Abstract. In this article, I examine N. A. Berdyayev’s social philosophy of technology, which he positions as Christian-personalistic-socialistic. I reconstruct its main provisions and identify its “metaphysical” and “sociological” aspects. I show, first, that according to Berdyayev, metaphysics of technology is the critique of the modern idea of man about himself as homo faber or a toolmaking animal, which is the result of his violation of the eternal order of values and the creation of an idol from technology; second, that according to Berdyayev, technology creates an ontologically “new reality,” which in turn determines the specifics of the modern “technical and economic” epoch; and third, that a Christian and spiritual attitude of man toward technology is an indispensable element of Berdyayev’s apocalyptic eschatology. The Russian thinker sees the sociology of technology as social philosophy and philosophy of history. In their light, I reveal, on the one hand, the cultural and real, historical prerequisites of the advent of the “technological”  – Berdyayev considers them to be humanism and capitalism – and on the other hand, propose ways to overcome its essential flaws in light of the personalistic-socialistic ideal of society. I emphasize the relevance of Berdyayev’s social and philosophical ideas in the context of recent historical realities.

Introduction

To commemorate the 150th anniversary of the birth of the great Russian philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev, I have chosen the aspect of his vast intellectual heritage that has the greatest relevance to the present day. The fact that it has repeatedly come to the attention of researchers does not bother us in the least, because it is not superfluous to point out those ideas and insights of Berdyayev that have never received a proper response in our country in terms of their socio-philosophical development, not to mention adequate political decisions in social practice.The metaphysical lessons Berdyayev derived from the 20th century have been lost on us and been injudiciously ignored – regrettably, not only by us, but by all other industrialized countries.

Not surprisingly, the 21st century has seen the unprecedented growth of problems connected with relationships between man and machine and between personality and technology. On the one hand, we see man being alienated from his “inner” nature under the impact of technological achievements, a process often taking extreme and perverse forms. On the other hand, the negative consequences of interaction between man and machine for the environment (“external” nature) are ever more menacing and acquiring a planetary scale. As Eleonora Golovko rightly notes, Berdyayev’s reflections on that score, “still underestimated, are more relevant than ever” [9, p. 69].

At first glance, Berdyayev’s interest in technology seems sporadic. But that is not so. This article will attempt to explain why the question of technology and its impact on social life was crucial to him. He wrote:

“The machine has vast sociological as well as cosmological significance, putting in an unusually sharp focus the problem of man’s fate in society and the cosmos” [1, p. 508].

Berdyayev touched upon the problem of technology already in his early work The Philosophy of Freedom (1911) [5]. Thereafter, whenever he wrote about modern capitalism, bourgeois (and Soviet communist) social systems, he mentioned the godless, soulless “technical civilization” that destroys the spiritual foundations of society and high culture. Granted, he never failed to note the positive mission of technology in that it has made man less dependent on nature, liberated him from patriarchal social bonds, freed consciousness from faith in ghosts and demons, etc. Berdyayev wrote:

“Paradoxical though it may seem, it has to be said that it was Christianity that prepared the spiritual soil for the development of natural science and technology. Christianity liberated the pagan world form demon mania, banished demons from nature, mechanized nature, and thus paved the way for the subordination of nature” [5, p. 62].

Passages on the technicalization of human life and thought (including philosophical thought) are scattered throughout his books and articles. The essay Man and Machine (The Problem of Sociology and Metaphysics of Technology) [1], published in the journal Put’ in 1933, stands out from his other publications in that it is devoted entirely to the problem of technology. In it, the Russian thinker concentrated on this single topic. That is why I have made it the subject of my analysis. In his essay, Berdyayev expressed surprise that a philosophy of technology and the machine had not yet been created.1 Although much had been created for such a philosophy, he notes the most important thing has not been done: Technology has not been examined as a spiritual problem, as human destiny:

“The machine is considered only externally, only in its social projection. But from within it is the philosophy of human existence (Existenzphilosophie)” [1, p. 508].

Berdyayev sees his metaphysics of technology as the first step in building a Christian philosophy of technology.

Let us make clear from the start that Berdyayev invested the term technology (tekhnika, technique) with the broadest meaning:

“We are talking not only about economic, industrial, military technology, the technology of movement and comforts of life, but also about the technique of thinking, versification, painting, dance, law, even the technique of spiritual life, the mystical way. Thus, yoga is a kind of spiritual technique. Technique everywhere teaches us to achieve the best result with the least effort. This is particularly true of the technique of our technological, economic age” [1, p. 500].

So for Berdyayev, tekhnika refers to not just tools and production technologies, but everything that is a means toward a human end.2 For him, technology also includes forms and methods of social organization and what we call today “social technologies.” Berdyayev defines modernity as the “technological,” sometimes “technological and economic,” epoch.

The breathtaking successes of science and technology in the 19th century contribute to the development of the human civilization, writes Berdyayev, so much so that these achievements formed the foundation of the humanistic faith in “progress.” “Technology is the only area of modern man’s optimistic faith, the object of his greatest enthusiasm,” he told the congress of the leaders of the World Christian Federation in May 1931 [7, p. 488]. However, with the start of the First World War, elation over scientific and technological achievements was increasingly marred by the negative consequences of their use in social practice. By the same token, technology came to play a very important but controversial role in spiritual culture.

The Metaphysics of Technology

Berdyayev believed that technology, or rather, “faith in technology, its power and infinite development,” provided modern man with a substitute not only for religion, but even for humanistic faith in oneself [1, pp. 499-500]. Technology has replaced God. People look to it to work miracles, idolize it. Modern man has hit on a perverse way of assuaging the natural human need to believe in some higher force. He does not turn to the heritage of world religions – among which Christianity, Berdyayev was convinced, had the highest liberating potential contributing to the development of the spiritual creative personality – but to presumably all-powerful technology that was capable of working miracles. People unconsciously ascribe to technology the highest value that, according to Berdyayev, only God possesses:

“Man is so designed that he can live either by faith in God or by faith in ideals and totems.… Abandoning faith in God, he falls into idolatry” [7, p. 487].

The first aspect of the problem that Berdyayev’s “metaphysics” of technology is exposing is the idol created by modern man. The Christian philosopher warns of the dangers arising from blind worship of it and points to the proper place and role of technology in social life. As is known, the making of an idol does not go unpunished: Man becomes a slave of his idol, a slave of the technology he has created in order to rid himself of strenuous physical work, achieve comfortable living, and grow spiritually as a personality. And yet the technological and economic epoch sees the growing alienation of man from man, spiritual and emotional vacuity, and the degradation of personality. Technology, once a tool, has become a quasi-religious object of faith, charity, and hope – and hence a false goal. Berdyayev puts the blame for it on West European humanism, which has forgotten its Christian roots:

“What elevates man is only the consciousness of being the image and likeness of God, that is, a spiritual being.… Man’s self-assertion leads to man’s self-annihilation. Such is the fateful logic of humanism” [6, p. 25].

Seduction by an idol has led to the goal being replaced by the means of achieving it. Berdyayev argues that one of the modern definitions of man as homo faber (harking back to Benjamin Franklin’s definition of man as a toolmaking animal) already attests to the goals of life being supplanted by means. Such a superficial, illusory self-perception of man is the result of the perversion of the eternal God-given order of values; this perversion threatens all of human culture.

“The main paradox we face is this: Culture is impossible without technology, it underlies the very inception of culture and yet final triumph of technology in culture, the advent of the technological epoch spells the demise of culture” [1, p. 502].

The second aspect of the metaphysical problem of technology is that man has brought forth “a new reality.” Berdyayev distinguishes two sides to it: On the one hand, it is a new cultural-historical (technological, machine) epoch, and on the other hand, it is as a new real historical being, which includes not only the new material and physical environment (in the shape of technology and all that it has created), but also a mentally transformed and differently organized (socially) human material. With the help of technology, humanity conquers and transforms nature on the planetary scale. It overcomes space and time, leaves earth, walks in the stratosphere, and creates a new cosmic reality. Here Berdyayev comes close to the concept of the “noosphere” (spiritualized cosmos), proposed by Vladimir Vernadsky and his view of mankind as a powerful geological forming factor. “Technology makes man a cosmiurge,” he writes [1, p. 505].

To start with, Berdyayev draws an ontological distinction between organism and organization as being“crucial for our theme.” In doing so, he proceeds, on the one hand, from the vitalistic treatment of the organism by Hans Driesch, and on the other hand, from the engineering-philosophical conception of Jacques Lafitte.3 The Russian thinker interprets both concepts in the broadest possible way. History, he writes, has known “organized bodies similar to the life of organisms.” Thus the patriarchal system and subsistence farming were seen as organic, and if organic, even eternal. An organic social system was deemed to be the creation not of man but of nature itself or God. But, as Berdyayev rightly points out, neither naturalism, nor evolutionism, nor the organicist approach in sociology (which likens societies to living organisms) reveal the metaphysical aspect of technology.

The point is that technology, and as a consequence, an increasingly rational organization of life, has created “a new reality” in human history.4 He writes:

“Herein lies the whole meaning of the technological epoch. The dominance of technology and machines means above all a transition from organic life to organized life, from vegetation to constructiveness. From the viewpoint of organic life, technology means disembodiment, a break in the organic bodies of history, a break between the flesh and the spirit. Technology ushers in a new stage of reality, the reality being the creation of man, the result of the spirit breaking into nature, and the intrusion of reason in spontaneous processes. Technology destroys old bodies and creates new bodies that are totally unlike organic bodies; it creates organized bodies” [1, p. 505].

Berdyayev calls this new anthropomorphic layer “supraphysical.” “Technology has cosmogonic meaning; through it a new cosmos is being created” [1, p. 508].

Berdyayev writes that at first glance, technologization of spirit and reason may easily appear to be their death. But things are not as simple as that, for “technology is as dual in its implications as everything else in this world” [1, p. 509]. He sees a positive side in technologization. In wresting man from the organic womb of Mother Earth, technology opens up unprecedented perspectives of mastering nature, space and time.

“The meaning of the technological epoch consists above all in that it ends the telluric period in the history of mankind, when man was determined by the earth not only in the physical but also in the metaphysical sense. Herein is the religious meaning of technology. Technology gives man a sense of the planetary character of the earth, a totally different sense of the earth than that which prevailed in the former epochs” [1, p. 510].

Technology gives man a sense of power, bringing out the “titanism” in man. “Man at long last becomes the tsar and lord of the earth and probably the world” [1, p. 150].

The third aspect of Berdyayev’s metaphysics of technology is discussed below.

The Sociology of Technology

By “sociology” Berdyayev meant, of course, not the speculative utopian project of Auguste Comte, who saw “sociology” as the highest science in the hierarchy of sciences, but social philosophy and the philosophy of history, that is, the domain in which this project was born and which in fact constitutes its essence.5 Berdyayev’s attitude to sociology as a “scientific” (read: “positive”) discipline will be seen from the following quote:

“A ‘scientific’ theory of history is impossible and usually develops into a dead and empty discipline of sociology, that theology of Positivists” [5, p. 177].

Berdyayev argues that the sociological aspect of technology will reveal itself if the cultural-historical prerequisites and driving social forces are revealed that today have elevated technology to a previously unattainable “metaphysical” height. He finds the necessary axiological measure in the eternal God-given order of values. This approach enables him to determine the right attitude of man to technology and show the “true” path of humanity’s historical development.

“Machinism, which holds sway in the capitalist civilization above all, perverts the hierarchy of values; restoring the hierarchy of values limits the power of machinism” [1, p. 518].

Berdyayev identifies “three stages in the history of mankind: the natural-organic, cultural, and technical-mechanic” [1, p. 502], stressing that they refer not to temporal sequence but to ideal types, of which empirical prototypes coexist permanently.

“Elements of organization have existed from the dawn of human civilization, just as there have always existed elements of technology, but never has the principle of technical organization been dominant and all-embracing; a great deal has always remained in the organic, vegetable state. Organization related to technology is rationalization of life. But human life cannot be finally and totally rationalized” [7, p. 491].

It turns out that the “technological-machine” stage, if not fully supplanting the two others, at least makes massive inroads on them. Berdyayev considers this to be the tragedy of the modern epoch.

Berdyayev believes that the cultural-historical development of mankind has embarked on a very dangerous and potentially deadly path that it would be unable to leave because it does not want to and is unable to give up technology. It would seem that technologically equipped humanity is doing a good thing in pursuing what is called “progress” – i.e., replacing the organic-irrational in society with the organized-rational.6 The trouble is, however, that the use of technology at scale brings unprecedented irrational consequences to social life. Thus, the rationalization of industry, which replaces manual labor with machines, creates unemployment, the scourge of our time, according to Berdyayev.

“Man told the machine: I need you to facilitate my life, to increase my strength, and the machine replied to man: I do not need you, I will do everything without you, and you can disappear. The Taylor system is an extreme form of rationalization of labor, but it turns man into an improved machine. The machine wants man to take its image and likeness. But man is made in the image and likeness of God and cannot be an image and likeness of a machine except by ceasing to exist. This brings us to the line of transition from the organic-irrational to the organized-rational” [1, pp. 505-506].

Where is the boundary of the rational organization of human life?

These boundaries run through the soul, spirit, and even the body (organism) of the rational organizer. He cannot be turned into a machine, Berdyayev claims.

“But organization tends to turn the organizer into a machine. The spirit that created technology and the machine cannot be turned entirely into technology and the machine; there will always remain an irrational element in it. But technology wants to subdue the spirit and rationalize it, turn it into an automaton, enslave it. This constitutes the titanic struggle of man and the nature he technologizes” [1, p. 506].

Man’s “plant-and-animal” dependence is being replaced by dependence on technology and machines. But the human psychophysical organism was shaped in a different world and is not adapted to the new technological-machine environment. We do not yet know how destructive to man is the atmosphere being created by man’s technological discoveries and inventions.

Characterizing this atmosphere, Berdyayev notes that the development of medicines that save lives and health perpetually lags behind the development of weapons and other means of annihilation and also describes the processes of globalization, the spread of the democratic form of government, the depersonalization of man, the fading of spirituality, and mass culture or “the revolt of the masses,” according to Ortega y Gasset. Berdyayev, an aristocrat by birth and convictions, finds these trends particularly concerning [7, pp. 492-499]. He writes:

“Technology takes possession of vast spaces and of the masses. Everything becomes worldwide, everything spreads to the whole mass of humanity in the era dominated by technology. Herein lies its sociological meaning. The principle of technology is democratic.7 The technological epoch is an epoch of democracy and socialization; everything in it becomes collective, collectives are organized, which in old cultures lived a vegetable, organic life” [1, p. 511].

All these socio-historical trends that threaten man’s physical and mental life have a common root: Berdyayev attributes them above all to the birth and development of West European capitalism. He writes:

“The power of technology and the machine stems from capitalism; it was born in the bowels of the capitalist system, the machine being the most powerful tool of the development of capitalism” [1, p. 521].

However, he stops short of declaring capitalism to be the ultimate cause of these social and historical trends:

“Technology gives man a sense of formidable power, and it is the product of the will for power and for expansion. The will for expansion, which engendered European capitalism, inevitably brings popular masses into historical life. Then the old organic order collapses and a new form of organization offered by technology becomes inevitable” [1, p. 511].

Thus, Berdyayev does not hold capitalism responsible for all of humanity’s woes. He makes it clear that capitalism is not solely or largely to blame for the negative real and cultural-historical trends. Capitalism, of course, made a major contribution to the shaping of these trends, but it is itself a consequence. For Berdyayev, an avowed “personalist socialist,” the underlying causes are within man:

“The tragedy is that the creature rebels against its Creator and stops obeying him. The mystery of sin is the revolt of the creature against its Creator. It repeats itself throughout human history. Man’s Promethean spirit cannot cope with the technology he has created, and is unable to control the vast energies he has unlocked. We see this in all the processes of rationalization in the technological era, when man is replaced by the machine” [1, p. 505].

So, the third aspect of the metaphysical problem of technology blends with its philosophical-historical (“sociological”) or rather, eschatological interpretation. So what is the main danger that the machine poses to man? Berdyayev replies:

“I do not think that the danger is mainly to the spirit and to spiritual life. The machine and technology inflict terrible damage on the life of the human soul, above all on emotional life, human feelings. The soul and the emotional element are fading in modern civilization” [1, p. 513].

He writes:

“Technology is less of a danger to spirit, although this may sound surprising.… The religious meaning of modern technology is precisely the fact that it puts everything into a spiritual question and therefore may lead to spiritualization. It calls for a spiritual tension” [1, p. 514].

Berdyayev resorts to the logic of paradox similar to that expressed in Friedrich Nietzsche’s aphorism: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” However, the catchiness of this phrase does not make it incontrovertible. Berdyayev hopes that “upping the ante,” which is what scientific and technical progress does, will eventually mobilize man’s spiritual powers to bring about what he calls “spiritualization.” Yes, the awareness that total rationalization and technologization of life will be humanity’s undoing may elicit resentment on the part of the spirit. It may or it may not. Or it may elicit it from only a few people. After 90 years, the latter seems to be the case.

Be that as it may, the Russian thinker is right on the main point: The spiritual-moral state of man, his self-consciousness as a personality, is becoming a crucial factor of historical development. Berdyayev reflects:

“When man is given the power to control the world and can destroy much of humanity and culture, then everything hinges on the spiritual and moral state of man, on the end toward which he will use this power, on his spirit. The question of technology inevitably becomes a spiritual question and ultimately a religious question. Humanity’s destiny depends on it” [1, p. 514].

As a Christian philosopher, Berdyayev in his eschatology rejects not only determinism but also fatalism. In this, he harks back to Nikolay Fyodorov’s “philosophy of the common cause.”

In turning to Fyodorov’s ideas, Berdyayev interpreted them in his own way. He believed that the term “Christian socialism” was less suitable for describing his philosophy of history and his socio-philosophical ideal of future society. He preferred the term “personalistic socialism.” Accepting up to a point Russian communism, since in his opinion it is “a transformation and deformation of the old Russian messianic idea,” he formulates his own ideal in the following way:

“I see Christianity as associated only with the system that I would call personalistic socialism, combining the principle of personality as the supreme value and the principle of the brotherhood of men. And a distinction should be drawn, something communism fails to do, between the administration of justice in social life allowing for the element of coercion, and the brotherhood of people, their genuine communication, which implies individual freedom and implementation of Grace (my italics – A. M.)” [4, p. 152].

Fyodorov’s ideas appealed to Berdyayev because Fyodorov paradoxically combined faith in the power of technology with the Orthodox Christian spirit, which is diametrically opposite to the spirit that prevails in the technological epoch.

“He hated the machinism of modern civilization, hated capitalism created by prodigal sons who had forgotten their fathers. He has a formal similarity to Marx and communism, while being opposite in spirit. N. Fyodorov is one of the few, almost the only one, in the history of Christian thought who has overcome the passive perception of Apocalypse. Apocalypse is a revelation about the historical destinies of man and the world and about the end, the final outcome. But this revelation should not be interpreted in the deterministic and fatalistic way. The end, the Doomsday and eternal perdition of many are not predetermined by divine or natural necessity and are not at all fatal. Man is free and is called upon to be active, and the end depends on him. Apocalyptic prophesies are tentative” [1, p. 520].

Christian humanity should unite in a common cause, Berdyayev claims, in order to master the spontaneous natural forces for the sake of “triumph over death.” It should create “a kingdom of Christian spiritualized labor,” overcome “the dualism of theoretical and practical reason, mental and physical labor.” The goal is “Christian brotherhood and love in the fullness of life,” “conquering of death by the power of Christian love and the power of science and technology.” If the goal is not achieved, the kingdom of the Anti-Christ will come, and “the end of the world, the Doomsday, and everything the Apocalypse describes” will come to pass. Berdyayev considers Bolshevik Russia, which has been plunged into “social idolatry,”8 to be a negative example of the attitude toward technology.

“Communism borrows from the capitalist civilization – lock, stock, and barrel – this hyper-machinism and technicalism, and creates a veritable religion of the machine, which it worships as a totem. Undoubtedly, if technology created capitalism, it can be instrumental in overcoming capitalism and creating a new, more just social system. It can be a powerful tool in solving the social issue” [1, p. 521].

But then Berdyayev makes the caveat that everything would depend on the spiritual and moral state of man. Communism, however, subordinates the problem of man as an integral soul-body creature to the problem of society. This means that society organizes man, not man society. Berdyayev is convinced that the opposite is true:

“Man has the primacy, man must organize society and the world, and the organization would depend on what man is like, what his spirit is like. Man is seen here not only as an individual being, but as a social being with a social mission” [1, p. 521].

Conclusion

It would be wrong to say that the problem of technology is central to Berdyayev’s philosophy of society and history; the main problem for him has always been the problem of man and the individual which he perceived in light of his interpretation of the Christian faith. And yet the problem of technology is not merely an important but an inalienable and essential part of his social philosophy, the philosophy of history and eschatology. The link between technology and human spiritual culture began to be felt in the 20th century and especially in the 21st century against the backdrop of the dizzying pace of progress in science; the decline of religious faith in traditional confessions; the spread of terrorism, Satanism, and totalitarian sectarianism; the decline of cultural canon; the degradation of art; the crisis of the traditional family; the deterioration of social morality and everyday behavior, etc. Berdyayev lamented these and related trends already at the beginning of the 20th century.

At present, it would not occur to anyone to deny the acute relevance of the question of man’s attitude toward technology and underlying science. The political, economic, legal, socio-cultural, and other problems that arise from the mass use of cell phones, the Internet, digital technologies, and so on challenge state power, law-enforcement bodies, and ordinary citizens.

“The machine, technology, the power they confer, and the speed of movement they make possible create chimeras and phantasms, direct human lives toward fictions that make the impression of being more real than reality itself” [2, p. 420]

These words of Berdyayev, uttered in 1924, might well be said today. The introduction of artificial intelligence in social communications, “deep fake” technologies, the ever wider application of genetic and biological technologies to man, confront humans with daunting socio-ethical and moral problems.

Today’s young people live in a different day-to-day environment than their parents, who had a solid foundation in their shared reality. They live in two socio-cultural realities that intensively inter-penetrate and influence each other – the real and the virtual. For many, owing to their work or leisure activities, the latter turns out to be more important and even more “real” than reality. Many effectively “live” in it. But so far, instead of the “noosphere” we only have the “infosphere,” “blogosphere,” “pornosphere,” the tyrannical social-network ochlocracy, the sway of provocative “fake news” and hypocritical political correctness. Such phenomena as cloning, gender change, the implantation of remotely controlled chips into the body (ultimately in the brain), the exponential growth of cognitive systems (AI), etc. – all this indicates that the nightmare Berdyayev warned about is coming true [1, p. 515]. We see movement in the opposite direction, with machines becoming increasingly similar to humans, gradually replacing them and beginning to dominate them as man assumes the image of a machine, increasingly acquiring the features of a cyborg.

Everywhere, the highest and last judge of new socio-cultural realities born of the heroic Promethean spirit is the spiritual and moral values held by those who make the decisions – military-political, economic, socio-cultural, and indeed individual and personal.

Berdyayev wrote:

“We live in an epoch of disclosures and exposures. We see the exposure of the nature of humanism, which in other times looked innocuous and exalted. If there is no God, there is no Man – this is an object lesson that our time teaches” [2, p. 413].

Elsewhere, he writes about humans violating the God-given order of values:

“Man has an irresistible tendency to create idols, such that he creates idols of the state, nation, the social collective, technology, to which he offers bloody human sacrifices” [3, pp. 44-45].

The key words here are “object lesson” and “bloody human sacrifices.” What Berdyayev said almost a hundred years ago still holds today.

REFERENCES:

1. Berdyayev N. A. Human and Machine. (Problem of Sociology and Metaphysics of Technique). Philosophy of Creativity, Culture and Art. Ed. by R. A. Galtseva. Moscow: Art; League, 1994. Vol. 1, pp. 499-523. (In Russian.)

2. Berdyayev N. A. New Middle Ages. Philosophy of Creativity, Culture and Art. Ed. by R. A. Galtseva. Moscow: Art; League, 1994. Vol. 1, pp. 406-485. (In  Russian.)

3. Berdyayev N. A. On Social Personalism. To the criticism of the “New City.” Novyy Grad (= New City). Ed. by I. Bunakov, G. Fedotov. Paris, 1933. No. 7, pp. 44-60. (In Russian.)

4. Berdyayev N. A. Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 1955. (In Russian.)

5. Berdyayev N. A. Philosophy of Freedom. The Meaning of Creativity. Ed. by
L. V. Polyakov. Moscow: Pravda, 1989, pp. 10-250. (In Russian.)

6. Berdyayev N. A. The Problem of a Person. (Towards the Construction of Christian Anthropology). Put’. 1936. No. 50, pp. 3-26. (In Russian.)

7. Berdyayev N. A. Spiritual State of the Modern World. Philosophy of Creativity, Culture and Art. Ed. by R. A. Galtseva. Moscow: Art; League, 1994. Vol. 1, pp. 485-499. (In Russian.)

8. Davydov Yu. N. Comte and the Speculative Version of the Positive Science of Society (Comte and Hegel). History of Theoretical Sociology. Ed. by Yu. N. Davydov. Moscow: Kanon+; Reabilitatsiya, 2002. Vol. 1, pp. 63-140. (In Russian.)

9. Golovko E. P. N. A. Berdyayev about the Crisis of Human, Humanity and Nature. Lesnoy vestnik (= Forest herald). 2011. No. 2, pp. 68-72. (In Russian.)

10. Ilyin I. A. Technology and Christianity. Novyy Grad. 1933. No. 7, pp. 61-65. (In Russian.)

11. Philosophy of Technique. Ed. by M. A. Nazarova, S. I. Chernykh. Novosibirsk: Zolotoy kolos, 2018. Available at: https://lektsii.org/18-63182.html. (In Russian.)

NOTES:

1 Berdyayev’s claim that there was no philosophy of technology before 1933 has to be taken with a grain of salt. He himself cites in the same breath Friedrich Dessauer’s 1927 book The Philosophy of Technology, describing it as “an essay in the philosophy of technology.” Indeed, Ernst Kapp wrote about the philosophy of technology as early as the mid-19th century. If we assume that Berdyayev was referring only to the religious philosophy of technology, one wonders how he could have ignored Sergey Bulgakov’s book The Philosophy of Economy (1912), in which technology (including design, modeling) is investigated as part of labor and economic activities, as well as the work of German bishop Hanns Lilje “Technical Era” (1928). Mention should be made of the view that in Russia, the philosophy of technology was pioneered by Pyotr Engelmeier, who formulated the main provisions of a research program on the philosophy of technology in 1929 [11]. Anyway, analyzing personal claims to priority in creating the philosophy of technology is beyond the scope of this article.

2 Technology, according to Berdyayev, can be a value and an end in itself only in one case: “Of course, technology for a scientist making scientific discoveries, for an engineer who makes inventions can be the main content and goal of their life. In this case, technology acquires a spiritual meaning and is part of the life of the spirit” [1, p. 501]. It can be added that another exception may be the collecting of technological articles by individuals and museums.

3 Berdyayev cites the French translation of Driesch’s book on the philosophy of the organism and Lafitte’s Reflexions sur la science des machines (Reflections on the Theory of Machines, 1932). The author of the latter, a civil engineer, purports to outline the scope of “machine science,” to trace the evolution of technology from passive machines (crockery, clothes, homes) to “active” or “reflexive” machines (such as, for example, energy transformers, self-controlled devices, etc.).

4 The idea was lauded by Ivan Ilyin: “N. A. Berdyayev came up with the brilliant idea that the machine is the third form of material being: neither organic, nor inorganic, but ‘organized.’ Lafitte’s ideas belong in the same category” [10, p. 62].

5 Adherence to sociology understood exclusively as a science like the natural science is no less idealistic than Hegel’s philosophy. Vladimir Solovyov revealed and exposed the crypto-metaphysics of Positivism as early as 1874. Yuri Davydov provided its detailed analysis in the modern scholarly idiom [8, pp. 64-131].

6 The German sociologist Max Weber devoted a significant share of his research to studying the growing rationalization of social life, which until the late Middle Ages was accompanied by desacralization of the world. He saw no alternative to this process and, not being religious, pinned hopes on every individual fighting their own “demons” in the Protestant way. Berdyayev, too, did not see a real historical alternative to the rationalization and technologization of social life, but as an Orthodox eschatologist, he believed in collective redemption through a spiritual Christian-personalist revolution.

7 It is worth pointing out that the reverse is also true: If the concept of “democracy” is cleansed of political and ideological accretions, what remains is only the technological form or, more precisely, a complex of social technologies of running the state.

8 “Communism as an extreme form of social idolatry” [7, p. 487].