HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
The article concerns philosophical and theological views of G.E. Lessing. It was in the German Enlightenment that what today we call philosophical theology was born and began to actively develop. This concept was formulated in its expressed form by Kant. He also owns a brief but profound description of the essence of philosophical theology and its functions, as well as main features distinguishing it from biblical theology. Kant draws attention here to the freedom as an essential characteristic of a philosophical theologian, but also emphasizes that the results of philosophical research should be offered to biblical theologians as recommendations, but not as imposed truths. Likewise, biblical theology must give philosophical theology freedom of consideration, but must itself stand guard over the salvation of the souls of its entrusted flock. Within the framework of the philosophy of I. Kant, such an approach is based on the division he proposes between the private and public use of reason. However, we see that Kant for that matter is rooted in the philosophical and theological tradition that preceded him. No less a philosophical theologian can be considered G.E. Lessing. Despite the fact that Lessing himself herein does not use the concept directly, his position on issues of religion and faith and their philosophical understanding on that completely coincides with Kant’s. It can be seen especially clearly in the dispute that took place between him and Goeze in the framework of one of the most interesting and lively discussions of the German Enlightenment, namely the Fragmentenstreit. The article considers in detail the key stages of development of the discussion, as well as the positions of the parties. As a result, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the discussion position defended by Lessing can be characterized as philosophical theology.
The paper is concerned with the carnal turn in contemporary philosophical theology. In the theological studies religion is often interpreted as primarily belonging to the sphere of the spiritual. While it is true that for most religious traditions (Christian as well as non-Christian) God is a spiritual and disembodied being, even the presence of God is always a mediated presence, and it may well be argued that this mediation is always material in character. We analyze theological aspects of the project carnal hermeneutics (Richard Kearney, Brian Treanor, John Panteleimon Manoussakis). Carnal hermeneutics shows the new philosophical turn away from the overly abstract, relativist and limited emphasis on structural linguistics and deconstruction in favor of a new emphasis on the on the fundamental act of incarnation. From that new point of view, linguistics and textual exegesis may continue to be a necessary aspect of hermeneutics – but they are not sufficient in themselves. It is a way of thinking which might help us recover the body as text and the text as body: to restore hermeneutics to phenomenology and vice versa and to remind us that interpretation is never a dis-embodied act. Carnal hermeneutics declares the living presence of the body as the inescapable foundation of our very being – inclusive of any act of interpretation. The carnal hermeneutics insists upon the crisscrossing of text and flesh, which both denies the collapsing of flesh into text (and vice versa) and also reveals the utter inextricability of the two.
The article is concerned with an attempt to correlate the thinking of being and faith of Revelation in modern German evangelical theology and in Russian religious philosophy on the example of the work of E. Jungel and A.F. Losev. The author reveals the uniqueness of Jungel’s concept of the Word of God in comparison with the event nature of the Word of God by K. Barth. Jüngel’s narrative theory of the Gospel parable is comprehended in the article in the perspective of finding common ground and especially with the philosophy of symbolic reality, of the name by A. Losev. Jungel thinks through the event nature of Revelation as the Word of God proposed by K. Barth, using the fundamental ontology of M. Heidegger, He develops a theological hermeneutic ontology in which the event of the Word of God acquires the features of the Gospel narrative of the parable. As discursive theology, based on the idea of the metaphysical absolute, is destroyed from the German thinker’s point of view, narrative theology wins its positions. For the German theologian, the core of the Christian kerygma – the death of God – is organically linked to the tradition of nineteenth-century philosophical atheism and is revealed in it no less than in theology and religious philosophy. The Russian philosopher refers to Hegel’s dialectics and Husserl’s phenomenology in understanding the event of God’s Revelation. However, he tries to integrate them into the model of Neo-platonic metaphysics, from which, in his opinion, they were formed. Losev, to the extent that he is a metaphysician, proceeds in the concept of name, unlike Jungel, from the principle of the analogy of being rather than the analogy of belief. The name for the Russian philosopher is not a story, but an energy (force) that has an ontological nature. With him, the name reflects essence rather than describing an event. Losev goes back to Antiquity to reanimate Neoplatonic metaphysics by means of the concept of the symbol, burying in it Plato and the non-metaphysical forms of thinking of the Christian kerygma. Jungel’s theology funds the word-centrism of the Protestant cult and contributes to the explication of the new-modern image of Christianity in Protestantism. Losev, for his part, does not undertake to explicate beyond metaphysics the antique-medieval mystery nature of the Christian cult in Orthodoxy. He needs to convey in his philosophical and theological thought not only the verbal aspect of the event of Revelation. In order to express the aesthetic and mystical dimension of Revelation, the Russian philosopher engages the metaphysics of all-encompassing unity with the idea of an unchanging Absolute
The article presents reflections prompted by the acquaintance with the new book by the Polish researcher of works by S.L. Frank Prof. Teresa Obolevich, who set herself the task of justifying his definition as “the most European” of Russian thinkers. Attention is drawn to the extensive empirical material through which the author demonstrates the philosopher’s involvement in European cultural spheres, as well as his integral connections with the emigrant environment. The researcher’s innovative methods of work, with the help of which she performs the task, as well as the innovative sources of information on which she relies are subject to analysis. It is emphasized that Obolevich’s newest book, using the example of Frank’s lecture tours in Western Europe, helps to comprehend such an “unconventional” form of expression of philosophical thinking as a public lecture. The question is raised about how legitimate it is to use the philosopher’s epistolary heritage as a source of information. The inevitability of interdisciplinary interaction is pointed out for the purpose of its meaningful involvement in historical and philosophical research. Clarifying the phenomenon of emigration serves as a proof for the legitimacy of the author’s thesis that inclusion in the emigrant environment is a demonstration of integration of S.L. Frank into the Western European cultural context.
SOCIOLOGY: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCHES
ART STUDIES
ISSN 2073-6401 (Online)