytical paper on Nietzsche – published the past, their work is filled with an identical pathos of in the Russian language – appeared in 1892 in the edi- faith – faith in the possibility of limitless development tion “Issues of Philosophy and Psychology”, and it and growth of humankind (which stretches as far as the

213 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

looming prospect of immortality and the resurrection traordinary minds is a very significant, if indirect, indi- of the deceased ancestors (Федоров 1982, 553) when it cation in itself. comes to Fyodorov‟s conceptions, and the creation of a Solovyov appears to be the first Russian philoso- new, more sublime type of human and human culture pher to consider Nietzsche‟s Übermensch from the as far as Nietzsche is concerned.)3 Fyodorov was most religious perspective. The concept of the Übermensch acutely annoyed, it would seem, by that part of Nie- closely knitted with moral and spiritual considerations tzsche‟s doctrine which alludes to the task of the crea- and the issues related to the religious underpinnings of tion of a higher generation of humans. The cutting edge culture transformed into a dominant vector in the lega- of his criticism was pointed at the Nietzschean concept cy of Nietzsche, in the eyes of Solovyov: “Out of three of the Übermensch which Fyodorov regarded as the ideas related to three major names – those of Karl “propagation of egotism” and a “vice, both ethical and Marx, Leo Tolstoy, and Friedrich Nietzsche – the first mental.” (Федоров 1982, 557) Fyodorov was actually idea (economic materialism) is oriented towards the the first to dub the Nietzschean Übermensch the Anti- current and the daily; the second (abstract moralism) christ. (ibid: 548) Nevertheless, simultaneously, the covers, if partially, tomorrow as well; whilst the third famous utopist admitted that this striving for the “su- (the demonism of the Superman) is concerned with perhuman” might potentially convey virtues. This what might the day after tomorrow bring. The latter is dream of Superhumanity may turn, “shapeshift” into the most compelling of them all. Any idea, in and of Absolute Good, Fyodorov claims, or even into “Su- itself, is only a mental window. Through the window- pramorality” in case it alters its vector towards the ful- pane of economic materialism we can see only the fillment of the “natural duty” of the human society: the backyard, or the way Frenchmen call it, "la basse cour" conversion of the inanimate, subhuman, unthinking of history and modernity; the window of detached forces of nature, randomly and arbitrarily giving birth moralism faces a clean, but too pure, yard of utter and bringing death, into a force controlled by reason cleanliness, of dispassion and equanimity, non- and aimed at the universal resurrection of the genera- resistance, non-action, and other non‟s and dis‟s; while tions past. out of the window of the Nietzschean Übermensch one The borderline figure – on the threshold between can behold boundless space of vast untrodden life the diminishing and the sycophantic perception of the roads, and if one sets upon this path hastily and reck- Übermensch concept – is the сcolossus of Vladimir lessly, some will end up in a ditch or get stuck in a Solovyov who sensed – as other representatives of his marsh or most likely fall into a picturesque, grand, al- generation – the revelation of the crisis of culture in the beit absolutely hopeless, abyss.” (Соловьев 1989, 627) work of the German philosopher (see in: The First Step Solovyov devoted two articles directly and exclu- to a Positive Aesthetics (1894)). These traces of inner sively to the Nietzschean doctrine of the Übermensch polemic with the Nietzschean cult of the Superman (“Literature or Truth?” (1897) and “The Idea of a Su- may be detected in almost all of the later works of the perman” (1899)) which was perceived by the philoso- philosopher. It is common knowledge that not only did pher as a “typical development” and a “temptation” of Solovyov read Nietzsche extensively, but also he hap- modern intellectual life. However, it is worth remem- pened to meet a renowned literary critic Georg Brandes bering that even the last work of the philosopher Three in the second half of the 1890s; the latter was well- Conversations (1900) is essentially an experiment in known for his friendship with Nietzsche. (Маковский critical assessment of the Nietzschean Übermensch 1991, 214-227) It is quite remarkable, actually, that in concept. The notion of the Übermensch appealed to the comprehensive study Vladimir Solovyov and His Solovyov, as he admitted, primarily because of its Time undertaken by Alexei Losev (published in the truthfulness and candor: “Is poor Nietzsche not right edition “Philosophical and Literary Milieu”) where he when he claims that all the dignity, all the worth of discusses the literary figures who directly affected the Man lies in his being more than human; that he is a Russian philosopher [V. Solovyov], among those F. transition to something else, something loftier?” (Со- Dostoyevsky, S. Rosanov, K. Leontiev and others, out ловьев 1914, 29) In Nietzsche‟s outlook, Solovyov of ten scrutinized thinkers only one is not Solovyov‟s appreciated, first and foremost, the reflection, if dis- compatriot, and that is Friedrich Nietzsche. Taking into torted, of the all-human urge to transcend merely au- account the critical slant of thought exercised by Losev tonomous “human bondage”. But for Solovyov, dream- himself as regards Nietzsche, the testimony to the ex- ing of the ideal of the forthcoming Godmanhood (ac- istence of the deep connection between these two ex- cording to which history is but a process of gradual ascension of the world community to God – with the ultimate unification of God and mankind, connected by 3 As chance would have it, a little bit more than a century Divine Love), the true Superhuman, that is God-Man, passed, and at the turn of the millennia both Nietzsche and unlike Nietzschean Man-God, could only be the one Fyodorov were reunited again – this time under the auspices of the “precursors to transhumanism”. who conquered and overcame death. “Now Nietzsche 214 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

declares it [the truth of the Superhuman crux of Man – clusion… and as a result of this re-thinking, at the end Yu. S.] as some outstanding novel revelation. But Paul of his life, he came up with a horrifying image of the the Apostle reminded us of the highest dignity and pre- Antichrist in which one can easily discern Nietzschean destination of Man so that to immediately indicate to- principles and even symbols.” (Лосев 1990, 536-537) wards the actual manifestation of this highest principle In a special publication “V. Solovyov, F. Nietzsche, V. in the real saints who arose from the dead, whereas the Rosanov and K. Leontiev” – when analyzing the new prophet of Supermankind has no one to indicate sources of the apocalyptic nature of Three Conversa- and nowhere to turn.” (Соловьев 1914, 29) To the Su- tions – Losev addressed one of the most essential phil- perman of Nietzsche Solovyov opposes God-Man Je- osophical problems, that of the concept of evil. He be- sus Christ, who defeated death via bodily resurrection. lieved that the image of the Antichrist – an inescapable Still, despite accepting the very idea of the Superhu- logical finale of Nietzsche‟s idea of the Übermensch – man and admitting the merit of Nietzsche in drawing became a symbol of the absolute evil for V. Solovyov. the attention of the wide circle of the reading public to If we summarize briefly the four main theses of the the issue of Superhumanity, Solovyov interpreted the “theoretical Satanism” introduced by Losev, wherein is very core of the question from a radically different an- contained his interpretation of Solovyov‟s vision of the gle. For him, the task of ascension to superhumanity issue of evil as manifested in Nietzsche‟s works, we was believed to be “the growing out of the existing arrive at the following allegations: firstly, the prophet reality for the collective humankind” (Соловьев 1989 , of evil tends to totally discard all possible absolutes, 629) on the way to the upcoming immortality. In the including those of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Sec- Nietzschean Übermensch Solovyov beheld an ideal ondly, Man is positioned instead of the supranatural alien to him – not that of Christ, “the first-born, first- absolute (it is noteworthy that only the inner state of begotten of the dead” – but of the Antichrist: “Fash- being appears to matter). Acknowledging the existence ioned by miserable Nietzsche…this Übermensch – alt- of God and, simultaneously, the ambition to take his hough being hollow, meaningless and artificial – may place – that is, in a nutshell, what preaching Satanism present, still, the archetype of the one who, alongside is all about. “Satanism is an aesthetics of evil: the eu- dazzling words, will contribute to deeds as well, and logizing of Beauty and Strength, existing and function- signs, even if false.” (Соловьев 1914, 31) ing outside Morality.” (Лосев 1990, 531-532) In the Both philosophical and human experience of Nie- vein of classical idealism, Losev juxtaposes Solo- tzsche Solovyov used to describe as an intrinsically vyov‟s philosophy qua “justification of Good” (to put doomed to fiasco – albeit magnificent – attempt to it in Solovyov‟s terms) with the legacy of Nietzsche demonstrate a new passage to overcoming the bounda- qua “justification of Evil”. ries of “the earthly human nature” (ibid: 29), as a failed There is another version narrating the attitude of breakthrough of Man to Truth. “Remaining a philolo- Solovyov to the idea of the Übermensch. In a brief gist, too much of a philologist, Nietzsche wanted to sketch relating the last years of Solovyov‟s life (Ма- become a philosopher of the future, above all else, a ковский 1991, 227-253), S. Makovsky was attempting prophet and a founder of a new religion. Such an agen- to validate the assumption regarding certain lines of da inviolably predetermined a catastrophe…Good phi- Solovyov in which the renowned philosopher was lology is preferable to bad religion; but even the most comparing the idea of Nietzschean Superhumanity with brilliant philologist is incapable of founding even the Godmankind of Apostle Paul; the latter could be seen most wretched philosophical sect.” (ibid: 29-30) The as nothing more than an unwilling disclosure on the chief reason for Nietzsche‟s failure was seen by the part of the theorist, revelation of his own religious Russian philosopher in the former grounding his philo- quest. The author of the sketch was positive that Solo- sophical reasoning in abstract thought, as well as his vyov felt he was destined to be the “philosopher of the own desires and sentiments: “Having failed to find any future”, a “prophet” and an “initiator of the new reli- religious reality in himself or above himself, the Basel gion.” “He [Solovyov – Yu. S.] aspired to be a true philosopher conceived of a trope, a rhetorical figure, unwavering Christian, espousing universal orthodoxy, called it Zarathustra and announced to all people that but not in the manner professed by the Church (that is Doomsday is here: Lo and behold! Here comes the why this fusion seemed so effortless for him. He ad- Superman!” (ibid: 30) hered mentally to the Church of the “Third Testament” Solovyov expressed his meditations on the Nie- … But at the same time, wasn‟t he afraid of this de- tzschean ideal in his mythological sketches “A Short tachment of his from the Church consciousness, this Tale of the Antichrist” (a part of his last work Three sinfulness of proud isolation?” (ibid: 250-251) Conversations (1899-1900)) wherein the Nietzschean Reminiscing about his last conversation with Übermensch was metamorphosing into Solovyov‟s V. Solovyov (a few months prior to his death), Andrei Antichrist. A. Losev argued that “Solovyov was trying Bely made the following note: “I brought up Nietzsche to bring the Nietzschean absolutism to its logical con- when talking to Vladimir Sergeevich, the idea of the

215 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

relatedness of the Übermensch to the concept of God- hence, if we accept the assumption that the ultimate mankind. He talked about Nietzsche for a little while, goal of the advance of humanity is Superhuman, then and there was gravity in his words. He was convinced we have to concede that there is no other, higher reality that Nietzschean ideas was the only thing one should above Man. If there is no God above Man, then Man be wary of, something to be viewed with grave sinceri- himself must evolve into a superior being, A Divine ty, for they posed profound dangers and challenges to Being. This is precisely why the Nietzschean project the religious culture.” (Белый 1991, 281-282) “Übermensch”, as per Trubetskoy, morphs into the Death thwarted Solovyov‟s grand schemes – writ- Absolute Evil, self-contained and locked upon itself. ing a profound work on the Superhuman ideal of Nie- In the Nietzschean vector of thought – aimed at the tzsche. Nevertheless, one can witness multi-vector re- future – Trubetskoy recognizes colossal egocentricity flections on Solovyov‟s intuitive meditations in the incarnated, and the yearning for self-exculpation for papers of his followers: in the profuse essay of E. the humanity of today, since Nietzsche appeals to us to Trubetskoy “Philosophy of Nietzsche: A Critical Es- 4 love children only – that best, supreme part of the hu- say” (1904) , and also in the works of V. Ivanov pub- manity that will be borne out of the current genera- lished in the first decade of the previous century. tions. In the idea of the Superman Trubetskoy beholds, Where Trubetskoy considered Nietzsche‟s doctrine primarily, an apology, a pretext allowing modern Man atheism and individualism par excellence, Ivanov, con- to love and respect one another. The flaw of the Über- trary-wise, viewed the writing of the German thinker as mensch consists in his/her immanent nature: Nie- the egress into the religious sphere and the vanquish- tzschean Superhuman is merely an extension of Man, ment of individualism. after all. His qualities are contained – hidden – in con- Nietzsche‟s argument regarding the true goal of the temporary Man: “We can judge Superhuman by this humanity being only the creation of the new type of human material whence he is made… Superman is a human – Superhuman – Trubetskoy accepted as a suf- “synthetic Man” par excellence; his essence is attained ficient basis for theorizing that Nietzsche‟s philosophy via combining arbitrary and chaotic elements that men was the ultimate, well-conceived atheism; moreover, possess as such.” (ibid: 786) for assuming that the substantiation of the atheistic Trubetskoy leads his reader to the awareness of mindset and ensuing logical conclusions constituted Nietzsche‟s disclosing his own mystery: if the Über- the major dilemma of Nietzsche‟s life and thinking process. mensch appears to be the central concept of Nie- Nietzsche‟s project – the attainment of the Super- tzsche‟s philosophy, ponders Trubetskoy, if this very human ideal – Trubetskoy construes qua setting a concept attributes Beauty, Meaning and Appeal to the mega-goal capable of unifying the whole of the hu- whole picture of human existence, then how can it mankind. “A thousand goals existed prior, for there happen – the transformation of the common sinful Man existed a thousand of peoples. What is missing is a into the beautiful and precious Superman? “Zarathustra chain for a thousand necks; a single goal is still miss- cannot convey his disciples any truths. He preaches ing. Humankind has no such goal. But tell me, broth- them the idea of the Superhuman and enables them to ers: if humanity has no goal, then maybe, there is still undertake his quest; but the Übermensch for him is not no humanity itself?” (Трубецкой 2001, 62) The time verity, it is a poetic reverie. As fictitious and unassaila- has come for Man to find this goal, and Zarathustra ble is the “legislation” of Zarathustra. We were able to proclaims the Übermensch the aspiration and aim of all witness that Nietzsche‟s philosophy rejects the possi- life. On the surface, this new goal dramatically alters bility of any global legislation, any regulations com- our perception of the surrounding world, the vision of pulsory for all men.” (ibid: 787) The inference of the present and the past. It provides people with the Trubetskoy is unambiguous: “At the end of the day, the meaning of life and, concurrently, with an excuse, a Übermensch doctrine is individualism stretched to ex- justification. Trubetskoy is eager to agree with Nie- tremes which excludes all possibility to constrain a will tzsche on the premise that the absence of the ultimate of a being by any rules.” (ibid: 789) global goal is synonymous with the deficiency of the Vyacheslav Ivanov, who was following – like E. distinction between Good and Evil. But Trubetskoy Trubetskoy – in V. Solovyov‟s footsteps, however, arrives at opposing, divergent ideas. deems it doubtless that the one who by his creative feat Similar to Solovyov and Trubetskoy, Ivanov creates the goal for humans – hence, imbues the future deemed the end target of Nietzsche‟s philosophy to be with meaning – cannot be mortal, therefore, cannot be the deification and elevation of Man, commenting in Nietzsche. The Übermensch does not transcend Man; addition that for true metamorphosis it was essential to achieve the transmutation of soul and passions, some-

4 There is also his later work to consider in that regard – The Philosophy of Life of Vladimir Solovyov (1913). 216 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

thing designated in the Gospels as metanoya.5 Ivanov sibility to by-pass, escape time (only the Dionysian grasps some elements of the heathen worship of Dio- state immerses into the timelessness), hence, left the nisius in the Nietzschean intention to deify Man, to Nietzschean ideal buried in the “dungeon of times”. uphold the idolatry of human I: “Since the religion of Having complemented the meditations of the Ger- Dionisius is a mystical creed, and the heart of mysti- man philosopher regarding the parallels between Chris- cism happens to be the deification of Man by means of tianity and ancient mysteries by the teaching of Solo- either blessed proximity of the Deity to the human soul vyov about Godmanhood, Ivanov created a new reli- – which results in their total immersion, fusion; or via gious myth by positioning an image of Dionisius in the inner insight of the true and imperishable essence of stead of Solovyov‟s Sophia – as a religious metaphor I… Dionysian frenzy is in fact Man-deification, and for the freedom of creativity. (Толмачев 1994, 14-15) the one, possessed by God, is the Übermensch. But Discussing the specific nature of Ivanov‟s Nie- Nietzsche ascribes arbitrarily defined features to his tzscheanism, Sergei Averintsev accentuates: “There fictitious creation, and partaking of the tone and style was one aspect of Nietzscheanism that the Russian po- of messianism, heralds the coming of the Superman.” et [Vyacheslav Ivanov – Yu.S.] could never accept in (Иванов 1904, 26) earnest: the gospel of brutal individualism. He rejected Ivanov, who perceived Nietzsche as a theomachist, not only brutality itself which could easily be compre- was lamenting his trends: that Nietzsche submitted his hended as a harmless literary mask in those peaceful revolutionary spirit – that liberated the human will years, but individualism per se.” (Аверинцев 1975: from the chains of external obligations – to the su- 152) V. Ivanov as a typical Russian intellectual, a premacy of the common law, the biological imperative; member of intelligentsia, who had experienced a stage “consistently with those who enhance the life of the of fascination with populism movement, was deeply species (was lebenfordernd ist) (ibid: 30) Ivanov be- drawn to overcoming the pride of individualism. In moans the Nietzschean initiative – his “having de- relation to his mindset and worldview, it appears ap- creased the ecstatic and exalted vision to the ambition propriate to distinguish certain totalitarian mental fea- of some ideal selection which was meant to crown the tures which tend to characterize Russian mentality and human race by the last, ultimate link in the chain of the which doubtless affected Ivanov‟s perception of Nie- biological evolution.” (ibid: 29) tzsche‟s ideas. The dream of nation-wide and universal Nietzsche was perceived by Ivanov qua a precursor, union of all men was an integral feature of all the stag- harbinger and herald of the imminent communal Medi- es of the developing philosophical theory of V. Ivanov. terranean religious culture of the future. For Ivanov, in Ivanov was convinced that nothing could be more the Übermensch doctrine the duality of the attitude to antagonistic to the Dionysian spirit than the assumption Dionisius achieves its climactic resolution, and it is that the striving for the Superhuman derives from will resolved via turn to the anti-heathen, Christian extremi- to power: “As the spiritual vision of Nietzsche is grad- ty. In distinction from the anachronic and impersonal ually becoming more and more focused on the image Dionysian element, Nietzsche, the philosopher and the of the Superman, this image is growing more and more trend-setter, argues that the drive for the superhuman detached from those mystical roots from whence it derives from the will to power. The life of the human originated initially in the contemplations of the Diony- race is pictured as an essentially incessant aspiration to sian thinker. As any inspired enlightened state, the Di- a singular goal – akin to an “increasingly tightening onysian contemplation is aimless and selfless; “the bow-string of a gigantic longbow.” (ibid: 22) Human Divine approaches with a light tread”, in the words of will, as per Nietzsche, the way Ivanov understands it, Nietzsche himself. This is not the way he teaches about ought to become the inexhaustible feat of overpower- the Übermensch. The philosopher-lawmaker finds no ing; Man must constantly strive to consciously over- rest, trying to persuade the humanity to promote the come his selfish self by the exertion of his will. willful exertion and facilitate attempts at generating Ivanov was one of the very few who could discern their supreme self, their final image…The Dionysian the Christian purpose of the Nietzschean doctrine in his state is devoid of will: human will, as Nietzsche affirmation of the ascetic ideal for those who have claims, is bound to become the infinite exploit of over- elected the path of the Superhuman creation. coming, overpowering.” (Иванов 1904, 33) Similar to his peers and contemporaries, Ivanov un- The very concept of the Übermensch was subjected derlined and highlighted the trajectory of Nietzsche‟s to a radically different interpretation in the works of thought towards the future; however, unlike other the Russian philosopher than what was a mainstream thinkers, he believed this to be the grave flaw of the reading in Western philosophical tradition of the time Nietzschean doctrine, for it seemingly blocked the pos- in question: “Zarathustra! Is it not in the Nietzschean prophesy of the Superhuman that individualism has

5 reached its apogee and become shrouded in the hieratic Metanoya (Greek) – a necessary condition for the enlighten- ment; the epiphany allowing to behold Heaven on Earth. robes of quasi-religious unconditionality?” (Иванов 217 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

1994, 22) This unforeseen question, ostensibly incon- it literally – in the practical activity, work, and ceivable for a Platonist philosopher, who Vyacheslav fighting. Ivanov was by right, resulted in a positive, logically Nietzsche‟s thought proved its potency by having clear, explicit answer, harmoniously interwoven not transformed into practice, action, deed. Nietzsche‟s only into the fabric of the philosophical and mystical philosophy went far beyond passionate rhetoric, an system but also the political constructs of the Russian original conceit, ideology, sermon or senseless activ- scholar: “Individualism “slew the old God” and deified ism. In the twentieth century, it was drawn into a vor- the Übermensch. The Übermensch, in his turn, annihi- tex of historic occasions. lated individualism... Individualism presupposes an all- It is quite remarkable that, chronologically, the next sufficient roundedness and integrity of human person- thinker (after V. Solovyov) to ponder the issue of the ality; however, we fell in love with the Superhuman. Übermensch happened to be none other than Leon Religious messianists, social messianists, messianists- Trotsky, the leader and ideologist of the Bolshevik pro- theomachists – we all equally live by the choral spirit ject on the creation of a new Socialist man. and communal recumbency.” (ibid: 23) Ivanov used to If the last sketch by Solovyov entitled “The Idea of view Nietzschean Übermensch as an a priori non- the Superman” (1899) was drawing the line under the individual entity, partaking of the cosmic, and even legacy of the philosopher, Trotsky‟s publication “Some religious, sense: “The Übermensch is an Atlantis, pil- Words on the Philosophy of the Superman” (1900) laring the sky, carrying all the burdens of the world on turned out to be a literary debut of the politician and his shoulders. He has not yet arrived – but we, we al- political writer. ready carry this burden in our souls and we have lost Trotsky knew Nietzsche‟s essays well, and he quot- the appreciation of the particular, the individual. We ed them profligately. Being one of the founders of the have become star-gazers and the astrologers of eternity, Red Army and an unsurpassed orator, he frequently whilst an individual man lives his life without looking resorted to the philosopher‟s maxims in his activist beyond, without transferring his center of gravity with- speeches, while addressing his listeners, frequently, out.” (ibid: 22) when speaking in front of the soldiers. (The Military In the concept of the Übermensch, there was some- Writings and Speeches of Leon Trotsky 197 58) His thing that appealed to V. Ivanov, that is, the communal credo was said to be this famous passage from “Zara- personality, which was akin to the ideal type of the thustra”: “You must still have chaos within yourself to Greek god Dionysius who had become an archetype of give birth to a dancing star.” the collective archaic community. In contrast to Vladi- He happened to be one of the first intellectuals to mir Solovyov, Ivanov beheld the image and the precur- draw the parallel between the Nietzschean Übermensch sor of Christ in Nietzschean Übermensch but contrarily and the literary characters of Maxim Gorky, since he to Nietzsche, he never opposed Dionysius and Christ, believed they shared common features, among those firmly believing that Christianity, having succeeded the the rejection of the modern hierarchy of social values dying paganism, absorbed and amalgamated its wisdom. (primarily, the Christian and democratic ideals) and the Ivanov believed that it was Nietzsche who – in the spirit esteem for “strong people”, whose every action is justi- and tone of messianism – bridged the gap between the fied if it is triggered by the force “bursting outwards”. image of the Superman and the divine image of Christ. When researching the impact of Nietzschean ideas From the “Übermensch” to a “New Man” on the radical left romantic intelligentsia, George Kline The disconcerting apprehensions of V. Solovyov coined a special term “Nietzschean Marxism” 6, having gave a new impetus to the search for an ideal human included in the given category the following Nie- personality and new aspects of meaning behind Nie- tzschean revolutionaries: Alexander Bogdanov, Ana- tzsche‟s doctrine of the Übermensch. Nietzsche‟s faith toly Lunacharsky, Maxim Gorky, and Stanislav Vol- in the limitless human potential and possibilities hid- sky. The Russian followers of Marx and Nietzsche den within Man predetermined Nietzsche‟s rediscovery were unified by the heroic and volitional aspects of in Russia at the dawn of the twentieth century – seen their communal and individual art, aestheticism, psy- this time as the herald of will, invoking the ascension chological slant; by the assertion of the revolutionary of humanity, appealing to the intellectuals for the non- mythopoeia and the comprehension of ideology qua a routine renovation of the worldview, ideology or rationally constructed myth. world-perception. The words of Nietzsche were inter- It should be emphasized though that despite the preted as a plea for “world-impact” (the term coined by similarities between the Nietzschean Übermensch and N. Mikhailovsky). The highest purpose of their exist- the image of the New Man found in the leftist radical ence was seen by Nietzsche‟s followers – who em- ideology of the Socialist revolution, the ways to attain- braced his request for the perfection of the human spe- cies and the creation of the Übermensch, having taken 6 George L. Kline. Nietzschean Marxism: A Series of Studies of Marxism. The Hague. 1969. 218 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

ing this ideal were not identical. The major distinction thustra was defined by Frank as an “ethical code of a consisted in, first and foremost, Nietzsche‟s debunking hero‟s life”; as a newly minted gospel for the people of the myth of the very possibility of creating such a so- creativity and Kampf: “Let us consider the main fea- cial and political system that would guarantee the full tures of the ethical and moral figure of the servant of manifestation of all the potential merits of a person. the “distant” – the champion of truth and creativity. Moreover, Nietzsche was unsympathetic of the revolu- Love for one‟s neighbor is psychologically correlated tionary appeals for the social uprising. Contrary-wise, with warm-heartedness; love of the distant – is, respec- he called for the most severe ethical and moral disci- tively, associated with resolve and firmness. True grit pline. The ethic of the Superhuman is the ethic of love and mental resilience – as indispensable features of the for one‟s compatriots, descendants, humanity and, social and moral creativity and strife – appear to be the simultaneously, for every thing abstract: love of Truth, focal argument of the ethic of love of the distant.” Goodness, Justice, that is, love of everything called (Франк 2001, 628) “ideals” or “moral values”, or, as Nietzsche himself In this respect, it should come as no surprise that al- posited, “love of things and ghosts”. ready at the very start of the twentieth century Nie- The pathos of Trotsky‟s first essay was largely in tzsche was viewed – both by the powers that be and the tune with the tone and mood of Semyon Frank‟s paper common folk of the Tsarist Russia – as a radical, revo- “Friedrich Nietzsche and the Ethics of Love of the Dis- lutionary, and a threat to the stability of the regime and tant” (1902) which appears to be the decisive research ruling class. Not only unauthorized translations of his of the Übermensch concept published during the times books and the annotations of his adages re the Super- of the Silver Age of Russian culture in the first mani- human ideal of freedom but a mere reference to his festo-edition of Russian intelligentsia “Problems of work or allusion to him as a person in private corre- Idealism”. spondence (or citations from his Thus Spake Zarathus- Frank dubbed Nietzsche‟s doctrine the propagation of tra or Beyond Good and Evil or Genealogy of Morality voluntary heroic death. Not being, unlike Trotsky, the randomly inserted in, say, maidens‟ secret diaries) was adherent of the Superhuman ideal, the philosopher could enough a motive for the confiscation of those papers by envisage and predict the consequences of its implementa- the police during dissident searches; this is verified by tion in practice. Frank‟s inferences largely forestalled the the archive entries and certain “material evidence” ap- spiritual maxims of the architects of Marxism: the venera- propriated by the Special Corps of gendarmes and the tion of “tragic love”; love of life qua “love of the highest tsarist secret police during arrests of undesirables; all hope”; the willingness to sacrifice one‟s life in the present these records and documents are stored in the archive for the sake of the bright future. collections of the State Archive of the Russian Federa- The Übermensch of the world of tomorrow has no tion. Nietzschean hymns and odes to the creativity and urge towards personal pleasure, the inclination for the contention were perfectly consistent with the revolu- satisfaction of individual impulses and desires. He tionary sentiments. The superhuman morality of the tends to represent the triumph of the spiritual essence “love of the distant” had another face in the routine of humanity; he is a paragon of a hero, combining in Russian practice – that of the ethic of the active hero- his nature both objective moral beauty, ethical integrity ism. and dignity, completely devoid of utilitarianism and Frank believed that the symbol of the Übermensch practicality. The superhuman quality dictates such a was an ethical utopia, postulating the absolute meaning state of spiritual and mental advancement of Man of the cultural progress and moral formalism; and it wherein all the instinctual drives and subjective tastes proved to be for Nietzsche a sort of “insanity with are imbued with moral idealism. which people had to be inoculated with” – so that to Frank determined that the foundation for the Nie- convey to each person and all people taken together the tzschean philosophy was contained in the image of the strongest craving for spiritual advancement and self- Übermensch who was asserting and embodying in perfection. The Übermensch is merely an embodiment himself the realization of the meaning of life incarnate – in human form – of all the compilations of those ab- in the facilitation and contribution to the advent of Man stract, autonomous and all-sufficient moral ideals, – surpassing those who reside on Earth today, both “ghosts”, love of which Nietzsche was trying to make morally and intellectually. The coming New Man, “in the foremost moral imperative of Man.” (ibid: 632) love with the distant”, is oriented at the abstract ideals In 1908, when the peak of the “Nietzschean obses- and higher values; he lacks love for this which is near, sion” was ebbing away, Andrei Bely published a strik- in direct proximity (that is, desire for personal gain and ing paper “Friedrich Nietzsche” in the symbolist contentment as well as care for the wellbeing of his “Scales” (Vesy). Due to his immense popularity, Nie- near and dear). His lodestar is Courage, together with tzschean ideas found their way into the work of the Valor, Willingness for Self-Sacrifice and Death, Crea- second-rate scribblers in a distorted fashion – as a per- tion through Fighting. The ethical teaching of Zara- verted homage to the sense of the time. Sensing the

219 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

violation and devaluation of the ideas of the philoso- alias of the poet Sergei Safonov (1867-1904))7 entitled pher in the popular belles-lettres and journalism of the “A Parrot, Nietzsche, and a Cat” (confiscated by the day, Bely advocated for the conceptions of the German Russian gendarmerie): auteur and against the so-called “Nietzscheans” – the A parrot once there lived, a paragon of whim, modernist writers of the day. Bridging the gap between The laws of being having slipped his mind, Christ and Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra and the Partook somewhere of seeds of Nietzscheanism. Gospels, Bely argued that Nietzsche was a true authen- Lo and behold! The scandal is so grim, tic teleological symbolist, the prophesier of the new For Über-Parrot‟s now his pseudonym! life, new values, transforming the world. It is widely known that Thus Spake Zarathustra was For Andrei Bely, Nietzsche‟s philosophical credo a favorite literary work for many Russian radicals. V. was the Superhuman intuition: “Nietzsche‟s soul did Lenin is known to have kept one of the very first edi- prophesy the coming of the new race… in order to tions of this book in his Kremlin office. (Service 2000, know where to go, one ought to sharpen, cultivate 203) Having said that, in the officially published body one‟s future in oneself, i.e. to be in possession of it, the of work by V. Lenin, the name of Nietzsche appears image of a New Man, the new man engraved on the only twice, in his “Philosophical Notebooks”. Lenin‟s stone of the soul.” For Bely, it is indisputable that the major philosophical opus Materialism and Empirio- figure of the Übermensch – the way it is presented in criticism (1909) does not contain any references to Nietzsche‟s work – is lacking physiological character- Nietzsche; however, it is obvious that this work was istics; this is not an anthropological construct, but a doubtless written qua a hidden polemic with the former symbolic entity, an artistic eidolon, “the norm for de- and the movement itself. If we substitute the name of velopment”, predetermined by the instinct for self- Ernst Mach for the name of Friedrich Nietzsche, the preservation. “It is dubious – seeing the Superhuman in essence of the critique will remain the same. In answer a biological shell; it is even more equivocal to believe to the question as to why Lenin does not allude to Nie- that this happens to be a collective nature of the hu- tzsche in his struggle against Nietzscheanism, Neo- mankind. Rather, this is a principle, an idea, logos or Kantianism, and positivism – it is most probable owing the developmental norm, adorned with all the flamboy- to the fact that rational science and the veneration of ant attributes of personality. This is Nietzsche‟s icon. knowledge were the major legitimizing values for Len- Nietzsche‟s doctrine of personality is neither theory, in himself and his fellow-comrades. Mythologems and nor psychology; even less so is it aesthetics or science. symbolism pervading the works of the German philos- In truth, it is principally morality which could be expli- opher made him an unacceptable and untenable oppo- cated in light of the axiological theory – the theory of nent for V. Lenin. Symbolism.” (Белый 2001, 889) The ideas of Nietzsche and Marx became the incar- Even so, in spite of the still prevailing popularity nate reality of the spirit of the revolutionary epoch. It and fame of Nietzsche in Russia, the process of de- goes without saying that the radically inclined Russian Nietzschefication started to gain momentum as early as intelligentsia turned to Marx not because of their preoc- the first decade of the twentieth century. The lexeme cupation with the philosophy of Nietzsche. However, “Übermensch” began to be used ironically, denoting one can‟t but agree with the statement of an American either an unscrupulous person or a conceited, self- historian Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal who claims that it conscious individual. Vladimir Lenin, when mocking was precisely Nietzschean influence that defined the certain bourgeois authors in his article “Party system specific nature of the interpretation of Marxism in Rus- and Party Literature” (1905), labeled them the “Über- sia having fortified the will to power of the Bolsheviks; mensch authors” (Ленин 1952, 27) N. Minsky ridi- having asserted and validated their belief in the inevita- culed M. Gorky‟s characters dubbing them “Über- bility of uncompromising struggle for the better future. tramp”, “Über-lowlife” preaching “new provincial Nie- “By means of his envisioning history qua a dramatic tzscheanism” (Минский 1901, 21) mystery-play, Nietzsche fortified the faith in Marxism The Russian word for “Übermensch” (Sverkhche- viewed as the ultimate path to salvation, having given a lovek) was first rendered in the fourth edition of V. new impetus to sustaining an old dream of metamorpho- Dahl‟s dictionary published in 1911; the entry consoli- sis of Man.” (Glatzer Rosenthal 2002, 126) dated the vulgar definition of the term: “Somebody Radical Marxists-Bolsheviks partook of the Nie- considering oneself above other people, superior to tzschean doctrine not only in a sense of his contempt Man.” for the bourgeois morality but also in terms of his rhet- On analogy with the word in question, there were oric and focus on the future. They borrowed from him coined many other derogatory terms: “Über-vagrant”; “Über-scoundrel”; “Über-patriot”, and even “Über- parrot”. The following is an excerpt from an illegal 7 The State Archive of the Russian Federation, Collection 1741. pamphlet containing the poem by one Pechorin (an Was published in “The Lector-Elocutionist”. 1913. Vol. 1. 220 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

the idea of the necessity of transformation not only of power and surpass oneself; the faith in the value of the social conditions but of human nature, essentially. every striving creative spirit were doomed to failure in Lenin, Trotsky, and Bukharin repeatedly described Socialist Russia. The value of an independent and self- war as the most effective “school” for the construction identifying personality; the vision of person as an end of a new type of human. (Трубецкой 2001, 243) in itself and an ultimate goal – irreducible to the level Early in the 1920s, when the country‟s economy of a function – were not in demand. was virtually annihilated, and the political crisis was Consequently, at the end of the day, when youthful looming on the horizon, the authorities decided to shift fascination with the revolt of spirit had passed, the the focus of attention from political and economic de- Übermensch of mass Nietzscheanism acquired the pro- cisions onto the project of the “re-making of Man”. file of an enemy of social morals; the most accessible The premise consisted in the generation of scientific symbols and concepts of Nietzsche‟s coinage entered underpinnings for the profound reformation of human the colloquial speech qua derogatory and pejorative nature on the socialist basis and the creation of a more terms. Hence, the favorite object of vulgarization was superior socio-biological type of human. Where they precisely the idea of the Übermensch, since it was the failed in terms of the alteration of economic and politi- most easily accessible and digestible, as it were. (Клюс cal structures, they started searching for – despite 1999, 111) Marxism – en route to psychological and educational One should bear in mind though that the real creator experiments. of the philosophical conception of the reformation of In spite of the apparent presence of Nietzschean Man – approbated and implemented empirically in ideas in the writings of M. Gorky, A. Lunacharsky, A. Russia at the dawn of the twentieth century, was not Bogdanov and other ideologists of the education of a Marx, nor was it Freud; it was Nietzsche. The radical new Soviet man, the German philosopher could not be entreaty of the latter to reassess old values provided a the legitimate source of the new policy. By that time, logical underpinning for the romantic dream of the the ideas of Nietzsche had already been undermined Übermensch. and compromised as a result of their popularization in Nietzschean “Forthcoming Man” Today endless disputes and debates which had been ongoing The concept of the Übermensch, yet again, has cap- ever since the last decade of the nineteenth century and tured the attention of Russian intellectuals nowadays, which had reached their apogee in the epoch of the in the third millennium. It should be mentioned, how- Silver Age. ever, that today the demand for the Übermensch idea The choice of the Bolsheviks was in favor of anoth- is, primarily, of the applied nature; it can hardly be er practice of reforming their peers and the education called academic. It‟s not so much the philosophers and of the Man of the future – that introduced by Sigmund philologists that are interested in the philosophy of F. Freud. This fact alone explains the interest of Trotsky Nietzsche these days; it‟s mostly the so-called practic- towards the methodology and the empirical foundation ing intellectuals – the creators of myths, both political of analytical psychology, and his support of the insti- and sci-fi. I tend to distinguish two polarized vectors tutes for psychoanalysis in post-revolutionary Russia. delineating the nature of interest towards the concept of Freudism was announced as a scientifically verified the Superhuman. On the one hand, when searching for project of the real, actual – not literary – reformation of the new ideology the young conservatives turned to the Man, accomplished on the basis of the restructuring of legacy of Nietzsche – so that to define “what constitut- his consciousness. Because of the new policy, in the ed Nietzschean revelation, and what was his thought- second half of the 1920s, ex-psychoanalysts reported crime?” (Холмогоров 2006) On the other hand, while on the significant success achieved in the domain of discovering new academic horizons, transhumanists paedology in the vein of the academic construction of got fascinated with Nietzsche. the New Man en masse. (Эткинд 1994, 177) Trotsky As far as the first camp is concerned, the young did criticize Nietzsche‟s concept of the Übermensch – conservatives remained within the confines of a centu- as a social phenomenon – embodying the “bourgeois ry-old Nietzschean paradigm, for the most part, despite individualism” and “ultra-exclusivity”. their declarations to the contrary, i.e. that they redis- Nietzscheanism failed to become – could not be- covered Nietzsche: “I was particularly amazed by the come mass ideology or even that of one social group. fact that Nietzsche‟s books contain no Nietzscheanism In 1920s, in the conditions disrupting the dignity and at all,” argued Vadim Nifontov, initiating a Nietzsche- violating the concerns and rights of people, the integri- centered discussion on the APN site (Agency for Polit- ty and complexity of life, the notions of the “Superhu- ical News) in 2006. In his political platform he charac- man” and “free spirit” were discredited and under- terized Nietzsche as a like-minded individual, describ- mined. The democratization of the idea of the Über- ing his philosophy via labels “ultra-conservatism” and mensch, implying that anyone can become Superhu- “fundamentalism”, and also branded him a “precursor” man, anyone who can empower oneself – to find will- to Lev Gumilev. “Meanwhile, one of those few Rus-

221 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

sians who could completely absorb and assimilate the civilization: “The household domestic abuser is, in ideas of Nietzsche happened to be Lev Gumilev. Yes, fact, a philistine who has been converted to Nietzsche- precisely Gumilev…His meditations are filled to the anism, dreaming of turning into a Superman… This is, brim with Nietzscheanism – the teaching of “death and indeed, a suicidal uprising of the rampant triumphant void” is opposed to the principle of “life”, and their modern Western reality – not even post-Christian, but strife constitutes history itself. I believe that Nietzsche anti-Christian civilizational existence – against one- would have approved of such an approach.” (Нифон- self…” (Тюрин 2006) There were, though, such au- тов 2006) thors who, without touching upon socio-political reali- However, the discourse that followed reneged on ties, created another, more optimistic, portrait of Nie- Nietzsche qua an ally for Russian young conservatives. tzschean Übermensch: “The notorious Nietzschean Once again, the anachronic status occupied by Nie- Übermensch was, in actuality, only the first person tzsche in contemporary Russia was accentuated: “His among humankind, the future of humanity if it happens philosophy is a philosophy of vandalism, approved of to behave in accordance with the law of life.” And yet by time itself… There is nothing in his writing to sur- another argument: “Nietzsche‟s Superhuman is, for the mount and overcome; he is of no use, and this is it. most part, the ultimate human being, the man with a Thus, he overcame himself. There is nothing to sample capital M, the best of our kind.” “Liberated from petty from him, nothing to borrow – he wrote too long ago, feelings, fear, blind adherence to dogmas, he is imbued and in very different conditions.” Young conservatives with extraordinary will and energy; he is generous and delineated their vision of the criteria of relevance of the is capable of granting his inner riches to anybody in philosophical knowledge: “We need the philosophy of need, so that others partake of his mental resilience and bullets and catechisms. For Russia to rise again and integrity.” (Ефремова 2006) gain decent life, any young conservative – any educat- For reasons given herein, in this short survey, I dare ed citizen, come to that – who loves his Homeland, assume that Nietzsche‟s ideas, fortunately, will hardly ought to become a soldier of the Great Information be called for and utilized by young conservatives for War. One of the many who have set forth on the Cru- the construction of a novel system of values within the sade against all the universal evil. That is why out of Russian Christian conservatism. all the philosophical legacy, what we truly need is only Transhumanism movement which has been gaining the gear to fill the magazine case, to put into soldier‟s momentum ever since 1960s and which has attained a backpack and to sheathe next to your dagger. All the significant status at the turn of the twentieth and twenty academic trivia are anachronic ephemera.” (Володи- first centuries, considers Nietzsche as their predeces- хин 2006) sor.8 Transhumanists set the goal of the biotechnologi- One of the theorists of conservatism made public cal modification of Man via scientific and technologi- his findings in the domain of cultural archaeology: cal advancement and genetic engineering. They follow “The merciless Superhuman of Nietzsche was born in in Nietzsche‟s footsteps, who proclaimed that Man is the same year as Dostoyevsky‟s merciful and all- no constant, but a project and, hence, view Man qua a forgiving All-human.” And, once again, for the ump- being that has not yet terminated its course of evolution teenth time, he contrasted the theanthropic ideal of V. and that is apt to transcend – with the help of science Solovyov with the anti-Christian ideal of Nietzsche – and technology – onto the new evolutionary level; fur- dubbed “the true manifestation of the soul of the West”: “For the essence of love is the creation of the New Man… This New Man is a person-incarnation; an 8 See in: Белов, Д.А. 2017. Концепт «постчеловек»: освоение inimitable, imperceptible and unidentifiable essence of идеи сверхчеловека современной философией и техно- культурой. In: Биотехнологическое улучшение человека every human being, not reducible to its own nature and как проблема социально-гуманитарного знания: материа- even by its name not definable completely; the being лы школы молодых ученых. Под ред. Б.Г. Юдина, О.В. По- overcoming and rewriting all the laws of nature, and повой. М.: Издательство Московского гуманитарного truly free. Freedom and personal dignity prove to be университета; Беляев, Д.А. 2011. Постчеловек как тип superior to cosmos, time and space. For cosmos will сверхчеловека техногенной культуры XXI века. Теория и pass on, time will elapse, but the person who has main- практика общественного развития: философские науки. 8:23-24; Гуревич, П.С. 2009. Феномен деантропологиза- tained his/her connection to the Primordial Image, pre- ции человека. Вопросы философии. 4:19-31; Тульчинский, vails forever. And nobody and nothing can subdue it, Г.Л. 2009. Новая антропология: личность в перспективе for it derives from beyond this world – its beginning постчеловечности. Вопросы философии. 4:41-56; Хору- lies in the beginning of all things…” (Можегов 2006) жий, С.С. 2008. Проблема постчеловека, или трансформа- Another attendee of the conference a la – in the тивная антропология глазами синергийной антропологии. spirit of – Max Nordau, the author of the famous work Философские науки. 2:10-31. Шичалина, Ю.В. 2001. Идея Degeneration (1892) described his interpretation of the Сверхчеловека: наука и религия трансгуманизма, ки- берпанк In: Духовность и образ мира: наука и религия. impact the Nietzschean conception had on Western Ростов н/Д. 222 Sineokaya Yu.V. The Project of a “New Man” in the Russian Nietzscheanism

thermore, capable of the alteration of the generic tribal ous that the process of reevaluation of the notions of identity. “Human” and “Human nature” – transcending the limi- Many researchers consider the terms “Post-human” tations of classical anthropological certainty – is well (aka “Post(Super)man”), which was coined by the under way. In this respect, the most precise and prom- transhumanists, and Nietzsche‟s “Übermensch” as ising definition of the Nietzschean project of the Su- analogous. (Беляев 2017, 22) perhuman, the way I see it, belongs to the pen of In modern transhumanist discourse the notions of George Kline who argues that the idea of a Superhu- “Post-human” and “Super-man” are interchangeable. man is a project of “historical self-transcendence of The Manifesto of the Russian Transhumanist Move- Man.” (Kline 1968, 107) ment recognizes “the conceptual proximity of the Nie- Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher who deemed tzschean concept of the Übermensch and the model of himself a prophet and the “lawmaker of the future”; Post-human” (Манифест Российского Трансгумани- whose texts are destined to be correctly interpreted not стического Движения); however, the major focus of earlier than two centuries after the demise of their au- attention is attributed to the idea of conquering, over- thor: “I know my lot. Someday, my name will be coming death presented in the works of Russian cos- linked to the reminiscences of something catastrophic – mists Nikolai Fyodorov, K. Tsiolkovsky, and V. Ver- to the crisis, unheard of before, globally; to the most nadsky. Among the founding fathers of Russian Trans- profound and brutal collision for the conscience; to the humanism are also the names of A. Chizhevsky, A. choice made against everything that was believed right, Sukhovo-Kobylin, A. Radischev, V. Odoyevsky and that was sacred. I am not a man; I am a dynamite.” even that of Vladimir Mayakovsky; this brings to mind (cited in: How the Revolution Armed: The Military the famous lines from the poem of the latter – Writings and Speeches of Leon Trotsky 1979, 276) For “A Cloud in Trousers”: us, Nietzsche of the day after tomorrow is yet to come; Listen! but it is vital to discern and commit to memory the It is today‟s brazen-lipped Zarathustra landmarks of a more than centennial span of transfor- Who preaches, mation that the philosopher‟s ideas were subjected to. Dashing about and groaning! Sergei Khorouzhiy when scrutinizing the Russian REFERENCES mission-utopian mindset and inspecting three versions 1. Аверинцев, С.С. 1975. Поэзия Вячеслава Иванова. Во- of the Post-human – Cyborg, Mutant, Clone – posits просы литературы. 8:145-192. that the true precursors of Transhumanism were Goe- 2. Белый, А. 1991. Владимир Соловьев. Из воспомина- the and Rilke, who “expressed the nascent transforma- ний. In: Книга о Вл. Соловьеве. М.: Советский писатель. tional impulse in their pithy slogans: Stirb und werde! 3. Белый, А. 2001. Фридрих Ницше. Pro et Contra. СПб.: РХГИ. Wolle die Wandlung!” (Хоружий 2008, 20) The schol- 4. Беляев, Д.А. 2017. Концепт «постчеловек»: освоение ar avoids direct references to Nietzsche, although he идеи сверхчеловека современной философией и технокуль- indirectly alludes to Nietzsche‟s influence: “Comrade турой. In: Биотехнологическое улучшение человека как про- Trotsky himself also decided to contribute to transfor- блема социально-гуманитарного знания: материалы школы mational anthropology. In his orientational collection молодых ученых. Под ред. Б.Г. Юдина, О.В. Поповой. М.: of articles Literature and Revolution (1923) he wrote Издательство Московского гуманитарного университета. 5. Бердяев, Н.А. 1991. Философская истина и интелли- something akin to this: “Man wants to take hold of the гентская правда. In: Вехи. Из глубины. М.: Издательство processes of his body: respiration, blood circulation, «Правда». digestion, conception… He will dominate them, submit 6. Володихин, Д. Философия действия. Дискуссия о them to his control… Human life, even when merely Ницше на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http://www.nietzsche.ru/ physiological, will become collective and experi- look/xxc/politik/discuss-apn/?curPos=4#16 mental… Man will set a goal of creating a higher social 7. Грот, Н.Я. 1893. Нравственные идеалы нашего време- ни. Вопросы философии и психологии. 16:129-154. and biological species, a Superhuman, if you will.” 8. Ефремова, Д. Загадка Сфинкса. Дискуссия о Ницше (Хоружий 2008, 21) The works of a young researcher на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http://www.nietzsche.ru/look/xxc/ D. Belyaev also attract attention; he consistently accen- politik/discuss-apn/?curPos=1#6 tuates the role Nietzsche plays in the formation of 9. Иванов, В.И. 1994. Кризис индивидуализма. Родное и transhumanism: “It seems remarkable that the trans- вселенское. М.: Республика. humanist discourse demonstrates the semantic equiva- 10. Иванов, В.И. 1904. Ницше и Дионис. Весы. № 5. 11. Клюс, Э. 1999. Ницше в России: революция мораль- lence and substitutability of the concepts of the Post- ного сознания. СПб. Академический проект. human and the Übermensch, which are interlinked via 12. Ленин, В.И. 1952. Партийная организация и партий- Nietzsche‟s philosophy.” (Беляев 2017, 18) ная литература. In: Ленин В.И. Сочинения. Т. 10. М.: Госу- It is too early to make assumptions and conclusions дарственное издательство политической литературы. as regards the possible fruits these versatile anthropo- 13. Лосев, А.Ф. 1990. Владимир Соловьев и его время. technological practices may bear, but it appears obvi- М.: Прогресс.

223 «The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East». Vol. XV. Issue 2, 2018

14. Маковский, С. 1991. Владимир Соловьев и Георг 27. Толмачев, В. 1994. Саламандра в огне: о творчестве Брандес. In: Книга о Вл. Соловьеве. М.: Советский писатель. Вяч. Иванова In: Родное и вселенское. М.: Республика. 15. Маковский, С. 1991. Последние годы Вл. Соловьева. 28. Трубецкой, Е.Н. 2001. Философия Ницше: критиче- In: Книга о Вл. Соловьеве. М.: Советский писатель. ский очерк. In: Ницше: Pro et Contra. СПб.: РХГИ. 16. Манифест Российского Трансгуманистического 29. Тюрин, Ю. Ницше и сверхчеловечки: ветер с Запада. Движения. URL: http://transhumanism-russia.ru/content/ Дискуссия о Ницше на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http:// view/10/8/ www.nietzsche.ru/look/xxc/politik/discuss-apn/?curPos=4#14 17. Минский, Н. 1901. Философия тоски и жажда воли. 30. Федоров, Н.Ф. 1982. Философия общего дела. Сочи- In: Критические статьи о произведениях Максима Горько- нения. М.: Мысль. го. Киев. 31. Франк, С.Л. 2001. Фр. Ницше и этика «любви к 18. Миронов, В.В., Козырев, А.П., Костикова, А.А. и др. дальнему». In: Ницше: Pro et Contra. СПб.: РХГИ. 2017. Интернет-опрос философов: за и против. Вестник 32. Холмогоров, Е. О пользе и вреде Ницше для исто- Московского университета. Серия 7: Философия. 6:71–83. рии… Часть I. Рождение Трагедии из Лютеровой черниль- 19. Можегов, В. Всечеловек против сверхчеловека – 2. ницы. Дискуссия о Ницше на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http:// Дискуссия о Ницше на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http://www. www.nietzsche.ru/look/xxc/politik/discuss-apn/?curPos=4#15 nietzsche.ru/look/xxc/politik/discuss-apn/?curPos=3#19 33. Хоружий, С.С. 2008. Проблема постчеловека, или 20. Нифонтов, В. Ницше как воспитатель. Дискуссия о трансформативная антропология глазами синергийной ан- Ницше на АПН в 2006 году. URL: http://www.nietzsche.ru/ тропологии. Философские науки. 2:10-31. look/xxc/politik/discuss-apn/#2 34. Эткинд, А.М. 1994. Эрос невозможного: история 21. Ницше, Ф. 2007. Письма. М: Культурная революция. психоанализа в России. М.: Гнозис – Прогресс-Комплекс. 22. Ницше, Ф. 2012. Случай «Вагнер» In: Ницше Ф. 35. Glatzer Rosenthal, Bernice. 1994. Introduction. Nie- Полное собрание сочинений в 13 тт. Т. 5. М.: Культурная tzsche and Soviet culture: ally and adversary. Cambridge Uni- революция. versity Press. 23. Ницше, Ф. 2009. Ecce Homo. In: Ницше Ф. Полное 36. Glatzer Rosenthal, Bernice 2002. New myth, new world: собрание сочинений в 13 тт. Т. 6. М.: Культурная револю- from Nietzsche to Stalinism. The Pennsylvania State University ция. Press. 24. Преображенский, В.П. 1892. Фридрих Ницше. Кри- 37. Kline, J. 1968. Religious and anti-religious thought in тика морали альтруизма. Вопросы философии и психологии. Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. №15. 38. Pomper, P. 1990. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin: The Intelli- 25. Соловьев, В.С. 1989. Идея сверхчеловека. In: Соло- gentsia and Power. New York : Columbia University Press. вьѐв В.С. Соч. в 2 тт. Т. 2. М.: Мысль. 39. Service, R. 2000. Lenin: A Biography. Cambridge 26. Соловьев, В.С. 1914. Словесность или истина? In: Mass., Harvard University Press. Соловьѐв В.С. Полное собр. соч. Т. 10. Санкт-Петербург: 40. The Military Writings and Speeches of Leon Trotsky: Книгоиздательское товарищество: Просвещение. How the Revolution Armed (5 vols.). London, 1979. Vol. 1.

224