Search results

Карпов К. В. Учение Петра Ауреоли о предопределении // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2012. Вып. 5 (43). С. 7-22.
This article examines the teaching on predestination of the noted scholastic philosopher and theologian Petrus Aureolus, who lived during the first half of the fourteenth century. The author demonstrates that this teaching was quite novel for the Latin theological tradition, at the center of which lies the conception of a possible obstacle in the path of the workings of grace (obex gratiae). The article also takes into account the formal structure of Aureolus’ teaching, the ways and arguments with which it was constructed, together with the logistics employed by the opponents of Aureolus in their own proofs and counter-proofs to the work of Aureolus.
Карпов К. В., Шохин В. К. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2012. Вып. 6 (44). С. 129-137. — Rev. op.: Философия религии: альманах 2006–2007 / Отв. ред. В. К. Шохин. М.: Наука, 2007. 498 с. Философия религии: Альманах 2008–2009 / Отв. ред. В. К. Шохин. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2010. 528 с. Философия религии: Альманах 2010–2011 / Отв. ред
Karpov Kirill
Shokhin Vladimir
Карпов К. В. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2013. Вып. 4 (48). С. 156-158. — Rev. op.: Karfikova L. Grace and the Will according to Augustine. Brill, 2012
Карпов К. В. Эпистемологические предпосылки теистической философии А. Плантинги // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 4 (54). С. 64-79. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201454.64-79
The author attempts to reconstruct the context surrounding the projects for a reformed epistemology and an affi rmation of the Christian faith by Alvin Plantinga. An analysis of Plantinga’s epistemological presuppositions reveals how they are intertwined. The basic problem surrounding the dispute between fundamentalists and anti-fundamentalists concerning the nature of knowledge constituted the background against which the theistic philosophy of Plantinga began to take form. Examining this dispute, the author of this article attempts to define the position of the philosophers in question and to clarify the differences in terminology which are found in the appropriate literature. The relationship between evidentialism and reliabilism on the one hand and internalism and externalism on the other is noted. The author distinguishes between an early (weak) and later (strong) type of reformed epistemology. In the former type, Plantinga was concerned with refuting the classical version of epistemological fundamentalism; in the latter, he concentrated his attention on constructing a philosophical scheme which could grant to the basic teachings of theism an epistemological foundation. The author discusses and analyses the main objections to Plantinga. These objections are of two kinds: theological and philosophical. The philosophical objections are aimed at the epistemological presuppositions suggested by Plantinga. The author concludes that, in spite of the value and longevity of Plantiga’s arguments, the solutions to the questions which he raised are dependent on contemporary discussions of analytical epistemology.
Alvin Plantinga, reformed epistemology, affi rmation, affi rmation of Christian faith, fundamentalism. anti-fundamentalism, basic dogmas, model of Aquinas/ Calvin, objection de jure, objection de facto, Great Pumpkin Objection

1. Basinger D. 1991 “Plantinga, Pluralism, and Justified Religious Belief” in: Faith and Philosophy, 1991, vol. 8, pp. 67–80.
2. DeRose K. Voodoo Epistemology in: Ресурс: http:in:pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/voodoo.htm
3. Fales E. 2003 “Critical Notice of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga” in: Nous, 2003, vol. 37, pp. 419-432.
4. Fales E. 2001 “Reformed Epistemology and Biblical Hermeneutics” in: Philo, 2001, pp. 169–184;
5. Grigg R. 1990 “The Crucial Disanalogies Between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God” in: Religious Studies, 1990, vol. 26, pp. 389–401.
6. Helm P. 2001 “Review of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga” in: Mind, 2001, vol. 110, vol. 440, pp. 1110–1111.
7. Clark K. J. (ed.) Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journey of 11 Leading Thinkers, Downers Grove (Ill.), 1993.
8. Jeffreys D. S. 1997 “How Reformed is Reformed epistemology? Alvin Plantinga and Calvin’s «Sensus Divinitatis»” in: Religious Studies, 1997, vol. 33, pp. 419–432.
9. Le Morvan P., Radcliffe D. 2003 “Plantinga on Warranted Christian Belief” in: The Heythrop Journal, 2003, vol. 44, pp. 345-351.
10. LeBlanc J. Aquinas and Plantinga, 2000.
11. Macintosh J. J. Locke, Plantinga, and the A/C model, 2000.
12. 1980 “Modernizing the Case for God” in: Time, 5 April, 1980.
13. Flew A., MacIntyre A. (eds.) New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, 1955.
14. Plantinga A. 1984 “Advice to Christian Philosophers” in: Faith and Philosophy, 1984, vol. 1, pp. 253–271.
15. Plantinga A. Does God Have a Nature? Wisconsin, 1980.
16. Plantinga A. 1983 “Reason and Belief in God” in: Plantinga A., Wolterstorff N. (eds.) Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Notre Dame, 1983.
17. Silver D. 2001 “Religious experience and the facts of religious pluralism” in: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2001, vol. 49, pp. 1-17.
18. Strawson P. Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London, 1959.
19. Swinburne R. 2001 “Plantinga on Warrant” in: Religious Studies, 2001, vol. 37, pp. 203-214.
20. Tilley T. W. 1990 “Reformed Epistemology and Religious Fundamentalism: How Basic are our Basic Beliefs?” in: Modern Theology, 1990, vol. 6, pp. 237–238.
21. Willard J. 2003 “Plantinga’s Epistemology of Religious Belief and the Problem of Religious Diversity” in: The Heythrop Journal, 2003, vol 44, pp. 59-74.
22. Sennet Dzh. F., Karpov K. V. (ed.) Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi (Analytical Theist: Plantinga’s Anthology), Moscow, 2014.
23. Borodin F. Ju. 2001 “«Reformistskaja jepistemologija» v istorii analiticheskoj filosofii religii” (“Reformist Epistemology” in History of Analytical Philosophy of Religion) in: Universitas: Nauka v kontekste sovremennoj kul'tury. Mezhdisciplinarnyj sbornik nauchnyh trudov molodyh uchenyh SPbGU, Saint-Petersbourg, 2001, pp. 13–24.
24. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2010 “Alvin Plantinga i Foma Akvinskij o prostote i bolee slozhnyh svojstvah Boga” (A. Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas on Simplicity and More Complicated God’s Property) in: Filosofija. Jazyk. Kul'tura. Materialy nauchnoj konferencii aspirantov i molodyh uchenyh, Moscow, 2010, pp. 40–52.
25. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2011 “Alvin Plantinga o kosmologicheskom dokazatel'stve bytija Boga svjatogo Fomy Akvinskogo. Kriticheskij obzor nekotoryh aspektov” (A. Plantinga on Cosmological Argument for Existence of God by Thomas Aquinas) in: Voprosy filosofii, 2011, vol. 1, pp. 150–159.
26. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2011 “Ob otozhdestvlenii ob’ektov cherez vozmozhnye miry v koncepcii Alvina Plantingi” (On Identification of Objects through Possible Worlds in A. Plantinga’s Conception) in: Imenovanie, neobhodimost' i sovremennaja filosofija, Moscow, 2011, pp. 241–253.
27. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2012 “Plantinga i ego modal'naja versija ontologicheskogo dokazatel'stva” (A. Plantinga and His Modal Version of Ontological Proof) in: Istorija filosofii, 2012, vol. 17, pp. 243–261.
28. Kezin A. V. (trans.) 1993 “Karnap R. Preodolenie metafiziki logicheskim analizom jazyka” (R. Carnap. The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language) in: Vestnik MGU. Ser. 7 «Filosofija», 1993, vol. 6, pp. 11-26.
29. Plantinga A. Bog, svoboda i zlo (God, Freedom and Evil), Novosibirsk, 1993.
30. Plantinga A. 1994 “Metodologicheskij naturalizm?” (Methodological Naturalism?) in: Kimelev Ju. A. (trans.) Problemy hristianskoj filosofii: Materialy pervoj konferencii Obshhestva hristianskih filosofov, Moscow, 1994, pp. 75–124.
31. Tolstoj A. B. (trans.) 2010 “Plantinga A. Reformatskoe vozrazhenie protiv estestvennoj teologii” (Plantinga A. The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology) in: Filosofija religii: Al'manah. 2008–2009, Moscow, 2010, pp. 210–227.
Карпов К. В. Августин и западная интеллектуальная культура // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2015. Вып. 4 (60). С. 147-153. — Rev. op.: The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine / K. Pollmann, W. Otten and others, eds. 3 Vol. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013
Карпов К. В. Гилеморфизм в современной аналитической философии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2016. Вып. 6 (68). С. 78-93. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201668.78-93
Analytical metaphysics in the 20th century was marked by the predominance of scientifi c reductionism. As a result metaphysics was considered dependent on the natural sciences in its topics and methodology. Conversely, the last two decades introduced new trends, defending the autonomy of metaphysical knowledge, while keeping such an important distinguishing feature of analytical philosophy as orientation on achievements of natural sciences. Hylomorphism is one of these new trends, which might be characterized as 'neo-Aristotelian’. Contemporary Hylomorphism is heterogeneous, has a number of branches, which are united by the idea that all material objects are composed of two basic elements — matter and form. The latter is often understood as a form in the strict sense, as a structure, a constitution or a power. The author considers the main issue faced by all hylomorphic ontologies: if matter and form are independent principles, what then unites them into a single composite? The article pays particular attention to the application of hylomorphic ontologies in solving such important philosophical and theological problems as the problem of the material constitution, mind-body problem, the Trinity. The last aspect deserves special attention. The author analyzes advantages and disadvantages of the proposed hylomorphic solutions. The main advantage is the amazing fl exibility of hylomorphic ontologies — they allow philosophers to introduce easily new principles, thus adopting to various problems solving. The disadvantages come directly from the main advantage and consist in weak reconcilement of those new principles with each other.
analytical metaphysics, hylomorphism, matter, form, structures, substance, composition, unity of substance, material constitution, mind-body problem, Trinity

1. Rei M. Troitsa // Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoi teologii / T. P. Flint, M. K. Rei, sost. M., 2013. P. 594–631.
2. Svt. Grigorii Bogoslov. Izbrannye tvoreniia / V. Burega. sost. Moscow, 2008.
3. Shokhin V. K. Filosofiia religii i raznovidnosti ratsional'noi filosofii, in Filosofiia religii: Al'manakh. 2010–2011. Moscow, 2011. P. 15–30.
4. Brower J. Aquinas’s Ontology of the material World: Change, Hylomorphism, and Material Objects. Oxford; N. Y., 2014. P. 66–69.
5. Brower J. Trinity // The Cambridge Companion to Abelard / J. Brower, K. Guilfoy, eds. N. Y., 2005. P. 223—257;
6. Brower J., Rea M. Material Constitution and the Trinity, in Faith and Philosophy. 2005. Vol. 22, No. 1. P. 57–76.
7. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized / J. Ladyman, D. Ross, eds. N. Y., 2007.
8. Gasser G. Is Hylomorphism a Neglected Option in Philosophy of Mind? // Soul. A comparative Approach / Ch. Kanzian, M. Legenhausen, eds. Frankfurt, 2010. P. 43–61.
9. Jaworski W. Hylomorphism and Resurrection, in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2012. Vol. 5, No. 1. P. 197–198.
10. Jaworski W. Structure and the Metaphysics of Mind: How Hylomorphism Solves the Mind-Body Problem. N. Y., 2016.
11. Koslicki K. The Structure of Objects. Oxford, 2008. P. 159.
12. Lowe E. J. A neo-Aristotelian substance ontology: neither relational nor constituent // Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics / T. Tahko, ed. Cambridge, 2011. P. 231.
13. Manning G. The History of «Hylomorphism», in Journal of the History of Ideas. 2013. Vol. 74. No. 2. P. 173–187.
14. Marenbon J. Abelard’s Changing Thoughts on Sameness and Diff erence in Logic and Theology, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 81, No. 2. P. 229–250.
15. Marmodoro A. Aristotle’s hylomorphism without reconditioning, in Philosophical Inquiry. 2013. Vol. 36, No. 1–2. P. 5–6.
16. Murray M., Rea M. Philosophy and Christian Theology, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/#ConMod (data obrashcheniia: 27.10.2016).
17. Quine W.O. Theories and Things. Cambridge (Mass.), 1981.
18. Quine W.O. World and Object. Cambridge (Mass.), 1960.
19. Rae M. Sameness without identity: an Aristotelian Solution to the problem of material constitution, in Ratio. 1998. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 318–323.
20. Rea M. Hylomorphism reconditioned, in Philosophical Perspectives. 2011. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 345.
21. Toner P. Emergent Substance, in Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. 2008. Vol. 141, No. 3. P. 281–297.
22. Toner P. St. Thomas Aquinas on Gappy Existence, in Analytic Philosophy. 2015. Vol. 56, No. 1. P. 94–110.
Karpov Kirill
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Email: email: 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.
Работа выполнена в рамках реализации проекта «Метафизика в интеркультурном про- странстве: история и современность», поддержанного РГНФ, No 15-03-0021
Карпов К. В. Метафизическое измерение космологического доказательства бытия божественного и некоторые задачи теистических доказательств // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2017. Вып. 73. С. 41-52. DOI: 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
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: 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
Карпов К. В. Привационная теодицея и учение о трансценденталиях: Франциско Суарес о благе и зле // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 107-118. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201878.107-118
The article attempts to discover the natural boundaries of the privationist theodicy (privatio boni) in the light of the criticism against it in recent Russian periodical literature, that evil cannot be considered as pure non-being, since it exits within real being. I show that this criticism was known in the Western philosophical tradition and trace one of the most interesting answer to it, proposed by Francisco Suárez. Suárez gives parallel classifi cations of good and evil (division into good/evil in itself and good/evil for the other), the key role in which plays the concept of ‘agreeability’ (convenientia). Since Suárez gives no explicable notion of ‘agreeability’, I propose my contextual interpretation of it. Then I discuss two hypotheses why Suárez does not use the concept of ‘disagreeability’ (disconvenientia) in his defi nition of evil in itself. After this I demonstrate connections between the medieval doctrine of transcendentals (more specifi cally, the thesis of the convertibility of being and goodness) and privationist theodicy. This makes it possible to defi ne the scope of applicability of the privationist theodicy and to identify a possible place for it in the contemporary controversy on the problem of evil.
being, goodness, evil, privationist theodicy, transcendentals, Francisco Suárez
  1. Alston W. (1996) “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil”, in D. Howard-Snyder (ed.) The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 311‒332.
  2. Gracia J. J. E. (1991) “Evil and the Transcendentality of Goodness: Suárez’s Solution to the Problem of Positive Evils”, in Scott MacDonald (ed.) Being and Goodness. The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, pp. 151‒176.
  3. Howard-Snyder D. (2009) “Epistemic Humility, Arguments from Evil, and Moral Skepticism”, in J. Kvanvig (ed.) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pp. 17‒57.
  4. Mackie John L. (1955) “Evil and Omnipotence”. Mind, 1955, vol. 64, no. 254, pp. 200‒212.
  5. Rowe William L. (1979) “The Problem of Evil and some Varieties of Atheism”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1979, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 335‒341.
  6. Shokhin Vladimir K. (2016) “Problema zla: teoditseia i apologiia” [“Problem of Evil: Theodicy and Argumentation”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2016, vol. 5 (67), pp. 47‒58 (in Russian).
Karpov Kirill
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: 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.
Карпов К. В. Множественная истина, толерантность и проблема обоснования религиозных убеждений // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2018. Вып. 80. С. 142-149. — Rev. op.: Philosophical Perspectives on Religious Diversity: Bivalent Truth, Tolerance and Personhood / D.-M.Grube, W. van Herck, eds. L.; N. Y.: Routledge, 2018. XII+119 p. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201880.142-149
Karpov Kirill
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: 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.
Карпов К. В. Религиозная эпистемология Александра Гэльского и мудрость как чувство вкуса // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2020. Вып. 90. С. 49-67. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202090.49-67
This article discusses the concept of wisdom as a sense of taste in the religious epistemology of Alexander of Hales (1185/86‒1245). The concept of wisdom as a sense of taste was quite common both in the tradition preceding Alexander and among his younger contemporaries (for example, it can be found in writings of Bonaventure and even of Thomas Aquinas). Alexander of Hales used this concept in order to solve some of the most important questions within his religious epistemology, the most important of which is recognising religious beliefs as having the highest epistemic status among all possible kinds of knowledge (belief — justifi ed belief — wisdom). The attribution of religious beliefs to wisdom, the highest form of knowledge, had a number of problems, e.g. why is an opinion based on authority placed higher than evidencebased knowledge?; why does higher knowledge begin precisely with faith, and not with rational reasoning?; what procedures can reliably transform religious beliefs into wisdom? The answers to these questions given by Alexander of Hales are analysed in the article in relation to the solutions proposed by his contemporaries. An analysis of the last of these questions led to the conclusion that the concept of wisdom as a sense of taste constituted a special procedure for verifi cation of religious beliefs. Following this, it becomes clear that wisdom in Alexander of Hales’ religious epistemology has at least two meanings. Firstly, it designates the highest type of knowledge available to man, and secondly, a special feeling that provides justifi cation of religious beliefs. In the final part, the article shows that religious epistemology of Alexander of Hales combines both evidentialist and anti-evidentialist traits. On the one hand, Alexander, like almost all his contemporaries, shares the fundamentalist scheme of knowledge and considers it the highest among those available to man and obligatory to any scientifi c knowledge. On the other hand, in order to justify religious beliefs, Alexander builds the concept of sense of wisdom, which echoes the concept of proper functioning as well as certain approaches in epistemologies of virtue and of authority
Alexander of Hales, science (scientia), theology, wisdom (sapientia), sense of taste, evidentialism, anti-evidentialist move
  1. Alexander Halensis (1924) “Summa theologiae. Tractatus introductionis”, in Alexander de Hales. Summa Theologica. Liber I. Tomus I. Quaracchi. P. 1‒36.
  2. Cortesi A. (ed.) (1962) Rolandus Cremonensis. Summa theologiae. Liber tercius. Bergamo.
  3. Feldman R. (2003) Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, N.J.
  4. Gasparov I. (2018) “‘Sensus divinitatis’ i “misticheskoe vospriiatie’: dve modeli epistemocheskogo opravdaniia religioznykh ubezhdenii” [“Sensus divinitatis” and “Mystical Perception”: two models of epistemic justifi cation of religious beliefs]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, 2 (1), p. 50–66 (in Russian).
  5. Gasparov I. (2020) “Alvin Plantinga i Foma Akvinskii o vozmozhnosti estestvennogo znaniia o Boge” [Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas on the possibility of natural knowledge of God]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 38 (1), p. 261‒283 (in Russian).
  6. Greco J. (2017) “Knowledge of God”, in Abraham W. J., Aquino F. D. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, Oxford. P. 9‒29.
  7. Köpf U. (1974) Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert. Tübingen.
  8. Köpf U. (1980) Religiöse Erfahrung in der Theologie Bernards von Clairvaux. Tübingen.
  9. Leclercq J. (1957) L’amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du Moyen-Age. Paris.
  10. Niederbacher B., Leibold G. (eds) (2006) Theologie als Wissenschaft im Mittelalter. Texte, Übersetzungen, Kommentare. Münster.
  11. Plantinga A. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford.
  12. Ross W. D. (ed.) (1924) Aristotle’s metaphysics. 2 vols. Oxford.
  13. Ross W. D. (ed.) (1964) Aristoteles. Analytica priora et posteriora. Oxford.
  14. Stegmüller F. (ed.) (1935) Robert Kilwardby (Robertus de Valle Verbi). De natura theologiae. Münster.
Karpov Kirill
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: 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.