Myrrha Lot-Borodine – The First Female Orthodox Theologian
The article is dedicated to Myrrha Lot-Borodine who is considered to be the first female Orthodox theologian. Her pioneer studies in patristics, especially that concerning deification and Nicolas Cabasilas, initiated researches in this field in milieu of Catholic French thinkers. I also discuss the contribution of Lot-Borodine into the ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Eventually, I pay attention to her attitude towards Russian religious philosophy.
Two main discourses of participation used by Origenes— natural participation (N) and individual participation (I) — are identified in this article. N refers to participation of the beings of the created world in the divinity according to their natural capacities, or to participation of the beings of the material world in the principles and logoi of the intellectual world according to the natural qualities of the beings. This type of participation is employed when Origenes addresses the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, or the connection of the humans with God. Having analyzed these discourses in Origenes, the author identifies four subtypes in N and two subtypes in I. First subtype of N indicates the order in the participation of species of the created beings in the Persons of the Holy Trinity. According to the second subtype of N, all created beings naturally participate in the logoi contained in the Logos-Wisdom. The third subtype is associated with the natural capacity of all intellectual beings to participate in the divine substance (the union with God). According to the fourth subtype, all humans naturally participate in the capacity of reasoning which constitutes the human nature.
This paper deals with the humanist reception of St. Basil’s homily In illud: attende tibi ipsi up to 1532. In the XV cent., three new Latin translations were made in the circle of cardinal Bessarion: by Bessarion himself, by his protégé Athanasius Chalkeopulos, and by an anonymous author, probably Pietro Balbi. The translation of Franciscus Maturantius was published as a separate edition in 1522, and that of Rafaelle Maffei appeared in the first Latin Opera of Basil in 1515. A review of these translations and of the dedicatory epistles shows that not only the humanistic program or theological views of Basil were of interest for the humanists. Attende tibi is valued as an example of biblical exegesis and because of its moral and ascetic content. Although, on the whole, the reception centers in this period tend to distance from the Church, all our translators, except for one, are associated with the Roman Catholic Church. The comparison of the biblical “give heed to thyself” with the Delphic “know thyself”, found in Maturantius’ dedicatory letter and in Maffei’s marginalia, aims at demonstrating the superiority of Christian wisdom, not at promoting the study of philosophy. Only two of the discussed translations were published, and a more or less large-scale dissemination of Basilius Latinus starts no earlier than in the 20s. of XVI cent., when the translation of Maffei was reissued in Paris (1520 and 1523), Cologne (in 1523 and 1531) and Basel (1523).
A collective monograph prepared by the specialists of the Moscow State University in cooperation with colleagues from other universities and scientific institutions of Russia, for the first time in Russian historiography, offers a comprehensive view of the cult of rulers in the Hellenistic states, as well as of its prerequisites in the societies of the Ancient East and classical Greece and its subsequent evolution in Roman times. For historians of antiquity, students of historical faculties, all interested in the history of the ancient world.
Dire Dieu en patristique. Les principes méthodologiques de l'écriture sur Dieu en patristique. Actes du colloque de Tours, 17-18 avril 2015. Textes édités par Bernard Pouderon et Anna Usacheva
Dans quelle mesure et dans quel sens peut-on parler d’une « méthode » par rapport aux écrits patristiques ? La question même nous fournit l’a priori fondamental pour l’enquête suivante : on entend par là que les textes concernés ne sont pas construits εἰκῇ, mais qu’on est en mesure de discerner derrière eux un principe organisateur, une voie (μέθοδος) suivie par l’auteur plus ou moins consciemment. Dans l’Antiquité tardive, à laquelle appartiennent, au moins chronologiquement, les Péres de l’Église, ce principe organisateur est offert par deux piliers de la formation classique : la rhétorique et la philosophie.
SummaryMaximus’ idea of appropriation of the divine will by deified humans, in any consistent interpretation, would mean their deprivation of their own freedom – exactly in the same manner as it could be in the case of servitude to sin. Maximus’ own logic, however, was paraconsistent when applied to the case of deification (whereas not to the opposite case of the servitude to sin). A recourse to a paraconsistent deontic logic was not a uniquely Maximian tool even in the Middle Ages and could serve as an inspiring example for logicians today.
The author analyzes the ritual status of the Seleucid kings in the Babylonians' view and reveals a paradoxical picture: the Babylonians categorically did not deify the self-deified Seleucid kings in their own Babylonian terms and texts, but took into account, accepted and even offered the deification of the Seleucids in the concepts and terminology of the latters themselves (i.e. in the Hellenic ones). Apparently, the Babylonians did not identify completely the Babylonian and Greco-Macedonian categoris of "gods" with each other and attributed the Seleucid kings to the strata of beings belonging to the category of "gods" of the Greco-Macedonian classification, but not to the category of "gods" of Babylonian classification.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.