This paper examines how the prevailing knowledge systems of the West reduce and divide us within and between ourselves. It also highlights how these are paralleled by the Wisdom tradition in theology which allows for a more inclusive model of relationality and becoming. The author sets out before us how western systems create and dictate the underlying binary oppositions by which we, almost unconsciously, live out our lives. New ways are suggested and new horizons plotted.

This article aims to demonstrate the unity of faith and reason as irrational and rational elements of the theoretical religious discourse on instances of Christian theoretical thought. This unity was represented as a dialectical contradiction, the violation of which led to the destruction of religious discourse. The contradictory unity of faith and reason was researched in European medieval philosophy and Russian religious philosophy in the first half of the 20th century and in the theoretical systems that were considered ways of (...) explaining the relationship between faith and reason in Christian thought. This article reveals two historical types of the dynamic unity of faith and reason as well as violations of this unity: when medieval authors attempted to find the most effective relationship between faith and reason for Christian theology; and when Russian philosophers attempted to transmit theological knowledge by means of philosophy in the secular age. The results of the dynamic unity violations in both traditions are investigated as the conceptions that had been denied by these traditions. The main conclusion of the article is that Christian theoretical thought maintained the contradictions between faith and reason as a search for its development. (shrink)

Історія Києво-Могилянської академії другої половини XVII ст. інколи залишається небагатою навіть на конкретні факти щодо професорів та ректорів того часу. Одна із таких маловивчених постатей — ректор Теодосій Ґуґуревич (1680-і рр.). Ще від 1860-х рр. історики надають Теодосію нищівні характеристики, вказуючи на його нібито аморальність та доведення навчального закладу і Братського монастиря до цілковитого зубожіння. Єдине джерело таких висновків — незадовільна характеристика з листа єпископа Теофана (Прокоповича), написаного аж 1736 р. Ціла низка Прокоповичевих тверджень викликають сумнів щодо їхньої достовірності. А (...) підсилює підозру у некоректності висновків Теофана напис на срібній водосвятній чаші, виготовленій коштом Братського монастиря за ігументсва там Ґуґуревича. Аналіз гравіювання вказує, що немає підстав вести мову про цілковиту убогість обителі, при якій діяв Могилянський колегіум. Такий висновок дає змогу не лише критично оцінити негативні характеристики Прокоповича керівництву колегіуму, а й поміркувати про причини, що підштовхнули архиєпископа до нищівної критики. (shrink)

The article shows how the discussion between representatives of pragmatism and neo-Kantianism reveals an evident similarity between the two opposing philosophical positions. This similarity consists in their reliance on Kant’s philosophy as well as in their attempt to surpass it by turning to relativism and irrationalism. A particularly clear example of this is the projective philosophy of Nikolai F. Fedorov. By attempting to surpass Kant in a radically pragmatic way, Fedorov exposes the problems of pragmatism and “blows” it up from (...) inside. In his philosophical construction, Fedorov pursues a “universal synthesis” of both the belief in reason inherent in Enlightenment and the belief in God, positivism and dialectic, projectivism and phantasy. On the one hand, he introduces a number of new notions, such as ideolatry, supramoralism, etc., on the other hand, he utilizes Christian dogmas. As a result, Fedorov fails to create a conception, which would dialectically combine contradictory approaches, producing a utopia or myth instead. (shrink)

This thesis seeks to shed light on a remarkable figure in Russian history, Father Alexander Men’. How and why did Men’ identify Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev, and other pre-revolutionary cultural figures as representatives of authentic Russian religious culture? Why would a popular Russian Orthodox priest present the writings of mystics, anarchists, and the Silver Age counterculture as the antidote for seventy years of Soviet materialism? What role did Judaism and the Russo-Jewish intellectual tradition have on Men’s identifications as an Orthodox (...) priest? I use a semiotic theory of culture following Yuri Lotman and the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School as a framework to analyze the historical development of Orthodox personalism. Through this we find a coherent justification for Men’s cultural project. This thesis traces this line of thought from theories of cultural unity by Pyotr Chaadayev, through Christian universalism in Vladimir Solovyov, the existential personalism of Nikolai Berdyaev, and finally through Men’s personal relationship with Nadezhda Mandelstam. (shrink)

Orthodox Christianity has often been understood as not pertaining to Modernity due to its different historical and theological trajectory. This essay disputes such a view with regard to 20th century Orthodox thought, which it examines from the point of view of a sociology of Modernity in order to identify where Orthodox thinkers of the Russian Diaspora and in Russia today position themselves in relation to modern society and philosophy. Two essentially modern positions within Orthodoxy are singled out: an institutional and (...) an ontological response to the modernist paradigm. (shrink)

In the summer of 1925, a debutant writer, Aleksandr Beliaev, published a ‘scientific-fantastic story’, which depicted the travails of a severed human head living in a laboratory, supported by special machinery. Just a few months later, a young medical researcher, Sergei Briukhonenko, succeeded in reviving the severed head of a dog, using a special apparatus he had devised to keep the head alive. This paper examines the relationship between the literary and the scientific experiments with severed heads in post-revolutionary Russia, (...) which reflected the anxieties about death, revival, and survival in the aftermath of the 1914–1923 ‘reign of death’ in that country. It contrasts the anguished ethical questions raised by the story with the public fascination for ‘science that conquers death’. (shrink)