«Лосский обязан Флоровскому весьма многим…»
The article is an introduction to the publication of the letters of Vladimir Lossky to Fr. George Florovsky written in 1948–1957. Both thinkers are representatives of neopatristic synthesis. The article contains some biographical information, which allows to learn more about the context of their work, as well as a brief comparative analysis of philosophical and theological thought of Vladimir Lossky and George Florovsky.
The book is an interesting and fresh contribution to the study of Russian Religious Philosophy as a series of approaches to understanding of a role of religion in the contemporary, "post-secular" world.
Observing the history of reception of Origen’s intellectual heritage by Russian theologians and philosophers of the past few centuries, some key moments and figures are discernible. Those figures are Grigory Skovoroda (1722–1794), Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900), Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944), Nicolay Berdyaev (1874–1948) and George Florovsky (1893–1979). Those authors' significance for our outline is determined by (1) their key role in the evolution of Russian theological and philosophical thought and – at the same time – (2) by the fact that those authors’ own intellectual evolution and/or (3) their ideas’ reception by their contemporaries proceeded in close connection withthe problem of Origen. So the process of reception of Origen’s intellectual heritage in Russia was substantially conditioned by the controversies raging around the key representatives of the so-called “Russian religious philosophy.”
Since the twenties of the last century in various fields of the Greek culture (in the works of A.Papadiamandis in bélles-léttres, of Ph.Kontoglou and N.Pentzikis in iconography and painting, D. Pikionis in architecture, B.Tatakis, Ch.Yannaras, J.Romanides, J.Zizioulas and others in philosophy and theology) one may see development of a tendency which may be characterized in a first approximation as “Neo-Byzantinism”.
In a measure this movement might be connected with a failure of the political project that had its beginning in the Greek revolution of 1821 and its tragic result in the destruction of Greek communities in Asia Minor in 1923 (after – in Constantinople too). In general the principle of “Neo-Byzantinism” might be formulated as following: Greece is not an ordinary nation and cannot build its identity according to the model of a neo-European national state (in spite of just this process actually proceeds in 20th c.). Paradoxically the fundamental principle of Greek culture is recognized in Byzantine Orthodoxy as supra-territorial and moreover supra-ethnic cultural model.
Many of mentioned Greek authors find the detailed development of philosophical, theological, artistic aspects of this model in the writings of Russian religious philosophers and byzantinists of 19 and 20th c. – from the early Slavophiles (like I.Kirejevsky and A.Khomyakov) up to Russian emigrate authors (mainly in Paris) – like G.Florovsky, V.Lossky, L.Ouspensky. It’s very meaningful that Greek intellectuals “recognize” in writings of representatives of “the Third Rome” the image of “the Second Rome’s” culture; they receive it as own (unlike to, for example, the “western” one). So Basil Tatakis discovers the Byzantine type of spirituality in the works of I. Kirejevsky, F. Dostoevsky, N.Berdiaeff (the last chapter of his famous “Byzantine Philosophy” – “Byzantium after Byzantium” – is devoted to Russian culture that has preserved the spiritual tradition of Byzantium). So Ch. Yannaras recognizes the Byzantine type of sociality in a Russian Orthodox parish in Paris.
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.
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.
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.