Philosophy, Theology: Personhood

Fadi Abu-Deeb's  Collectivism and Egoism as Two Sides of the Same Coin - Public Orthodoxy feels a little beyond me. I have read neither Nicolas Berdyaev nir Simone Weil, which may explain a little, and it may be that I did not pay close enough attention.

The Russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev demonstrates the paradoxical relationship between collectivism and egoistic individualism. Ironically, the accusation that is usually directed to Protestantism, namely its emphasis on individual salvation of the human being, is expanded by Berdyaev to include historical Orthodoxy. Referring to the ethos of Russian Orthodoxy in his time, he asserts that the institutional existence of the Orthodox Church continues to support monarchy and absolute political power. Failing to justify human creative activity in the secular world of the modern times, the Church inadvertently paves the way for Christian individualism.[1] Paradoxically, then, the more the Church defends nationalistic tendencies, the monarchy as a symbol of a collective religious spirit, and obedience as a higher value within itself, the more it leads to individualism and egoism. This trait, according to Berdyaev, is manifest, for instance, in considering the Church as a mere hospital for the sick, an institution that continues to separate itself from the secular world. It does not care about the destiny of the human being as a free and creative agent, nor does it work for the transfiguration of the cosmos, or the salvation of the entire creation.

That is quite a thesis statement, there being several ideas needing to be absorbed.

How often do we think of Christianity caring "about the human being as a free and creative agent", or of salvation for the whole of creation instead of merely individual humans. Orthodoxy still surprises this born Protestant.

I felt on firmer ground when I reached the following:

...He argues that the free and creative personality does not lead to egocentrism, but contrary to that, egocentrism is characterized primarily by conformism, i.e., identification with a particular group or the social mainstream in general. In other words, those who turn externally towards society, conforming to its rules and spirit, are probably those who are indeed egocentric. They are not free in themselves to serve others in the spirit of love. Notably, they identify with the group to serve their own safety and interests. As Berdyaev notes, these conformists may revolt against collectivity, but only in the name of other types of collective power not in the name of the spirit or the human personhood. They do that because they want to affirm themselves and be recognized by society. These, in Berdyaev’s view, are the individualists, who, on the opposite side of the true persons, are rooted in external society, not in the spirit, which is represented in the “the unity of spiritual life.”[2] In other words, these individuals have not overcome “the determination of the social group.”....

Having read Henry David Thoreau helped my brain catch up - that non-conformists can be conformists, too. 

I see also an explanation of how one can go from being Troskyite to a neo-con. It may help explain the fascist mindset - the peacock splendor of their unifrms while devote to a group.

As for Weil:

Here, the French philosopher Simone Weil introduces a very helpful scheme to illustrate the relationship between supra-individual/personal values and collectivism. Weil criticizes the emphasis on the human personality and argues for what is impersonal.[5] However, her critique of the personal sounds very similar to Berdyaev’s criticism of individualism (not personhood). Weil presents the impersonal, not as something represented by the group or the collective. On the contrary, she presents a spectrum of values in which the impersonal and universal values are just the opposite of the collective values. In such a scheme, the personal(istic) takes a middle position between them. Weil asserts that “there is no way from the collective to the impersonal. A collectivity must dissolve into separate persons before the impersonal can be reached.”[6] In other words, the more the human being heads toward the group the more s/he is away from impersonal or supra-individual values, like truth, goodness, love…etc. Weil goes further to note that the human personality is “more sacred” than the collectivity, for the latter falsely imitates the impersonal.[7]  Not only that, Weil also depicts the impersonal as the only way through which a person can escape from the reins of the collective.[8] The great (traditional) values can only be sought beyond the boundary of the collective, which is by nature utilitarian and ambivalent.

Persons have a quality lacking in individuals? Nietzsche and his herd comes to mind, as well as a return appearance by Thoreau. 

I am chewing on the idea that persons can have values and creativity, while individuals can be gears in a machine that lacks any values beyond those useful for preserving the collective. That way, we get the Reign of Terror and the Night of the Long Knives and the Cultural Revolution from the collectives, and the Ninth Symphony and Walden from persons.

sch 4/4

.