/
Search results


Гагинский А. М. Метафизика и божественные энергии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 4 (54). С. 145-148.
PDF
Гагинский А. М. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2015. Вып. 2 (58). С. 114-117. — Rev. op.: Meredith A. Christian Philosophy in the Early Church. T&T Clark, 2012
PDF
Гагинский А. М. Онто-теология и преодоление метафизики: М. Хайдеггер, Ж.-Л. Марион и христианская традиция // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2015. Вып. 4 (60). С. 55-71. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201560.55-71
The article considers concept of onto-theology, offered by Martin Heidegger, as well as its reception in postmetaphysical theology, in particular, in Jean-Luc Marion. (1) Onto-theology is an understanding of Being, which is reduced to beings and is founded in the top of hierarchy of beings (Ex 3. 14: He who is). This is «fate of Being» — it came to oblivion in metaphysics, which structure is the onto-theo-logic, i. e. «cross base» between the top being and the totality of beings. The consequence of the oblivion, says Heidegger, is loss of sacred and divine — nihilism. The desire to think truth of Being and open up access to the Divine leads to the need to overcome metaphysics, go to postmetaphysical thinking, which can reveal «the last God». (2) Author maintains that such ideas attract attention of philosophers and theologians in secular age. Vague hints at «the last God» are grasped like modern Christian philosophy, and the concept of onto-theology is seen as an opportunity to overcome atheism simply by removing it to a metaphysical problem. This is the starting point for the development of so-called post-metaphysical theology, i. e. theology after metaphysics. For example, philosophy of J.-L. Marion is based on the concept of onto-theology. However, he constricts the concept. As a result, onto-theology becomes more vulnerable to criticism.
ontotheology, God, being, beings, metaphysics, Christianity, atheism, M. Heidegger, J.-L. Marion, F. Nietzsche

1. Gaginskij A. M. 2014 “Bytie i Edinoe u Platona” (Being and One by Plato), in Platonovskie issledovanija, Moscow, 2014, vol. 1, pp. 89–107.
2. Gaginskij A. M. 2012 “Imja Boga i bytie: Filon Aleksandrijskij i Iustin Filosof” (God Name and Being: Philo of Alexandria and Justin Philosopher), in Evrazija: Duhovnye tradicii narodov, Moscow, 2012, vol. 2, pp. 26–33.
3. Gadamer H.-G. 2007 “Religioznoe izmerenie” (Religious Dimension), in On zhe. Puti Hajdeggera: issledovanija pozdnego tvorchestva, Minsk, 2007, pp. 192–207.
4. Konacheva S. A. Bytie. Svjashhennoe. Bog: Hajdegger i filosofskaja teologija XX veka (Being. Sacred. God: Heidegger and Philosophical Theology of XX Century), Moscow, 2010.
5. Fal'k Je. 2013 “Fenomenologicheskaja praktika i srednevekovaja filosofija” (Phenomenological Practice and Medieval Philosophy), in Petrov V. V. (ed.) PLATONICA ZETEMATA: Issledovanija po istorii platonizma, Moscow, 2013, pp. 505–580.
6. Jampol'skaja A. 2011 “Fenomenologija kak snjatie metafiziki?” (Phenomenology as Dismissal of Metaphysics?), in Logos, Moscow, 2011, vol. 3/82, pp. 107–123.
7. Adams M. 2014 “What’s Wrong with the Ontotheological Error?”, in Journal of Analytic Theology, 2014, vol. 2, pp. 1–12.
8. Caputo J. The Religious, Oxford, 2002.
9. Carlson Th. 2003 “Postmetaphysical theology”, in Vanhoozer K. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 58–75.
10. Hankey W. 2004 “Why Heidegger’s «History» of Metaphysics Is Dead”, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2004, vol. 78/3, pp. 425–443.
11. Inwood M. 1999 “Difference, Ontological”, in Idem. A Heidegger Dictionary, Oxford, 1999, pp. 46–49.
12. Inwood M. 1999 “Ontotheology”, in Idem. A Heidegger Dictionary, Oxford, 1999, pp. 149–150.
13. Jaran F. 2006 “L’onto-théologie dans l’oeuvre de Martin Heidegger: Récit d’une confrontation avec la pensée Occidentale”, in Philosophie, 2006, vol. 91, pp. 37–62.
14. Janicaud D. Le tournant théologique de la phenomenology française, Combas, 1992.
15. Klun B. 2006 “Die Gottesfrage in Heideggers «Beiträgen»“, in Theologie und Philosophie: Vierteljahresschrift, Basel; Wien, 2006, vol. 4, pp. 529–547.
16. Kremer K. 1984 “Ontotheologie“, in Ritter J., Gründer K., Gabriel G. (eds.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel, 1984, vol. 6, p. 1207.
17. Jaran F., Perrin Ch. (eds.) The Heidegger Concordance, London; New York, 2013.
18. Thomson I. 2013 “Ontotheology”, in The Bloomsbury Companion to Heidegger, London; New York, 2013, pp. 319–328.
Гагинский А. М. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2016. Вып. 4 (66). С. 136-141. — Rev. op.: Berto F., Plebani M. Ontology and Metaontology: A Contemporary Guide. Bloomsbury, 2015
PDF
Gaginsky Aleksei
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; St. Tikhon Orthodox University;
Email: email: algaginsky@gmail.com. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Гагинский А. М. Энергии простоты или простота энергии? Две парадигмы патристической философии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2016. Вып. 4 (71). С. 21-28. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201671.21-28
My main thesis looks as follows. Two fundamental paradigms were developed in Christian culture in the 4th с. AC. and largely determine philosophical and theological thought in East and West: 1) the identity paradigm, which became widespread in the West after Augustine, involves the identification of essence and predicates in God; 2) the paradigm of difference, which became widespread in the East thanks to Cappadocian Fathers, involves fundamental difference between essence and predicates in God. These approaches are not only private theological opinions, but lie at the beginning of the two branches of the Christian metaphysics. I argue that identity paradigm is imperfect from theological and philosophical points of view, while the paradigm of difference has a rich philosophical and theological potential, however, it has not been studied suffi ciently.
difference, identity, patristic philosophy, Arianism, Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, East, West.

1. Brjedshou D. Aristotel' na Vostoke i na Zapade: Metafizika i razdelenie hristianskogo mira (Aristoteles in East and West: Metaphysics and Division of Christian World), Moscow, 2012.
2. Gaginskij A. M. 2015 “Onto-teologija i preodolenie metafiziki: M. Hajdegger, Zh.-L. Marion i hristianskaja tradicija” (Onto-Theology and Overcoming of Metaphysics: M. Heidegger, J.-L. Marion and Christian Tradition), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, Moscow, 2015, vol. 4/60, pp. 55–71.
3. Plantinga A. Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi (Analytic Text: Anthology of Alvin Plantinga), Moscow, 2014.
4. Popov I. V. 2005 “Lichnost' i uchenie blazhennogo Avgustina” (Person and Teaching of St. Augustine), in Popov I. V. Trudy po patrologii, Sergiev Posad, 2005, vol. 2.
5. Fokin A. R. Formirovanie trinitarnoj doktriny v latinskoj patristike (Forming of Trinitarian Doctrine in Latin Patristics), Moscow, 2014.
6. Kapriev G. 2002 “Gibt es eine byzantinische Philosophie?“, in Ostkirchliche Studien, Würzburg, 2002, vol. 51, pp. 3–28.
7. Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. Des origines à saint Jean Damascène, Paris, 2010.
8. Martzelos G. Ousia kai energiai tou Theou kata ton Megan Basileion. Symbole eis ten istorikogodmatiken diereunesin tes peri ousias kai energeion tou Theou didaskalias tes Orthodoxou Ekklesias (Essence and Energies of God according to Great Basil. Historical-Dogmatical Study on the Teaching of Orthodox Church about Essence and Energies of God), Thessalonike, 1993.
Гагинский А. М. Дискуссия о различии сущности и энергии в контексте византийской онтологии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2018. Вып. 76. С. 23-39. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201876.23-39
This article deals with the ontological background of the discussion about divine energies in the 14th century. Specifi cally, since the concept of being was reduced to the essence, the status of energy became unclear, for the anousios energeia cannot be regarded as existing. The article shows that the existential dimension of the concept of energy, developed by Aristotle, in the era of Christological controversies recedes to the background, and the conceptual apparatus of ontology becomes so narrow that it seeks to eliminate everything that does not fi t into the framework of the opposition “essence vs. accidents” (ο¨σªα vs. συμβεβηκ´ς). The article also demonstrates that this circumstance is a philosophical base of the Palamitic disputes and their most important theoretical prerequisite. In the relevant scientifi c literature, these disputes are viewed from the theological point of view; the motivation of anti-Palamites therefore remains unclear. Presumably, it might have happened that for their personal reasons, they did not accept, for example, hesychastic practices, whereas they were urged to deny the concept of energies by their own “mental ontology”.
God, being, essence, energy, Palamism, anti-Palamism, ontology, theology
  1. Bibihin V. V., Jenergija, Moscow, 2010.
  2. Bolotov V. V., Sobranie cerkovno-istoricheskih trudov, Moscow, 1999.
  3. Bradshaw D., “The presence of Aristotle in Byzantine theology”, in: Kaldellis A., Siniossoglou N., eds., The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium, Cambridge, 2017, 381–396.
  4. Brentano F., O mnogoznachnosti sushhego po Aristotelju, St.-Petersbourg, 2012.
  5. Brjedshou D., Aristotel’ na Vostoke i na Zapade: Metafi zika i razdelenie hristianskogo mira, Moscow, 2012, 23–77.
  6. Chen Ch.-H., “Different Meanings of the Term εν£ργεια in the Philosophy of Aristotle”, in: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Malden, 1956, 17, 56–65
  7. Dobrohotov A. L., Kategorija bytija v klassicheskoj zapadnoevropejskoj filosofii, Moscow, 1986.
  8. Fehér I., “Heideggers Kritik der Ontotheologie”, in: Religion und Gott im Denken der Neuzeit, Paderborn, 2000, 200–223.
  9. Fokin A. R., “Transformacij a aristotelevskih kategorij v teologii i kosmologii Maksima Ispovednika”, in: Filosofskij zhurnal, Moscow, 2017, 10, 43–45.
  10. Gaginskij A. M., “Filosofskie kategorii v palamitskih sporah”, in: Bogoslovskij vestnik, Sergiev Posad, 2017, 24–25, 181–185.
  11. Gaginskij A. M., “Onto-teologija i preodolenie metafi ziki: M. Hajdegger, Zh.-L. Marion i hristianskaja tradicij a”, in: Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, Moscow, 2015, 60, 55–71.
  12. Gajdenko P. P., Nauchnaja racional’nost’ i fi losofskij razum, Moscow, 2003.
  13. Gutas D., Siniossoglou N., “Philosophy and “Byzantine philosophy””, in: Kaldellis A., Siniossoglou N., eds., The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium, Cambridge, 2017, 271–295.
  14. Hajdegger M., Tozhdestvo i razlichie, Moscow, 1997.
  15. Jaran F., “L’onto-théologie dans l’oeuvre de Martin Heidegger: Récit d’une confrontation avec la pensée Occidentale”, in: Philosophie, Paris, 2006, 91, 37–62.
  16. Larchet J.-C., Théologie des énergies divines: Des origines à st. Jean Damascène, Paris, 2010.
  17. Bruun O., Corti L., éds., Les Catégories et leur histoire, Paris, 2005.
  18. Lilla S., Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford, 1971.
  19. Μόσχος Δ., Πλατωνισμ‹ς Œ Χριστιανισμ‹ς; Ο• φιλοσοφικ˜ς προϋποθ˜σεις το ντιησυχασμο το Νικηφ‹ρου Γρηγορ (1293–1361), ùθýνα, 1998.
  20. Menn S., “The Origins of Aristotle’s Concept of ¢νέργεια: ¢νέργεια and δžναμις”, in: Ancient Philosophy, Pittsburgh, 1994, 14, 73–114.
  21. Sorabji R., ed., Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, New York, 1987.
  22. Sorabji R., Time, Creation and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, London, 1983.
Gaginsky Alexey
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia Str., Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9412-9064;
Email: algaginsky@gmail.com. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Гагинский А. М. О ветхих мехах рациональной теологии и молодом вине веры // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2019. Вып. 81. С. 121-136. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201981.121-136
This article analyses one more attempt to defend the onto-theological interpretation of Christianity, in which God is understood as one of the beings among a number of others and must consequently be subject to requirements of logic and be available for rational cognition. The author of the article shows that this approach is connected with obsolete conceptions of ancient philosophy which is now outdated and cannot be regarded as an adequate instrument for theology.
theology, existence, being, energies, God, proof, rationality
  1. Borret M. (ed.) (1967, 1968, 1969). Origenes. Contra Celsum. Paris.
  2. Constas N. (ed.) (2014). Maximus Confessor. Ambigua ad Joannem. Harvard.
  3. Dawkins R. (2006). The God Delusion. (Russian translation 2010).
  4. Fokin A. (2006). “Dokazatel’stva bytiia Boga v antichnoi fi losofi i i khristianskom bogoslovii” [Proofs of the Existence of God in Ancient Philosophy and Christian Theology], Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Filosofiia. Bogoslovie, 2006, vol. 15, pp. 30–51 (in Russian).
  5. Frank S. (1995). Predmet znaniia. Dusha cheloveka [Object of Knowledge. Soul of Man]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  6. Früchtel L., Stählin O., Treu U. (Hrsgg.) (1960, 1970). Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata, II, III. Berlin.
  7. Gaginskii A. (2015). “Ontoteologiia i preodolenie metafi ziki: M. Khaidegger, Zh.-L. Marion i khristianskaia traditsiia” [Ontotheology and Overcoming of Metaphysics: M. Heidegger, J.-L. Marion and Christian Tradition]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2015, vol. 4 (60), pp. 55–71 (in Russian).
  8. Gaginskii A. (2018). “Skrytye predposylki ratsional’noi teologii” [Hidden Prerequisites of Rational Theology]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2018, vol. 11, No 1, pp. 111–124 (in Russian).
  9. Grigorii (Lur’e), hieromonk (2017). “Palama myslil kak Bog: Interv’iu” [Palamas Thought like God: an Interview]. Finikovyi kompot, 2017, vol. 12, pp. 114–119 (in Russian).
  10. Heidegger M. (1993). “European Nihilism” (Russian translation), in M. Heidegger. Vremia i bytie: Stat’i i vystupleniia [Time and Being. Papers and Presentations]. Moscow, pp. 63–176 (in Russian).
  11. Henry P., Schwyzer H.-R. (eds.) (1951–1973). Plotinus. Enneades, in Plotini Opera. Leiden.
  12. Mesiats S. (2005). “Transformatsiia antichnogo ponimaniia Absoliuta v khristianskom bogoslovii IV v.” [Transformation of the Ancient Understanding of the Absolute in Christian Theology of the 4th Century], in P. Gaidenko, V. Petrova (eds.) Kosmos i dusha: Ucheniia o vselennoi i cheloveke v Antichnosti i v Srednie veka: Issledovaniia i perevody [Cosmos and Soul: Doctrines of the Universe and Man in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Studies and Translations]. Moscow, pp. 823–858 (in Russian).
  13. O’Rourke F. (2005). Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas. Notre Dame.
  14. Shokhin V. (2018). “Legko li brat’ krepost’ ratsional’noi teologii?” [Is it Easy to Conquer the Fortress of Rational Theology?]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, vol. 79, pp. 117–131 (in Russian).
  15. Suchla B. (Hrsg.) (1990). Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Berlin.
  16. Swinburne R. (2006). Is There a God? Moscow (in Russian).
  17. Tselishchev V. (2018). “Analiticheskaia fi losofi ia i revizionizm bez beregov” [Analytical Philosophy and Revisionism without Limits]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2018, vol. 11, No 2, pp. 138–155 (in Russian).
  18. Wolterstorff N. (2009). “How Philosophical Theology Became Possible within the Analytic Tradition of Philosophy”, in O. Crisp, M. Rea (eds.) Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology. Oxford, pp. 155–168.
Gaginsky Alexey
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia Str., Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9412-9064;
Email: algaginsky@gmail.com. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.