/
St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies
St. Tikhon’s University Review I :73

PHILOSOPHY

PDF

Da da


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Physical and Mathematical Sciences;
Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Architecture;
Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: PSTGU;
Post: ticher;
E-mail: ecowbtrifbqj@dropmail.me.

*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.

Shokhin Vladimir
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.13-29
This article gives a critical analysis of old-established stereotypes about substantiations of the existence of God. The attention is focused on their identifi cation as “proofs” and, in more detail, on their formal division into the a priori and a posteriori types and the “material” division into primary and secondary (and, correspondingly, into primary and secondary within both groups as well). The article suggests their defi nition as dialectical abductive conclusions (from the better explanation) and proposes the division into the arguments from the common sense, from metaphysical principles and from “spiritual recognition”. The article also demonstrates that most actual and persuasive substantiations are located in the fi rst group of arguments, which were developed and are developing in topical polemical dialogue with real-life opponents (this also enforces the position of the proponent). As for the arguments from metaphysical principles, they, not being justifi cations of the existence of God in the proper sense, disclose His attributes, having been established in the theology of the perfect Being (one may also call it Anselmian theology) that provides foundation for the entire rational theology of the classical theism that follows the substantiation of the existence of God but cannot replace these substantiations. The reason why analytical theology neglects to elaborate the substantiation of the existence of God is its present-day bias caused by the shift of focus from subjects that natural theology (theologia naturalis) had lawfully been dealing with for centuries to trespassing the territory of revelational theology (theologia revelata), which violates the boundaries of the competence of the religious mind.
analytic philosophy, philosophical theology, intercultural theology, naturala theology, abductive conclusions, dialectical controversy, illustrative arguments, metaphysical presuppositions, a priori and aposteriori, spiritual intuitions, a paradox of atheism
  1. Adams R., Dobrodetel’ very, Ocherki po filosofskomu bogosloviju, Moscow, 2013.
  2. Ansel’m Kenterberijskij , Sochinenija, Moscow, 1995.
  3. Bocharov V. A., Markin V. I., Osnovy logiki, Moscow, 2011.
  4. Crisp O., ed., A Reader in Contemporary Philosophical Theology, London, 2009.
  5. Davis S. T., God, Reason and Theistic Proofs, Edinburgh, 1997.
  6. Davis S., Christian Philosophical Theology, Oxford, 2006.
  7. Feiereis K., Die Umprägnung der natürlichen Theologie in Religionsphilosophie. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1965.
  8. Flew A. G. N., MacIntyre A. C., eds., New Essays on Philosophical Theology, London, 1955.
  9. Flint T. P., Rej M. K., Vasil’ev V. V., ed., Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoj teologii, Moscow, 2013.
  10. Flint T., Rea M., eds., Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, Oxford, 2009.
  11. Kant I., Kritika chistogo razuma, Moscow, 1994.
  12. Ljubak A. de., Drama ateisticheskogo gumanizma, Moscow, 1997.
  13. Morris T., Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology, Downers Grove (Ill), 1991.
  14. Potter K. H., ed., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Delhi, 1977.
  15. Quinn P. L., Taliaferro C., eds., A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, 1999.
  16. Rea M., ed., Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology, Oxford, 2009.
  17. Schellenberg J. L., Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, Ithaka (N. Y.), 1993.
  18. Semencov V. S., Problemy interpretacii brahmanicheskoj prozy: Ritual’nyj simvolizm, Moscow, 1981.
  19. Sennet D. F., Karpov K. V., ed., Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi, Moscow, 2014.
  20. Shohin V. K., “Filosofskij teizm klassicheskoj jogi”, in: Lidova N. R., eds., Donum Paulum. Studia Poetica et Orientalia: k 80-letij u P. A. Grincera, Moscow, 2008, 409–433.
  21. Shohin V. K., Filosofskaja teologija: dizajnerskie fasety, Moscow, 2016.
  22. Shohin V. K., Indijskaja filosofija. Shramanskij period, St. Petersbourg, 2007.
  23. Shokhin V., “Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology and Illustrative Argumentation”, in: De Gryuter Open Theology, 2, 2016, 804–817.
  24. Stewart M. Y., ed., Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology of Contemporary Views, Boston, 1996.
  25. Stump E., Murray M. J., eds., Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions, Malden (MA), 1999.
  26. Taliaferro C., Meister C., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, 2010.
  27. Tennant F. R., Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, 1928–1930.

Shokhin Vladimir


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of the Sector of Philosophy of Religion;
E-mail: vladshokhin@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space" supported by RFBR Foundation
Fokin Alexey
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.30-40
In this article the author deals with the proofs of the existence of God, based on the fact of the presence of rational beings in the world. These proofs can be found in Greek and Roman Classical philosophy and early Patristics, and can be viewed as an analogue of the modern “fine-tuning argument”. The author considers the origins and development of this argument in the Greek and Roman philosophy: in Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, and especially the Stoics, who gave to the argument a logical form, based on the relationship between “the parts and the whole”: if the world as a whole produces and contains rational beings as its parts, it should also be rational or contain a rational principle that generates all its parts and governs them, just as human soul governs human body. The correction of this argument was proposed by Sextus Empiricus, who introduced the concept of "spermatic logoi", or rational principles, to explain the generation of the rational beings by the world, so that if the world contains the spermatic logoi of rational and living beings, then the world as a whole is also rational. The author also investigates the reception of the argument based on the existence of rational beings in the world in Latin Patristics: in Minucius Felix, Tertullian and especially Lactantius, in whom this argument has reached the climax of its development. At the same time it was shown, that the ancient argument has undergone a transformation from the postulation of the rationality of the world as a whole or its equation with God himself to a genuine proof of the existence of the one God who is the Creator both of the world and human beings, superior to the both as the all-powerful and transcendent Mind.
God, proofs of the existence of God, theology, teleology, ancient philosophy, Platonism, Stoicism, Patristics, fine tuning argument, anthropic principle, rationality
  1. Arnim von J., ed., Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1903–1905, 1–3.
  2. Evans C. S., Manis R. Z., Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, Downers Grove (Ill.), 2009.
  3. Evans K. S., Menis R. Z., Filosofija religii: razmyshlenie o vere, Moscow, 2010.
  4. Stoljarov A. A., Stoja i stoicism, Moscow, 1995.
  5. Stoljarov A. A., ed., Fragmenty rannih stoikov, Moscow, 1998–2010, 1–3.
  6. Suinbern R., Sushhestvovanie Boga, Moscow, 2004.
  7. Swinburne R., The Existence of God, New York, 2004.

Fokin Alexey


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
E-mail: al-fokin@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 150300211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Karpov Kirill
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.41-52
There is a prevailing view in the analytic philosophical theology that theistic proofs should be formulated without reference to whatsoever metaphysics, but only relying on the achievements of modern science, especially physics, highlighting its logical structure. The Cosmological argument deserved special attention among analytic theologians due to its seeming independence from medieval metaphysics and great variability: there were offered at least three versions of it, which embodies these principles. They are a new version of Aquinas’ Third Way, the so-called generic cosmological argument, both versions are analyzed as were submitted by Stephen Davis, and Kalam cosmological argument developed by William Craig. In this paper, I show that the cosmological argument should not be considered without those metaphysical ideas, within which it was proposed, as it leads to the semantic gaps that can not be resolved only by logical analysis. Analysis of Aquinas’ tertia via and modern versions of the cosmological argument shows that they all contain serious logical and metaphysical errors, which do not allow to accept this arguments. On the basis of this conclusion, I try to formulate the tasks that can be solved by theistic proofs: first of all, it is a rationalization of faith.
Theistic proofs, cosmological argument, metaphysics, third way, kalam cosmological argument, Thomas Aquinas, Stephen Davis, William Craig, tasks of theistic proofs
  1. Brown P., “St. Thomas’ doctrine of necessary being”, in: The Philosophical Review, 73, 1964, 76–90.
  2. Craig W. L., The Kalām Cosmological Argument, London, 1979.
  3. David Dinanskij , “[Duh, materij a, Bog]: (Fragmenty iz «Quaternuli»)”, in: Sokolov V. V., ed., Antologija mirovoj filosofii: V 4 t. M., 1/ 2, 1969, 811–812.
  4. Davis S. T., God, Reason and Theistic Proofs, Edinburgh, 1997.
  5. Engels F., “Herrn Eugen Dü hrings Umwä lzung der Wissenschaft (Anti-Dühring)”, in: Marx-Engels Werke, Berlin, 20, 1975.
  6. Karpova K. V., trans., Shohin V. K., ed., Djevis S. T. Bog, razum i teisticheskie dokazatel’stva, Moscow, 2016.
  7. Krejg U., “Kalamicheskij kosmologicheskij argument”, in: Shohin V. K., ed., Filosofija religii: Al’manah 2008–2009, Moscow, 2010, 110–135.
  8. Plantinga A., “Ontologicheskoe dokazatel’stvo”, in: Sennet Dzh. F., Karpova K. V., Shohin V. K., eds., Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi, Moscow, 2014, 113–143.
  9. Plantinga A., God, Freedom and Evil, Grand Rapids, 1974.

Karpov Kirill


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Research Fellow;
E-mail: kirill.karpov@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.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Nasyrov Ilshat
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.53-68
This article deals with methods of proving the existence of God that were proposed by representatives of the Mu‘tazilite and Ash‘arite schools of Islamic theology (Kalam) in the 10th and 12th centuries. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the fact that the Ash‘arite theological doctrine remains dominant in Sunni Islam. Various methods of proving the existence of God are analysed in Kalam in the context of attempts of Islamic theologians to logically justify the statement of the Quran about God as the initial source and cause of creation. Alongside the argument from beginning of the world (cosmological argument), which was the main form of argumentation for Islamic theologians, various other arguments that are versions of the teleological argument are also taken into account. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the methods of justifying God that were traditional for Kalam began to complement by proofs of the existence of God taken from the Peripatetic school of the Islamic philosophy. Some Islamic theologians (such as al-Djuwaynī and al-Ghazalī) combined Kalam arguments with those borrowed from the Peripatetic school, e.g. the argument from the fi niteness of the causal row. The influence of Kalam on the Islamic traditionalism is seen in the proof of the existence of God proposed by Ibn Taymiyya, one of the most prominent Islamic traditionalist theologians. Notwithstanding his declared rejection of theological explorations, Ibn Taymiyya employed not only revelational sources (Quran and Sunnah) but also made use of the rational methods in justifying the existence of God
Islam, theology, proof, existence, God, cosmological argument, teleological argument, kalam, mutazilism, asharism, traditionalism
  1. ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Al-Muhīt bi-l-Taklīf, Cairo, Without date.
  2. ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Sharh al-uṣūl al-khamsa, Cairo, 1996.
  3. Anawati G. C., “Hudūth al-‘ālam”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1986, 3.
  4. Aristotel’, “Metafi zika”, in: Asmus V. (ed), Sochineniya: V 4 t., Moscow, 1976, 1.
  5. Al-Ash‘arī, Kitab al-Ibāna ‘an ’uṣūl al-diyāna, Cairo, 1977, 1.
  6. Al-Ash‘arī, Kitab al-luma‘, Cairo, 1955.
  7. Al-Ash‘arī, Maqālāt al-islāmiyyin wa ikhtilāf al-muṣallin, Beirut, 2008.
  8. Al-Baqillānī, Kitāb al-tamhīd, Beirut, 1957.
  9. Fakhry M., “Classical argument for the Existence of God”, in: The Muslim world, 47, 1957, 133–145.
  10. Al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, Beirut, Without date, 1.
  11. Al-Hayyat, Abu al-Husayn, Kitab al-intiṣār, Cairo, 1925.
  12. Ibn Khazm, Al-Faṣl fi -l-milal wa-l-ahfā’ wa-lnihal, Cairo, Without Date, 5.
  13. Ibn Taymiyyah, Mas’alat hudūth al-‘ālam, Beirut, 2012.
  14. Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj al-Sunna al-nabawi, Cairo, 1985, 2.
  15. Ibn Taymiyyah, Dar’ al-ta’arrud al-‘aql wa-nnaql, Beirut, 1997, 2.
  16. Ibn Uthmān ibn Musa Afandī, Al-Masālik fi lkhilāfi yyāt, Beirut, Istanbul, 2007.
  17. Ibragim T., “Kalam”, in: Novaia filosofskaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 2010, 2.
  18. Ibragim T., “Peripatetizm araboiazychnyi”, in: Novaia filosofskaia entsiklopediia. Moscow, 2010, 3.
  19. Ibragim T. К., Religioznaya filosofiya islama. Kalam, Kazan’, 2013.
  20. Al-Isfahānī, Abu ‘Ali Ahmad, Al-Azmina wa-lamkina, Without date.
  21. Al- Djuwaynī, Al-Shāmil fi uṣūl al-dīn, Cairo, 1989.
  22. Krichevskii A. V., “Dokazatel’stva bytiia Boga”, in: Novaia filosofskaia entsiklopediia. Moscow, 2010, 1.
  23. Al-Maturidī, Kitāb al-tawhīd , Beirut, 2010.
  24. Piotrovskii M. B., “as-Sunna”, in: Islam: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’. Moscow, 1991.
  25. Plato, “Fedr”, in: Losev A. (ed.), Sobranie sochinenii: V 4 t., Moscow, 1993, 2.
  26. Al-Shahrastani, Nihāya al-iqdām fiilm alkalām, Beirut, 2004.
  27. Ash-Shakhrastanī, Kniga o religiiakh i sektakh , Moscow, 1984.
  28. Al-Taftazanī, Sharh al-maqāṣid, Beirut, 2011, 2.

Nasyrov Ilshat


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
E-mail: ilshatn60@mail.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Vdovina Galina
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.69-82
The article considers arguments for the existence of God that are presented in Francisco Suarez’ treatise Metaphysical Disputations. The work of Suarez contains the most developed and detailed exposition of natural theology that exists in the scholastic tradition. Suarez explicitates the problem, formulating three questions: what is a being that we call God? Is it possible to prove or justify his existence? How is it possible? Suarez answers the first question by showing that we come to a concept of the prime and excellent being through a series of divisions in the concept of being. That prime being is infinite, absolute, necessary and uncreated. The second question is answered by the procedure of that division and its result. In his answer to the third question, Suarez distinguishes physical and metaphysical arguments. According to Suarez, the most significant physical proofs are the argument from motion and the argument from the rational soul. Nevertheless, he demonstrates that purely physical arguments cannot lead us to a being, which we call God. Only metaphysical argument from the principle, everything which is produced, is produces by something else, is really effective. The logic of the metaphysical proof is as follows: first, we have to demonstrate the necessary existence of the first non-produced thing: secondly, we are to show that such a thing can only be one. The first point is proved through the demonstration of an absolutely first cause in each series of causes, the second one is made evident through a demonstration of the impossibility to coexist simultaneously for two equally perfect first causes of equal causing power.
Suarez, Metaphusical Disputations, natural theology, scholasticism, arguments for the existence of God, physical arguments, metaphysical arguments, first being, first cause, perfection of first cause, the uniqueness of first cause
  1. Cantens B., “Suárez’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God”, in: Schwartz D., ed., Interpreting Suárez: Critical Essays, Cambridge, 2012, 89–114.
  2. Doyle J. P., trans., ed., Suárez F. The Metaphysical Demonstration of the Existence of God. Metaphysical Disputations, 28–29, South Bend, 2004.
  3. Fastiggi R., “The Proof for the Existence of God in Suarez”, in: Cardoso A. e.a., ed., Francisco Suárez (1548–1617): tradição e modernidade, Lisbonne, 1999, 81–92.
  4. Lupandin I. V., “«Metafizicheskie rassuzhdenija» Fransisko Suaresa i zarozhdenie novoevropejskoj filosofii”, at. avialeble: http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/12_l/lup/andin_30.html (18.08.2017).
  5. Makarova I. V., transl., “Suares F. Kommentarij na traktat Aristotelja “O dushe” (III. 9 — rassuzhdenie o sposobnostjah intellekta)”, in: Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik, 2013, 2014, 102–125.
  6. Makarova I. V., “Fransisko Suares: problema poznanij a otdelennyh substancij i uchenie ob aktivnom intellekte”, in: Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik, 2013, 2014, 86–101.
  7. Makarova I. V., “Poznavaemy li edinichnye veshhi? (Aristotel’ i F. Suares o edinichnom)”, in: Voprosy filosofii, 1, 2016, 119–131.
  8. Makarova I. V., “Uchenie F. Suaresa o dushe i ego rol’ v diskussii ob aktivnom ume”, in: Ivanova Ju. V., ed., Polemicheskaja kul’tura i struktura nauchnogo teksta v Srednie veka i rannee Novoe vremja, Moscow, 2012, 174–195.
  9. Savinov R. V., “Problema genezisa «Indeksa» k Disputationes Metaphysicae Fransisko Suaresa”, in: Istina i dialog. Sbornik materialov XIII Svjato-Troickih ezhegodnyh mezhdunarodnyh akademicheskih chtenij v Sankt-Peterburge, St. Petersbourg, 2013, 211–212.
  10. Shmonin D. V., Fokus metafiziki. Porjadok bytija i opyt poznanija v filosofii Fransisko Suaresa, Saint Petersbourg, 2002.
  11. Shmonin D. V., V teni Renessansa: vtoraja sholastika v Ispanii, St. Petersbourg, 2006.
  12. Vdovina G., transl., ed., Suares F. O rechi angelov, Moscow, 2017.
  13. Vdovina G. V., transl., “Suares F. Metafizicheskoe rassuzhdenie VI O formal’nom i universal’nom edinstve IV–VI”, in: Esse, 1. 2 (2), 2016, 235–249.
  14. Vdovina G. V., transl., Ivanov V. L., ed., “Suares F. Metafi zicheskie Rassuzhdenij a. Rassuzhdenie VI O formal’nom i universal’nom edinstve I–III”, in: EINAI: Problemy filosofii i teologii, 4.1/2 (7/8), 2015, 213–271.
  15. Wieman F. J., Suarez and the Infinity of God. Master’s Theses (1946). Paper 424, at. available: http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/424 (23.08.2017).

Vdovina Galina


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
E-mail: galvd1@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Koshelev Igor
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.83-94
The article deals with the teleological argument, or argument from design, as expounded by a famous English Protestant theologian Richard Baxter, one of the leading 17-th century English Puritans, in his work “The Reasons of the Christian Religion”. Natural theology, providing arguments for the existence of God based on reason and without appeal to the Revelation, has always played a vital role throughout the entire history of theological thought. The most popular was the so called teleological argument, or the argument from design, which stands out among all rational arguments for the existence of the Creator. It is mostly known from the “Fifth Way” of the medieval Scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas and a famous work “Natural Theology” by an English 19-th century theologian William Paley. The foundation for the modern research in the area was laid during the age of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century English nature philosophers and theologians, especially Robert Boyle, who believed the teleological argument to be the key element of Natural Theology. His friend and confessor, Richard Baxter, a prominent representative of the Puritan Natural Theology, mostly known by his theological works, paved the way for Natural Theology both in his own time and the following centuries. His work was thought to be the best collection of the evidences for Christianity.
first cause, philosophy of nature, natural theology, teleological argument, God's existence, argument from design, rational design, Christianity, Puritans, Robert Boyle, Richard Baxter, Protestantism
  1. Calloway K., Natural Theology in the Scientifi c Revolution, London, New York, 2014.
  2. Foma Akvinskij , Summa protiv jazychnikov. Kniga pervaja, Moscow, 2004.
  3. Foma Akvinskij , Summa teologii. Voprosy 1–64, Moscow, 2006.
  4. Hunter H., Robert Boyle (1627–1691): Scrupulosity and Science, Woodbridge, 2000.
  5. Kaufmann U., The Pilgrim’s Progress and Traditions in Puritan Meditations, New Haven, 1966.
  6. Keeble N. H., Nuttall G. F., eds., Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, Oxford, 1991.
  7. Koshelev I. A., “Recenzij a: «Zhan Pol Hiring Gugo Grocij kak apologet hristianstva»”, in: Filosofija religii: al’manah 2014–2015, Moscow, 2015, 518–529.
  8. Lennox J., “Robert Boyle’s Defense of Teleological Inference in Experimental Science”, in: Isis, 74, 1983, 38–53.
  9. Marshall W., Puritanism and Natural Theology, Eugene (OR), 2016.
  10. Shanahan T., “Teleological Reasoning in Boyle’s Disquisition about Final Causes”, in: Hunter M., ed., Robert Boyle Reconsidered, Cambridge, 1994, 177–192.
  11. Walker D. A., Puritanism and Natural Theology after the Restoration of 1660, Pontypridd, 1989.
  12. Wallace D., Natural theology among the dissenters: Richard Baxter and his circle, Washington (D. C.), 1992.
  13. Wallace Jr. D., Shapers of English Calvinism, Oxford, 2011.

Koshelev Igor


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Web Search Engine “Sputnik”; 30 Goncharnaia Str., Moscow 115172, Russian Federation;
Post: Testing Specialist;
E-mail: igor.a.koshelev@yandex.ru.

*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.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Volkova Nadezhda
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.95-105
The article gives an overview of the main stages in the development of philosophical theology in Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, as well as its central concept - Active Intellect or God. It is shown, firstly, that Plato was the first who formulated the concept of a One omnibenevolent God. Plato opposed this doctrine to the gods of traditional mythology. In the "Timaeus" talking about the creation of the world, Plato represents God as an artisan, i. e. Demiurge, who arranges the World soul and matter with the help of the numbers. Therefore, God is introduced as an Intellect, because looking at an intelligible paradigm, he created the cosmos as its likeness. Secondly, it was shown that Aristotle made theology demonstrative theoretical knowledge. God as a subject of such knowledge is the pure actuality of thinking. Third, it is shown that Plotinus, continuing the line of Plato and Aristotle, gave philosophical theology a new, much more personal character. Theology for Plotinus is not only an demonstrative knowledge of the omnibenevolent God, but also a personal experience of reunion with him. A special attention in the article is paid for Plotinus' interpretation of the Platonic Demiurge. It is shown that Plotinus first connected the two aspects of the divine, namely the Demiurge-creator and the intelligible paradigm that are described in the "Timaeus," into the single hypostasis of Intellect. The main reason for this assertion was the necessity to postulate the unity of the intellect and the intelligible object as a necessary condition for the possibility of all cognitions. As a result, instead of the traditional idea of the two gods, Plotinus elaborates the doctrine of a single divine Intellect, combining both these aspects.
Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, philosophical theology, mythology, theoretical knowledge, Demiurge, intellect, intelligible, Enneads, Timaeus
  1. Ado P., Plotin, ili Prostota vzgljada, Moscow, 1991.
  2. Armstrong A. H., ed., Plotinus. The Enneads, Cambridge, 1984.
  3. Borodaj T. Ju., “Timej”, in: Antichnaja filosofija. Jenciklopedicheskij slovar’, Moscow, 2008, 733–738.
  4. Borodaj T. Ju., Rozhdenie filosofskogo ponjatija: Bog i materija v dialogah Platona, Moscow, 2008.
  5. Bos A. P., “Aristotle on myth and philosophy”, in: Philosophia Reformata, 48/1, 1983, 1–18.
  6. Cornford F. M., Plato’s cosmology, London, 1937.
  7. Dodds E. R., “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic “One””, in: The Classical Quarterly, 22, 1928, 129–142.
  8. Gasparov M. L., ed., Diogen Lajertskij. O zhizni, uchenijah i izrechenijah znamenityh filosofov, Moscow, 1986.
  9. Gerson L., ed., Plotinus. Ennead V. 5: That the Intelligibles are not External to the Intellect, and on the Good, Las Vegas; Zurich; Athens, 2013.
  10. Gerson L. P., Plotinus, London, 1994.
  11. Hlebnikov G. V., Antichnaja filosofskaja teologija, Moscow, 2014.
  12. Lebedev A. V., ed., Fragmenty rannih grecheskih filosofov. Ot jepicheskih teokosmogonij do vozniknovenij a atomistiki, Moscow, 1989.
  13. Mesjac S. V., ed., “Porfirij . Podstupy k umopostigaemomu”, in: ΣΧΟΛΗ, 2/2, 2008, 277–308.
  14. Morgan K. A., Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato, Los Angeles, 2004.
  15. Platon. Sobranie sochinenij: V 4 t. Moscow, 1994.
  16. Rheins J. G., The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’s Theology and Metaphysics, Philadelphia (Penn.), 2008.
  17. Ross D., ed., Aristotle. Methaphysics. A revised text with introduction and commentary, Oxford, 1925.
  18. Ross D., ed., Aristotle. Prior and posterior analytics. Text with introduction and commentary, Oxford, 1957.
  19. Ross D., Aristotle, London, 2004.
  20. Smith J. E., “Plato’s Myths as “Likely Accounts”, Worthy of Belief”, in: Apeiron, 19, 1985, 24–42.
  21. Smith J. E., “Plato’s Use of Myth in the Education of the Philosophic Man”, in: Phoenix, 40, 1986, 20–34.
  22. Stewart J. A., The Myths of Plato, London, 1960.
  23. Van Riel G., Plato’s Gods, London, 2016.
  24. Volkova N. P., ed., “Plutarh Heronejskij. O vozniknovenii dushi v Timee”, in: ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΚΑ ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ, Moscow, 2013, 736–757.
  25. Waterfi eld R., Gregory A., eds., Plato. Timaeus and Critias, Oxford, 2008.
  26. Zeyl D. J., ed., Plato. Timaeus, Cambridge (Mass.), 2000.

Volkova Nadezhda


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
E-mail: go2nadya@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.

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Konacheva Svetlana
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201773.106-119
The article is devoted to the modern continental philosophical theology, oriented to phenomenological-hermeneutical methods. Continental philosophical theology of the twentieth century brings into the question the concept of philosophical theology and justifies over again the possibility of a dialogue between philosophy and theology. We analyze the main directions of the treatment of this dialogue: the renewal of metaphysics in Catholic theology, in the works of K.Rahner, B.Welte and the overcoming of metaphysics in Protestant thought, in the works of K.Barth, H.Ott, W.Weischedel. In the works of Karl Rahner the question of the relationship between philosophy and theology is viewed as a metaphysical question about the nature of man. Bernhard Welte substantiates the possibility of thinking of God in philosophical theology by referring to the phenomenological description of the ways in which human can experience the meeting with God. We argue that the renewal of metaphysics in Catholic thought means that philosophical theology is understood as a special way of thinking, presupposing a rejection of the strategies of objectifying grasp; this way of thinking allows the Holy to appear, remaining completely non-objective. In Protestant theology, the project of overcoming metaphysics unfolds as a radical criticism of the traditional forms of combining philosophy and theology, demonstrating the incompatibility of the cognitive strategies of philosophy with Revelation and as an attempt in a dialogue with phenomenological-hermeneutic philosophy to return theology to its original task, that is, to think God from the event of His Revelation. The main conclusion of the article is that the possibility of philosophical theology in continental thought is associated with the transformation the ways of thinking of God, the transfer thinking into the mode of question, where the questioner himself is brought into the question.
philosophical theology, phenomenological method, metaphysics, thinking, being, entity, world, Revelation, experience, dialogue, event
  1. Barth K.,“Philosophie und Theologie”, in: Huber G., ed., Philosophie und christliche Existenz. Festschrift für Heinrich Barth zum 70. Geburtstag am 3. Februar 1960, Basel, 1960, 93–106.
  2. Brunner E.,“Theologie und Ontologie oder die Theologie am Scheidewege”, in: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 12, 1931, 111–122.
  3. Bultmann R.,“Die Geschichtlichkeit des Daseins und der Glaube. Antwort an G. Kulmann”, in: Noller G., ed., Heidegger und die Theologie: Beginn und Fortgang der Diskussion, München, 1967, 72–94.
  4. Fischer N., Die philosophische Frage nach Gott, Padeborn, 1995.
  5. Foma Akvinskij , Summa teologii. Ch. 1. Voprosy 1–64, Moscow, 2006.
  6. Macquarrie J., Principles of Christian Theology, London, 1977.
  7. Maréchal J., Le point de départ de la métaphysique, Bruges, 1944.
  8. Ott H., “Theologie als Gebet und Wissenschaft”, in: Theologische Zeitschrift, 14, 1958, 120–132.
  9. Ott H., Denken und Sein. Der Weg Martin Heideggers und der Weg der Theologie, Zollikon, 1959.
  10. Ott H., “Das Hermeneutische als das Unumgängliche der Philosophie”, in: Schielte H. R., ed., Die Zukunft der Philosophie, Freiburg, 1968, 87–104.
  11. Rahner K., Hörer des Wortes. Zur Grundlegung einer Religionsphilosophie, München, 1963.
  12. Robinson J.,“Die deutsche Auseinandersetzung mit dem späteren Heidegger”, in: Robinson J. M., Cobb J. B., eds., Der spätere Heidegger und die Theologie, Zürich, 1964, 12–69.
  13. Schäffl er R., Religions philosophie, Freiburg, 1983.
  14. Weischedel W., Der Gott der Philosophen. Grundlegung einer philosophischen Theologie im Zeitalter des Nihilismus, Darmstadt, 1971.
  15. Welte B., Auf der Spur des Ewigen, Frankfurt a. M., 1958.

Konacheva Svetlana


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Russian State University for the Humanities; 6 Miusskaia Sq., Moscow 125993 GSP-3, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of chair of modern problems of philosophy, Department of Philosophy;
E-mail: konacheva@mail.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article is written within the framework of the project №15-03-00802 "Aestheticization and eventfulness in contemporary phenomenology" supported by RFBR Foundation

BOOK REVIEWS

Veviurko Il'ia
PDF

Veviurko Il'ia


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Moscow State University, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: vevurka@mail.ru.

*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.

Andreyev Alexey, priest
PDF

Andreyev Alexey, priest


Degree: Master of Ttheology;
Place of work: Moscow State University, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Graduate Student;
E-mail: alexey.andreevtf@gmail.com.
Nyebolszin Antal Gergely
PDF

Nyebolszin Antal Gergely


Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: gyula@mail.ru.
Lega Viktor
PDF

Lega Viktor


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Theology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of chair of Philosophy, Theological Department;
E-mail: legavp@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.

Shilov Evgeny, priest
PDF

Shilov Evgeny, priest


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities;, 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: Evgeny_shilov@mail.ru.