Russian philosopher, teacher, and librarian Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov
was born June 9, 1829, and died December 28, 1903. He was founder of
an immortalist (anti-death) philosophy emphasizing "the common task"
of resurrecting the dead through scientific means. Since the end of
the Cold War, his thought has received renewed interest and advocacy
in Russia and elsewhere — for example, in connection with cryonics
(cryonic hibernation) and prolongevity. Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov
(alternative romanized spellings are possible — for example: Nicholas
Fyodorovich Fyodorov) advocated the ethical priority of a research and
development project he called "the common task," by which he meant the
universal physical resurrection of the dead by future advances in
science and technology. He was highly praised by such people as Fyodor
Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy (literature), Afanasi Fet (poetry), and
Konstantin Tsiolkowsky (astronautics), yet he is not well known in the
West, despite some limited interest. The illegitimate son of Prince
Pavel Ivanovich Gagarin and Elisaveta Ivanova, a woman of lower-class
nobility, Nikolai (with his mother and her other children) had to
leave his father's home at age four, due to the prince's death. The
family continued to be well cared for, however. Beginning in 1868, he
worked for 25 years as a librarian with the Rumiantsev Museum (now the
Russian State Library), Moscow; during this period, he was
teacher-mentor of the young Konstantin Tsiolkowsky. After retiring,
and until his death, he worked in the Archives of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. His works, published posthumously, were available (in
accordance with the Christian spirit of Fedorov's philosophy) only
free of charge from the publisher, who renounced all rights.
2. Philosophy
Due to his Christian perspective, Fedorov found the widespread lack of
love among people appalling. He divided these non-loving relations
into two kinds. One is alienation among people: "non-kindred relations
of people among themselves." The other is isolation of the living from
the dead: "nature's non-kindred relation to men." "[O]ne should live
not for oneself nor for others but with all and for all" (Filosofiya
Obshchago Dela vol. I, 118, n. 5, as quoted in Zakydalsky, 55).
Fedorov is referring to all people of all time (past, present,
future). He is speaking of a project to unite humankind, the
colonization ("spiritualization") of the universe, the quest for the
Kingdom of God, the creation of cosmos from chaos, the death of death,
even resurrection of the dead. Fedorov believed, and passionately
felt, that resignation in the face of death and separation of
knowledge from action was false Christianity. He cautioned against
being fooled into worshipping the blind forces of Satan. Rather, one
should actively participate in changing what is into what ought to be.
The division between the learned and the unlearned was, in Fedorov's
view, worse than the separation of the rich and the poor. The
unlearned are more concerned with work than thought. The learned
(philosophers and scientists) are less concerned with work than
thought. The learned seem unaware that ideas "are not subjective, nor
are they objective; they are projective." Philosophers and scientists,
because they have separated ideas from moral action, are simply slaves
to the imperfect present order. It is a root dogma of the learned that
paradise is not possible. The unlearned should demand that the learned
(because only they have the necessary knowledge) become a temporary
task force for the Kingdom of God. The learned, however, will attempt
to persuade us that problems like crop failures, disease, and death
are not general questions but matters for a narrow discipline,
questions for only a very small (or nonexistent) minority of the
learned. Separation of the learned from the masses turns them into a
seemingly permanent class, producing non-lovers of humankind. The
"transformation of the blind course of nature into one that is
rational … is bound to appear to the learned as a disruption of order,
although this order of theirs brings only disorder among men, striking
them down with famine, plague, and death."
A citizen, a comrade, or a team-member can be replaced by another.
However a person loved, one's kin, is irreplaceable. Moreover, memory
of one's dead kin is not the same as the real person. Pride in one's
forefathers is a vice, a form of egotism. On the other hand, love of
one's forefathers means sadness in their death, requiring the literal
raising of the dead. Politics must be replaced by physics. The
politics of egoism and altruism must be replaced by Christianity which
"knows only all men." Pride is a Tower of Babel that separates us from
one another. Love is a "fusion as opposed to a confusion." For
Fedorov, "complete and universal salvation" is preferable to
"incomplete or non-universal salvation in which some men — the sinners
— are condemned to eternal torments and others — the righteous — to an
eternal contemplation of these torments." That is to say, Fedorov's
bold science project, "the common task," is not the only possible
route to salvation. "Salvation may also occur without the
participation of men … if they do not unite in the common task"; "if
we do not unite to accomplish our salvation, if we do not accept the
Gospel message," then a "purely transcendent resurrection will save
only the elect; for the rest it will be an expression of God's wrath,"
"eternal punishment." "I believe this literally." "Christianity has
not fully saved the world, because it has not been fully assimilated."
Christianity "is not simply a doctrine of redemption, but the very
task of redemption."
Fedorov's thoughts have been variously described as bold, culminating,
curious, easily-misunderstood, extreme, hazy, idealist, naive,
of-value, scientifico-magical, special, unexpected, unique, and
utopian. Many of the small number of philosophers familiar with
Fedorov admit his originality, his independence, his human concern,
perhaps even his logic — up to a point. But his resurrection project
is viewed with understandable skepticism and often dismissed as an
impossible fantasy. Interestingly, the harshest criticism has come
from Christian thinkers such as Florovsky and Ustryalov whose
objections bear religious overtones; some materialists such as
Muravyov and Setnitsky have been quite benign and favorable by
comparison. Perhaps all would agree, however, on Fedorov's
single-mindedness. Looked at positively, this is simply another term
for purity-of-heart, a quality of saintliness. With his strong
emphasis on kinship and brotherhood demanding, ultimately, a world in
which all must mutually benefit, Fedorov perhaps anticipates Rawls who
says: "Thus what we are doing is to combine into one conception the
totality of conditions that we are ready upon due reflection to
recognize as reasonable in our conduct with regard to one another. …
all persons … even … persons who are not contemporaries but who belong
to many generations. Thus to see our place in society from the
perspective of this position is … to regard the human situation not
only from all social but also from all temporal points of view. The
perspective of eternity is not a perspective from a certain place
beyond the world, nor the point of view of a transcendent being;
rather it is a certain form of thought and feeling that rational
persons can adopt within the world. … Purity of heart, if one could
attain it, would be to see clearly and to act with grace and
self-command from this point of view." Fedorov wrote: "By refusing to
grant ourselves the right to set ourselves apart … we are kept from
setting any goal for ourselves that is not the common task of all."
But Fedorov's thought soars beyond the present world to a world of its
own, in his insistence that we can become immortal and godlike through
rational efforts, and that our moral obligation is to create a heaven
to be shared by all who ever lived. "[D]eath is merely the result or
manifestation of our infantilism, lack of independence and
self-reliance, and of our incapacity for mutual support and the
restoration of life. People are still minors, half-beings, whereas the
fullness of personal existence, personal perfection, is possible.
However, it is possible only within general perfection. Coming of age
will bring perfect health and immortality, but for the living [living
contemporaries of Fedorov] immortality is impossible without the
resurrection of the dead" (What Was Man Created For?, 76).
3. Further Reading
(Collected Works in Russian)
Fedorov, N. F. Filosofiya Obshchago Dela: Stat'i, Mysli, i Pis'ma
Nikolaia Fedorovicha Fedorova, ed. V. A. Kozhevnikov and N. P.
Peterson, 2 vols. originally published by Fedorov's friends and
followers after his death, 1906, 1913; reprint London: Gregg Press,
1970.
Fedorov, N. F. Sobranie Sochineniy, 4 vols. + supp. Moscow: Traditsiya, 2000.
(Works in English)
Berdyaev, N. A. "N. F. Fyodorov." The Russian Review 9 (1950) 124-130.
Fedorov's thought was not without influence on Berdyaev's
existentialism.
Berdyaev, N. A. The Russian Idea. New York: Macmillan Co., 1948.
Fedorov and other original Russian thinkers are discussed.
Fedorov, N. F. "The Question of Brotherhood or Kinship, of the Reasons
for the Unbrotherly, Unkindred, or Unpeaceful State of the World, and
of the Means for the Restoration of Kinship" in Edie, J. M.; Scanlan,
J. P.; Zeldin, M.; and Kline, G. L., eds. Russian Philosophy. Chicago:
Quadrangle Books, 1965. 16-54. This is one place to begin if you want
to read Fedorov directly (in English translation).
Fedorov, N. F. What Was Man Created For? The Philosophy of the Common
Task: Selected Works. Koutiassov, E.; and Minto, M., eds. Lausanne,
Switzerland: Honeyglen/L'Age d'Homme, 1990. A good source of Fedorov
in English translation; includes a list of Russian language works in
the bibliography.
Lossky, N. O. History of Russian Philosophy. New York: International
Universities Press, 1951. Fedorov is included in this history.
Lukashevich, S. N. F. Fedorov (1828-1903): A Study in Russian
Eupsychian and Utopian Thought. Newark: University of Delaware Press,
1977. The methodology used in this study may not insure full
appreciation of Fedorov's thought, but it does demonstrate that his
thought was indeed a detailed, coherent philosophy in which the
various pieces fit together.
Schmemann, A., ed. Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian
Religious Thought. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965; reprint
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977. Selections
(translations) from Russian religious thinkers, including Fedorov,
concerned with eschatology or other "ultimate" questions. The Fedorov
material is from vol. 1 of Filosofiya Obshchago Dela and deals with
"the restoration of kinship among mankind."
Soloviov, M. "The 'Russian Trace' in the History of Cryonics,"
Cryonics 16:4 (4th Quarter, 1995) 20-23. Closing paragraph describes
author's then-current (post-cold-war) and perhaps unprecedented
efforts promoting cryonics and immortalism in the former Soviet Union;
the article itself acknowledges a debt to Fedorov.
Young, G. M. Nikolai F. Fedorov: An Introduction. Belmont, Mass.:
Nordland Publishing Co., 1979. Not only an excellent introduction, but
a mine of references and information inviting further Fedorovian
research, including Russian language works, many of which are not yet
translated (or not fully translated) into English.
Zakydalsky, T. D. N. F. Fyodorov's Philosophy of Physical
Resurrection. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI, 1976. A Ph.D. dissertation (Bryn
Mawr) of 531 pages. Bibliography has a list of Russian language works.
Zenkovsky, V. V. A History of Russian Philosophy. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1953. Fedorov is included in this history.
No comments:
Post a Comment