Karpov Kirill
Shokhin Vladimir

Two theological disciplines are contrasted in this article: philosophical theology and fundamental theology. The former evolved in Great Britain and the United States and may be considered a type of philosophical and inter-cultural deepening of natural theology. The latter was developed principally in Western Europe and especially in German Roman Catholic schools as Fudamental-Theologie and deals mostly with theology from the standpoint of Christian apologetics. The contrast between the two types is based on the fact that each of them presents differing ways of theologia naturalis (with apology of theism at its heart), both entering the area of theologia revelata. This article is an attempt at mapping out the beginnings of an Eastern Orthodox philosophical theology as an innovative theological program. The author is therefore interested in examining exactly what constitutes such a philosophical theology and in defining the limits which Eastern Orthodox tradition necessarily places upon the evolution of such a system. He also tries to learn what past methodological discussions occurring in the environment of the Russian Orthodox theological schools can contribute to the development of such a system. The author argues that these contributions need to be confined merely to the courses offered by theological schools during the synodal period. Finally, the author wishes to define how philosophical theology and fundamental theology can relate to each other in spite of their theoretical differences. The fields of apologetics and hermeneutics would certainly profit from the development of the school of philosophical theology but exactly in what way remains a question for further research.

Theology, Rational Theology, Revealed Theology, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Fundamental Theology, Methodology, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Argumentatio

1. Kant I. Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1912, vol. 8.
2. Mac Donald S. “Natural Theology” in: Craig E. (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York, 1998, vol. 6, pp. 711–712.
3. Pummer R. “Religionswissenschaft or Religiology?” in: Numen, 1972, vol. 19, pp. 91–127.
4. Schrödter W. “Religion bzw. Theologie, natürliche bzw, vernünftige” in: Ritter J., Gründer K. (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, 1992, vol. 8, pp. 714–715.
5. Shokhin V. “Philosophy of Religion and Varieties of Rational Theology” in: Bradshaw D. (ed.) Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives, Washington (DC), 2012, pp. 5–20.
6. Tennant F. R. Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, 1928–1930, vol. 1–2.
7. Wagner H. “Fungamentaltheologie” in: Kraue G., Müller G. (eds.) Theologiche Realenzylkopädie, Berlin, 1983, vol. 11, pp. 741–751.
8. Antonov K. M. “Istoricheskoe izuchenie religii v duhovno-akademicheskoj tradicii v dorevoljucionnoj Rossii” (Historical Research of the Religion in Theological Academic Tradition in Prerevolutionary Russia) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 1 (33), pp. 42–46.
9. Glagolev S. S. Posobie k izucheniju osnovnogo bogoslovija. Zhenskie bogoslovskie kursy (Manual for Study of Systematic Theology. Female Theological Courses), Moscow, 1912.
10. Golubcov S. A. Moskovskaja duhovnaja akademija v revoljucionnuju jepohu. Akademija v social'nom dvizhenii i sluzhenii v nachale XX veka (Moscow Theological Academy in Revolutionary Epoch. Academy in Social Movement and Service in the Beginning of the 20th Century), Moscow, 1999.
11. Avgustin (Guljanickij), arhim. Rukovodstvo k osnovnomu bogosloviju (Manual for Systematic Theology), Vilnius, 1876.
12. Dobrotvorskij V., prot. Osnovnoe bogoslovie, ili Hristianskaja apologetika. Pravoslavnoe dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie: Lekcii (Systematic Theology or Christian Apologetics. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 2005.
13. Dokinz R. Bog kak illjuzija (God as Illusion), Moscow, 2008.
14. Znamenskij P. V. Istorija Kazanskoj duhovnoj akademii za pervyj (doreformennyj) period ee sushhestvovanija (1842–1870 gg.) (History of Kazan Theological Academy in Its First Period (before Reform)), Kazan, 1892, vol. 2.
15. Kimelev Ju. A. Sovremennaja zapadnaja filosofija religii (Modern Western Philosophy of Religion), Moscow, 1989
16. Kimelev Ju. A. Filosofija religii: sistematicheskij ocherk (Philosophy of Religion: Systematic Essay), Moscow, 1998
17. Kudrjavcev-Platonov V. D. Sochinenija (Writings), Sergiev-Posad, 1898, vol. 2.
18. Lekcii po umozritel'nomu bogosloviju, so slov professora filosofii v MDA prot. F. A. Golubinskogo, zapisannye v 1841/2 uchebnom godu studentom Akademii XIV kursa V. Nazarevskim (Lectures on Speculative Theology by Prof. of Philosophy in Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest F. Golubinsky, written in 1841/1842 Year by the Student of Fourth Year, V. Nazarevsky). Moscow, 1868.
19. Mihail (Mud'jugin), arhiep. Vvedenie v osnovnoe bogoslovie (Introduction into Systematic Theology), Moscow, 1995.
20. Nikolin I. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija, ili Apologetiki (Course of Systematic Theology or Apologetics), Sergiev Posad, 1914.
21. Flint T. P., Rej M. K., Vasil'ev V. V. (ed.) Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoj teologii (Oxford Textbook for Philosophical Theology), Moscow, 2013, pp. 787–860
22. Osipov A. I. Put' razuma v poiskah istiny (The Way of Mind Looking for the Truth), Moscow, 2010
23. Osipov A. I. Put' razuma v poiskah istiny. Osnovnoe bogoslovie (The Way of Mind Looking for the Truth. Systematic Theology), Moscow, 1999
24. Rozhdestvenskij V. G., svjashh. Lekcii osnovnogo bogoslovija (Lectures on Systematic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 1883.
25. Rozhdestvenskij N. P. Hristianskaja apologetika. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija, chitannyj studentam v 1881/2 uchebnom godu. Posmertnoe izdanie SPB duhovnoj akademii (Christian Apologetics. Course of Systematic Theology Read in 1881/1882. Posthumous Edition of Saint-Petersbourg Theological Academy), Saint-Petersbourg, 1884, vol. 1.
26. Svetlov P. Ja., prot. Kurs apologeticheskogo bogoslovija (Course of Apologetics), Kiev, 1912.
27. Sergievskij N. Ob osnovnyh istinah hristianskoj very. Apologeticheskie publichnye chtenija, chitannye v 1871 g. (On Basic Verities of the Christian Faith. Apologetical Public Reading), Moscow, 1872.
28. Smirnov S. Istorija Moskovskoj duhovnoj akademii do ee preobrazovanija (1814–1870) (History of Moscow Theological Academy before Its Foundation (1814–1870)), Moscow, 1879.
29. Tihomirov D. A. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija (Course of Systematic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 1915.
30. Hlebnikov G. V. Filosofskaja teologija antichnosti: analiticheskij obzor (Philosophical Theology of the Ancient World: Analysis), Moscow, 2005.
31. Chistovich I. A. Sankt-Peterburgskaja duhovnaja akademija za poslednie 30 let (1858–1888) (Saint-Petersbourg Theological Academy in Last Thirty Years (1858–1888)), Saint-Petersbourg, 1889
32. Shohin V. K. Vvedenie v filosofiju religii (Introduction into Philosophy of Religion), Moscow, 2010.
33. Jevans S., Mjenis Z. Filosofija religii: razmyshlenie o vere (Philosophy of Religion: Thoughts about Faith), Moscow, 2011.

Given that philosophical theology has two basic missions, i.e. apologetic and hermeneutic, the author avows that it is because of its philosophical nature that it realizes the first task via critical analysis of not only antitheistic but also theistic propositions and the second one by exegesis of the exegesis itself. The paper deals with the exegesis of the contemporary Christian (both Roman Catholic and Orthodox) concern conditioned by the intervention into Biblical studies of a very fashionable trend, i.e. reader-response criticism whose extreme (readers are virtually regarded as the authors of the text) corresponds to Roland Barth’s postmodernist conception of the death of the author. The paper detects not only the logical self-refutation of this theory, but also its profound inconsistency. Indeed, while positioning their liberation of a text from an author as an antitheological revolution, the champions of deconstructivism don’t realize that in the historical perspective they only parody one of the very ancient and infl uential trends of theological Biblical hermeneutics, which the author of the paper designates as “Alexandrism” and whose origins he tries to discover.

philosophical theology, apologetics, hermeneutics, exegesis, Biblical studies, reader-response criticism, post-structuralism, the death of the author, Alexandrism, allegorical method

1. Bart R. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Pojetika (Selected Works: Semiotics, Poetics), Moscow, 1994.
2. Brek I., prot. 2006 “Pravoslavie i Biblija segodnja” (Orthodoxy and Bible Today), in Pravoslavie i Biblija segodnja: Sb statej, Kiev, 2006. pp. 250–290.
3. Djevis S. T. 2013 “Otkrovenie i bogoduhnovennost'” (Revelation and God Inspiration), in Flint T. P., Rej M. K. (eds.) Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoj teologii, Moscow, 2013, pp. 66–98.
4. Karavidopulos I. Vvedenie v Novyj Zavet (Introduction to New Testament), Moscow, 2010.
5. Shohin V. K. 2014 “Filosofskaja teologija i osnovnoe bogoslovie” (Philosophical Theology and Fundamental Theology), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija I. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2014, vol. 1/51, pp. 57–79.
6. Breck J. The Power of the Word in the Worshipping Church. N. Y., 1986.
7. Fiedrowicz M. Prinzipien der Schriftauslegung in der Alten Kirche, Bern; Berlin, 1998.
8. McKnight E. V. Postmodern Use of the Bible. The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism, Nashville, 1988.
9. Montague G. T. Understanding the Bible. A Basic Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Mahwah, 1997.
10. Montague G. T. 2003 “Hermeneutics, Biblical”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, Detroit, 2003, vol. 6, pp. 791–797.
11. Tompkins J. P. (ed.) Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, [Baltimore], 1980.

It is true that the Western metaphysics could be described as a continual tradition, which up to these days has been working on the issues and challenges coming from the Academy and Liceum, but its history has also undergone the shifts of paradigms linked with changes in its self-consciousness. The article deals with the passage from the traditional metaphysics, which covered two millenniums, to the classical stage dating from the early Modernity to the early Enlightenment wherein not the most notorious “great philosophers” but the scarcely known German “school philosophers” of the latest sixteenth — earliest seventeenth centuries played key roles. The research is concluded by reflections on the significance of the classical metaphysics for the later periods of the Continental philosophy and on the relevance of Clemens Timpler’s and Jacob Lorhard’s postulate that not so much the real as the intelligible should be the subject matter of metaphysics for contemporary theology.

metaphysics, the first philosophy, ontology, cosmology, psychology, theology, the real, the intelligible, Aristotelianism, “school philosophy”

1. Kruglov A. N. 2013 “I. N. Tetens i ego sochinenie «O vseobshhej spekuljativnoj filosofii»” (I. N. Tetens and His Work “About General Speculative Philosophy”), in Tetens I. N. O vseobshhej spekuljativnoj filosofii, Moscow, 2013.
2. Cuares F. 1987 “Predislovie k knige «Metafizicheskie rassuzhdenija» i 1-j razdel pervogo rassuzhdenija «O prirode pervoj filosofii, metafizike»” (Introduction to Book “Metaphysical Considerations” and First Part of First Consideration “About Nature of First Philosophy, Metaphysics”), in Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik, Moscow, 1987, pp. 218–241.
3. Shohin V. K. Agatologija: sovremennost' i klassika (Agathology: Modernity and Classics), Moscow, 2014.
4. Kremer K. 1984 “Ontologie“, in Gründer K. (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel; Stuttgart, 1984, vol. 6, pp. 1189–1198.
5. Kobusch T. 1980 “Metaphysik II: Aristoteles“, in Gründer K. (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel; Stuttgart, 1980, vol. 5, pp. 1188–1196.
6. Kobusch T. 1980 “Metaphysik III: Antike bis Hochmittelalter“, in Gründer K. (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel; Stuttgart, 1980, vol. 5, pp. 1196–1217.
7. Lamanna M. 2014 “Ontology Between Goclenius and Suárez”, in Novak L. (ed.) Suárez’s Metaphysics in Its Historical and Systematic Context, Berlin, 2014, pp. 135–152.
8. Lorhard J. Diagraph of Metaphysic or Ontology, in www.illc.uva.nl/Research/ Publications/Reports/X-2008 04.text.pdf/ (Date: 22.07.2015)
9. Øhrstrøm P., Schärfe H., Uckelman S.L. 2008 “Jacob Lorhard’s Ontology: a 17th Century Hypertext on the Reality and Temporality of the World of Intelligibles”, in Ecklund P., Haemmerle O. (eds.) Conceptual Structures: Knowledge, Visualization and Reasoning, Berlin, 2008, pp. 74–87.
10. Sparn W. Wiederkehr Der Metaphysik. Die Ontologische Frage in der Lutherischen Theologie des 17. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1976.
11. Vollrath E. 1962 “Die Gliederung der Metaphysik in Eine Metaphysica generalis und Eine Metaphysica specialis“, in Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 1962, vol. 16, pp. 258–284.
12. Wollgast S. Philosophie in Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung, Berlin, 1988.
13. Wundt M. Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen, 1939.

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; St. Tikhon Orthodox University;
Email: 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 paper departs from differing of two modalities of the attitude of the theistic reason to the problem of evil, i.e. building of universally valid explanatonary models (theodicy) and apologies in the particular contexts (defense). The first one contradicts to the foundations of theistic world-view inasmuch as the biblical texts persuade one that causes of evil are particular and not universal and are far sometimes to be in the scope of a finite reason. In addition, logical problems with mutual correlation of the main theodicies are demonstrated. The modality of defense seems much more epistemically justified and actual, but here by no means all persuasive resources of controversy are used. The author suggests his own answers to some atheistic challenges, in the fi rst place unmasking double standards in the corresponding argumentation unavoidable for any wishful thinking and contraposes to the idea of multitude of gratuitous evils that of infinite profusion of undeserved boons.

evil, boons, sufferings, freewill, metaphysics, theodicy, defense, argumentation, wishful thinking, gratitude.

1. Beil' P. Istoricheskii i kriticheskii slovar'. Moscow, 1968. T. 1.
2. Leibnits G. V. Sochineniia. Moscow, 1989.
3. Miurrei M., Rei M. Vvedenie v filosofiiu religii. Moscow, 2010.
4. Suinbern R. Sushchestvovanie Boga / M. O. Kedrova, per. Moscow, 2014.
5. Khaidegger M. Lektsii o metafizike / S. Zhigalkin, per., komment. Moscow, 2014.
6. Adams M. M. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1989. Vol. 63 (Supplementary). P. 297–310.
7. Alston W. Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on the Evidential Arguments from Evil, in The Evidential Argument from Evil / D. Howard-Snyders, ed. Bloomington (IN), 1996. P. 317–318.
8. Chisholm R. The Defeat of Good and Evil, in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association. 1968. Vol. 42. P. 21–38.
9. Draper P. Pain and Pleasure: an Evidential Problem for Theists, in Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions / E. Stump, M. J. Murray, eds. Malden, 1999. P. 164–175.
10. Mackie J. Evil and Omnipotence, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology of Contemporary Views / M. Stewart, ed. Boston, 1996. P. 333–344.
11. Moser P. Cognitive Idolatry and Divine Hiding, in Divine Hiddenness: New Essays / D. Howard-Snyder, P. Moser, eds. N. Y., 2001. P. 120–148.
12. Pike N. Hume on Evil, in Philosophical Review. 1963. Vol. 72. P. 180–197.
13. Plantinga A. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford, 1974.
14. Rowe W. The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, in Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions / E. Stump, M. J. Murray, ed. Malden, 1999. P. 157–164.
15. Schellenberg J. L. Replies to my colleagues, in Religious Studies. 2013. Vol. 49. P. 257–285.
16. Schellenberg J. L. Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Ithaka, 1993.
17. Schellenberg J. L. The Epistemology of Modest Atheism, in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2015. Vol. 7, no. 1. P. 51–69.
18. Schellenberg J. L. The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (I), in Religious Studies. 2005. Vol. 41 (2). Р. 201–215.
19. Schellenberg J. The Will To Imagine: A Justifi cation of Skeptical Religion. Ithaca, 2009.
20. Shokhin V. Philosophical Theology and Indian Version of Theodicy, in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2010. Vol. 2, no. 2. P. 192–193.
21. Wykstra S. The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments for Suff ering. On Avoiding the Evils of Appearance, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 1984. Vol. 16. P. 73–93.

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Professor;
Email: email: 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.

Работа выполнена при финансовой поддержке РГНФ, грант No 15-03-00211 «Метафизи- ка в интеркультурном пространстве: история и современность»

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Professor;
Email: email: 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.

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
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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

This paper deals with a certain new attempt to dismantle rational theology, which is in line with innumerable exercises of this kind after Heideggerean criticism of “ontotheology” with addition of “household arguments”. The author of the paper carries out a detailed analysis of this attempt from historical and logical points of view, demonstrating its weakness and outlining further topics in this fi eld of knowledge.

rational theology, revelation, analytic philosophy, postmodernism, “ontotheology”, Eastern Christianity, God

1. Afonasin E. V. (ed., transl.) (2014). Kliment Aleksandriiskii. Stromaty. Kn. 4–7 [Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Books 4‒7]. St. Petersburg, 2014.
2. Barth K. (1934) Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner. München.
3. Brunner E. (2009) “Priroda i blagodat’” [“Nature and Grace”], in K. Gestrikh (ed.), K. I. Ukolov (ed., transl.) Sravnitel’noe bogoslovie: nemetskii protestantizm XX veka: Teksty s kommentariiami [Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of the 20th Century: Texts with Commentary]. Moscow, p. 276–316 (Russian translation).
4. Crisp O. (ed.) (2009) A Reader in Contemporary Philosophical Theology. London; New York.
5. Flint Th. P., Rea M. C. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford, 2011 (Russian translation 2013).
6. Gaginskii A. M. (2018) “Skrytye predposylki ratsional’noi teologii” [“Hidden Prerequisites of Rational Theology”]. Filosofskii zhurnal. 2018, vol. 11/1, pp. 111–124.
7. Gestrikh K. (2009) “Problema nepreodolennoi estestvennoi teologii” [“Problem of the Overcome Natural Theology”], in K. Gestrikh (ed.), K. I. Ukolov (ed., transl.) Sravnitel’noe bogoslovie: nemetskii protestantizm XX veka: Teksty s kommentariiami [Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of the 20th Century: Texts with Commentary]. Moscow, pp. 322–364.
8. Gumerov A., priest (ed.) (2014) Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. Select Works. Moscow.
9. Konacheva S. A. (2010) Bytie. Sviashchennoe. Bog. Khaidegger i filosofskaia teologiia XX veka [Being. Sacred. God. Heidegger and Philosophical Theology of the 20th Century]. Moscow.
10. Kryshtop L. E. (ed., transl.) (2016) Immanuel Kant. Lektsii o filosofskom uchenii o religii (redaktsiia K. G. L. Pelitsa) [Immanuel Kant. Lectures on Philosophical Theology]. Moscow.
11. Mikhailov P. B. (2007) “Estestvennoe bogopoznanie v grecheskoi patristike” [“Natural Theosophy in Greek Patrisrics”]. Filosofiia religii: Al’manakh 2006–2007. Moscow, pp. 247–263.
12. Plantinga A. (1980) Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee (WI).
13. Rea M. (ed.) (2009) Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology. Oxford.
14. Shokhin V. K. (2015) “Teizm ili deizm? Razmyshleniia nad metafi zicheskoi teologiei Richarda Suinberna” [“Theism or Deism? Refl ections on Richard Suinburne’s Metaphysical Theology”]. Voprosy filosofii, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 64–76.
15. Suinburne R. (1991) The Existence of God. Clarendon Press (Russian translation 2014).
16. Taliaferro C., Meister C. (eds.) (2010) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge.
17. Turner D. (2004) Faith, Reason and the Existence of God. Cambridge.
18. Ubaghs G. C. (ed.) (2006) Heidegger M. Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 11: Identität und Differenz. Frankfurt am Main.

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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.

This article outlines the defi nitions of the dogmata in the most infl uential and mainstream tradition in Russian theology of the Synodal period, beginning from the “Dogmatic Theology” (Russ. Догматическое богословие) by archimandrite (future archbishop) Antony (Amfi teatrov) (1848) and concluding with the benchmarking article by Alexey Vvedensky “The Issue of Methodological Reform of Orthodox Dogmatics” (1904; Russ. К вопросу о методологической реформе православной догматики). The article shows that certain well-known modern handbooks in dogmatics render synodal interpretations. The article also reconstructs three aspects in understanding of the dogmata in the academic spiritual school. These are termed aletheological, institutional, and soteriological; attention is paid to discording opinions of spiritual and academic experts which manifested themselves most vividly at the end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th centuries. Besides, the “synodal defi nitions” and understandings of the dogmata come to be an object of critical analysis, particularly with regard to the lack of both historism and attention to the humanistic side of the synergetic nature of the “matter” of the dogmata on the whole.

philosophical theology, Christian dogmata, dogmatics, theological academies, Synodal period, theory of doctrinal development, Pope’s infallibility, inerrancy of Bible, caesaropapism

1. Achtemeier P. (1999) Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture. Massachusetts.
2. Averintsev S. (1988) “Vizantiia i Rus’: dva tipa dukhovnosti” [Byzantium and Rus’: Two Types of Spirituality]. Novyi mir, vol. 7, pp. 210‒220; vol. 9, pp. 227‒239 (in Russian)
3. Antonii (Amfi teatrov), archbishop (2006) Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie pravoslavnoi kafolicheskoi vostochnoi tserkvi [Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Bradshaw D. (2012) Aristotel’ na Vostoke i Zapade: metafi zika i razdelenie khristianskogo mira [Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom]. Russ. translation. Moscow.
5. Davydenkov O., archpriest (2014) Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie. Uchebnoe posobie [Dogmatic Theology. A Handbook]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Demarest B., Lewis G. (1987) Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality, the Living God. Grand Rapids.
7. Dolenc B. (2011) “Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: its Genesis and its Enduring Relevance”. Bogoslovni vestnik, vol. 71, pp. 525–541.
8. Dvoretskii I. (1958) Drevnegrechesko-russkii slovar’ [Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary]. Мoscow (in Russian).
9. Glubokovskii N. (2002) Russkaia bogoslovskaia nauka v ee istoricheskom razvitii i noveishem sostoianii [Russian Theological Science in its Historical Development and Modern State]. Мoscow (in Russian).
10. Lattier D. (2011) “The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development”. Pro Ecclesia, vol. XX, no 4, pp. 389‒410.
11. Levinskaia I. (2008) Deyaniya apostolov. Glavy 9‒28. Istoriko-filologicheskii kommentarii [Acts of the Apostles. Chapters 9‒28. Historical and Philological Commentary]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
12. Lindsell H. (1981) The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids.
13. Lisovoi N. “Obzor osnovnykh napravlenii russkoi bogoslovskoi akademicheskoi nauki v XIX — nachale XX stoletiia” [Overview of the Main Directions of Russian Theological Academic Science in the 19th — Early 20th Centuries]. Bogoslovskie trudy, vol. 37, pp. 6–126 (in Russian).
14. Mikhailov P. (2013) “Problema razvitiia v bogoslovii i dogmatike” [Problem of Development in Theology and in Dogmatics]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofi ia. Religiovedenie, vol. 6 (50), pp. 9‒23 (in Russian).
15. Newman J. (1989) Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Notre Dame University.
16. Newman J. (1997) Fifteen Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford. University of Notre Dame.
17. Shokhin V. (2016) Filosofskaia teologiia: dizainerskie fasety [Philosophical Theology: Designers’ Facets]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Shokhin V. (2018) Filosofskaia teologiia: kanon i variativnost’ [Philosophical Theology: the Canon and the Variability]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Wolterstorff N. (1995) Divine Discourse: Philosophical Refl ections on the Claim that God Speaks. New York.

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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.

It was not up to the mid-20th century that timelessness of God had been a topic of discussions, bit now it is a hot issue in analytical metaphysics in which you can even distinguish “strong”, “moderate”, and “weak” positions of its proponents and opponents, the latter positions becoming more and more prevalent. Arguments proposed by both sides demonstrate strong sides of the analytical method, but the participants of this discussion are united by the circumstance that they believe to have access to God’s nature itself and not only to our opinions about it, thus exhibiting features of pre-Kantian thinking. This article, by contrast, proposes a solution to a more humble problem, i.e. the defi nition of which solution to the discussed question is coherent in the concrete religious world outlook, and the author puts forward logical (primarily, traditional from God’s inalterability) and illustrative arguments in favour of the assumption that the idea of Divine temporality accords well with pantheist world outlook, whereas it can be incorporated in the theistic only with a destructive eff ect for the latter. The article concludes with the assumption that the most coherent idea of God is Anselm’s identifi cation of God as something “more than which nothing can be thought of”, including the attribute of non-temporality, corresponding to classical theism, and the argument as to fact why despite this fact apanentheistic ideas become more and more popular in present-day Western philosophical theology.

metaphysics, philosophical theology, temporality, timelessness, theism, panentheism, creationism, Scripture, logical reasons, illustrative arguments, coherence

1. Augustinus (2006) Confessiones. Minsk (Russian translation).
2. Brei D. (ed.) (2008) Bibleiskie kommentarii ottsov Tserkvi i drugikh avtorov I–VIII vekov. Novyi Zavet XI. Kafolicheskie poslaniia [Biblical commentaries of Church Fathers and other authors of the 1st — 8th centuries. New Testament XI. Catholic epistles]. Tver’ (in Russian).
3. Denge N. (2018) “Eternity in Christian Thought”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (09.05.2020).
4. Hartshorne C. (1941) Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago.
5. Hartshorne C. (1948) The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God (Terry Lectures). New Haven.
6. Hasker W. (2010) “Eternity and Providence”, in C. Taliaferro, C. Meister (eds). The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge. Pp. 81–91.
7. Helm P. (1988) Eternal God. Oxford.
8. Konacheva S. (2019) Bog posle Boga. Puti postmetafi zicheskogo myshlenija [God after god. Ways of postmetaphysical thinking]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Kreig U. (2013) “Divine Eternity”, in V. Vasil’ev (transl.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Moscow. Pp. 227–258 (Russian translation).
10. Leftow B. (1991) Time and Eternity. Ithaka (NY).
11. Leftow B. (2005) “Eternity and Immutability”, in W. Mann (ed.) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Maiden (MA). Pp. 48‒77.
12. Lewis C. (1998) Mere Christianity. Moscow (Russian translation).
13. Malevich T. (2014) Teorii misticheskogo opyta: istoriografi ia i perspektivy [Theories of mystical Experience: Historical Survey and perspectives]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Morris T. (1991) Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. Downers Grove (Ill).
15. Padgett A. (1992) God, Eternity and the Nature of Time. London.
16. Paustovskii K. (1983) Zolotaia roza [Golden rose]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Rizhskii M. (ed.) (1985) Cicero. Opera philosophica. Moscow (Russian translation).
18. Schellenberg J. (2009) The Will To Imagine: A Justifi cation of Skeptical Religion. Ithaca (NY).
19. Shokhin V. (2008) “Filosofskii teizm klassicheskoi iogi”, in Donum Paulum. Studia Poetica et Orientalia. Moscow. Pp. 409‒449 (in Russian).
20. Shokhin V. (2018) “Novyi fenomen: strasti po analiticheskoi fi losofi i” [New phenomenon: Battle arond analytical philosophy]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 11, 4, pp. 106–114 (in Russian).
21. Shokhin V. (ed.) (1995) Lunnyi svet sankh’i. Ishvarakrishna “Sankh’ia-karika”. Gaudapada “Sankh’ia-karika-bhash’ia”. Vachaspati Mishra “Tattva kaumudi” [Moonlight of Sangha]. Moscow (in Russian).
22. Shokhin V. (2016) “Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology and Illustrative Argumentation”. De Gryuter Open Theology, vol. 2, pp. 804‒817.
23. Stace W. (1961) Mysticism and Philosophy. London.
24. Stump E., Kretzmann N. (1981) “Eternity”. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 8, pp. 429–458.
25. Taliaferro C., Meister C. (2016) Contemporary Philosophical Theology. London; New York.
26. Ukolova V., Tseitlina V. (eds) (1996) Boethius. De consolatione philosophiae. Moscow (Russian translation).

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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.

It is a wide spectrum of the interrelations between philosophy and religion in Germany during the Enlightenment as disclosed in the newest book by Ludmila Kryshtop Morality and Religion in the Philosophy of German Enlightenment — from Thomasius to Kant regarded in the lenses of German studies whrerefrom those of Konrad Feiereis and Albrecht Beutel could be selected, that makes up the subject-matter of this article. The author highly estimates both Kryshtop’s successful endeavour to uproot the cliché of the enlightenment secularism (based on the pattern of French Enlightenment) and introducing of numerous philosophers to the Russian reader hardly familiar to him. In many details the author of the paper concerns himself with exposition of Christian August Crusius’ and Moses Mendelssohn’s philosophical ideas and approves Kryshtop’s exposition of deepening the movement to the left in German religious thought of the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, the author of the paper comes also to disagreement with the author of the book because of her underrating of the spread and influence of deism in “the age of reason” and refers to several signifi cant avenues whereby deism came from England to Germany. As to how to identify deism itself the author refers to a typological approach of Christoph Gestrich, which he considers as highly productive. The question is about 13 essences of deism whereby any thinker can be judged as one capable of being enlisted into the deists, the fi rst of them being negation of any religion’s claim at absoluteness, the last one infi delity to the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

Enlightenment, Germany, religion, philosophy, pietism. Wolffianism, the Neologians, theology, ontology, Ludmila Kryshtop

1. Beutel A. (2006) Aufklärung in Deutschland. Göttingen.
2. Cottret D. (2010) Histoire de la Reforme protestante. Paris.
3. Feiereis K. (1965) Die Umprägnung der natürlichen Theologie in Religionsphilosophie. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig.
4. Gestrich Chr. (1981) “Deismus”, in Theologische Realencyclopedie, Bd. 8, Berlin / New York, pp. 392–406.
5. Kant I. (1994) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Moscow (Russian translation).
6. Kryshtop L. E. (2020) “Kant o moral’noi religii razuma i religioznom pliuralizme” [“Kant on Moral Religion of Reason and Religious Pluralism”]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 42–63 (in Russian).
7. Kryshtop L. E. (2019) Moral’ i religiia v filosofii nemetskogo Prosveshcheniia: ot Khr. Tomaziia do I. Kanta [Moral and Religion in Philosophy of German Enlightenment: from Chr. Thomasius to I. Kant]. Moscow: Kanon+ (in Russian).
8. Kryshtop L. E. (2019) “Nemetskie prosvetiteli o Bozhestvennom Otkrovenii i Sviashchennom Pisanii” [“German Enlightenment on Divine Revelation and Holy Scripture”]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39–56 (in Russian).
9. Lalor S. (2006) Matthew Tindal, Freethinker. An Enlightenment–Century on Religion. London-New York.
10. Orr J. (1934) English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Grand Rapids, Mich.
11. Schröder W. (1992) “Religion bzw. Theologie, natürliche bzw. vernünftige”, in Ritter J., Gründer K. (eds) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Bd. VIII, Basel, pp. 714–727.
12. Shokhin V. K. (2020) “Epistemologicheskii i religioznyi fundamentalizm v kontekste interkul’turnosti” [“Epistemological and Religious Fundamentalism in Intercultural Context”]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5-26 (in Russian).
13. Shokhin V. K. (2016) Filosofskaia teologiia: dizainerskie fasety [Philosophical Theology: Design Facets]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Zhuchkov V. A. (1996) Iz istorii nemetskoi filosofii XVIII v. Predklassicheskii period (ot vol’fovskoi shkoly do rannego Kanta) [From the History of German 18th Century Philosophy. Preclassical Period (from Wolffi an School to Early Kant]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Zhuchkov V. A. (1989) Nemetskaia filosofiia rannego Prosveshcheniia (konets XVII — nachalo XVIII v.) [German Philosophy of Early Enlightenment (End of the 17th — Beginning of the 18th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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.

This article is a response to the paper that discloses the unwillingness to get vaccination against Covid-19 as based on the apocalyptic mentality. This topic is extended so that I analyse not only subjective but also objective reasons for the phenomenon which in the above-mentioned paper is termed vaccinophobia. I go even further and examine not only the consequences but also the cause, i.e. the pandemic itself and the various aspects of its impact on society and religion. I argue that the understanding of Covid is possible not only in the domain of doctors, sociologists, politologists, but also of theologians. I study the following main directions of its impact, i.e. being the instument used to destroy the traditional historical, cultural, and even biological identity of present-day Westerners; abnormal control over society on the pretext of caring for people, and extreme pressure on church life under the same pretext. My conclusion is that it is possible to see analogies between the fi ne tuning of Creation and coordination of the factors listed above in the context of the pervading purposeful set of objectives which are initially oppossed to the divine plan and are becoming more and more sophisticated. I cite opinions of prominent virusologists about the artifi cial origin of Covid as well as the arguments in favour of the view that the Christian teaching about hell can no longer be seen as a remnant of Middle Ages but constitutes an integral part of the Christian doctrine and fully retains validity in the present day.

COVID, vaccinophobia, fundamentalism, alarmism, conspiracy theory, church life, teleology, rational plan, fi ne tuning, Christian teaching about hell

1. Agadzhanian A. S. (2021) “Soprotivlenie i pokornost′. Vyzovy pandemii, pozdnemodernye epistemy i russkii pravoslavnyi etos” [Resistance and submission. Pandemic’s challanges, epistemes of late modernity and Russian Orthodox ethos]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 39 (1), pp. 12–38 (in Russian).
2. Collins R. (2009) “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-tuning of the Cosmos”, in W. L. Craig, J. P. Moreland (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 202–281.
3. Collins R. (2010) “Evidences for Fine-Tuning”, in V. K. Shokhin (ed.) Filosofiia religii: Al′manakh 2008–2009 [Philosophy of religion. Almanac of 2008–2009], Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul′tur, pp. 136–160 (in Russian).
4. Hegel G. W. F. (1975) Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. Bd. 1. Wissenschaft der Logik. Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).
5. Lennox J. (2007) God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion.
6. Rizhskii M. I. (ed.) (1985) Cicero. Philosophical Treatises. Moscow: Nauka.
7. Shokhin V. K. (2016) “Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology and Illustrative Argumentation”. De Gryuter Open Theology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 804–817.
8. Shokhin V. K. (2018) “Fenomen ateisticheskogo fi deizma” [The phenomenon of atheist fideism]. Trudy kafedry bogosloviia SPB DA, vol. 2, pp. 6–18 (in Russian).
9. Shokhin V. K. (2020) “Epistemologicheskii i religioznyi fundmamentalizm v perspektive interkul′turnosti” [Epistemological and religious fundamentalism in intercultural perspective]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5–26 (in Russian).
10. Swinburne R., Kedrova M. O. (transl.) (2014) The Existence of God. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury (Russian translation).

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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 author claims that Graeco-Roman, Hindu and Chinese catalogues of virtues have much more common with each other than what is permitted by contemporary agnosticism in cultural studies which has only the appearance of wisdom. As to the differences, they are connected with the soteriological intention behind the Hindu catalogues while the Greek (before Neoplatonism) and Chinese ones label the development of secular personal dignity and social responsibility. The author does not conceal his preferences as well while asserting that the quadrangle of cardinal virtues as developed in Platonism had evident advantages in consistency over its Aristotelean restructuring via the division of virtues into intellectual and moral ones. He also is sure that this quadrangle was immensely improved in its Latin version by Cicero and Apuleius by means of narrowing the “multi-seated” Greek concept of sophrosyne up to “single-seated” temperantia. The initial Christian receptions of Graeco-Roman cardinal virtues are also estimated, and an alternative of their inbuilding into one of three human vocations in accordance with three Jesus Christ’s ministries is offertd. The author claims that Graeco-Roman, Hindu and Chinese catalogues of virtues have much more common with each other than what is permitted by contemporary agnosticism in cultural studies which has only the appearance of wisdom. As to the differences, they are connected with the soteriological intention behind the Hindu catalogues while the Greek (before Neoplatonism) and Chinese ones label the development of secular personal dignity and social responsibility. The author does not conceal his preferences as well while asserting that the quadrangle of cardinal virtues as developed in Platonism had evident advantages in consistency over its Aristotelean restructuring via the division of virtues into intellectual and moral ones. He also is sure that this quadrangle was immensely improved in its Latin version by Cicero and Apuleius by means of narrowing the “multi-seated” Greek concept of sophrosyne up to “single-seated” temperantia. The initial Christian receptions of Graeco-Roman cardinal virtues are also estimated, and an alternative of their inbuilding into one of three human vocations in accordance with three Jesus Christ’s ministries is offertd.

practical philosophy, aretology, the catalogues of virtues, the cardinal virtues, Hinduism, Classical Antiquity, Neoplatonism, Confucianism, Christianity

1. Bhagavata Purana (2019). Gorakhpur.
2. Brandwood L. (2006) “Stylometry and Chronology”, in R. Kraut (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge, pp. 90–120.
3. Dovatur A. I. (ed.) (1984) Aristoteles. Opera. Vol. 4. Moscow (Russian translation).
4. Düring I. (1966) Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Heidelberg.
5. Fokin A. (2007) “Evagrii Pontiiskii” [Evagrius Ponticus], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 16, Moscow, pp. 557‒579 (in Russian).
6. Harvey P. (2000) An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. New York.
7. Irwin T. (1988) “Aristotle”, in E. Craig (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 4, New York; London, pp. 414–435.
8. Liddell H. G., Scott R., Jones H. S. (eds) (1996) A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford.
9. MacIntyre A. (1991) “Incommensurability, Truth, and the Conversation Between Confucians and Aristotelians about the Virtues”, in E. Deutsch (ed.) Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophical Perspectives, Honolulu, pp. 104‒122.
10. MacIntyre A. (2007) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. Notre Dame (Ind).
11. Norden B. W. van (2019) “Mencius”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mencius/#VirtTheiCult (accessed 09.09.2022).
12. Norden B. W. van (transl.) (2008) Menghzi with Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianopolis (Ind).
13. Rykov S. (2015) “Dolg ili spravedlivost): eshche raz o termine v drevnekitaiskoi filosofii” [Duty or justice: revisiting the term in ancient Chinese philosophy]. Istoriia filosofii, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 22‒46 (in Russian).
14. Šāstrī Panśīkar W. L. S. (ed.) (1936) Yādnyavalkyasmŗti of Yogīśvara Yājňavalkya with the Commentary Mitākşarā of Vij ňāneśvara. Bombay.
15. Shichalin Iu. (2008) “Alkinoi” [Alcinoos], in Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary], Moscow, pp. 96‒99 (in Russian).
16. Shichalin Iu. (ed.) (1986) Al)bin. “Uchebnik platonovskoi fi losofi i” [Introduction to Plato’s dialogues], in Platon. Dialogi [Dialogues], Moscow, pp. 437‒475 (Russian translation).
17. Shokhin V. (2020) Filosofiia prakticheskogo razuma: agatologichekii proekt [Philosophy of practical reason: agathological project]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
18. Silius V. (2013) “Neo-Aristotelean Confucianism? Applicability of Virtue Ethics in Early Confucian Studies”. International Journal of Area Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 70‒89.
19. Solopova M. (2011) “K probleme trekh srednikh knig Nikomakhovoi″ i Evdemovoi″ etik Aristotelia” [The problem of three middle books in Ethica Nicomache and Ethica Eudemia], in M. Solopova (ed.) Aristoteles. Ethica Eudemia, Moscow, pp. 371–406 (in Russian).
20. Stoliarov A. (1995) Stoia i stoitsizm [Stoa and Stoicism]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Swarup G. A. (ed.) (1968) The Vāmana-purāņa with English Translation. Delhi.
22. Takho-Godi A. A. (ed.) (1978) Aristoteles. “Ars Rhetorica”, in Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient Rhetorics], Moscow, pp. 15‒164 (Russian translation).
23. Thesleff H. (1982) Studies in Platonic Chronology. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
24. Yu Jiyuan (2007) The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue. New York; London.
25. Zheleznova N. (2022) “
26. Tatpar’ia-vritti″ Padmaprabkhi Maladkharidevy i dzhainskaia etika” [“Tatpar’ia-vritti” by Padmaprabkhi Maladkharidevy and Jain ethics]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 114‒144 (in Russian).

Shokhin Vladimir
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic 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;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2111-8740;
Email: 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.