A Critique of Antun Sa’adeh's Critique of Nikolai Berdyaev's Philosophy of Personality

Fadi Abu Deeb

In response to Fayez Sayegh, a former official in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Antun Sa’adeh (1904-1949)—the Syrian (Lebanese) theorist, thinker, and founder of both the party mentioned above and its doctrine—addresses the existential philosophy of Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948). Sa’adeh’s motivation for engaging with this topic is to counter what he describes as the “selfish” and “chaotic” philosophy promoted by Sayegh within the party's ranks, which he believes are ideas detrimental to nationalism and the nation. Sa’adeh emphasizes that a comprehensive analysis of Berdyaev's doctrine requires reading all of the philosopher's works. However, he draws on the book Slavery and Freedom, published in London in 1944, which Sayegh uses to support his existential claim. Thus, Sa’adeh begins his 1947 article, “The School of Egoism and Self-Love, Its Strange, Chaotic Teachings,” by stating, “If we had time and Fayez Sayegh’s topic was worth all this trouble, we would have read all of Berdyaev’s books that Sayegh had collected and combined them with other books.” Rather than delve deeply into this topic, he chose to focus on key points from Berdyaev’s book regarding the doctrine of the chaotic, selfish individual personality. These ideas infiltrated social nationalist circles through Fayez Sayegh, who took over as the dean of culture and information, allegedly conspiring with Nima Thabet to betray both Sa’adeh and the social nationalist cause.

However, Sa’adeh’s response to Sayegh reveals significant inconsistencies in Berdyaev’s thoughts on the concept of the person and the doctrine of individualism. He also noted that some works may not have been available or translated from Russian to English or German at that time. Acknowledging that his aim was not to provide a comprehensive analysis of existentialism, Sa’adeh identifies five pillars in Berdyaev’s doctrine:

1. Every individual is a person and thus possesses a unique personality in a religious sense, stemming directly from God and not derived from the human species or society.

2. A refusal to integrate with society, alongside a rebellion against societal duties.

3. An individual's loyalty solely to himself and his personality.

4. The embrace of absolute chaos.

5. The adoption of an ostrich philosophy.

Under each of these pillars, Sa’adeh includes several brief quotes and conclusions from the book, largely relying on its first forty pages. To critique Sa’adeh's response, a Russian electronic copy of Slavery and Freedom will be used, along with some English versions.

Sa’adeh critiques Berdyaev for dismissing the findings of sociology: "In his anarchism, Berdyaev feels compelled to reject the value of science and the definitive conclusions reached by scientists and philosophers. He hastily claims that 'All the findings of sociology about man are wrong! It only knows the superficial layer of the human condition.' Furthermore, he devalues social philosophy and biological philosophy because they do not regard every individual as an independent personality emanating directly from God.’

Before delving into Berdyaev's views in the first part of the first chapter of his book "The Person" or "Lichnost," we should briefly understand the chronological context of the work.

The book was published in 1939, the year World War II began—a time when fascism, Nazism, and communism were at their peak. It was right after the "Great Terror" of 1937, marked by infamous mass executions in which at least hundreds of thousands of Russians lost their lives. Berdyaev, a significant figure in the Russian intelligentsia opposed to the Tsar, personally witnessed the atrocities committed in the name of socialism, revolution, and populism during the early twentieth century. These events culminated in the tumultuous years of 1917-1922 and led to his subsequent exile alongside dozens of other Russian intellectuals to Europe. As a former Marxist, Berdyaev, along with several of his comrades, had published a book entitled Vekhi Landmarks in 1909. This work served as a public confession of the intelligentsia's sins and a warning to their former colleagues that utopian revolutionism and a mass mentality without boundaries would lead to the country's destruction and the demise of the intelligentsia itself. "Vekhi" was the Russian intelligentsia's last desperate plea for self-preservation, but it faced fierce opposition from radicals. However, history quickly proved Berdyaev and his comrades right. A few years later, in 1917, the Bolsheviks—a radical faction of the intelligentsia—seized power, leading to the elimination of this class and its non-Bolshevik intellectuals through execution, exile, imprisonment, and starvation. This situation did not arise out of nowhere; it was a consequence of Russia's exposure to nihilistic and absurd trends and the naturalistic view of humanity prevalent in Western sociology and the scientific spirit of that era. Berdyaev opposed this notion vehemently, which incensed Sa’adeh. Usachev elaborates that during that period, "the enthusiasm for self-destruction and self-criticism placed man in a position where he had to recognize that the world of objectification was not infinite." In other words, educated Russian men began to perceive themselves as material, mortal beings with an absurd and fleeting existence. Josephine van Kessel explains that sociology “only described the concrete state of society,” highlighting the emergence of Russian religious philosophy during that period (with Berdyaev as one of its central figures) as a reaction attempting to depict the ideal state of society rather than just naturalism. At the same time, it responds to the traditional religious position, which is submissive and subservient to the mainstream, advocating asceticism and ineffectiveness.

Amid trends that reduce man to a mere insignificant atom within the masses and sacrifice his present for a promised future, Berdyaev, in his stark critique of Marxism in his article “Personalism and Marxism,” highlighted these points. Berdyaev's existentialism and advocacy for personalism highlight the uniqueness and value of the human personality as the image of God and as a microcosm, transcending mere biological existence. Certainly, it is impossible to list everything Berdyaev wrote about his concept of personality, as he frequently revisited and expanded upon this topic in numerous works. However, it is important to point out that Sa’adeh did not recognize Berdyaev’s crucial distinction between the concepts of personhood and individuality (lichnost’ or individual’nost’ in Russian) on one hand and individualism (individualizm in Russian) on the other. According to Berdyaev, individualism is a struggle against the natural, biological determinism of the world rather than a means to create a new one. In his view, freedom within individualism is "a fragmented freedom alienated from the world." That is, it is a negative, defensive concept rather than a creative one that builds a new world. Regarding Berdyaev’s statements about man’s relationship with his surroundings, which Sa’adeh critiques, Berdyaev explains this relationship as follows:

“Personality should not be regarded as merely another object in the world, comparable to other things. Fields such as anthropology, biology, psychology, and sociology often attempt to understand humans in this limited manner. While this approach captures part of our reality, it fails to unravel the true essence of being human. Personality is best understood as a subject rather than an object—an infinite subjectivity within which the secret of existence resides.”

Berdyaev was against considering the human person as merely a talking animal, a biological organism, or an insignificant part of a larger herd of beings. He opposed the idea of man being merely an individual, contrary to what Sa’adeh interpreted as advocating for isolation and self-authority or having a relationship solely with God and not with the rest of humanity. Within this context, Berdyaev's critique of sociology becomes clear. He asserts that all teachings of sociology about Man are incorrect, as they recognize only the created class of man. Only from a sociological perspective, does an individual's personality appear as just a small part of the vast societal framework. However, true education about the human person should be grounded in existential philosophy rather than sociological or biological philosophies.

From Berdyaev's perspective, these considerations do not imply a person's isolation from human surroundings and the world, but rather their deeper involvement in them. However, what kind of environment and world are we referring to? While Berdyaev acknowledges that man is a social being, he also emphasizes that man is a spiritual being. This spirituality is the source of understanding goodness as inherently good. According to Berdyaev, sociology that denies this spiritual reality is not a genuine science but a false philosophy and religion.

Sa’adeh criticized the Russian philosopher by pointing out that even in acknowledging society, he only sought to elevate individual personality. He stated, “The principle of individual personality recognizes society's existence, but solely to highlight the personality,” suggesting that society has no authority over the individual, only the reverse. Based on this, Sa’adeh concludes:

All arbitrariness is both permissible and desirable in this wonderful chaos. Every desire, lust, and passion are necessities of 'freedom.' True realization of individual personality emerges only through this chaos. Individual personality thrives on abnormality, dissent, incompatibility with the world, rebellion, and unruliness. Any thought or mindset that limits a person’s ‘freedom’ is a ‘condition’ unworthy of the individual personality.

Sa’adeh's results stand in stark contrast to Berdyaev’s philosophy. Berdyaev rejected not only coercion imposed on individuals but also the false freedom that recognizes only obedience. However, he does not condone abnormality or violations. For him, laws and their morality are not the ultimate goals, but rather temporary stages on the path to true creative freedom—existential freedom stemming from conviction. Personality, according to Berdyaev, exists only within relationships of love and sacrifice, implicitly presupposing the presence of others.

As for the chaos portrayed by Sa’adeh, it parallels what Berdyaev describes as “individualism,” which he sees as “an enemy of individuality” and the liberation of man from the world (as an ideal cosmos) to ultimately attain his enslavement. He asserts, “The narrow isolation of the personality in modern individualism is the destruction of the personality, not its victory. Hardened subjectivity — a consequence of original sin— is not true personality. Only when this hardened subjectivity dissolves and transcends does true personality emerge.” Berdyaev believes that genuine individuality is only achieved within a holistic cosmic existence. Furthermore, he argues that liberating man’s individuality from both God and the world constitutes a form of crime and satanic enslavement, as human freedom is intrinsically linked to the freedom of the world and can only be realized through it. If Berdyaev rejects the idea that society should oversee or mediate the relationship between a man and a woman, or set the boundaries of their relationship—especially when it is based on love, which only the parties involved can fully understand—then he also does not permit indulging in every desire, whim, or chaotic idea. Berdyaev defends chastity, but it is not a form of chastity imposed from above and confined by societal definitions subject to the political, cultural, and social whims of ruling authorities and traditions specific to a certain time and place. He believes that chastity preserves the “wholeness” of a human being, redirecting sexual energy rather than expending it on purely biological activity. Ultimately, this matter is left to individual freedom and should not be mandated by higher religious or political authorities. It is essential to note that Berdyaev, who sees personality within a framework of love and sacrifice, does not endorse freedom that harms others.

What Berdyaev means is that the human person is a spiritual entity, not merely a chemical and physiological system. However, it is not a selfish entity. He explains that "personality is the freedom and independence of man in his relationship with nature, society, and the state, but it is not merely a selfish lack of self-assertion; quite the opposite. Personality does not mean, as in individualism, self-centred isolation. Personality in man is his independence in relation to the material world, which serves as material for the work of the spirit. At the same time, personality is a universe filled with cosmic content." This, as the Russian philosopher notes, is perhaps the most crucial element: it leads to a person being free from natural and social imperatives. Man is not a slave to herd instinct; he always has the freedom to pursue his will or at least attempt to do so. An individual can choose to belong to various societies, select elements of different cultures, decide whether to marry, and whether to reproduce. He develops mentally, materially, and spiritually in whichever direction he chooses. Unlike other organisms, humans possess unique capabilities. Berdyaev dismisses philosopher Espinas's idea of man as merely a component of a larger organism. Instead, he views human relationships with others, the world, and society as founded on creativity, freedom, and love. These relationships are not governed by natural determinism but offer opportunities for choice—demonstrating that humans are far more than machines.

The human personality and individuality are not "two faces and two tongues," as Sa’adeh suggests, but rather two integral characteristics of a person. The complexity of mind, conscience, feelings, and the physical body does not imply duplicity in nature or behavior, even though psychoanalysis and analytical psychology—represented by Freud and Jung—suggest otherwise. The duality of belonging to both the Kingdom of God and the material world is an inescapable reality. Man must navigate the freedom of choice and the struggle between options; this is inevitable and cannot be dismissed as mere denial or avoidance. Doesn't a person sometimes feel torn between their small family and their extended family, or between the love of their life and their family's wishes, or between pursuing scientific studies and being a parent? This is an inherent part of life that cannot be escaped or ignored. Every person who truly experiences existence often finds themselves balancing their spiritual nature and material needs, choosing between two equally compelling goods. This is the essence of freedom, and without these decisions, freedom loses its meaning. Any attempt to alter this reality results in tyranny, leading to crime and the suppression of individuality, keeping people in a state of perpetual childhood or adolescence. This often manifests as fanaticism, anger, and various forms of violence and irresponsibility. Conversely, what Sa’adeh describes as "non-change in change" is a natural phenomenon rather than a contradiction; when we encounter someone familiar, we may notice significant changes in their psychological and mental traits. However, no matter how profound these changes are, the person remains fundamentally the same, allowing others to recognize and distinguish them from others both psychologically and spiritually. Even if this change is regrettable, it doesn't alter the fact that the person remains himself, albeit transformed. Sometimes, the absence of change is what proves unfortunate. Generally, people want to see others evolve into what they consider better, but without fundamentally changing who they are.

Berdyaev then asserts that the human personality cannot thrive without the existence of a higher world and supra-personal values. However, it also cannot exist if this upper world is the only reality and humans are merely means to an end. For instance, claiming that man's sole purpose is for God to glorify Himself diminishes both man and God. This notion also applies to major structures like the nation, the state, and society, which often regard individuals merely as tools for achieving broader goals or survival. In comparing human personality to major structures, these structures appear dull, illusory, and unreal. Berdyaev expresses this starkly: “Collective supra-personalities, when compared to the human personality, are pure illusions generated from external projection and objectification. Characters do not exist as objects but only as subjects. In this regard, even a dog or a cat possesses more personality and stands closer to eternal life than any nation, society, state, or global entity. This view epitomizes non-hierarchical personalism—the only coherent form of personalism. Totality, universality, or any true holistic entity exists solely within the personality; outside of it lies only a fragmented, objectified world.” In essence, this description points out that at the core of existence, entities like Germany, the Soviet Union, or France do not exist, but only individuals do. These countries, representing nations, states, peoples, or other forms of collective identity, are ultimately subject to change or dissolution. Consider Hellenistic Syria: it is vastly different from Syria today, although some features and legacies persist. This is an objective observation devoid of emotional influence. It doesn’t reflect the writer’s desires or signify resignation to this reality. Thus, in line with Berdyaev’s Christian existentialist perspective, humans are immortal because they are made in the image of God, who is also a person. Berdyaev does not suggest that individuals can find meaning in isolation from others. Rather, he posits that the Sabbath was created to serve humanity, not the other way around. Berdyaev can be seen as both a liberal and a conservative. He is liberal in his emphasis on human beings and historical progress, though he clarifies in his acclaimed article "The New Middle Ages" that progress is not always linear. At the same time, he preserves eternal spiritual values, recognizing their changing forms over time and place. Berdyaev sought what he termed "criticism of pure conscience," exploring human conscience free from the coercive power of systems.

The relationship between the individual and the community, or the "group" as Sa’adeh terms it, is founded on membership and cooperation rather than authoritarianism. This idea has deep roots in Russian thought, encapsulated in the concept of "Sobornost." Without delving into its historical origins, Sobornost represents a vision of cooperative and non-massive association. According to Berdyaev, a true spornist must be free, just as a human being embodies a collective cooperative spirit. Sobornost is not an external authority imposing orders on individuals but rather the highest qualitative spiritual force within humans. This Sobornost cannot have a rational, legal expression, as everyone in it takes responsibility for the whole and no one can separate themselves from the global community. However, this perception is far removed from Sa’adeh's views of the nation and its people. This romantic outlook opposing the rationalization of a united cooperative means that a society based on strict logical rules, detached from the spirit of its individuals and their social tendencies, turns into a coercive legal structure driven by force, domination, and imposed influence. For example, it is like enforcing a Western model on an African country or applying the Chinese model in Germany, where the collective situation becomes merely a set of laws imposed from above. Of course, Berdyaev does not believe that everything stemming from the masses should prevail. Similar to a foreign state imposed on an alien society, the people also possess domineering, herd-like, and instinctive tendencies that can suppress individuality, and one must resist these just as one would resist foreign laws. Perhaps Sa’adeh himself is among the most significant figures who opposed narrow tribal, regional, and sectarian tendencies, even those ingrained in the populace or human groups and accepted by them.

The “Sobornost” is therefore not merely a rational entity defined by strict legal frameworks, nor is it an instinctual herd bound solely to qualitative and biological survival. Instead, it is a spiritual entity grounded in Christian principles, particularly within Russian Orthodox culture, emphasizing mutual love and sacrifice. Therefore, the concept of Sobornost has always been associated with the perception of Russian society before Peter the Great's reforms in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It is particularly linked to Russian society prior to the Tatar occupation, a time when there was no upper priestly class speaking a different language, unlike in the Roman and Germanic worlds with Latin. During this period, Russian principalities were largely decentralized, and society was comprised of participatory federations based on harmonious values among various races and nations. In fact, understanding Berdyaev’s concept of personalism (or personal socialism, as he sometimes calls it) requires delving into his participatory idea. Unfortunately, historian Vasily Zenkovsky only briefly touched on this concept, failing to present it as Berdyaev envisioned. As a result, Zenkovsky mistakenly viewed Berdyaev’s ideas as leaning towards anarchism (incorrectly translated into Arabic as “anarchism”) and verging on solipsism. This interpretation, as previously explained, is inaccurate and misleading.

Berdyaev draws upon the distinct spiritual essence of Russia, which Nicholas Zernov describes: “Russia is more akin to India, China, or Islam than to modern European nation-states. Like India and China, it is a culture of united peasants, and like Islam, it does not recognize state-imposed restrictions but rather emphasizes the brotherhood and equality of all believers ... While the Western mind focused on drawing borders, Russians were concerned with seeking the essence of things.” The distance from the priestly mentality and the Greco-Roman mindset, which valued laws, philosophical terms, and their nuances, resulted in Russia lacking strict discipline and a focus on obeying authorities. Zernov describes the concept of “spornst” as embodying “meeting, collective spirit, wholeness,” referring to unity without regularity or loss of individuality. This intimate image of Russian society occupied the minds of many Russian thinkers, including Berdyaev, who understood concepts like personality, freedom, and society’s broader connections. They also recognized resistance to discipline, artificial structures, and the reduction of humans to abstract elements or means to an end within this spiritual understanding of humanity and community. Only “obshchestvo” (society) is the enemy of the human person, but not “spornist” (participatory) or “obschchnost” (community). Here, Berdyaev seems to employ concepts borrowed from the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies. Society (in German, Gesellschaft) is an entity based on reason and voluntary will, lacking elements of emotional harmony. It is akin to societies in cosmopolitan cities of the contemporary world. In contrast, a participatory society or state (in German, Gemeinschaft) is based on emotional bonds, mutual trust between people, and collective will. This resembles a village community, religious group, or peasant society. However, this does not mean Berdyaev strictly adheres to Tönnies’ definitions; Berdyaev’s view of the Spornist transcends a mere collective state governed by shared morals, fixed values, and obedience to a single will. Instead, it is founded on creative freedom, where there is no place for coercion. Perhaps Berdyaev's perspective aligns somewhat with the vision of a utopia, but it is a utopia illuminated by the Holy Spirit rather than Platonic laws that expel violators and retain only the obedient. While its unreality may be critiqued, it cannot be regarded as an invitation to chaos and the permissibility of every human whim. Berdyaev was acutely aware of history's tragedies and the constraints imposed by Sharia, law, and the conditions of time and place on every creative existential act. In his book "The Meaning of History," he argued that achieving the ideal human condition, which transcends the duality of good and evil, is unattainable within the confines of history—contrary to what communism seeks as an heir to Jewish Messianic aspirations. However, this realization did not imply, nor should it ever imply, surrendering to the conditions of time and place, the will of the masses, or tyrannical authorities. The potential for change and advancement exists within historical boundaries, even if "perfection" remains an elusive and almost unimaginable goal.

The detailed examination of some of Berdyaev’s beliefs does not preclude the possibility of directing legitimate and real criticism toward them. As previously mentioned, we can discuss their utopian aspects and question their practical significance and attainability. It is also arguable that the strict dichotomy between personality and individualism—often emphasized by modern Orthodox thinkers and theologians—is more theoretical than practical. The extreme individualism depicting the Western person as isolated from their surroundings is not a universal condition; it varies according to cultural, economic, social, and even geographical factors. It is unclear why many states, countries, and regions distant from the concept of individualism have failed to create opportunities for individuals to realize their unique and creative potential. Instead, they often suppressed, destroyed, or diminished these qualities, thereby alienating individuals from their true nature. Interestingly, despite being viewed negatively by thinkers such as Berdyaev, individualism has frequently fostered the development of creative personalities that contribute to society and nation-building. A contemporary Greek thinker's observations highlight a paradox: personalist philosophies, despite critiquing individualism, thrived and influenced individualistic societies. In contrast, cultures that pride themselves on social solidarity often suffer from disintegration and extreme selfishness. Though they champion cohesive social relations in theory, these ideals frequently become empty slogans in practice. Thus, individualism, despite its perceived negativity, can actually be a step towards realizing true personality rather than its complete opposite. It could be argued that individualism, in some forms, is the initial move towards breaking free from the confines of conformity, fanatical followership, and unthinking tribalism – a necessary remedy at a certain stage for healing the suppressed human spirit.

Antun Sa’adeh exemplifies a remarkable individual, not in an isolationist or individualistic manner, but as a unique personality free from the constraints and tyranny of custom, institutional religion, doctrines, sects, and tribes. His beliefs were not mere copies of inherited, rigid laws. Instead, he chose what he deemed appropriate for both his present and future, investing himself fully in these convictions and ultimately sacrificing his life for them. This is not an endorsement of the man’s faith, political behavior, or choices. Issuing a ruling like this requires a deep and detailed analytical study of his thoughts and biography, which warrants independent research. Sa’adeh’s conduct, influence on his followers, and interactions with both friends and adversaries do not alter the distinctiveness of his character. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him is irrelevant; the reality of his uniqueness remains unchanged. Additionally, whether Sa’adeh can impart the same qualities to his followers as those inherent in his personality does not affect this reality. How many brilliant, creative personalities have succeeded in teaching their followers to achieve the same level of uniqueness? Conversely, how many have failed, considering that much of their influence depends on individual aptitudes, inclinations, and free will? Issuing a verdict on this matter requires a thorough historical study of Sa’adeh’s thought and the trajectory of his Syrian Social Nationalist Movement.