Problem for the subject - The question of the meaning of history /part 3/

This task achieves its solution in the apocalypse, which is a resolving end, resolving the outcome of which begins a new world, a new reality, that of the eternal celestial history in which the fragmentation of the Earth's time is overcome, and the so- a whole time for which the unity of its parts is characteristic. It is only here that one understands the significance of the experience. Only here is his life revealed to him in his fullness and completeness. This is not about the lives of individuals or the "fate of the latter," but about the lives and actions of all generations who have had a place in earthly history, regardless of the age of existence.

image source

This is also the reason why Berdyev criticized the Marxist concept and all the progressive ones who see the meaning of history in the construction of the so- communist society. This doctrine writes that it makes it impossible to resolve the grief of life for the whole human race, for all generations whenever they live. It makes sense for the life of the endless mass of human generations who lived in different ages and gives meaning to life only to a chosen "vampire generation," which blesses and feasts on the bones of its ancestors. That is why Berdyev believes that the concept of progress that sees the outcome of history in communism or some other last perfect system is less humane than the Christian concept of the salvation of all people. It is the religion of death, not the resurrection. It has unlimited optimism about the future and unlimited pessimism with regard to the past.

Secular humanistic: it is represented in the so-called progressive teachings. For this conception are the words of Saint Simon to his contemporaries, namely, "the golden age that the blind tradition has so far attributed to the past is before us, it is in the improvement of the social order. Antihumanistic: it is presented in Nietzsche's reflections.That's what Zardoudra said. In this work, he opposes the idea of ​​the equality of men preached by various egalitarian teachings. In its place, it raises the idea of ​​natural inequality between people. My justice says the people are not equal, so the slogan of equal rights for all is the most blatant injustice as it condemns the most talented people. All former morals considered by Nietzsche to have leaned more or less on this slogan, they had the object of human race and not the gifted people, so he declared himself both against morality in general and against the state which, in his opinion, is an organization of personal people , which she lures to herself, licks, chews and chews.

Gifted, creative people do not need a country. Only where the state ends is the person who is not superfluous. That is why Nietzsche advises to break all the old scripts / knowledge of God / to overcome the past within us, to reorganize the instincts in a new order and to focus on one goal, namely to find the most supreme and sustainable form of man.