Четыре Книги Маккавеев
The article discusses the semantic difference between the singular and the plural forms of the word νόμος (law) in the Second Book of the Maccabees. In Greek translations of books of the Hebrew canon, the plural νόμοι is used extremely rarely; normally νόμος is used in the singular (there is only one Law of Moses in the same way as there is one God and one Temple). In classical Greek, on the contrary,νόμοι is a standard designation for a legislative corpus. In the Apocrypha both singular νόμος and plural νόμοι are used, but, except in 2 Macc, no system has hitherto been proposed. The present article argues that 2 Macc shows a theologically important semantic opposition between what was the norm for the Septuagint (νόμος as, primarily, the unique Law of Moses) and what was the norm in classical Greek usage (νόμοι as the corpus of traditional laws).
The paper discusses several unusual features that characterize the language of the Fourth book of Maccabees. This Judeo-Hellenistic work played a major role in the formation of Christian theology: the doctrine of Redemption, of martyrdom, of supernatural forces given to the devotee etc. Introduction of new concepts required innovative vocabulary. The author creates a series of new stem-compounds that did not exist in Greek to designate specific Jewish religious concepts that have no parallels in the Greek mental repertoire such as miarofagia or hieropsychos. He also re- interprets the inner form of existing Greek words contrary to the estab- lished Greek usage: Eunomia designates not the state with good laws and lawful citizens, but instead an adherence to the Torah, as the Torah is transmitted in the LXX as Nomos; similarly, photagogos does not mean a window for light, but is applied to mystagogy. The author claims his own superiority over the Greeks in the mastery of Greek language, postulating that Jewish pious ratio (eusebes logos) surpasses the ratio of pagan thinkers.
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.