the all-cause at the same time, all properties in general, glorifying it as one...

It extends simultaneously to everything and beyond everything through inexhaustible gifts and limitless energies. In addition, it is called perfect because it, being always perfect, does not tolerate either increase or decrease, since it predominates in everything in itself, although it overflows in a single, tireless, identical, abundant and inexhaustible flow, through which it perfects everything that is perfect, and fulfills it with its own perfection.

§2. One means that God predominates over everything under one form in one unity and is the cause of everything without leaving his solitude, for there is no such being that does not participate in unity...

And no plurality exists without some participation in unity... Without unity there would be no plurality, but without

The Last Mohicans of Greek Patristics 415

the unity of the set would remain, since the unit precedes any numerical development. And if we assume that everything is united with everything, then this universality would constitute complete unity. §1. Any sacred hymnology of theologians clearly and gloriously reveals the Divine names through the blessed procession of the Godhead into being. We see how in almost all books Holy Scripture the Godhead is sacredly glorified either as a monad and one - because of the simplicity and unity of supernatural inseparability, or as a Trinity, in three hypostases revealing Itself as a pre-essentiality, thanks to Her everything born in heaven and on earth receives being and name. Everything is embodied either as the cause of existence, or as wisdom and beauty, since everything that exists retains its own nature in the unchanging and divinely inspired harmony of sacred beauty, or as love for mankind, since it has joined us in one of its hypostases, elevating human nature. We clearly prove that the meaning of any, even insignificant, Divine name that we reveal must be associated with the entire fullness of the Divine... §3. Of the generalizing names, God in general belongs first of all to those that express negation through superiority - super-good, super-divinity, super-essence, super-life, super-wisdom, etc., then from the series of causality - goodness, beauty, existence, origin, wisdom, everything that is caused by the magnificent gifts of God's leadership. The dividing super-essential names are, first of all, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... The good, spreading its goodness to all things, is sung by all the saints as beautiful, as Beauty itself, as an object of love and as Love itself. It is only necessary to distinguish between participation and participation in all things, for we call beauty participation, the creative cause of beauty in everything. §7. Thus, the One, the Good and the Beautiful are the sole cause of all the diversity of the beautiful and good. Everything that exists acquires in it its inherent qualities: unity and separation, identity and difference, similarity and difference, the unity of the opposite and the disunity of the united. From here

416 Patristics

the industry of the highest about the lowest, the interrelation of the one-in-one and the appeal to the highest of the lowest, the preservation, inviolable unity and affirmation of all things.

Ecstatic knowledge of God

Only by detaching yourself from yourself and from everything that exists, that is, freeing yourself from everything, can you soar to the supernatural radiance of the Divine Twilight. After all, true knowledge, contemplation and supernatural glorification of the Superexistent is precisely ignorance and non-vision, achieved by gradual detachment from everything that exists. We can approach, as far as possible, to the knowledge of the Divine only through appropriate symbols, and if from them we again strive for the simple and unifying truth of intelligible visions, then only by ceasing the activity of our consciousness and our thinking as a whole, we will achieve, according to the charter of the hierarchy of the essential radiance, in which all the foundations of any knowledge preexist in a completely ineffable way, and which is neither understood, nor expressed, nor generally contemplated in any way, because its existence, beyond all existing things, is completely unknowable...

What is evil

§19. Evil does not come from good, and if it does, then it is not evil. For just as it is not the nature of fire to cool, so it is not the nature of good to create evil. And if everything that exists is from good (for it is natural for good to produce and preserve, but for evil it is natural to destroy and destroy), then nothing that exists comes from evil and will not itself be evil, unless it itself was such.

John of Damascus (texts)

Six definitions of philosophy

Philosophy is the knowledge of beings as beings, that is, of the nature of beings. And one more thing: philosophy is the knowledge of the divine and human, visible and invisible. Philosophy is the thought of death, both voluntary and natural. We can talk about life in two senses: firstly, it is

the natural life we ​​live. Secondly, the will that binds us

The Last Mohicans of Greek Patristics 417

to real life. The same is true of death. It is natural when the soul is separated from the body. Secondly, death is arbitrary when we are imbued with contempt for the present life and rush to the future.

Philosophy is also likeness to God. We become like Him through wisdom, which is true knowledge of the good, and through justice, which is impartial reward to each according to his deserts. Through righteousness that exceeds the measure of justice, through kindness when we do good to our offenders. Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences, for in it is the beginning of all art... Further, philosophy is the love of wisdom; true wisdom is God. Therefore, love for God is true philosophy.

Philosophy is divided into speculative and practical. Speculative science, in turn, is divided into theology, physiology and mathematics; practical - on ethics, economics and politics.

The speculative part organizes knowledge. Theology includes the understanding of the incorporeal and immaterial, first of all God, then angels and souls. Physiology is the knowledge of bodily beings, directly given - animals, plants, stones and other things. Mathematics is the knowledge of things that are incorporeal in themselves, but are present in bodies, numbers, sound combinations, figures and in the movement of the stars... All this occupies a middle position between the corporeal and the incorporeal...

The practical part of philosophy talks about virtues, it organizes morals and teaches how to manage one’s own life. If it offers laws to one person, it is called ethics. If it’s for the whole family, it’s house-building, if it’s for cities and lands, it’s politics.

Dialectics, 3, pg 94, 534V - 535V

About existence, substance and accidents

Existence is the general name of everything that is, and it is divided into substance and accident. Substance is a more important principle, because it has its existence in itself, and not in another. Accident is that which is not capable of existing in itself, but is contemplated in substance. Substance is under-le-

418 Patristics

burning, as it were, the matter of things... Thus, copper and wax are substance, and figure, form and color are accidents. The body is a substance, its color is an accident, for the body is not in the color, but the color is in the body; not the soul in knowledge, but knowledge in the soul... They say not “body color”, but “body color”, not “soul of knowledge”, but “knowledge of the soul”, not wax of form”, but “shape of wax”. Moreover, color, knowledge and form change, but the body, soul and wax remain the same, for the substance does not change...

Therefore, the definition of substance is this: substance is a self-existent thing and does not need anything else for its existence. Accident is that which cannot exist in itself, but has its existence in another. God and all creatures are substance; however, the substance of God is supersubstantial. But there are also substantial qualities.

Dialectics, 4, pg 94, 535С - 537В

Everything that exists is either created or uncreated. If created, it is certainly subject to change; for, as soon as it received existence through change, it certainly remains subject to change and either perishes or becomes different under someone else’s will. If not created, then of necessity it is also unconditionally unchangeable. After all, things with opposite existence have opposite modes of existence and properties. But who will object if we say that not only sensory perceived existence, but also angels change and move differently. Indeed, angels, souls and demons change according to their will, advancing in good and moving away from good, becoming tense or weakened, and other things change through birth and decay, increase or decrease, change in properties or displacement. So, everything subject to change was created. Everything created, unconditionally, was created by someone. The Creator must be uncreated; for if it was created, then it was certainly by someone, etc., until we reach something uncreated. But if the Creator is not created, then He is obviously unchangeable

To whom can this apply if not to God?

"An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", I, 3, pg 94, 796

The Last Mohicans of Greek Patristics 419

God as infinite being

God embraces all of existence within himself as a kind of boundless and boundless abyss of essence.

"An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", I, 9, pg 94. 836B

The Divinity alone is indescribable, for it is beginningless, infinite and all-encompassing, but it itself is not encompassed by any comprehension, for it alone is incomprehensible and limitless, unknown to anyone and contemplated by itself.

"An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 13, pg 94, 853B

God brought everything from the non-existent into being: heaven, earth, fire and water - from previously unknown substance;

D. Antiseri and J. Reale. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. Antiquity and the Middle Ages (1-2) - “Pneuma Publishing House”, St. Petersburg, 2003, 688 pp., illus.

If wisdom is God, through whom all things were created, as Scripture and truth divinely testify, then the true philosopher is a lover of God

St. Augustine

Philosophy is assimilation to God to the extent possible for a person. We become like God through justice, holiness and goodness. Justice consists in correct distribution, i.e. in not causing offense, not judging anyone, but rewarding everyone according to his deeds. Holiness is higher than justice and coincides with goodness, consisting in enduring injustice, yielding to offenders and even doing good to them. Philosophy is the art of the arts and the science of the sciences. For philosophy is the beginning of all art, since all art was invented by it. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and true Wisdom is God. Thus, love of God is the true philosophy.

Venerable John of Damascus

..we also benefit from snakes, but we just need to kill them, dissect them, prepare a potion from them, and then use them wisely against their own bites.

Saint Gregory Palamas (on his studies in pagan philosophy)

Let them not think that in the area of ​​faith there is no philosophy... No, the totality of the truths of faith is the most harmonious, sublime philosophy, a comforting philosophy, a real system, which no system of philosophy can represent. But one cannot suddenly rise to the contemplation of this system. One must purely accept truth after truth, as taught, without superstition, and put them in the heart... When all the truths are collected, then the consciousness, refined by prayer, will see their structure and will enjoy, and then a great light will shine in the soul. This is the wisdom hidden from the sons of this age.

Saint Theophan the Recluse

Three Objections to Christian Philosophy

Among philosophers and theologians the question is often discussed: is Christian philosophy necessary? Some of them believe that there is no Christian philosophy and that it is not needed at all. Proponents of this view include several groups.

The first takes the position that philosophy should be universal. Not Christian, not Muslim, not Buddhist, but global. After all, there is no Chinese or African mathematics. Or Indian and German physics. Both mathematics and physics are the same throughout the world. And in the language of these sciences the Chinese, Indians, Germans and Russians can communicate and understand each other. Humanity needs a single, universal philosophy. It is precisely such a “universal” philosophy that can provide an objective picture of the world Moreover, it will contribute to the unification of humanity. Supporters of cultural, political and economic globalization like to talk about the need to “synthesize” the entire diversity of philosophical schools and theories into a single “universal” philosophy. This position can be called " philosophical ecumenism».

Some Christians (the second group) also take the position of denying the need for Christian philosophy. In their opinion, there is Holy Scripture (Old and New Testaments), there is Holy Tradition (the works of the Holy Fathers), there is Christian theology, and this is quite enough. And philosophy, understood as “love of wisdom” and which existed in the ancient world before the birth of Christ and served as a kind of intellectual (and partly moral) guideline for man, is no longer needed. Christianity became a bright, eternal, unshakable beacon, replacing the pagan philosophy of the ancient Greeks. All that is needed is to systematize Christian teaching and ensure the correct interpretation of the texts of Holy Scripture. This is what theology should do. And philosophy can become something like a “fifth wheel in a cart.” It is not only unnecessary, but can even become a source of various heresies. This point of view was expressed even in the early centuries of Christianity by such thinkers of the Church as Tatian And Tertullian. This is how the second of them formulated his attitude to philosophy: “Heretical teaching is human and demonic. Philosophy, which boldly explores the nature of the Divine and His destiny, served as the instrument of this worldly wisdom. She produced all the heresies... He (the Apostle Paul) was in Athens, where he personally recognized this worldly philosophy, which prides itself on teaching the truth while damaging it, and is divided into many sects, which, like heresies, are sworn enemies among themselves. But what do Athens and Jerusalem, between the Academy and the Church, between heretics and Christians have in common? Concerning Tatiana, a student of Justin the Philosopher, then in the apologetic “Speech against the Hellenes” he declared that the Christian worldview and ancient philosophy are irreconcilable. There have been followers of Tatian and Tertullian in all centuries, their opinion: nothing good can be learned from philosophers, and philosophy is the cause of all troubles and heresies. Church councils in Byzantium more than once made decisions condemning hobbies in Greek philosophy and Neoplatonism.

Some “professional philosophers” of a rationalist persuasion (the third group) believe that religion (primarily Christianity) and philosophy are in principle incompatible. For example, the French philosopher and historian of philosophy Emil Breuer(1876 - 1952) in its first volume"History of Philosophy"", published in 1926, stated that Christianity is nothad no impact on the history of philosophy. Two years later, giving lectures in Brussels on the topic“Does Christian philosophy exist?", Breuer voiced the thesis that Christianity and philosophy are incompatible,"since the first is mystical, and the second is rational". So, philosophers like Breuer put up a Chinese wall between religion and philosophy. From which they deduce the absurdity of the very phrase “Christian philosophy.”

And yet Christian philosophy is needed

I have already stated my point of view on the issue of Christian philosophy: it is certainly needed. Although I very much understand the point of view of Tertullian and Tatian. But following their recommendations literally risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By “water” I mean pagan philosophy, and by “baby” I mean Christian philosophy. In the times of Tertullian and Tatian, the need for such a philosophy was probably not yet ripe.

The simplest, most straightforward explanation is this: Christian philosophy should become an alternative to the sea of ​​various philosophical wisdom that has accumulated over many centuries. These wisdom continue to multiply (almost exponentially) to this day. In modern times, philosophy emerged from subordination to theology and ceased to be its “handmaiden.” Since the Renaissance and Reformation, a large number of new philosophical directions, schools, and theories began to appear. With each century they acquired an increasingly overt anti-Christian orientation. More Saint Gregory Palamas, a 14th-century Byzantine theologian compared the philosophy of that time to a “drink” consisting of honey and hemlock (a poison of plant origin). Over the seven centuries since the time of Palamas, the concentration of hemlock in philosophical drinks has increased incredibly. The poison of such a philosophy penetrates the consciousness and souls of people through education, literature, culture, and the media. Everyone is poisoned, including Christians. Christian philosophy can and should become a “drink” consisting exclusively of the honey of Divine Wisdom, without any admixture of hemlock. The Christian Church must offer it both to its members and to all people who show “the love of wisdom.” Such an alternative “drink” could become a means of Christianizing society, or at least help slow down the current crisis of Christianity.

Christian philosophy is needed not only to satisfy man’s thirst for knowledge with the help of the “drink” of Divine Wisdom. It is also needed to ensure that people have the right guidance in their daily personal and public life. I’m probably saying banal things that any Orthodox person can understand. But, alas, understanding is necessary, but not sufficient. We need things to do. I sometimes ask questions to graduates of theological educational institutions (academies and seminaries) in order to find out which textbooks and to what extent they studied Christian philosophy. It turns out that there is no such discipline in any religious educational institution. Here, for example, is the Moscow Theological Academy (MDA). On her website I find training programs and find out the following. The bachelor's program includes the discipline "Philosophy" (216 academic hours). The master's program has two philosophical disciplines - “Modern philosophical movements” (144 hours) and “Philosophy of religion” (72 hours). There is no smell of any “Christian philosophy”. One can guess that in these courses students (seminarists) are taught about Plato, Nietzsche and Freud. Maybe this is also necessary. But a holistic view of Christian philosophy is probably even more important.

About the tree of philosophical knowledge

Philosophy can and should become the most important part of the Christian worldview. The latter can be compared to a house consisting of a foundation, walls and a roof. The foundation is Christian theology. Walls - Christian philosophy. Roof - sciences, which must also be sanctified by the spirit of Christianity.

The Christian worldview can also be compared to a tree. Its roots are theology (not only school theology, but also theology in a broader sense, as the theory and practice of human communication with God). The roots of the tree absorb nutrients from the earth; in our example, this is the knowledge of God through the perception of the Holy Spirit. Tree trunk - Christian philosophy as a system of general views on the visible world (physical and social). Branches are separate sciences (natural and social). There are fruits on the branches. By fruits we should understand the knowledge that a person needs both for earthly life and for salvation, gaining eternal life. This is what the tree of the Christian worldview should ideally look like. Alas, in the world today this tree looks very unsightly. Few people take care of him, she begins to waste away. There are fruits on it, but they are also unsightly. However, the unsightly appearance of the fruit does not say anything about their taste.

But modern man, alas, prefers large, ruddy, juicy, long-storable fruits to healthy and tasty fruits that have a nondescript appearance. And few people care about the fact that they are genetically modified products and contain prohibitive concentrations of nitrates, preservatives and various pesticides. People stopped thinking about it. Their thinking is turned off, only five senses work.

If we talk about the tree of worldview, then the attention of most of humanity today is attracted by another tree. It looks very lush. There are many branches and a huge number of leaves on it. All branches are hung with beautiful fruits. I don’t know about you, reader, but to me this lush plant reminds me of the very tree of the knowledge of good and evil that stood in the center of the Garden of Eden. The apples of that tree were very attractive, rosy and juicy. But, as we know, they, like the “drink” that Gregory Palamas wrote about, were not only sweet, but also poisonous. I think that the concentration of poison in the fruits of the modern tree of knowledge is disproportionately higher than in the apple that, contrary to God’s prohibition, the first people picked and tasted.

Another distinctive feature of the modern tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it has an extremely weak root system. In contrast to the tree of Christian knowledge, which, in the absence of visible splendor, has deep roots. The philosophical trunk of the first tree is very thick, but rotten. I have already written about this before. What about the philosophical trunk of the second tree, the tree of Christian knowledge? Does Christian philosophy exist?

About Russian religious philosophy

Let me start with the fact that many people with higher education and who consider themselves erudite confidently answer this question in the affirmative. This came as a surprise to me. Their confidence is based on the fact that Christian philosophy in their minds almost completely coincides with the concept of “religious philosophy.” Yes, there is a concept that implies that there is a philosophy of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and other religions. But among our educated compatriots, the concept of “religious philosophy” is associated, first of all, with the phenomenon of Russian religious philosophy. This is a galaxy of Russian thinkers who worked from the end of the 19th century to approximately the middle of the 20th century. They made attempts to “synthesize” Christianity and philosophy (classical Greek, classical German, etc.). Russian religious philosophy begins with Vladimir Solovyov(although he certainly had his predecessors; in particular, P. Chaadaev, N. Fedorov, P. Yurkevich). What follows are a number of names such as S. Bulgakov, S. Frank, S. Trubetskoy, E. Trubetskoy, N. Berdyaev, P. Florensky, N. Lossky, L. Karsavin, I. Ilyin, G. Fedotov, G. Florovsky. As many biographers and researchers of the works of these thinkers write, they stood on the positions of Christianity (as a rule, Orthodoxy, although there were deviations towards Catholicism and Protestantism). Therefore, indeed, in some works the phrase “Christian philosophy” began to be used as a synonym for “Russian religious philosophy.” Some authors go even further and claim that the thinkers listed above created Christian philosophy. Like, the issue has been resolved, we just need to study the creative heritage of Russian religious philosophy. But, thank God, there are authors who rightly draw attention to the fact that representatives of Russian religious philosophy, in their desire for “creativity,” were completely or partially “emancipated” from the dogmas of the Christian Church. A striking example of this is the philosophy of Nikolai Berdyaev, who put “freedom”, “creativity”, “freedom of creativity” at the forefront. As a result, Russian religious philosophy produced a bunch of heresies - Sophianism, ecumenism, holiasm, cosmism, and others for which names were not even invented. Andrey Ivanov in the article “Philosophy” (in the “Around the World” encyclopedia) he writes that there are two types of religious philosophy. The first is a continuation of religion and theology (theology), firmly tied to religious dogma. The second is engaged in the study of religion as an “external observer” who does not bind himself to any obligations dogmatic character. Here is an excerpt from the article: “It is possible... religious philosophy, as a rational attempt to build a holistic religious worldview, free from dogmatic church blinders... The section of philosophy that studies the nature of religious experience, its place in culture and human existence is called philosophy religion. It is clear that philosophy of religion can be studied not only by a believer, but also by an atheist philosopher.” On my own behalf, I will add that Soviet atheist philosophers were very actively engaged in such a philosophy of religion (or religious philosophy). As a result of their many years of “creative” activity, a series of textbooks called “Scientific Atheism” was born. This Marxist-Leninist version of “religious philosophy” became a compulsory subject in Soviet universities, along with Marxist-Leninist political economy, dialectical and historical materialism, and scientific communism. And here is another fragment from the mentioned article by A. Ivanov, concerning the second type of religious philosophy: “Brilliant examples of such philosophy, in particular, were provided by the domestic philosophical tradition at the turn of the century (see V.S. Solovyov, P.A. Florensky, N.O. Lossky, S.L. Frank, brothers S.N. and E. N. Trubetskoy)". The author sympathizes with the thinkers of Russian religious philosophy. But at the same time, he makes it clear to us that this galaxy of philosophers is far from the true Christian philosophy that we are looking for. And one cannot but agree with him. Some harsh critics of Russian religious philosophy even dubbed it “surrogate theology.”

Where is it, “Christian philosophy”?

In works on philosophy and theology, the term “Christian philosophy” appears quite often. In some places it is used to refer to something that already exists. That is, the authors make it clear to the reader that, if desired, he can become acquainted with Christian philosophy using the appropriate books and textbooks. Other authors write about Christian philosophy as something desirable, but which does not exist today. At least in its finished form.

I, being a “non-professional”, tried to understand this seemingly simple issue. And here are the results of my research. In Western literature there are sometimes works whose titles contain the phrase “ Christian philosophy" One can, in particular, cite the well-known work of the authoritative French philosopher and historian Etienne Gilson(1884-1978) "History of Christian Philosophy." However, it is only available in foreign languages. You can also add his book “Christianity and Philosophy” in French. A collection of works by this philosopher entitled “Favorites. Christian philosophy." However, this collection contains works that, judging by the titles, have a very indirect relationship to the topic of “Christian philosophy.”

We can also add several works by the famous French philosopher and Catholic theologian to our list Jacques Maritain(1882 - 1973). His book “On Christian Philosophy” was published in Russian. You can also remember the German philosopher Ernst Bloch(1885-1977) and his work in German “Christian Philosophy of the Middle Ages, Philosophy of the Renaissance.” However, Bloch was far from Christianity and close to Marxism, so his works can hardly be considered as any serious contribution to the development of the topic of “Christian philosophy.”

If you spend a few hours searching the Internet, you can probably add to the list several articles by foreign authors whose titles contain the phrase “Christian philosophy.” These are mainly French, adjacent to the group of Maritain and Gilson (there are also several philosophers from Germany, Italy, and others European countries). This is a group of twentieth-century philosophers who are called the founders of neo-Thomism in textbooks on the history of philosophy. This is a philosophical school that revives and develops ideas Thomas Aquinas(1225-1274) - the most famous theologian and philosopher of Catholicism, who substantiated the need to combine theology and philosophy. At the same time, he chose the teachings of Aristotle as the philosophical basis of such a union. Essentially, Catholicism adopted the scholastic teachings of Thomas Aquinas as its official doctrine, which is often called Thomism (after the name of Thomas Aquinas, which in the Latin version is Thomas). Neo-Thomism, as textbooks and encyclopedias write, - official philosophy of Catholicism from to. Many provisions of neo-Thomism were reflected in papal encyclicals. Neo-Thomism is still popular among Catholics, but has ceased to be an official doctrine.

It is not necessary to explain to the reader that neither Thomism nor neo-Thomism is suitable for us Orthodox as a Christian philosophy. And what do our Orthodox (not only Russian) philosophers and theologians have with titles that include the phrase “Christian philosophy”? - Alas, very little. The list actually consists of two items. The first position is a book published in 1902 entitled “Christian Philosophy”. The author is Archpriest John of Kronstadt (canonized as a righteous saint). However, the title of the book is quite arbitrary (it is difficult to say whose idea it was to call the book that way - the author or the publisher). This is a selection of priest's diary entries. The book is instructive, interesting, but only indirectly related to the topic of our conversation.

“Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy” by V. Zenkovsky

The second position is the book of Archpriest Vasily Zenkovsky entitled “Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy.” A few words about the author. Vasily Vasilyevich Zenkovsky (1881 - 1962) - Russian religious philosopher, theologian, cultural scientist and teacher, white emigrant. Died in Paris. The main work of Vasily Zenkovsky -« History of Russian philosophy", the basis of which were his lectures at the St. Sergius Theological Institute; This work is dedicated to Russian thought of the 18th-20th centuries. He believed that Russian philosophy is a unique national experience in the creation of Christian philosophy. He drew attention to the continuity of the Russian philosophical tradition, which, despite the dissimilarity of forms, preserves a unique unity at all stages of its development. He paid considerable attention to the topic of the influence of Western thought on Russian philosophy. Now I do not undertake to evaluate the work of Rev. Vasily Zenkovsky in general. I know that he had and still has his critics. Particularly embarrassing are Zenkovsky’s ecumenistic views, which were condemned by the archbishop even during his lifetime Seraphim Sobolev(now canonized by our Church).

But, be that as it may, it was Fr. Vasily Zenkovsky is so far the only Orthodox author who conceived a work directly devoted to the problems of Christian philosophy. Zenkovsky planned his “Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy” as a trilogy, including sections (books) on epistemology, cosmology and anthropology. The plan was only partially realized. The first two volumes (books) were written. He failed to write the third volume, about man. Two volumes in Russian were published in Germany in the first half of the 1960s. In our time, the work was published here in Russia.

Zenkovsky himself describes his creative plan in the preface to “Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy” as follows: “The problem of knowledge should, of course, be the basis of any philosophical system - this is so indisputable that there is, in fact, no need to prove it. But all the newest theories of knowledge were built in the era of the fundamental separation of philosophy from religion, in the era of secular culture, and that light of Christ, which illuminated everything in the world when the Lord came to earth, seems to give nothing for the understanding of knowledge. For a Christian thinker, this position is unacceptable - but how should one think about knowledge in the light of Christ? I have long been interested, one might say, tormented by this question, and when I developed an answer to it, I devoted many years to understanding the Christian doctrine of knowledge, testing and thinking about different aspects of the question. Philosophically, I grew up under the influence of transcendentalism, from which I learned a lot, but very early I also developed the consciousness of the need to overcome what is incorrect in transcendentalism. Now offering my book to the attention of those who are interested in questions of philosophy, I am aware of myself “on the other side”, I am aware of how much in my book is inconsonant with the entire style of our time. This does not bother me, but I also understand how difficult it is for those who have become accustomed to modern epistemological theories to renounce them. My goal is to return, as far as possible, philosophical thought to those contemplations of the world, to that understanding of man, which were born from the depths of Christian consciousness.”

There are critics of this work by Vasily Zenkovsky. They say that the author in “Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy” tried to present Christian truth in the language of German idealism (among philosophers this is designated by the term “churched transcendentalism”). But Zenkovsky did not hide his plan, believing that it was necessary to take the best from Western philosophy. I would not blame Zenkovsky for trying to present Christian philosophy in the language of German idealism and transcendentalism. This work can be qualified as Christian apologetics of modern times, when everyone is accustomed to expressing their thoughts and understanding others in the language of Hegel, Kant, Fichte and Schelling. We have been under the yoke of German classical philosophy for about two centuries now, and it is difficult to immediately switch to our own philosophical language.

The two volumes of Zenkovsky's work together amount to about 250 pages of text. It is clear that this is just a “basics” or even an “introduction” to the topic. Thank God we have this. You can criticize Zenkovsky’s work, but it is a “stove” from which you can “dance.” At the same time, Zenkovsky's work is only the tip of the iceberg. We possess gigantic riches of Christian thought, which can be classified as “Christian philosophy.”

Patristics: a look at philosophy

Not all dictionaries and encyclopedias have a definition and disclosure of the concept of “Christian philosophy.” But where it is available, the formula of the German Catholic philosopher and cultural scientist is most often given Alois Dempf(1891-1982): Christian philosophy - polemic Christian faith with mainstream modernphilosophy . This is, of course, a necessary element of Christian philosophy, which can be called “Christian apologetics.” It originated in the first two centuries of the existence of Christianity (the most prominent representatives are Justin the Philosopher and his student Tatian). But the matter is not limited to Christian apologetics. Christian philosophy proper originates in the 3rd century AD; thinkers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen are considered its founders.

The cornerstones of Christian philosophy were laid during the period of patristics(from Greek πατήρ, lat. pater- father). It originates from the disciples of the apostles and continued until the 7th-8th centuries. It is noteworthy that not only during the period of patristics, but for several centuries (until the 13th century) it was not customary to draw a line between theology and philosophy. Only in the middle and late periods of scholasticism did theology begin to be opposed to philosophy.

In textbooks on the history of philosophy, very few of the Holy Fathers are named: first of all, St. Augustine(IV century), and sometimes Venerable John of Damascus(VIII century). This is not entirely fair. Most of the Holy Fathers (Church Fathers - in Western terminology) were equally theologians and philosophers. Among the Church Fathers, “ecumenical teachers” stand out especially, having the highest personal authority in the church as having provided it with special services by defending, formulating and explaining the dogmas of the faith. In the Eastern Church this status is given to saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, in the West, in addition, - bliss Jerome, blessed Augustine, Ambrose of Milan And Pope Gregory the Great.The lives of each of the Church Fathers contain many interesting and instructive things related to the question of what philosophy is and how to approach it.

For example, Saint Basil the Great(329-379), one of the three great Cappadocians (along with John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian). Vasily received an excellent secular education, including philosophy. One of Basil's teachers was a Greek pagan philosopher Evvul. This philosopher had a very high opinion of his student, believing that his pupil’s intelligence exceeds the usual measure of the human mind, and in this respect he approaches the gods. In turn, Vasily was very grateful to his teacher and really wanted to convince him of the truth of Christianity. Long philosophical conversations took place between them. During one of them, Evvul asked Vasily what, in his opinion, was the essential merit of philosophy. The essence of true philosophy, answered Vasily, lies in the fact that it gives a person remembrance of death. In the end, Vasily, being still unbaptized himself, but possessing strong faith, knowing the Holy Scriptures well and using the techniques of Christian apologetics, managed to convince the teacher that the truth is in Christianity. According to the Lives of the Saints Dimitry of Rostov, the student Vasily and the teacher Evvul were baptized at the same time (baptized them Bishop Maxim of Jerusalem in Jordan).

In adulthood, Vasily writes a treatise “To young men on how to use pagan books,” which talks about the possibility of secular philosophical education, but calls for practicing philosophy with extreme caution. “At the same time, Basil the Great did not recognize the ontological truth of Greek philosophy and mythology, i.e. did not believe that philosophy could bring us closer to the Truth in its ultimate instance, but recognized its positive ethical use as possible. He understood that there was no conflict between scientific information and biblical revelation. This did not prevent him from entering into polemics with the pagan world in “Conversations on the Six Days.”

St. Augustine

It would probably be fair to admit that of all the Fathers of the Church, Blessed Augustine (354 - 430) paid relatively more attention to philosophy in his works. He not only left valuable thoughts on the relationship between faith and philosophy, but, unlike previous Church Fathers and theologians, he left behind his own philosophical and theological system. Such a system was extremely necessary for the Church, since in the 4th century quite serious differences of opinion arose among Christians due to different understandings (interpretations) of the Holy Scriptures, and numerous heresies appeared. Augustine's system made it possible to remove some questions and overcome some contradictions in interpretations.

Augustine's vast literary heritage includes several philosophical works that also interpret the provisions of Christian theology. On the other hand, many of his religious-dogmatic works contain philosophical thoughts. Most important for the history of philosophy « About the size of the soul”, “About the teacher”, “About true religion”, “About free will”, “Confession”. In 413, under the impression of the defeat of Rome by the Visigoths, Augustine began to write the most extensive and famous of his works, “On the City of God,” which was completed around 426. The central tenet of Augustine’s religious and philosophical system is man’s ability to perceive God’s grace, it influences his understanding of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Augustine's religious and philosophical system, on the one hand, is the result of the assimilation of some fundamental principles of Platonism and Neoplatonism, acceptable for Christian doctrine and used for its philosophical deepening, and on the other hand, the result of rejecting and overcoming those principles that are completely unacceptable to him. From the philosophers of the Hellenistic-Roman era, Augustine adopted a practical-ethical attitude as the main goal of philosophical knowledge, but he changed this attitude in accordance with the provisions and objectives of Christianity. Proclaiming the desire for happiness as the main content of human life, he saw this happiness in man’s knowledge of God and in understanding his complete dependence on him. “Love for oneself, brought to the point of contempt for oneself as a sinful being, is love for God, and love for oneself, brought to the point of contempt for God, is a vice.”[On the City of God, XIV]. “Augustine’s religious worldview is thoroughly theocentric. God, as the starting and final point of human judgments and actions, constantly appears in all parts of his philosophical teaching.”

Augustine paid great attention the question of the origin of evil. Here he had to overcome his serious misconceptions, which arose in his youth during his passion for Manichaeism. Augustine gradually came to the conclusion that good, created by God, is an ontological essence, and evil is “nothing” that arises as a result of a lack of good or its corruption. “Evil,” he notes, “is called both what a person does and what he suffers. The first is sin, the second is punishment... A person commits the evil that he wants and suffers the evil that he does not want.”

Augustine criticized the Neoplatonist idea of ​​God as a kind of abstract Absolute (like Hegel's Absolute) and emphasized the personal nature of God.

Augustine clearly placed emphasis on many issues Christian anthropology. Man was created by God as a free being, but, having committed the Fall, he himself chose evil and went against the will of God. This is how evil arises, this is how a person becomes unfree. Man is not free and not free in anything; he is entirely dependent on God. Since the Fall, people have been predisposed to evil and do it even when they strive to do good. The main goal of man is salvation before the Last Judgment, atonement for the sinfulness of the human race, unquestioning obedience to the Church.

Augustine also introduced a lot of new things into theory of knowledge. In cognition, as was commonly believed, the mind, feelings, and memory are involved. To these Augustine adds will. In addition, he introduces the concept of reason - mystical touch to the highest truth - enlightenment arising from intellectual and moral improvement. Reason is the gaze of the soul, with which it contemplates the true by itself, without the mediation of the body. In the study of sciences, Augustine allows the use of such means as authorities. But one should be extremely careful in choosing authorities; at the same time, perceive not only their train of thought and the thoughts themselves, but also their way of life.

Perhaps no one before Augustine thought so deeply about the nature of society and the meaning and driving forces of history. In a sense, he can be considered the founder Christian sociology and historiosophy. Perhaps since Plato, no one has thought so deeply about state like Augustine. In his opinion, state - punishment to a person for original sin; is a system of domination of some people over others; it is not intended for people to achieve happiness and good, but only for survival in this world. A Christian state may be the most just. Functions of the state: ensuring law and order, protecting citizens from external aggression, helping the Church and fighting heresy. Social perfection in the form of equality and complete justice cannot be achieved; the state can smooth out only the most acute contradictions. It seems that it was Augustine who was the first to divide wars into just and unjust, and to the first he, in particular, actions to repel aggression.

In the 22 books of his work “On the City of God,” Augustine tries to comprehend the world-historical process and introduces the concept of Divine Providence, which determines the vector of history. He introduces the concept of moral progress, believes that humanity is gaining more and more grace and improving. He divides the whole history into seven parts (epochs). These are: 1) from Adam beforeGreat Flood ; 2) fromBut I beforeAbraham ; 3) from Abraham toDavid ; 4) from David toBabylonian captivity ; 5) from the Babylonian captivity to birthChrist ; 6) from Christ to the end earthly history(endLast Judgment ); 7) eternity.

The main idea of ​​the work “On the City of God”: in the course of history, humanity builds two “cities”. The first is a secular state - the kingdom of evil and sin (the prototype of which was Rome). The second is the state of God - the Christian Church. These two cities develop in parallel, experiencing six eras. At the end of the sixth era, the citizens of the “city of God” will receive bliss, and the citizens of the “earthly city” will be given over to eternal torment. The City of God is the same Heavenly Jerusalem that the Apostle John the Theologian speaks of in the last chapters of the last book of Holy Scripture. Augustine Aurelius substantiated the superiority of spiritual power as the basis of the Heavenly City over secular power, personifying the earthly and temporary city. Much later, when its western part (Catholicism) fell away from the Universal Church, the hierarchs of Catholicism seized on this thesis of Augustine. They interpreted it in their own way and used it to establish the supremacy of the pope over the sovereigns in Europe.

John of Damascus

Among the creators of the system of Christian worldview, along with Blessed Augustine, stands the Rev. John of Damascus. He is known as the largest systematizer of Christian doctrine; he owns the fundamental work "”, which includes philosophical (“Dialectics”), accusatory (“On heresies”) and dogmatic (“Accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith”) sections. “Dialectics” continues the tradition of Christian textbooks on logic and corresponds to the contemporary practice of St. John of prefacing dogmatic treatises with philosophical chapters. The purpose of writing the treatise, according to John, “ is to begin with philosophy and briefly outline in this book, as far as possible, all kinds of knowledge" John views philosophy as the “handmaiden of theology.” The basis for "Dialectics" isAristotelian logics. The sources are "Categories "Aristotle and "Introduction"Porphyria . St. John also uses the writings of other philosophers. At the same time, the author, if necessary, makes corrections to the provisions of philosophers that contradict Christianity. Perhaps no one before John (since the time of Aristotle) ​​paid so much attention to building a conceptual basis for cognitive activity. His “Philosophical Chapters” (68 chapters in total) reveal in detail key concepts knowledge: “existence”, “nature”, “substance”, “accident”, “hypostasis”, “species”, “genus”, “person”, “individual”, “property”, “similarity”, “difference”, “synonyms”, “polynonyms”, “paranonims”, etc. In these chapters, John showed himself not only as an excellent expert in Greek (especially Aristotelian) logic, but also as a linguist, philologist and semanticist with a subtle understanding of the nuances of words. He quite correctly pointed out that an incorrectly chosen word, phrase, term can lead to the fact that the entire structure of mental (philosophical) constructions can become askew and, in Eventually, collapse. In the Philosophical Chapters, John almost does not resort to Holy Scripture, speaking to the reader in the language of secular logic. But mentally I would like to put as an epigraph to the first part of the work “The Source of Knowledge” the first lines from the Gospel of John: “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...».

Issues of a philosophical nature are also touched upon in the second and third treatises of The Source of Knowledge. Thus, in his treatise “On Heresies,” he names about 100 heresies that existed at that time. Among them are many heresies originating from Greek philosophy. John of Damascus's list of philosophical heretics includes: Pythagoreans AndPeripatetics ; platonists ; Stoics ; epicureans ; representativesSamaritanism and its branches;gorphines ; Sevuei ; Essins ; dosithei .

Very important for us are the definitions of true (Christian) philosophy contained in the works of St. John. He gives a total of six such definitions, which complement each other and comprehensively reveal the essence of Christian philosophy, its difference from theology, and especially its difference from Greek and any other pagan philosophy. Here are these definitions:

“Philosophy is the knowledge of existence as such, i.e. nature of existence. Philosophy is the knowledge of Divine and human things. Philosophy is the thought of arbitrary and natural death. Philosophy is assimilation to God to the extent possible for a person. We become like God through justice, holiness and goodness. Justice consists in correct distribution, i.e. in not causing offense, not judging anyone, but rewarding everyone according to his deeds. Holiness is higher than justice and coincides with goodness, consisting in enduring injustice, yielding to offenders and even doing good to them. Philosophy is the art of the arts and the science of the sciences. For philosophy is the beginning of all art, since all art was invented by it. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and true Wisdom is God. Thus, love of God is the true philosophy.”

Damascene introduces the concept " theoretical philosophy" What it is? “Theoretical philosophy,” writes Damascene, “has as its task to consider the incorporeal, immaterial, i.e. God, Who is first of all and in the proper sense incorporeal and immaterial, then angels, demons and souls. The latter [i.e. i.e. angels, demons and souls] in relation to the body are called immaterial, but in relation to the immaterial in the strict sense, i.e. to the Divine, they are material. So, all this constitutes the subject of theology. Theoretical philosophy also has as its task the consideration of the nature of material things, that is, animals, plants, stones and the like - this constitutes physiology; and equally that. what occupies a middle place between the immaterial and the material, what is sometimes considered in matter, and sometimes independently of matter - this constitutes mathematics. Indeed, number itself is immaterial, but is considered in matter, for example, in bread or wine, for we we say, ten modii of bread, ten mugs of wine. The situation is similar with other types of mathematics.” So, theoretical philosophy is traditional philosophy as a cognitive activity and theology. Taking Aristotle’s classification of sciences as a basis, St. John writes that “theoretical philosophy is divided into theology, mathematics and physiology. Mathematics is divided into arithmetic, geometry and astronomy."

But in addition to theoretical philosophy, Damascene also introduces the concept practical philosophy which includes ethics, economics and politics. “Practical philosophy organizes morals and teaches how one should organize one’s life. Moreover, if it educates just one person, then it is called ethics, if it educates a whole family, then it is called economics, but if it educates a whole city, then it is called politics.”

Thomas Aquinas. "Double Truth"

Of course, even after the end of the patristic period, the development of Christian philosophy continued. I'm not going to do a detailed review. But I will name one name dating back to later centuries, which is known to any literate person. This Thomas Aquinas(1225-1274), who actually gave Catholicism the most complete philosophical system, called “Thomism.” It was a synthesis of Western Christian theology (which by that time already had significant differences from the theology of the Eastern Church) and the philosophy of Aristotle. Thomas managed to overcome many doubts that had arisen in the Western Church by that time. Their essence is that over several centuries of scholasticism, Aristotle’s authority in church circles was raised to incredible heights. However, the appearance in the 11th-13th centuries. translations into Latin of new works of Aristotle, previously unknown to Europeans, revealed some of the views of the Greek philosopher that were incompatible with the doctrine of Catholicism (for example, the ideas of the eternity of the world and the non-involvement of God in its creation, the denial of the immortality of the human soul, etc.). Thomas's teacher Albert the Great(1206 - 1280) failed to completely reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle (including his natural philosophy) and Christianity. In this matter he relied on his intuition. Here is one of the sayings of Albertus Magnus:

“When there is no agreement between them [philosophy and Revelation], then, as far as faith and morals are concerned, one must trust Augustine more than the philosophers. But if we were talking about medicine, I would believe more in Hippocrates and Galen; and if we are talking about physics, then I believe Aristotle - after all, he knew nature better than anyone.” Thomas Aquinas rushed to the rescue of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. According to researchers of his work, he brilliantly managed to reconcile and make friends between Greek philosophy and Latin theology. Thomas outlined his synthesis of Christianity and philosophy in his famous work known as the Summa of Philosophy. In his other fundamental work, “Summa Theologica” (which was not completed), Thomas pursues the idea that philosophy cannot solve all worldview problems and answer all questions. In fact, he once again emphasized with his reasoning that philosophy can only be a “handmaiden” of theology. And at the same time, Thomas was of the opinion that one can know God not only by faith, but also by reason. Translating Thomas' thoughts into modern language, he spoke about the synergistic effect of faith and reason in the knowledge of God; philosophical and scientific reason acts as a kind of “catalyst” that strengthens faith.

During the time of Thomas Aquinas, discussions on the topic of “two truths” (or “dual truth”) heated up among Catholic scholastics: the first meant the truth of faith, Christian theological doctrine; under the second - philosophical truth (in a broader sense - scientific). There were several options for solving this dilemma:

a) recognize one of them as truth and the other as error;

b) admit that objectively there are two different truths;

c) recognize that the two truths are only at first glance different and that upon deeper study (or correct interpretation) they turn out to be one truth.

In the Middle Ages, a number of theories (teachings) of “dual truth” appeared. The problem of “dual truth” before Thomas Aquinas was developed in the works of Averroists . This current of thought is named after the Western Arab philosopher Averroes(1126-1198). The most famous representatives of this direction are Siger of Brabant And Boethius of Dacia, scholastic philosophers Chartres school (Bernard of Chartres and his younger brother Thierry , Gilbert of Porretan , Guillaume from Conches ) . The opinions and shades of the Averroists could be different. In particular, Averroes himself, relying on the philosophy of Aristotle, argued that there is one truth, but there are two ways to move towards it - through philosophy and through religion. But Seeger stated that there is “ dual truth": truth achieved through science and philosophy, and "religious" truth achieved through faith. At the same time, he gave preference to the first truth, calling it factual, or “solid.”

Thomas began to think about this dilemma. And he came to the following conclusion: if there is a discrepancy in the answers of theology and philosophy to the same question, then an error has crept into one of the answers; at the same time, he clearly defined the answer of the philosophers as erroneous. After the death of Thomas, in 1277, the Catholic Church condemned the views of the Averroists. It should be noted that Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church did not completely close the debate about the “double truth.” It continued after his death. The most famous discussants after Thomas were the Jewish philosopher Isaac Albalag(XIII century) and English theologian and philosopher William of Ockham(XIV century; by the way, the last bright representative of medieval scholasticism). Ockham decided to object to Thomas Aquinas; he returned to the point of view that there can be two truths that are different from each other - theological and philosophical.

This was the “apogee” of the scholasticism of Catholicism. The age of Thomism was a very long one. The Reformation, which shook the position of the Catholic Church, only forced Catholics to cling even more tightly to the lifeline of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. At the end of the 19th century, Thomism developed into neo-Thomism, which until recently was the official philosophical doctrine of the Vatican. The ideas of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas were and are reflected (both explicitly and implicitly) in the encyclicals of the popes. In Catholicism, such encyclicals are seen as a development of the theological and philosophical doctrine of the Vatican.

Gregory Palamas on the knowledge of God and philosophy

But for us Orthodox, another Christian thinker who belonged to the Eastern Church is much more important. This is someone who lived and worked in Byzantium Saint Gregory Palamas . Of course, first of all, Palamas was an Orthodox theologian. But he also paid a lot of attention to philosophy. For example, one can recall the well-known polemics on issues of hesychasm between St. Gregory and monk Varlaam. In a dispute with Gregory Palamas, Varlaam put forward several erroneous theses of a philosophical nature. These theses, by the way, reflected the opinion not only of Varlaam, but also of many theologians and philosophers at that time (both in the West and in Byzantium).

The most important of them: Knowledge is one. Knowledge cannot be divided into Divine and human, just as health given by God and the doctor cannot be divided. Philosophy is as necessary for Christians as Scripture.

Another important point: It is almost impossible to know God. Knowledge of God in theology is limited apophatic method. Only a symbolic vision of God is possible. It is impossible to see God in this life, but only after death.

The third thesis: there is nothing more valuable for knowledge than philosophy (especially classical Greek).

During the time of Gregory Palamas and Varlaam in Byzantium, the book “ Areopagitik"(work attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite; many, however, question such authorship). Varlaam was a recognized interpreter of this work. Varlaam emphasized the fundamental dependence of the author of the work on the writings of ancient philosophers. Varlaam compared fragments of this work with the texts of “Parmenides” and “The Republic” of Plato, revealing their complete identity. Varlaam the authority of the work " Areopagitik"was important in order to increase the significance of Greek philosophy in comparison with the Christian faith, and also in order to convince all doubters that apophatics (which is given much attention in the work of the Areopagite) is the only method of knowing God and that this method is extremely limited in their capabilities. Gregory Palamas contrasted the scholastic apophatic method of knowing God with the living religious experience of mystical communion with God. Hesychasm of the Eastern Church is a concrete manifestation of such experience.

Since Varlaam believed that the possibilities of theology in the matter of knowing God Himself are extremely limited, knowledge of God through the study of created nature is much more promising. At the same time, he appealed to the words of the Apostle Paul about knowing God “by looking at creation” (Rom. 1:20). Varlaam respected “external wisdom” and looked arrogantly at the hesychast monks, considering them ignorant people and advising them to engage in secular sciences and philosophy instead of prayer. Fortunately, in Byzantium at that time, pagan philosophy was already taught in secular schools. As noted by Rev. V. Asmus and M. M. Bernatsky, knowledge of God, according to Varlaam, does not depend on the concept of sin and on grace-filled help from above; God somehow enlightens philosophers, and they are superior to most people (Barlaam Calabr. Ep. 1. R. 262).”

Varlaam, formulating the thesis of unified knowledge, believed that Christians and pagans experience the world in approximately the same way; knowledge does not depend on whether a person is inside the church fence or outside it. In contrast, Palamas clearly distinguishes two types of knowledge: “spiritual” and “natural”. Let us recall that Varlaam compares the indivisibility of knowledge with the fact that human health, supposedly, also has an indivisible source: God and the doctor.

Palamas's objection: doctors cannot raise the dead, but God can. External knowledge is fundamentally different from spiritual knowledge; it is impossible “to learn anything true about God from [external knowledge].” Moreover, between external and spiritual knowledge there is not only a difference, but also a contradiction: “it is hostile towards true and spiritual knowledge” (Triads. I, 1, 10). When the wisdom of the world serves Divine wisdom, they form a single tree, the first wisdom bears leaves, the second fruits. The wisdom of God begins with good at the expense of the purity of life: “If you are without purity, even if you had studied all natural philosophy from Adam to the end of the world, you will be a fool, or even worse, and not a wise man” (Triads. I, 1, 3 ).

“Spiritual” knowledge is given to Christians who, through the exploits of hesychasm, can comprehend and see God. Hesychasm- this is the practice of mental-heart prayer, combined with sobriety (control) over all thoughts emanating from within, contributing to the purification of the mind and heart and preparing (but not leading in itself) the ascetic to God-contemplation. Of course, we are not talking about literal, physical contemplation, but about spiritual, “inner” vision. As St. John of Sinai wrote in the Ladder: “a hesychast is one who tries to enclose the incorporeal in his body.” The traditional symbol of hesychasm is the ascent of Moses to Mount Sinai, his stay at the top during the Communion of God and the subsequent descent to communicate the revelation received to the people, but the idea of ​​​​the sacred silence of Moses during the forty years of wandering of the chosen people in the desert is also used. Hesychasm is based on many passages of Holy Scripture. For example: " The Kingdom of God is within you" (OK , 17:21 ) .

Palamas was not the founder of hesychasm (as is sometimes erroneously stated in some sources), he only substantiated it. According to the New Testament, " No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed" (In , 1:18 ). Despite the impossibility of a sensory vision of God the Father, Palamas and other hesychasts argue that God's grace permeates this world, and the “glory of the Lord”, which appears in various episodes of the Old and New Testaments (for example, the burning bush that Moses saw, the light on Mount Tabor on Transfiguration) was actually the uncreated energy of God. In other words, hesychasts see the uncreated and immaterial influence of God (energy). Palamas formulated the theology of Divine energies comprehended by hesychasts. The wisdom of the prophets and apostles is not acquired by teaching, but is taught by the Holy Spirit, and is a gift of grace, and not a natural talent.

Other (“natural”) knowledge, according to Palamas, is a natural gift given by God to all people: both Christians and pagans (“external”, “natural” knowledge). It is intended to comprehend the visible, physical world and depends on the abilities of a person and the work he puts in. This “knowledge of external science, even used for good, is not a gift of grace, given to everyone through nature from God and increased by work, and this - namely, that without work and effort it never comes to anyone - is also clear evidence of its naturalness , not spirituality” (Triads. I 1.22). Alas, fallen man has distorted the gift of “natural” knowledge beyond recognition, given by God. First of all, this concerns pagan philosophers (see: Triads. I 1. 16). The pagans were not involved in the “Wisdom of God” (“Divine Sophia”), which “was in the creation they studied; studying his laws all their lives, they came to some kind of idea about God... but unworthy of God... captives of senseless and insane wisdom and ignorant knowledge slandered God and nature, elevating it to the position of dominance, and Him... from the position bringing down dominion and ascribing to the demons the name of gods” (Triads. I 1. 18). Palamas, unlike many other Church Fathers, was more critical and even harsh towards Platonism. He believed that this was idealism - an unworthy, anthropomorphic idea of ​​the Wisdom of God; the cosmology of Plato's Timaeus puts at the head of the world a whole pyramid of power of various demons; Palamas called the “divine” light that the Neoplatonists imagined “devil’s charm.” Aristotle also inherited it from Gregory Palamas, whose authority was indisputable not only in Western Europe, but also in Byzantium. Palamas believes that contemporary theologians and philosophers clearly exaggerated the possibilities of knowing even the physical world. And in the field of theology, Aristotle was generally useless. Many extolled the ethics of Aristotle, but even here Palamas gives an impartial assessment of the Greek philosopher: “The soul of Aristotle, whom theologians called the evil one, achieved philosophical learning best of all...” (Triads. II 1. 7).

Palamas contrasts the pagan philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists with the philosophy of the Holy Fathers: “Philosophy, with which this did not happen, is not turned into madness; and why would she go mad if she achieves her natural goal, that is, turns to the giver of nature, God? Such is the wisdom of our righteous and chosen men, who truly courageously rejected what was harmful, selected what was useful, supported God’s Church and came into excellent harmony with spiritual wisdom” (Triads. II 2.23).

Palama constantly emphasized that studying philosophy is not a safe matter; an unprepared person can be damaged in mind and soul. It is better for Christians not to enter the field of philosophy unless necessary. Knowledge of philosophy is needed mainly for those who are engaged in Christian apologetics. Those who are most resistant to the temptations of “external wisdom” can be allowed into the field of philosophy: “...we also benefit from snakes, but we just need to kill them, cut them, prepare a potion from them, and then use them wisely against their own bites” (Triads .I 1. 2). One may also recall this warning from Gregory Palamas:

“We do not prevent anyone from becoming acquainted with secular education if he wishes, unless he has accepted the monastic life. But we do not advise anyone to indulge in it to the end and completely forbid us to expect from it any accuracy in the knowledge of the divine teaching about God.” And a little further: “So, secular philosophers also have something useful, just like in a mixture of honey and hemlock; however, one can greatly fear that those who want to extract honey from the mixture will accidentally drink and the residue will be deadly.”

Sometimes in our Orthodox literature the words are given Dionysius of Alexandria as proof that the immersion of a Christian in pagan philosophy only broadens his horizons and strengthens it. These are the words: “I studied both the writings and traditions of heretics, and for some time I desecrated my soul with their disastrous opinions: however, I received from them the benefit that I refuted them on my own and became even more disgusted by them.” One day he had a vision that appeared to him and strengthened him: “I heard a voice that clearly commanded me, saying: “Read everything that comes into your hands, because you can discuss and examine every thought - this is what turned you to faith." What can I say about this? - Probably, Dionysius of Alexandria had good spiritual immunity, which did not allow him to be damaged by immersion in pagan literature. Still, the case of Dionysius does not cancel the requirements for compliance with “safety precautions” formulated by Gregory Palamas.

For Varlaam, the ultimate goal of Christian theology and worldly philosophy is the same - knowledge of God. For Gregory Palamas, the goal is not limited to knowledge of God, the highest goal is salvation. External knowledge, even undamaged by paganism and giving an undistorted picture of the physical world, cannot provide salvation: “Whether in knowledge or in dogmas, saving perfection is given when our convictions coincide with the way the apostles, fathers, and all the witnesses of the Holy Spirit thought , who announced about God and His creations; and everything that the Spirit has omitted and that others have invented, even if true, is useless for the salvation of the soul, because the teaching of the Spirit cannot omit anything useful. It is no coincidence that we do not condemn differences of opinion on unimportant issues, nor do we praise if someone knows more about them in some way than others” (Triads. II 1.42).

The discussion between Palamas and Varlaam lasted for years. Palamas in the period - gg. wrote nine words against Varlaam, dividing them into three triads (“Triads in defense of the sacredly silent”). For the issue we are discussing, the following parts of the work are of particular interest:

1st part of Triad I “Why and to what extent is it useful to engage in verbal reasoning and science”;

Varlaam responded to his literary opponent with the essay “ Against the Messalians" Other persons also intervened in the dispute: Palamas found sympathy for himself with the Ecumenical Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin, Queen Anna and her son John Palaeologus, with the courtier, and later emperor, John Cantacuzene and, of course, among the Byzantine, especially the Athonite silent ones, and Varlaam had supporters in the person of the theologian and philosopher Gregory Akindinus and the historian Nicephorus Grigora. Thus, two parties were formed - the Barlaamites and the Palamites - and the dispute flared up with great force. However, the Barlaamite party was not monolithic; neither Akindinus nor Gregoras were against hesychasm, and Akindinus initially supported Palamas. As a result, the question was formulated as: is the light of the Lord’s Transfiguration on Tabor the Fullness of the Divinity or is there a special enlightening light, but created. Varlaam's teaching, as heretical, caused condemnation of the Church. Councils were convened about it in , , and . At these councils, the teaching of Palamas and his supporters was recognized as being in agreement with the teaching of the Church, and Varlaam and his supporters were anathematized. With this I finish my story about Gregory Palamas.

Perhaps I devoted a disproportionate amount of space to him in my thoughts. These can be partly explained by the following paradoxical fact: in many textbooks on philosophy, the name of this outstanding thinker of the Church, who laid solid stones in the foundation of Christian philosophy, is not mentioned at all.

Christian philosophy: challenges of today

Palamas lived and worked seven and a half centuries ago. Of course, even after him there were a large number of thinkers who left their ideas regarding Christian philosophy. Even simply listing their names would take up a lot of space. Many of them were our compatriots. These are the saints Dimitry of Rostov, Filaret of Moscow, Ignatius Brianchaninov, Feofan (Recluse), Slavophiles Ivan Kireevsky And Alexey Khomyakov, Konstantin Leontiev, Lev Tikhomirov, Hieromartyr Hilarion of the Trinity and many, many others.

I apologize to the reader for the fact that instead of a systematic overview of Christian thought related to philosophical topics, I give only separate fragments. I showed above that the Christian worldview can be compared to a building, the foundation of which is theology, and the walls are Christian philosophy. The walls are still unfinished. At the same time, most of the work has already been done - a large number of good “bricks” of Christian philosophy have been produced. There is little left to do - to complete the laying of the “bricks”. This is figurative. And more specifically and substantively, we Orthodox Christians need a book called “Christian Philosophy,” which complements and reveals the ideas of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

At first, let it be a book without a clearly defined structure. Something like "Introduction to Christian Philosophy" or "Essays on Christian Philosophy." As I already said, to start work, you can start from such a “stove” as the work of Vasily Zenkovsky. By the way, this author defined general structure of this work: 1) theory of knowledge (epistemology); 2) Christian teaching about the world (cosmology); 3) the doctrine of man (anthropology). I would add two or three more parts. In particular, the doctrine of society (including the philosophy of history). Here we also have a foundation in the form of Lev Tikhomirov’s work “Religious and Philosophical Foundations of History.” Also highly desirable is the part devoted to Christian axiology (the doctrine of values).

Life urgently dictates the need for a closer connection between theology and our everyday life. This “bow” can be called Christian philosophy. It is created spontaneously, we just don’t always realize it. A striking example is the “Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000. In essence, these “Fundamentals” are part of Christian philosophy related to the doctrine of society. Currently, the Church has prepared drafts of a number of conceptual (doctrinal) documents, which can also be considered as future “building blocks” of Christian social philosophy.

I believe that some philosophers and theologians may accuse me of “breaking into an open door.” Like, Christian philosophy has existed for a long time, it’s just called differently: “Christian apologetics” or “basic theology.” Of course, many issues of Christian philosophy are discussed in the literature and courses on apologetics. But initially, apologetics, which arose almost simultaneously with Christianity, was intended to explain the truths of Christianity to pagans who understood the language of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. Apologetics (basic theology) is primarily a tool for Christian communication with people outside the Church. With the current intellectual degradation of society, apologetics is probably not as relevant and effective as it was before. A discussion of the relationship between Christian philosophy and basic theology is beyond the scope of this material. Let me just say that they intersect, but do not coincide. And the main difference is that if basic theology (apologetics) is needed more for the communication of Christians with people of the “outside” world, then Christian philosophy is needed personally by Christians themselves to form a holistic view of the world. Apologetics today performs more of a “defensive” function, but we need a more constructive position. Christians especially need it today, in our “turbulent” times, in order to correctly build relationships with authorities, evaluate the events of political life, be able to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” in the sea of ​​information that befalls a person, etc. Moreover, I will say: it’s not about the names. I have no problem with the name "mainstream theology" instead of "Christian philosophy." But in this case, textbooks on basic theology need to be very seriously reworked.

An important step in completing the walls of the building of the Christian worldview could be the preparation of an anthology on Christian philosophy, including fragments of the works of the Holy Fathers, especially Blessed Augustine, St. John of Damascus, and St. Gregory Palamas. I think that if we wanted, we could seriously move forward and in the foreseeable future we could approach the writing of a textbook “Christian Philosophy.” Not only those who study in theological educational institutions, but also many children of the Orthodox Church are waiting for him. Moreover, it will be in demand by all those who show a “love of wisdom” and who are tired of the philosophical rationalism of the New Age.

Blessed Augustine. About the City of God. VIII, 1 // Augustine, blessed. Creations. Volume 3. St. Petersburg: Kyiv, 1998, p. 322.

, or Dialectics. // Chapter LXVII. Six definitions of philosophy.

Saint Gregory Palamas. “Triads in defense of the sacredly silent” (hereinafter referred to as Triads). I 1. 2.

Quote by: Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology (Lecture Notes). Vilnius, 1992. P. 54.

It is noteworthy that Tatian thought that the ancient philosophers did not invent anything of their own, but borrowed everything from Moses, who was many centuries before the appearance of the first philosophical schools and theories in Greece. At the same time, they not only borrowed the ideas of the Old Testament, but also distorted them. And therefore, Tatian concludes, it is better to turn to the primary source - Moses, through whom God spoke, rather than to the philosophical perversions of the Hellenes (“Speeches against the Hellenes.” 31, 36-41).

Kerr F. After Aquinas. Blackwell Publishing, 2002. P. 80 (quoted from: D. Kiryanov. Christian philosophy of Etienne Gilson // “XIX Annual Theological Conference”. - M.: PSTGU, p. 129.

I managed to find out that the Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU) offers a course in “Religious Philosophy”. Familiarity with the course program showed that in fact this is a slightly modified course on the history of philosophy. In this program, religious philosophy of Eastern Christian Church poorly represented. But a significant part of the course is occupied by Russian religious philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries. There is also a textbook: V.P. Lega. Religious philosophy. - M.: MSLU, 2009. - 308 p.

Ivanov Andrey. Philosophy // Encyclopedia “Around the World” (http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/filosofiya/FILOSOFIYA.html?page=0,1)

He writes quite frankly about these heated discussions around Russian religious philosophy. L.I. Vasilenko in his book “Introduction to Russian Religious Philosophy.” I will quote a fragment from the preface: “...we state that at least some of the possible arguments against Russian philosophy are legitimate if they are connected with the search for Truth in the most serious sense of the word. This can be seen, for example, in the book by Fr. Georgy Florovsky “The Ways of Russian Theology” (Vasilenko L.I. Introduction to Russian Religious Philosophy. Textbook. - M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2009, p. 6).

Gilson E. History of Christian Philosophy. - N.Y.: Random House, 1955.

Gilson E. Christianisme et philosophie. - Paris: Vrin, 1936.

14] Etienne Gilson. Favorites. Christian philosophy. - M., 2004.

The works included in the collection are called: “Descartes’ Doctrine of Freedom and Theology.” "Being and Essence." "God and Philosophy".

“The Philosophy of Augustine Aurelius” (http://www.mudriyfilosof.ru/2014/07/filosofiya-avgustina-avreliya.html).

Manichaeism is a heresy that arose during the life of Augustine and consisted in the recognition of the equivalence of good and evil, and the source of evil was God, opposing the God of Christians.

Of course, Augustine thoroughly studied Plato's doctrine of the state. First of all, his work “The Republic” - Plato’s dialogue Orthodox Encyclopedia . Volume XXIV. - M.:Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia" , 2010.

Venerable John of Damascus. Philosophical chapters, or Dialectics. Chapter 2 (http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Damaskin/filosofskie_glavy/2).

Venerable John of Damascus. Philosophical chapters , or Dialectics // Chapter LXVII. Six definitions of philosophy.

Quote by: Victor Lega. Is it possible to combine the teachings of the Church with the philosophy of Aristotle? (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/94109.html).

Its real title is “The Sum of Truths of the Catholic Faith Against the Pagans.”

This is the Latin version of the philosopher's name. His full name original name Abul Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Qurtubi. Also known as Ibn Rushd. Author of works on logic, Aristotelian and Islamic philosophy, theology, religious law, geography, mathematics, physics, astronomy, celestial mechanics, medicine, psychology and politics. A prominent representative of Eastern Aristotelianism. Translations of his works into Latin contributed to the popularization of Aristotle in Europe.

To be fair, it should be said that such condemnation was facilitated not only by Thomas Aquinas, but also by the Catholic bishop Etienne Tampier. He identified 219 unacceptable theses in the works of the Averroists. Most of them belonged to Averroes, A Shigeru And Boethius(see: Shevkina G.V. Siger of Brabant and the Parisian Averroists of the 13th century - M., 1972).

Despite the condemnation of Averroism by the Latin Church in 1277, many of the theses of this teaching survived until the 16th century and were present in philosophy Giordano Bruno And Giovanni Pico della Mirandola Hesychasm, commemorated on the 14th (27) November, as well as a rolling memory on the second Sunday (Sunday) of Lent.

Barlaam of Calabria(in the world Bernardo Massari; c. 1290 - 1348) - Calabrian monk, writer, philosopher and theologian. From the beginning of his monastic life he showed a pronounced inclination towards the union of the Eastern Church with the Catholics. He spoke out against hesychasm. He ended his days in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church in the rank of bishop.

Apophatics is the cognition of an object through the definition of what it is not. For example, in relation to God the following definitions are used: He who is not mortal; He who is not a sinner; He Who is not material; He Who is not born (created), etc.

Varlaam is a striking example of a skeptic who doubts the possibility of knowing God. But in the history of Christianity there has also been another extreme: confidence in the complete knowability of God. A striking example - Eunomius of Cyzicus, a 4th century bishop who claimed to have personal knowledge of God. He wrote the work “Apology”, in which he supported and developed the ideas of Arianism. At the Council of Constantinople in 381, Eunomius was anathematized. Criticism of the heresies of Eunomius is given in the work Basil of Caesarea"Against Eunomius".

Prot. V. Asmus, M. M. Bernatsky. Teachings of Gregory Palamas // Orthodox Encyclopedia. (http://www.pravenc.ru/text/168057.html). Further, when describing the views of St. Gregory Palamas on philosophy, materials from this article are used, as well as the following source: Abbot Dionsius (Shlenov). Saint Gregory Palamas: life, works, teaching (http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/291635.html). Saint Gregory Palamas V.N. Lossky) Gregory Palamas is not mentioned at all (however, the scholasticism of Catholicism is described in sufficient detail) . There is no mention of Gregory Palamas in the collective monograph “History of Philosophy in Brief” (Translated from Czech - M.: “Mysl”, 1995). Finally, I open a two-volume textbook published by the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University: V.P. Lega. History of Western Philosophy: In 2 hours - M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2014. This is a voluminous (over a thousand pages) and quite interesting textbook for students receiving spiritual and secular education. But there is not even a paragraph dedicated to Gregory Palamas. At the same time, the creative heritage of Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastics is described in great detail. One could explain the absence of St. Gregory Palamas in the textbook by saying that it is devoted exclusively to the philosophy of Western Europe, and Gregory Palamas lived in Byzantium. But the textbook has sections devoted to Arabic and Jewish philosophy. This is logical, since they are associated with Western European scholastic philosophy. But the relationship between the teachings of Gregory Palamas and the philosophy of Western Europe is even more obvious. And yet, his views are not presented in any way in the voluminous textbook.

L.A. Tikhomirov. Religious and philosophical foundations of history. - M.: “Moscow”, 1997. About his historiosophical teaching, see: Valentin Katasonov. Orthodox understanding of society. - M.: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2015 // “Historiosophy of Lev Tikhomirov” (p. 330-407).

In particular, in May 2016, a draft document “Economy in the context of globalization” was published for discussion. Orthodox ethical view." If desired, readers can read my comments on this document. Cm.: . Reflections on the draft document “Economy in the context of globalization. Orthodox ethical view" ( ).

See, for example: Rozhdestvensky N.P. Christian apologetics. Basic Theology Course. In 2 volumes - St. Petersburg, 1893; Osipov A.I. The Path of Reason in Search of Truth (a book on basic theology, which has been reprinted many times); Fioletov N.N. Essays on Christian Apologetics; Lega V.P. Basic theology or Christian apologetics; Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin). Introduction to Basic Theology; Andreev I.M. Orthodox apologetics.

However, based on tactical considerations, it is still better that the name is not “basic theology”, but “Christian philosophy”. Due to the fact that “basic theology” is studied only in a dozen higher educational institutions in the country. For many people, even with higher education, this term means nothing at all. And philosophy (in different variations) is a subject that is compulsory in all universities in the country. The term “Christian philosophy” is more understandable to our citizens.

Cosmology is inseparable from the history of salvation

From the eighth chapter of Romans to patristics, and from patristics to the timeless aspects of modern Russian religious philosophy, through Palamism and the Philokalia, the great Orthodox tradition is categorical that there is Christian cosmology, and it is the knowledge that we receive in faith.

The Cappadocians in particular, rejecting the intellectualism of Eunomius, emphasized that the logos of creation, its meaning, what Vladimir Lossky calls in this case the “existential basis” eludes our understanding. By ourselves, they say, we cannot know the essence of even a tiny blade of grass. Eunomius resembles a child who wants to grab a ray of sunshine.

On the contrary, saints who are in union with God receive perfect knowledge of created things. They see the world in God, a world permeated by His energies, forming “one contained in the hand of God” . It was from this perspective that Byzantine mysticism and especially Gregory Palamas loved to interpret the vision of St. Benedict, who contemplated the entire universe as if gathered in one ray of divine light .

“Just as the sun, rising and illuminating the world, reveals itself and the objects it illuminates, so the Sun of Truth, rising in a pure mind, reveals itself and the logoi (logoi) of all [creatures] - already brought into being...” .

“Our whole life is the great mystery of God. All circumstances of life, no matter how insignificant they may seem, are of great importance. We will fully understand the meaning of real life in the next century. How carefully we need to treat it, but we turn over our life, like a book, sheet by sheet, without realizing what is written there. There is no accident in life, everything happens according to the will of the Creator,” Schema-Archimandrite Barsanuphius (Plikhankov) (1845-1913).

So, cosmology - there is “gnosis”, which is given to us in Christ by the Holy Spirit in the mysteries of the church and which requires from us ascetic purification and turning to mystical realism. “The mystery of the incarnation of the Word contains... the hidden meaning of every creation, sensual and supersensible. But he who knows the mystery of the cross and the tomb also learns the essential meaning (logos) of all things. Finally, he who penetrates deeper and is initiated into the mystery of the resurrection will know the final purpose for which God created things from the beginning.”

If this is truly so, it is because everything was created in the Word, by Him and for Him, and because the meaning of this creation was revealed to us in the new creation completed by the Son of God, who became the son of the earth. “He Himself is before all things, and all things are supported in Him [fr: ont en lui leur cohesion]”, “exist in Him”  (this text will later be reinforced in the prologue of the Gospel of John: “all that began to be was life in Him” ). The synthesis of this New Testament cosmology is already given in Ephesians 1:10: anakefalaiosasthai ta panta en Cristo . Here the principle of creation by God is expressed: the Word through the Incarnation and Ascension became “all in all,” for It is the archetype of all things - ta panta - and they all find their “fulfillment” in Him. The dialectic of “repetitions” is expressed through the use of the conjunction kai [Gr.: “and”]: everything was created by Him and for Him - and It (the Word) is before all things - and they are all supported in Him - and It is the head of the Body, the Church, which in the end must contain everything, for the Gospel must be proclaimed “to every creature” (pas é t ê ktisei ), and in the vision of the ap. Paul, the Church is nothing other than this very creation, gathering and becoming Christianized.

Thus, it is the Church, as the Eucharistic mystery, that gives us the gnosis of the universe created to become the Eucharist. The Eucharist as a sacrament corresponds to the Eucharist as spirituality: “celebrate the Eucharist in everything,” and this is the metamorphosis between human existence and all existence through man.

In this sense, the Church Fathers claim that the Bible represents the key to Liber mundi - the Bible of the world. In this they are deeply committed to the biblical concept of the Word of God, which not only speaks, but also creates: for Israel, God is “true” in the sense that His Word is the source of all reality, not only existential and historical, but also cosmic. In the priestly account of creation, all things exist only through the Word of God, which calls them into existence and maintains them in being. That's why, as Rev. writes. Maximus the Confessor, we, on the one hand, discover that the Word, “for our sake inexpressibly hiding Himself in the logoi of being,” on the other hand, condescended to “be incarnate and express itself in the letters and syllables and sounds [of Scripture].” In the transfiguration of Christ, the Rev. clarifies. Maxim, the shining robe signifies both the letter of the Bible and the flesh of the earth, and both are illuminated by grace . Here there is a correspondence between Scripture and the world, similar to the correspondence between soul and body: he who has a spiritual mind will receive from Scripture, in the Spirit, the contemplation of the true cosmos.

As Father Henri de Lubac showed in his remarkable works, there was no other concept [of the world] in the West until the Romanesque and early Gothic periods. Exegesis and art, like the Middle Ages itself, remained in to a greater extent“symbolic” rather than “scholastic”, animated, according to the words of the blessed one. Augustine, by the mercy of God, who gave people the Bible, “this other world,” to open them up to a new understanding of the meaning of the world, “this first book.”

Three consequences follow from these preliminary considerations, which I would like to formulate straightforwardly and sharply.

The first consequence is that Orthodox cosmology appears to us not as static, not as passive contemplation, but in a historical and eschatological perspective, requiring from us transformative sanctification. To discover the world in Christ as a burning bush means to fight to preserve it from decay and to transform it into a burning bush.

The second consequence: cosmology is subordinated to anthropology, or rather to the history of the relationship between God and man, theanthropic history. Contrary to the usual forms of thinking, it is not the history of man that fits into cosmic evolution, but cosmic evolution into the history of man, thereby demonstrating the spiritual state of the latter, the adventure of his freedom. In the Orthodox vision, human history is not a product of cosmic evolution, but vice versa.

Third corollary: Orthodox cosmology is geocentric for the simple reason that it is Christocentric. The union of the uncreated and the created, the metacosmic “heaven” and the pancosmic “earth” is realized in Christ on our earth, and therefore the earth is central, but not physically, but spiritually. In the holy flesh of Christ, which embraces the entire sensible creation, Pascal's two infinities, or rather, two indefinites, are filled with the glory of God - the only infinite. This is not a matter of denying the “signs in the heavens” (that is, freeing ourselves from the technicist mythology of “flying saucers”) and denying the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial personal beings (related, perhaps, to angelology or demonology), probably known to some mystics, for which there are no spatial restrictions. We are talking about confessing Christ as Lord of the worlds: “He held in His right hand seven stars... and His form was like the sun when it shines in its power.” The most distant galaxies are grains of dust gravitating around the Cross.

1

In Orthodox theology of creation, as in all Christian theology, it is emphasized, on the one hand, the inherent density of created things (densit é ) , (and in this the Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) creation is fundamentally different from the manifestations [of the otherworldly. - A. N.] among archaic metaphysicians and in Hinduism), which makes possible the modern Western scientific approach [to the study of the world]. At the same time, on the other hand and no less radically, Orthodoxy emphasizes the transparency of the created, the presence of divine energies at its very root, and in this Orthodoxy opposes both a self-contained cosmology and the acosmism of isolated transcendence inherent in Judaism, Islam and even some currents that dominate Western Christianity, starting with scholasticism and the Reformation...

By combining these two fundamental concepts - density and transparency - an original concept of symbol and angelology arises.

As Vladimir Lossky said, in order to get closer to the mystery of creation, a leap of faith and “a kind of “reverse apophatism”” is required (the same as in order to get closer to the mystery of God). The universe is not a mere manifestation of the divine, nor is it an emanation of the divine, nor is it the result of the ordering of pre-existing matter by some demiurge. She was created completely new, from “nothing”, ouk on (and not from relative m é on) Septuagint . The concept of “nothing” is here the “ultimate” concept, prompting the idea that God, who does not have anything “outside”, makes the universe appear, giving rise to a certain distance, otherness (diastema), “but not in place, but in nature " As a result, He allows a completely different reality to emerge through an action that in Jewish mysticism is called “diminution” (tsimtsum), and in Orthodox theology - the first “kenosis.” Therefore, the metaphysical meaning of creation is love, a love that is highly inventive and thus even sacrificial on the part of God .

Creation, the Fathers emphasize, is a matter of God's will, which they carefully distinguish from His unattainable essence. They give the concept of divine ideas a dynamic, intentional and, let’s say, calling and “predetermining” character. This thelêtikê ennoia  st. John of Damascus . Thus, this creative volitional thinking is not the intelligible content of some essence, but the living creativity of the poet (corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew verb bara - “to create”), accessible only to God alone and opposed to what is “fabricated” or “constructed.” Consequently, the universe is not, unlike Plato’s concepts, a copy, a damaged reflection of the divine world: it appears (literally gushes (jaillit)) new from the hands of the biblical God, who saw “that it is good”: here is the joy desired by God His Wisdom, rejoicing in adoring joy, which is described in the psalms and cosmic passages of the Book of Job, where the constellations cry out for joy, which, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, represents “a certain musical harmony”, “a well-formed and wonderfully composed chant” .

The hymn, music as rhythm and becoming - this is what characterizes the biblical and patristic concept of the created, placing the universe in an ever-approaching perspective in relation to divine infinity and opening the closed spatiality of the ancient cosmos for the sake of a dynamic understanding of the created world. Creation, the continuous transition from nothingness to being in the attraction (l’aimantation) of infinity, a being that has no basis in itself, is the movement in which time, space and matter are simultaneously created. “This world is always flowing, always happening, always trembling half-being, and behind it... a sensitive eye perceives a different reality.” Logos alogos, theos atheos, said Origen, showing that the biblical symbol of the waters means this fluidity, this non-identity of the created with itself, the created, stretched between its own nothingness and the call of divine love.

So, nature in the Christian vision appears as a completely new reality, genuine, dynamic, animated by the “luminous” “seed” force, which God introduced into nature not for the sake of his immanence [to nature], described by the Stoics (despite the similarity of their vocabulary with the vocabulary of the Greek fathers) , but as an intense desire for nature to go beyond itself. Therefore, as Fr. emphasized with particular force. Pavel Florensky, only Christianity made it possible to correctly interpret the meaning of created things, so that every philosophical idea, like every Scientific research, becomes possible thanks to biblical revelation, that is, “only when people saw in creation not a simple shell of demons, not some emanation of the Divine, and not His ghostly appearance, like the appearance of a rainbow in splashes of water, but an independent, independent a legitimate and self-responsible creation of God..."  .

At the same time, the Greek fathers, like later Russian religious philosophers, rejected or ignored the concept of “pure nature.” Uncreated grace, the omnipresent glory of God, His energy reside in the very foundation of things. This is the whole biblical meaning of the words kâbôd And shekinah, which are used here in the strictly Christian sense. In its true existence, creation has heavenly roots. Creative ideas-wills determine the various modes according to which created beings participate in divine energies. According to its logos, its name, the life-giving word, through which and in which it was created by God, created things uniquely express in existential praise the glory of God, for: “one is the glory of the sun, and another is the glory of the moon, and another is the glory of the stars; and star differs from star in glory (doxa).”

Here we must not be misled by the use of the Stoic vocabulary by the Fathers: the logoi they speak of are not the substantial “seed causes,” but the “words” of creation and providence found in Genesis and the Psalms. Every created thing has its own point of contact with divine energy, a virgin point, logos, sophia ( sophianite), which both grounds it and seems to attract [lit. magnetizes] to fullness. Without logos, without name, in created being “there would only be a senseless and insane clash of deaf-mute masses in the abyss of absolute darkness” . These logoi are contained in the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, which is the beginning and end of all things. In a sense, we can say that in its noumenal [unknowable] depth, the Logos becomes the world, the world in Him acquires a hierarchy of meanings and names.

But the Logos (Logos) is inseparable from the Spirit (Pneuma): the Father created all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, for where the Word is, there is the Spirit, and what the Word produces finds its existence in the Holy Spirit; and indeed, the psalm says: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established. Here the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is revealed. And through the Spirit of His mouth is all their strength.” In the transparency of the world the Trinity manifests itself; Representatives of ante-Nicene thought liked to emphasize this, who, reproducing and clarifying the meaning of the Epistle to the Ephesians, pointed to the presence and action in the cosmos of each of its Persons: “The Father is over all, the Son is through all, the Holy Spirit is in all”: Logos - as structure and order, Spirit is like life, movement towards fullness, rhythm that is born when they meet. So, for example, St. Irenaeus writes: “Since the word affirms, that is, is the product of the body and gives the essence of emanation, and the spirit orders and forms the differences of forces, then in all justice the Word is called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God. The Apostle Paul, His apostle, also speaks appropriately for this occasion: “There is one God the Father, who is above all and with all and in us all.”

Much later, but following the same line of thinking, Rev. Maximus the Confessor will show that we cannot perceive even the smallest thing without undergoing some kind of trinitarian experience: the very existence of things connects them with the basis of being - the Father. Their intelligibility, the “logical” order (in the sense of the great mystical and spiritual mind), which is present simultaneously in things and in human consciousness, connecting them with the Logos, with the Son, finally, their life, or, speaking in a broader sense, their movement reflect the presence in them of the Spirit - the “Giver of Life” who completes and restores . The world was created by the Word, but the Spirit hovered over the primordial waters, caring for and fertilizing them, representing a cosmic Pentecost, as Father Sergius Bulgakov said.

When these complementary approaches meet, an original concept of the symbol arises. The created symbolizes the uncreated, but one does not absorb the other: the world is not called to become God, but to become the temple of God, his “place,” as the hesychasts zealously say. To climb a mountain means to reach the “pastures of your heart” (“pâturages du coeur”), where God reveals Himself, for the material ascent symbolizes the spiritual (in the most realistic sense: psychosomatic medicine knows how much mountains favor asceticism and contemplation). But the mountain does not disappear into the consuming omnipresence [of the ascent to God]: it can become a “high place,” like a heart washed with tears. This symbolism no longer expresses the Neoplatonic complicity that would deprive the earthly of its own reality. In the Bible, the symbolic meaning of nature is stronger, the fuller, more vibrant and more power in the natural order. Finally, this symbolism can no longer be reduced to allegories or to a random combination of signs such as those used by the prophets when the transcendence of God was hidden and Christ had not yet been rediscovered in the light of Tabor. The symbol does not “stick” to things: it is their very nature, their density and their beauty, as they are fulfilled in God. Orthodox symbolism is "Chalcedonian" symbolism, and the Incarnation gives us the key to such understanding. And yet, since the time Old Testament the praise of sub-humaines seems ontological, and its echo angelic.

Angels, intermediaries and messengers, perform a primarily symbolic function. The praise of creatures whose beauty appears as “the crystallization of this aspect of universal joy” — is inseparable from angelic praise. The cosmic “Eucharist” of Psalm 149 begins with the exhortation: “Praise Him, O heavens of heavens and waters that are above the heavens.” This makes us remember the cherubim from Merkabah: “the sound of their wings is like the sound of many waters.” We do not know how angels act upon the physical universe and how they carry out their office of signification by symbols, which makes them, to repeat the expression of Tertullian, “workers of the flame.” But we also don’t know how our soul and body relate and why, when we are sad, tears well up in our eyes.

The science of the Renaissance, fueled by Kabbalah and alchemy, had access to a certain sense of correspondence between the various stages of created existence. But she risked forgetting both the transcendent and the reality of nature as such. Modern science, on the contrary, has developed horizontally. However, from Goethe to Claude Bernard and to Ruyer, evidence persists that there is some “vital plan that draws a plan for every being and every organ,” some “organogénique law, existing according to some pre-established idea." Perhaps angels support these invisible forms where life is possible.

In our time, this topic was deepened by the great Orthodox philosopher, who was also a great scientist, Fr. Pavel Florensky. In his opinion, the connection between a thing and its logos is preserved thanks to the living presence of serving angels. The glory of creation appears, from a certain angle, as the liturgical celebration of their angels. The angeological perception of the world is combined with its symbolic perception; it reveals the depth of nature and at the same time the fact that “everything is involved in another world” .

“What was he crying about? Oh, he cried in his delight even about these stars that shone to him from the abyss, and “was not ashamed of this frenzy.” It was as if the threads from all these countless worlds of God came together at once in his soul, and it all trembled, “touching other worlds.”

2

If the universe “precedes” man, being God's revelation, then man should creatively recognize this revelation, realize the ontological praise of things. In the marital conception, which unites the world with man, this world, like mysterious femininity, “precedes” man and forms one flesh with him. The entire sensory universe is a continuation of our body. Or rather, is not our body the form in which our “living soul” is imprinted in “cosmic dust”? There is no gap between the flesh of the world and the flesh of man, the universe is included in human “nature” (in the theological sense of the word), it is the body of humanity. Man is a “microcosm” that summarizes, condenses, repeats in itself the degrees of created existence and can thanks to this cognize the universe from the inside. The first account of creation in Genesis shows us microcosmic man, created after other creatures, but assimilated to them by the blessing that ends the sixth day; he appears as the pinnacle at which creation is completed and summed up. “Everything created by God flows into it, as into a crucible, and in it from different natures, as from different sounds, is composed into a single harmony.”  Thus, between man-microcosm and the universe-“macroanthropos”, the process of cognition takes place as endosmose [i.e. i.e. directed from the universe to man] and exosmose [i.e. e. directed from a person to the universe], an exchange of meaning and power.

Christianity asserts (freeing man from slavery to nature) that man is much more than a microcosm: he is a person created in the image and likeness of God. In the symbolic language of the Book of Genesis, his creation does not stem from the order prescribed to the “earth”, nor to other living beings. God does not command, but says at the eternal Council: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.”

In his personal freedom, man transcends the universe not in order to leave it, but in order to enclose it within himself, to express its meaning, to impart grace to it. It is precisely because of his irreducibility as a personality [to something natural], thereby capable of embracing and describing everything, that man is a topic considered from all sides by modern Orthodox thought. “Only a person can contain universal content, be a potential universe in individual form,” writes Nikolai Berdyaev. “A personality is not a part, and cannot be a part in relation to any whole, even to a huge whole, the whole world.” Vladimir Lossky writes similarly: “Personality is not a part of any whole, it contains the whole within itself.”

This implicit perspective allowed St. Gregory Palamas to show that man is higher than the angels: man is richer, he potentially embraces the totality of the sensory and intelligible, reproducing in his corporeality everything sensible, while his highest abilities are similar to those of the angels. Being the image of God and the microcosm, he forms a hypostasis of the cosmos. In it, “according to God’s wisdom, a certain mixture and merging of the sensual with the mental takes place,” so that in it “the earthly is exalted with the divine and a single grace passes equally throughout all creation...”. Through man, the universe is called to become the “image of the Image.” It is in this sense that the fathers interpreted the second account of creation, in which man is placed as the head of the created world. Only man is animated by the very breath of God, and his existence is directly rooted in the grace of the Holy Spirit. Without it, plants cannot grow, because they are rooted in it. It is he who gives meaning to “animals”, deciphering their logoi (logoi) for God.

In contrast to archaic concepts, man is not called upon to be saved by, as it were, “cosmicizing” himself, dissolving into the impersonal divine through the mediation of sanctified nature. On the contrary, in it the universe can find correspondence to its secret sacredness: “cosmotheosis” depends on “anthropoteosis” . Therefore St. Gregory of Nyssa, returning to the theme of the microcosm among the Stoics, remarks with a smile: but then [if man were interpreted simply as summarizing all levels of physical existence] we would become like mice and mosquitoes! The true greatness of man is not in space, but in his irreducible personal, metacosmic dimension, which allows him not to dissolve the world [in himself], but to “cultivate” it. Adam was placed in Eden as a gardener to perfect it. Man is logikos, he is a created logos, who, like priest and king, must gather the logoi of things in order to present them in the creative radiance of glory to the uncreated Logos. In every being and in every thing he had to recognize the virgin point of sophia, so that the Wisdom of God would rush there. As a fellow worker with God, he was to read and describe the presence of the Word in Liber mundi. Vladimir Solovyov said that the calling of humanity is the calling of the collective cosmic Messiah to “subjugate the earth,” that is, to transform it into a Temple.

For the universe, man is the hope of finding grace and uniting with God, but this is also the risk of failure and decay, for, having turned away from God, man will see only the external appearance of things, the “image of this world,” which “passes away,” and will give them false names . Let us remember the fundamental text of St. Paul, relating to the fall and redemption, where one can see that the calling of Adam as mediator and liberator is revealed again in the body of the Church, that is, in the last Adam: “For the creation (literally: “creation as a whole,” kthesis) waits with hope for revelation ( people as) the sons of God, because the creation was subjected to vanity not voluntarily, but according to the will of the one who subdued (it), in the hope that the creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

Thus, everything that happens in a person has a universal meaning and is imprinted in space. The fate of man determines the fate of the universe. Biblical revelation beyond the clear division it made between genuine symbolism and archaic (now obsolete) science (if only it really wanted to be science, in the true sense of the word, and not “vertical” knowledge, which in itself is already symbolic) , definitely brings us face to face with anthropocentrism - spiritual, not physical. Since man, as Berdyaev says, is both a microcosm and a microgod (mikrotheos), and since God, in order to become the universe, became man, therefore man is the spiritual center of all created being, all its levels, all its worlds.

The metaphysical meaning of the Earth (i.e., its meaning not only as a planet, but also as a pan-cosmic earth) is revealed only as an anthropological and cosmological gnosis. Thus, the symbolic relationship of man to the planets is highlighted solar system, to the Sun and to the most distant nebulae. The transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism in modern science, and then to the idea of ​​​​the absence of any center in a physically unlimited universe, is full of spiritual meaning that we have to uncover. The unlimited cosmos can only be “placed” inside the creative love of God, in which man can be consciously involved, so that this cosmos ends up inside the sanctified person and becomes a symbol of the “abyss calling to the abyss.”

Of course, for “outsiders” [that is, for those who have no faith] there is no longer anything high or low, but only cold and darkness, as Nietzsche proclaimed with the death of God. But for those who believe and know - and everyone is called to this - the hearts of the saints are the “place of God” and, thus, the centers of the universe. Ultimately, the universe is called to become in man (or, more precisely, in the field of interpersonal relations between people and communion with God) chambers for the newlyweds and their flesh, the Eucharistic Temple and Gift. As Nikos Nissiotis emphasized, God created the world to unite with humanity through the cosmic flesh, which became the eucharistic flesh. God does not want, says Maximus the Confessor, that “the peculiar properties that close each of the worlds in itself and lead to their separation and separation should have greater power than the friendly kinship mysteriously given to them in unity. In accordance with this kinship, there is a universal and unified way of the invisible and unknown presence in beings of the all-containing Cause, which is variously present in all and makes them unmixed and inseparable..., showing that these beings, according to a uniform connection, belong rather to each other than to themselves.”

The flesh of the world is called to become in man, under the fiery seal of God’s image, a genuine face, a pure difference against the background of transparency, that is, an icon. The symbolic presence of God in the cosmos is renewed, completed and transcends itself in His iconic presence. In the face of Christ and the faces of the saints the transition from symbol to reality takes place. The world is illuminated by the sun of the Holy Face, constellations of transformed faces.

3

Holy Fathers and especially the great witnesses of cosmological gnosis, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Rev. Maximus the Confessor, to whom we constantly refer, developed a dynamic theory of matter, which allows us to take seriously top level intelligibility, information from the Bible concerning the cosmic scale of the Fall, the miracles performed by Christ, His spiritual corporeality after the resurrection, the resurrection of bodies and its anticipation in holiness. Some concepts of the ascetic and mystical tradition of the Christian East will also allow us to complement this vision of the Fathers, which was revived with great force in the 20th century. in Russian religious philosophy as a broad attempt to "re-mythologize" Christianity (giving myth the sense of symbol and mystery).

For Gregory of Nyssa, matter, or, more precisely, the sensory perceived, comes from mutual assistance, from the convergence of intelligible qualities: “Of what is seen in the body, nothing in itself is a body, not a body - an external appearance, and color and heaviness, and attraction, and quantity, and every other visible quality, but on the contrary, each of them is a concept (purs intelligibles), and their mutual confluence and connection with each other becomes a body.” Let us immediately emphasize that St. Gregory attributes a certain materiality to the intelligible; only God is immaterial. He wants to say that sensually perceived “matter” is ultimately only a condensation, compression of intelligible luminous “matter”, which is in inextricably linked with the created spirit. He clarifies that these qualities, in fact, “are comprehended by the mind, and not by feeling,” that they, “taken in themselves, are concepts (ennoiai) and bare mental representations (psila noemata). For none of them in itself is a substance, but by converging with each other, they become a substance (noemata hyle ginetai).”

This means that the subject of these “concepts” (and this question, as it seems to me, was not sufficiently clarified by St. Gregory) is twofold - divine and human: it is, on the one hand, the divine Logos (Logos), uttering his inner word addressed to to the reality that it gives rise to, and, on the other hand, man is logikos, able to hear or not, or to some extent hearing this voice “which resounds from within,” and the splendor of which “surpasses all human thought.” Thing, body, matter exist in this interpersonal meeting of the divine Logos and the human spirit, so that we are led by our very senses “to the understanding of that which in fact and in concept is higher than the senses, and the eye becomes for us the interpreter of the omnipotent wisdom, and contemplated in the Universe , and indicating the One who wisely holds the Universe in his hand.”

According to Rev. Maximus, God is radically transcendent in relation to both the sensory world and the intelligible world, which both are in mutual correspondence, in interpenetration (circumincession), which allows the divine logoi (logoi) to manifest themselves in symbols: “...for those who succeed in spiritual contemplation it will be easier to comprehend the visible through the invisible. For symbolic contemplation of the intelligible through the visible is at the same time spiritual knowledge and speculation of the visible through the invisible.”

From all of the above, a fundamental consequence follows: there are various degrees of materiality, which are not manifestations of the natural [substantial], but states - more precisely, following Evagrius (and Nikolai Berdyaev), states of contemplation. This means that the state of the cosmos, its transparency or impenetrability, its liberation in God or enslavement to decay and death, depend on the fundamental attitude of man, on his inherent transparency or impenetrability both for the divine light and for the presence of his neighbor (le prochain). The state of the universe is determined by man's capacity for communion. At least, this was the case initially, and it remains so now in Christ and His Church, for man, enslaving the universe to “vanity,” himself found himself enslaved by this new state of matter, in which his freedom froze.

Therefore, we can finally understand another, I believe, very important interpretation of Orthodox cosmology: according to it, the significant moments of the history of salvation have not only historical, but also metahistorical significance. They define states, eons ( eons) cosmic existence, which in their formation were mysteriously lost, but which under certain conditions remain recognizable in this existence. For example, the heavenly state exists to the extent that the universe rests in God, but it is hidden from humanity due to its state of separation, like a shell that produces the objectification of matter. The heavenly state is rediscovered in Christ, who completes and surpasses it in eschatological transformation. It is in this perspective of Parousia church sacraments offer us a heavenly state. But the state of fall, fueled by our sins, still remains, although it already has breakthroughs from miracles performed by those (fully participating in the Risen One) who are already resurrecting the universe in themselves and around them, and who, through the light of the Cross, are drawing the fallen state of matter into paradise state, or rather, into an eschatological state, for the latter absorbs all the sorrow and all the creation of man.

Cosmology is therefore inseparable from the history of salvation.

Translation from French - A. V. Nesteruk according to the publication:
.
Essais théologiques. Spiritualite Orientale.
Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1976, pp. 83–97.

Berdyaev N. About slavery and human freedom. Paris: YMKA-press, 1939. P. 20.

Lossky V. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. M.: Center "SEI", 1991. P. 82.

St. Gregory of Nyssa. (Catech) Big catechetical word, ch. 6. Creations, part 4. M.: Gautier Printing House, 1861. P. 19–25. (More modern edition: Kyiv: Prologue, 2003. P. 80, 82 - Translator’s note.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa. (Hom. Op.). On the structure of man, ch. 12 . St. Petersburg: AHIOMA, 1995. pp. 31–38. (Here it is necessary to explain the author’s train of thought, who implicitly refers to the words of St. Gregory that “nature, governed by the mind, is connected with the mind and itself is decorated with the beauty of what is adjacent to it, becoming, as it were, the mirror of a mirror. Nature [of man] rules and holds that material hypostasis in which<вещественном>she appears to the eye” (pp. 36–37). But since man himself is an image, “not deprived of anything known in the prototype” (see ibid., Chapter 11, p. 31), then ultimately nature as a whole is subject to hypostasis by man, who conveys to it the image of the Creator. - Note. translator.)

Gen 2:4–25.

The Greek term theosis means “deification,” so we are talking about the “deification of the cosmos” through the “deification of man.” - Note. translator

We present here the completely corresponding passage: “How small and unworthy the nobility of man was dreamed by some of the outsiders, who tried to exalt the human by comparison with this world. And they said that man is a small world (µικρόν…κόσµον), composed of the same elements as everything. But while loudly praising human nature with this name, they themselves did not notice that they honored man with the differences (idioms) of a mosquito and a mouse” (Alone among the saints of our father, Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa. On the structure of man. Chapter XVI. Trans. V. M. Lurie, edited by A. L. Verlinsky (St. Petersburg: AHIOMA, 1995, p. 50). - Note. translator

Right there.

(Example of Church-Patristic Anthropology)

The concept of anthropology in theological literature is usually associated with an abstract teaching about human nature: about the soul and body, their relationship, strengths and abilities, etc. We would call this teaching formal anthropology. This predominantly anthropology can be seen in the monographs of German theologians. However, it is completely in vain that they do not touch upon, or touch upon very little, the material side of anthropology. Those. the doctrine of those living, concrete forms of the sinful and grace-filled state of man, with which it is inseparably fused and in which only it can manifest itself human nature. This side of anthropology, more interesting and lively, we would call material anthropology.

Turning to the Church Fathers, in some of them we see a more developed formal side of anthropology; such, for example, is the unique work of Nemesius “On the Nature of Man”, the anthropological treatises of Gregory of Nyssa and other Fathers. Whereas Macarius of Egypt, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, and almost all ascetics paid primary attention to that side of anthropology, which we called material. Meanwhile, in St. In John of Damascus we find a rare and happy combination of these two sides. Questions of formal anthropology found a prominent place in his famous system of dogmatics: “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (especially in the 2nd book). For material anthropology, abundant content can be drawn from his Octoechos, canons and other chants.

But just as the first work is woven, as Krumbacher puts it, from individual sayings of the Fathers, so in relation to the canons and the Octoechos, a significant part of which undoubtedly belongs to John, Damascene can be called the author not in the strict sense: here we can also assume use from the outside Damascene with pre-existing liturgical material. At least for the holiday canons, John undoubtedly made some borrowings from his father’s words and conversations. Nevertheless, for his chants, Damascene still primarily remains a creator, and not a compiler, as for Dogmatics. Thus, the topic of this essay will not be the anthropology of John of Damascus itself, but rather the ecclesiastical anthropology of the latter’s works. In presenting our subject, we will adhere to the division of anthropology into formal and material that we have already outlined.

When starting to present the formal anthropology of Damascus, we must admit in advance that it is not of particularly lively interest. Giving a brief definition of a person. As a rational mortal animal, involved in intelligence and knowledge, Damascus says that man, as created in the image of God, is the smallest, but most precious of all God’s creatures. From him we read the wonderful words of Gregory the Theologian about this. That man, being a mixture of two natures, is an example of the highest wisdom and splendor, a certain connection between the visible and invisible nature, the second world: the small in the great, another Angel, the spectator of the visible creation, the secret of the intuited creation, the king of everything on earth, subordinate to the heavenly King , earthly and heavenly, transitory and immortal, visible and intelligible, intermediate between greatness and insignificance, at the same time spirit and flesh, but due to its attraction to God, becoming a god. If a person is another Angel, then his purpose is “the work of the Angels: to vigilantly and unceasingly sing the praises of the Creator and enjoy His contemplation.” According to the Creator, man, through all creatures, had to rise to Him and from everything gather for himself one fruit: God, who is true life.

In the doctrine of the composition of human nature, we do not encounter any hesitation in Damascus. Everywhere he adheres to a dichotomy: “a double man,” he was “created with a double nature,” soul and body make up the whole person. Teachings of the Ap. Paul about the spirit, as the third component of man, in John, partly similar to Irenaeus of Lyons, but mainly following Chrysostom, explains in the sense of the gift of the Holy Spirit given in baptism. If some Fathers sometimes considered the mind to be an independent part, then Damascene, together with Maximus the Confessor, calls the mind not different from the soul, but the purest part her. Counting as many as 12 types of connection in one place, Damascus defines the connection between soul and body with the term χατὰ σύνθεσιν, which, indicating the close coexistence of soul and body, notes the parallelism of psycho-physical phenomena in human nature. Speaking figuratively, the soul covers the flesh, like a veil and cover, in a more precise definition of the image of the union of the soul and body of St. The father, guided by Nemesius and close to the teachings of Gregory of Nyssa, expresses himself as follows: “the soul is united with the body - the whole with the whole, and not part with part; and it is not encompassed by it, but embraces it, just as fire embraces iron.” Due to the close connection of soul and body, they both have a number of common powers, abilities and phenomena in human life, listed in detail by John. So the soul, for example, gets sick and suffers when the body is cut; on the other hand, the body also assimilates what belongs to the soul itself, such as virtues and vices. However, the active role in this dual union belongs to the soul, which, using the organs of the body as an instrument, controlling and guiding it, animates the body and imparts to it rationally free movement.

Concerning specifically the doctrine of the human body, Damascene displays a lot of natural scientific knowledge, borrowed by him from Aristotle, Nemesius and other authors, as well as acquired through his own observation. This is how Damascene sets out the Empedoclos-Hippocrates doctrine, accepted at that time, about the four elements or moistures from which the human body is composed and into which it decomposes. In him we find the ancient doctrine of temperaments, based on the previous position, the doctrine of the structure of the brain, the localization of moisture and mental forces in the human body, etc. Repeating the teachings of Aristotle and Nemesius, Damascene develops the theory according to which a person, through the medium of a body consisting of the four elements, adjoins the lowest forms of earthly existence - inanimate objects. In terms of nutritional, vegetative and productive forces, it is associated with plants. With animals, in addition to all this, he also has in common lower desires, feeling and movement. Finally, “through the medium of reason, man is united with incorporeal and intelligible natures.” The mind already entirely belongs to another higher side of man - the soul, to which Damascene pays much more attention than the body.

Returning to the teaching of Damascene about the two-part division of mental powers or abilities, it should be noted that the first - cognitive ones - he includes the mind (νοῦς), thinking (διἀυοια or διανοητιχόν), opinion (δόξα), imagination and idea (ϕαντασἰα or ϕα νταστιχόν) and feeling ( αἴσθησις ). Memory should also be included here (νευτιχόν). According to Damascene, the second - desirable forces - include will and free choice. ( βόυλησις χαὶ προα ί ρεσις ) . In revealing the doctrine of calculable abilities, Damascus is the least independent. Describing the sequential development, starting with the lower forms, of cognitive-mental and free-will processes, John follows Maximus the Confessor, and touching on each of the abilities, he proposes in an abbreviated form the teaching of Nemesius. Damascene's primary attention is attracted to the highest of cognitive powers - the mind, which he calls, as we have already mentioned, the purest part of the soul, as well as the most beautiful part of man. Being the guiding principle of both the soul and the flesh, the “mind,” according to the teachings of John, “is in the middle between God and the flesh: the flesh, as living with it, and God, as His image.” Remaining faithful to Aristotle, Damascene distinguishes two abilities in the mind: contemplative and active. Adhering to the teachings of Gregory the Theologian, he calls the first mind (νοῦς) in the narrow sense, the second word or reason (λόγος). Finally, Damascene gives here an even more particular classification, conveying according to Nemesius the Stoic-philosophical doctrine of the division of the word into the internal word (ἐνδιάθετος λόγος) and the pronounced (προϕριχός).

With the rational-verbal ability, according to the teachings of Damascus, expressed, however, very early - already by Justin and Irenaeus, freedom of will is inextricably linked in a person, because “everything rational is autocratic.” Reason would be superfluous if it were not given to man for discussion and free choice. “Of necessity,” says St. Father, “freedom of decision is connected with reason, because either a person will not be a rational being, or, being rational, he will be the master of his actions and independent.” In this case, as well as speaking about what is dependent on us and what is not in our power, as well as laying down a kind of proof of free will, Damascene mainly uses the same Nemesius.

Both according to the general fatherly teaching, the exponent of which can be considered, for example, Cyril of Jerusalem and all the Cappadocians, and according to the teaching of Damascus, reason and free will are the most important signs of the image of God in man, because “in the image,” says the latter, “means reasonable (τὸ νοερόν) and autocratic (αὐτεξούσιον); the expression: in likeness - denotes possible likeness to God through virtue” and especially through love and mercy. The last expression is interpreted in a similar way by Origen, Isidore Pelusiot and many others. etc. The doctrine of the image of God in man is expressed in beautiful form by Damascus in one self-vocal stichera. “Thou hast considered the image of Thy hands, O Word, creation,” it says: “painting in a material image intelligent creature likeness, you have made him and a partaker of me, placing me on earth to rule over creation with autocracy.” Explaining how a person bears within himself the semblance of an intelligent being, St. the hymn writer writes: “it is said about every person that he is in the image (of God), by virtue of the dignity of the mind and soul, (the dignity) of the truly elusive, invisible (ἀθε ώρτον), immortal, free, truly sovereign and creatively producing and creating ( τεχνογονιχὸν χαὶ οἰχοδομιχ όν) . On the other hand, being likened to the blessed and essential Deity by autocracy and rational-desirable ability, a person like God, who rules the universe, has power over what is on earth. And in this case, Damascene adjoins that patristic understanding of the image of God, the representative of which is Chrysostom with his disciples: Isidore and Theodoret. But Damascus seems to be original in the case when he says that man, having natural power over his body, as over a slave, more reflects the image of God than an Angel, because the latter, not having a body by nature, is deprived and relevant authority.

Finally, even more specifically, the image of God in man is manifested in the fact that he depicts the Holy Trinity about the tripartite soul, for the image of the Trinity, according to the teaching of John, we see in the mind, the word and the breath that is in us. The idea expressed belongs to Bl. Theodoret and partly to two Gregory: the Theologian and Nyssa. However, Damascene argues it quite independently. “Just as the Father, Who is the Mind,” we read from him, “And the Son, Who is the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one, so the mind, and the word, and the spirit are one man.” For just as the persons of the Holy Trinity are hypostatically distinct and at the same time inseparable, so the mind, the word, and the spirit, being definitely qualified and closely united in the human soul, “neither merge through union, nor are they separated by number.” . And one more thing: just as the word by nature is a messenger of the mind, the spirit is the discoverer of the word; so in the Holy Trinity “through the Holy Spirit we recognize Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we contemplate the Father.”

Moving on to material anthropology, according to our conventional terminology, we will mainly deal with Damascus as a Christian poet and church hymnographer. And in this regard, St. John, according to St. Philaret, “is higher than in all other respects; here he is inimitable." In the liturgical works of Damascus we see incomparably more creativity and independence than in all his other works. At the same time, the richness and variety of thoughts here are not inferior to the beauty of form.

About the creation of man St. John sings in self-accord: “Be the firstfruits of me and compose Your creative command: having desired to create my living nature from the invisible and visible, You created my body from the earth, even though You gave me the soul by Your divine and life-giving inspiration”... Emphasizing the incorrectness of the opinion Origen, Damascene speaks about the simultaneous creation of soul and body... In particular, about the creation of the human body, Damascene notes that he created man with “invisible hands”, and in another place that He imagined his “fingers". Speaking about our beauty created in the image of God, the hymn writer, like Tertullian, Augustine and other Fathers, assumes some imprint of the image of God even in the harmoniously built body of man... In relation to the soul, “God,” in the words of the Holy Father, “created man not involved in evil, straight, morally good, sorrowless ... highly adorned with all virtue, blooming with all blessings." Having installed man as king and ruler of the whole earth, God created for him, as it were, a special palace - paradise. Damascene describes the innocent and blissful state of man in paradise with the following features: "with his body... in a divine and beautiful place , soul” man “lived in a higher and more beautiful place, having God living in it as his dwelling and ... glorious cover, and being clothed with His grace, and enjoying only one sweetest fruit: the contemplation of Him, like any other Angel” . “Having placed (the first) man in communion with Himself, God,” says John, “through this raised him to incorruption.” However, through testing, man still had to be unshakably established in goodness. That is why the commandment was given to him; by preserving it, a person would gain immortality for himself and become stronger than death.

But the man did not keep the commandment given to him and fell. And this truth of our faith also found a beautiful form in the self-proclaimed words of the great hymn-writer. “In Thy image and likeness created man in the beginning,” we listen to his mournful song, “Thou hast placed in paradise to rule over Thy creatures; I was deceived by the envy of the devil, I partook of food, and became a transgressor of Your commandments. Moreover, back to the ground, from not being able to take it, he condemned you to return."... Seduced by the evil, murderous serpent, in the expressive language of the hymns of John, and slandered by the hope of deification, he committed disobedience by will. Through this, he lost grace, having been taken away from his boldness, he received a miserable life as his lot, clothed with deadness, became an exile from paradise and, condemned to death, submitted to corruption... So, the Fall turned the bright face of our ancestor into a gloomy one, made him earthy, lost in thought, evil in disposition, and brought him down to the “hellish abyss.”

Saying that by “the sin of the primordial” we were all “grievously wounded,” or that the devil in the person of the universal race was wounded, the hymnographer notes the heredity of original sin. “Through crime,” we read from him, “from what is in accordance with nature, we fell into what is contrary to nature,” that is, having deviated from virtue, we found ourselves in sin. This unnaturally sinful state of fallen man is depicted in remarkably vivid terms by Damascene in his canons and the Octoechos.

Beginning with the first violation of the commandment in paradise, it spread into the world in many different ways, produced every kind of vice and enslaved man to itself. Increasing uncontrollably in man, he became, as it were, furiously enraged by the corruption of the world and turned into a dark storm. Working under sin, man became enslaved at the same time to the work of an alien or, as the hymnographer calls him in other places, a strangling (θνμοϕθ όρον) and tormenting (τνραννοῦντος) fighter of the devil. Through the same death entered the world, like a wild and fierce beast, tormenting human life; her uncontrollable desire gripped all people. As a result of this, human nature became weak, ailing - sick (νοσοῦσα ϕύσις), as if drooping, dilapidated, decayed and deathly.

Damascene paints a picture of the sinful state of the individual forces of fallen man in this form. First of all, the human mind, distracted from God, became sick and fell into gloomy ignorance, or, to put it differently, the mental eye of man became covered with mud. The dominant place of the mind was taken by irrational lust, which began to control the rational soul. Weighed down by the sinful ancestral sadness, the human heart began to be incessantly overwhelmed by an unbearable, choking storm of passions, which turned into a whole frantically agitated sea. In general, the whole soul of a person became darkened, and his body, warred by the law of sin in its souls, began to easily incline towards sin.

In a word, the whole person, having fallen into the darkness of sins and plunging into corruption, came into the depths of evil, “being joined to senseless cattle and becoming like them,” and truly became an enemy of God. Being covered in the deep night of delusion, he wallowed in the abyss of sin and sat, as it were, “in darkness and the shadow of death.” With such a deplorable state of man, the features of the image of God darkened in him and were erased. The Holy Father already calls man a fallen and broken image, or say that the image of God has been destroyed in man by passions, as is sung in the dogma of the fourth tone. In the same dogmatics there is a remarkable comparison of a sinfully fallen man with a sheep lost in the mountains and stolen ( τὸ πλανηθὲν ὀρειάλωτον πρ όβατον), as well as another similarity, according to which a person is depicted as lying below in the pit and in the stronghold of hell.

Damascus was helped to paint such a vivid picture of the disastrous state of fallen man not so much by the power of his poetic talent as by the depth and intensity of his ascetic experiences as a zealous ascetic. This personal experience of St. The hymnographer is heard wherever he speaks about a soul wounded by the serpent’s remorse, about the scorching fire of sin, about the kindled and fiery arrows of the enemy, scorching with sweets, etc. only a direct sensation in one’s own nature of the entire depth of the sinful fall of man could put such words into the mouth of John expressions such as: “of old... the serpent deceived me and killed me,” “the serpent’s teeth were filled with poison,” etc.

But if Damascus so deeply experienced the disastrous consequences of his ancestors’ fall, then even more deeply he felt the sweet fruits of the Incarnation and especially the death on the cross and resurrection of Christ. That this is really so is enough to recall the hymns of one Easter matins composed by Damascus. Perhaps the human heart has never risen to such a height of holy inspiration and exultation as these wonderful chants sound, which truly constitute the precious treasure of the Church. With them they have delighted and inspired the hearts of believers until now and will continue to do so until the end of time. In their joyful and solemn tone, all of his Sunday canons, as well as holiday ones, approach the Easter canon of Damascus in their joyful and solemn tone. In all these liturgical monuments, the pen of the golden-jet hymnographer, parallel to the first, paints us another picture of the grace-reborn state of man, just as bright as the first, but completely opposite in properties.

If the first Adam, through his fall, was the cause of the terrible state of man that we have depicted, then the second Adam, Christ, through His cross and resurrection, was the cause of the restoration of fallen man and his glorification. If the root of human evil lies in sin, then Christ, having dulled, as it were, the very sting of sin and given us “decisive cleansing of sins,” drowned and completely destroyed (ἐξ ήλειψεν) all-evil sin; and having abolished the power of death - this fiend of sin, and freed man “from the work of the enemy,” he gave the world endless life, resurrection and immortality. If fallen man, being wounded by sin, lay, according to the words of Damascus, in darkness and corruption; then the Lord, having cleansed him from the ulcer and, as it were, removed the robe of death from the man 166, and through the will of man reigned in him 188 196. Thus, human nature, diminished in comparison with the Angels, “by the good pleasure of God ... became more glorious than the Angels,” and the Adaml race was honored with bliss, “more than intelligence.” Depicting such a wealth of glory of a grace-renewed man and chanting such a wondrous economy of God, the inspired hymn-writer speaks of how Christ “exalted the lower… human nature, seated it on the Father’s throne… and considered the Parent as the high-throne glory, from the contemplation of which “astonishing the angels , seeing on the throne of the Fathers the fallen human nature, shut up (formerly) in the depths of the earth.”

The final section of anthropology should naturally be a word about death and resurrection, of which the first is the private end of each person, and the second is the general end, after the resurrection they will become spiritual, for then there will be eternal abiding in the Spirit. Then the person will also receive that high glory that is potentially already given to us in the resurrection of Christ. All these thoughts, without representing anything particularly original, through the lips of John express only the general fatherly teaching. But the words of Damascene, as a church hymn writer, are very remarkable and beautiful, when he, with such power of talent, expresses his feelings at the thought of the inevitable end for everyone, saying: “I cry and weep when I think about death, and I see our creation lying in the tombs in the image of God.” beauty, ugly, ignominious, without form. Oh miracle! What is this sacrament about us? How can we indulge in decay? How do we interface with death? – truly God’s command, as it is written”... We take this stichera as the last, albeit minor, but still wonderful chord for the anthropology of Damascus.

Casting a retrospective glance at this anthropology, we see that Damascene, like almost all the Fathers, borrowing, indirectly or directly, the forms of pagan scientific and philosophical anthropology and adapting them to Christian dogmatics, filling them with completely new, living Christian content. Therefore, dividing the anthropology of Damascus into two parts: formal and material, we see such a huge difference between them. If the first part is distinguished mainly by lack of independence; then the second is most characterized by creativity, originality, concreteness, liveliness and depth of feeling and, at the same time, beauty and expressiveness of form. Considering the formal side of Damascene's anthropology, one cannot help but pay tribute to his broad curiosity, considerable erudition and observation. As for the material side, one cannot help but marvel at the depth and intensity with which he expresses his experiences.

At the beginning of our essay, we said that anthropology, being the beginning of all knowledge, should naturally lead to the end, which is the knowledge of God. And indeed it is. But if the formal theoretical knowledge of human nature, such as we see here in the first part, cannot help but point to the all-wise and all-perfect Author of it; That deep experimental and practical recognition of our nature, such as, for example, proposed here in the form of the material anthropology of Damascus, forces us to know and feel God with our whole being. Such a beginning really leads most directly to its end, that end which is the absolute Beginning.

Hieromonk Panteleimon.

INTRODUCTION

Essay on the development of anthropological ideas

Modern theology is characterized by increased attention to anthropological issues. In relation to Catholic thought, it is customary to talk about the “anthropological turn” that occurred in the second half of the 20th century, when man became the center of theological research. This shift in emphasis made it possible for one of the leading modern Catholic theologians, Hans Urs von Balthasar, to say that in Christian anthropology it is possible to find “the starting point for constructing new philosophy". These same tendencies are clearly present in Orthodox thought: “Now it has become common place to assert,” writes Archpriest John Meyendorff, “that in our time theology should become anthropology.” Issues of anthropology occupy a key place in the work of the most outstanding Orthodox theologians of our time: Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), V.N. Lossky, Archpriest George Florovsky, Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern), Archpriest John Meyendorff, Bishop Callistus (Ware), H. Yannaras, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas). Orthodox philosophers working at the intersection of philosophy and religion, such as S. Khoruzhy, V. Shokhin and P. Gaidenko, also pay great attention to them.

Such processes in theology are actually developing in the opposite direction to modern philosophy, in which, according to the behests of Michel Foucault, there is a de-anthropologization of thinking. It must always be remembered that philosophical anthropology, like cultural anthropology, are completely different disciplines from theological anthropology. Of course, in the philosophy of modern times and modern thought there are anthropological issues, but anthropology here is impersonal in nature. In modern philosophy, anthropology was included in the subject matter of “special metaphysics,” which followed “general metaphysics” or ontology. The subject of the study of ontology was the generic characteristics of things. The spirit and soul of man were brought into the “coordinate system of the “psychological” and “pneumatological” varieties of existence... without any access to the problems of his (human) existence.” The “body” of a person was simply taken out of the equation.

In the 20th century, philosophy came to the other extreme. In the 60s - 70s. XIX century the term “anthropology” itself referred to the science that studied the origins of man and the development of primitive society. It "has its origins in the Darwinian movement, and its early exponents, such as Tylor, Lewis Morgan and Bastian, were inspired by the idea of ​​applying Darwin's evolutionary theory to the history of human development." He was a child of his age, with its faith in natural science and “positive” philosophy. It is no coincidence that her ideas had a decisive influence on the historical thinking of Fr. Engels. K ser. XX century Philosophical anthropology was formed, which “began to openly claim the status of an autonomous and at the same time “generalizing” philosophical discipline.” Its program manifesto was the work of M. Scheler “The Position of Man in the Cosmos” (1928), in which he stated that a person can raise the question of his essence without any reference to any theological tradition. But most clearly the essence of philosophical anthropology can be expressed in the words of H. Plesner, the leading representative of this school: “It is precisely those ways of existence of life that connect man with animals and plants, and are the bearers of his special way of existence, that are indifferent to spiritual self-positing.” Thus, soul and spirit were bracketed as outdated metaphysical concepts. The final result of the development of this trend was the classic formula of postmodernism: “man is a sexual form of the movement of matter.”

Thus, only in theological anthropology can we find adequate answers to the fundamental questions of human existence: what is the essence of “human”, what is personality and what is the purpose of man? In many ways, it was the modern crisis of philosophy that led theologians to anthropological problems. Philosophy raised questions, but could not answer them.

In the works of the Holy Fathers we will not find a detailed teaching about man. Of course, this issue was not completely avoided by them, but its analysis cannot be compared with the elaboration of the Trinity and Christological dogmas. In fact, it was modernity, with its socio-political tensions, that created increased interest in the human personality. However, this does not mean that we cannot solve anthropological problems within the framework of patristic thought. Our reflections must move in line with the dogmatic premises that have been shaped by Orthodox tradition.

The fundamental tenets of Orthodox anthropology are the truths expressed with particular force in the first chapters of the book of Genesis: man is a creation of God, created in His image and likeness, but in his free self-determination he has fallen from the original bliss. The teaching about man of the holy fathers and modern Christian theologians is based on these provisions. We need to note that, despite the unity of premises, we can clearly trace those features that distinguish Orthodox anthropology from the anthropology of other faiths.

• I. Dogmatic premises of the Orthodox teaching about man

Man was created in the image of God. This fundamental position of Christian doctrine needs more specification. We are created in the image of God, who is Trinity. Therefore, Orthodox anthropology must begin with reflection on the Trinity dogma. It is obvious that all our possible cataphatic statements about intra-trinity life will reveal to us many secrets of the structure of the human being. This position, based on the tradition of the thought of God of the Eastern Fathers, is a common place in modern Orthodox theology. “Image” as a way of cognition offers two possible methods: ascending and descending. When St. Augustine examines the human soul and from the image that is imprinted in it, ascends to the knowledge of God, ... then he creates ... an anthropology of God. Saint Gregory of Nyssa... comes from God as a prototype in order to understand the type and determine the essence of man as the image of Being. With the help of the Divine he “recreates the structure” of man. Thus, the Eastern Fathers create a theology of man."

The great fathers of the 4th century developed the terminology that we now use to explain the Trinity dogma. Christians believe in God, one in Essence, but three in Persons. Important here is the distinction between “nature” or “essence” (????) and “person” or personality: “hypostasis” is not reducible to “usia”, personality is not reducible to essence. Divine super-existence is not the existence of an abstract, qualityless nature, which only descending into the lower eons of existence acquires personal characteristics. The Personality of God “is not only the economic mode of manifestation of the impersonal Monad Itself, but the primary and absolute presence of God the Trinity in His transcendence.” This is why the Greek Fathers insisted on the “monarchy” of the Father, in contrast to the tendency of Western theology to see the constitutive moment of unity in the one Divine nature. Personal existence in God is ontologically primary in relation to His nature. The personality is not a manifestation of nature, but nature is the content of the personality. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit receive Their existence from the Hypostasis of the Father, and not from His nature. Only in this case does freedom acquire ontological status. It is inextricably linked with the personal character of intra-trinity life. “The personality of God the Father,” writes Christos Yannaras, “precedes and determines His essence, and is not predetermined by it. This means that God is not forced by His Essence to be God. His existence is not subject to any necessity. God exists because He is the Father, He is the one who freely puts His will into existence, begetting the Son and bringing forth the Holy Spirit. Freely...The Father hypostasizes His existence in the Trinity of Persons, affirming the image of His existence as a communion of personal freedoms, a communion of love.” Thus, the distinction between nature and hypostasis in God is the first fundamental anthropological prerequisite. “Man, like God, is a personal being, not a blind nature. This is the character of the Divine image in him."

On the other hand, the Lord does not create just man, as a separate person in whom he uniquely imprints His image. The biblical account reflects another moment of creation: “male and female he created them.” In its entirety, the image belongs only to them together. The Holy Fathers reveal another secret of this biblical narrative. In Adam, God created all of humanity. “For the name is Adam,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, - is now not given to the created object as in the last narrations. But created man does not have a special name; he is an all-man, that is, he contains all of humanity within himself. Thus, by this designation of the universality of the nature of Adam, we are invited to understand that the Divine Providence and Power embraced the whole human race in the primordial state." Thus, the image of God is imprinted not only in each individual person, but also in all of humanity as a whole. It assumes the existence of many human hypostases. Here we find the second essential prerequisite for the construction of Orthodox anthropology. Just as God, having one Nature, exists in three Persons, so the unity of human nature does not exclude its polyhypostasis.

“Usiya” and “hypostasis” are distinguishable, but not separable. It is no coincidence that in Greek philosophical language these concepts were synonymous. In Trinity theology, the concept of “hypostasis” does not correspond to the concept of “individual”; the three hypostases do not divide the single nature into equal parts, numerically different from each other. Each Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity extends to all of Nature, and does not fragment It. In other words, the Son and the Spirit are entirely of the same Nature as the Father. Consequently, it is through the “inviolable communion” between the Persons of the Holy Trinity that Her unity is expressed. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, one of the outstanding modern theologians, notes that we must place special emphasis on the relationship between community and otherness that exists in God. These two moments are not in a cause-and-effect relationship, but presuppose one another, since God is at the same time both One and Trinity. “Otherness” is a constitutive moment of unity, and does not follow it. Vladimir Nikolaevich Lossky, developing the same idea, writes that the existence of the Absolute Personality is fundamentally not self-sufficient. Hypostasis “has a nature in common with others and exists as a person in actual connection with other persons.” Personality (otherness) and communication (community), thus, are concepts essentially related to each other: “No Person can be different if It is not in relationship with Others.”

This position is the next fundamental anthropological prerequisite, which has a social connotation. “The relationship between “community” and “otherness” existing in God is a model for both ecclesiology and anthropology.” Differences between individual human personalities do not exclude the possibility of achieving unity. Moreover, both the uniqueness of the human personality and its commonality with other individuals is realized only in openness, in dialogue with them. This is, in essence, an exit to the social plane of existence.

V.N. Lossky also points out the importance of Christological dogma for the construction of Orthodox anthropology. He points with particular force to the irreducibility of the human personality or hypostasis to individuality, i.e. to those characteristics that the nature of a particular individual possesses. In the incarnate Christ there is one Hypostasis and two natures - Divine and human. But Christ is a perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and body, that is, an individual (“individual substance of a rational nature,” as defined by Boethius). “Here the human essence of Christ is the same as the essence of other substances, or individual human natures, which are also called “hypostases” and “persons.” Consequently, “in human beings also we must distinguish between personality, or hypostasis, and nature, or individual substance.”

These are the main dogmatic premises of the Orthodox teaching about man. On their basis, modern theology seeks answers to the questions of what is the image of God in man and how it is manifested, what is human freedom, its basis and manifestations, what is the purpose of man, and finally, what happened to our nature after the Fall, how applicable patristic “anthropology of the image of God” to man in his present state, is it possible to put it as the basis of Orthodox socio-political thought or is it necessary to create a fundamentally different anthropology - “anthropology of sin”?

• II. The image of God in man

The creation of man in the image of God is a fundamental tenet of Orthodox anthropology; it is the defining principle of the human being. However, it is at this point that the main Christian confessions diverge. The image of God penetrated the structure of primordial man, but does it make sense to talk about it in relation to the anthropology of existing existence, distorted by sin? The Orthodox consciousness has always maintained the conviction of the indestructibility of the image of God in man, its reality and reality even in fallen human nature. “The anthropological kerygma (sermon) of the Church Fathers says that the image is not at all a regulative or instrumental idea, but the defining principle of the human being.”

In patristic and theological literature there is no single idea of ​​how the image of God was manifested. Its content is so rich that it made it possible to associate the image with various abilities of our spirit, which do not exhaust it. “Indeed,” writes V.N. Lossky, - our conformity to God is seen either in the royal dignity of man, in his superiority over the sensory cosmos, or in his spiritual nature, in the soul or in the dominant part that controls his being, in the mind (????), his highest abilities. – in the intellect, reason (?????), or in the freedom inherent in man... Sometimes the image of God is likened to some quality of the soul, its simplicity, its immortality, or it is identified with the soul’s ability to know God, to live in communion with Him... Finally, as in the case of Saints Irenaeus of Lyons, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Palamas, not only the soul, but also the human body, as created in His image, participates in this conformity to God.”

Summarizing these numerous definitions, we can highlight the main points of the patristic teaching about the image of God. “Creation in the image and likeness of God presupposes participation in the Divine being, communion with God, and this means that it presupposes grace.” St. Athanasius the Great insists on the ontological nature of communion with the Divine. In creation itself, man's participation in God is expressed. The effect of the image is expressed “in the illumination of the human mind,... imparting to it the ability to recognize God.” St. Gregory the Theologian writes that the act of creation in the image presupposes the indestructible presence of grace inherent in human nature. A person from the divine race, as the Apostle Paul speaks about it (Acts 17:29). St. Gregory of Nyssa calls man a friend of God, living according to the conditions of Divine life. The image of God is not only in the abilities and powers of man, it reaches that level of depth where man is a mystery to himself. Just as God in His essence is unknowable, so man, “reflecting the fullness of his prototype, ... must also possess His unknowability.” Finally, for St. Gregory of Nyssa’s image is the ability of a person to freely define himself, to make any decision based on himself. Man has dominion not only over the rest of creation, but also over his own nature.

The variety of theological definitions of the concept of the image of God also does not allow us to associate it with only one or even many individual parts or abilities of the human being. The whole person is completely created in the image of God. An image is a certain principle that permeates all human nature, making it conformable to God. All those qualities and abilities that the holy fathers spoke about are manifestations of the image of God, therefore these statements do not contradict each other. This image is not a part of the human being, it is given to the whole person. This is something that cannot be reduced to human nature, that is higher than nature, but penetrates it, giving it unity, integrity and conformity. It is simply impossible to give it an exhaustive definition, since it is essentially unknowable and indefinable.

For the Orthodox consciousness, the doctrine of complete deprivation of the image of God by man, which Western theology has come to, is unacceptable. In this case, human nature in its pure form is contrasted with an image that is superimposed on it from the outside and, after the Fall, is erased, leaving behind nature in its original natural state. In this regard, the question becomes relevant: what constitutes the nature of humanitas - specifically human? For Emil Brunner, who here expresses the Western spirit of thinking, humanitas is a “formal structure” not in itself related to the image of God. It contains certain specific qualities that make a person human and distinguish him from an animal, but do not imply the presence of divine grace. Western theologians speak in this regard about pure human nature, natura pura, independent of its state - pristine or sinful.

For Orthodox theology, these ideas are unacceptable. Human nature does not exist apart from grace, apart from the image of God. That which is “specifically human” is permeated with currents of grace and participates in the energies of the Divine. “In his essence,” writes P. Evdokimov, “man is imprinted with the image of God, and this ontological likeness to God explains that grace is “co-nature” with nature, just as nature corresponds to grace. They complement each other and mutually penetrate each other: in participation, one exists in the other, “one in the other, in the perfect Dove” (St. Gregory of Nyssa). A person deprived of the image of God is theological nonsense, as well as absolute evil. “The absence of grace is impossible to even imagine, because... this would be a perversion that destroys nature, equal to the second death, according to the Apocalypse.” The most important anthropological conclusion from this position is the assertion of Orthodox theology that the image of God is not destroyed in fallen man. It is weakened, perverted, but still defines the character of human existence. “Indeed, for fathers the initial destiny, the heavenly state, always determines the human being; even after the Fall, it presses with all its weight on his earthly fate.”

One more needs to be highlighted important point in the doctrine of the image of God. His revelation would remain incomplete without Him Who is the Perfect Image of the Father. Human Godlikeness is, primarily, Christlikeness, since it is in Christ that the image is revealed in absolute purity. “We cannot be “in the image of God” ... without restoring in ourselves the prototype of the Father, who is nothing other than the incarnate Son of God.” Orthodox consciousness here follows the following intuition: in the Trinity Council, Christ has been determined from eternity to incarnation. Whether this was due to the foresight of the Fall cannot be said with certainty; however, when creating man, the Lord already had “before his eyes” the image of the incarnate Son of God, therefore, it is according to this image that man is created. “The statement “man is like God” is answered by its “heavenly” definition: “God is like man”” (Clement of Alexandria). Thus, God is embodied in His living icon; God does not find himself in a world alien to Him, since man is the human face of God.”

• III. Human personality

In our discussions about the image of God in man, we come to the next fundamental problem of Orthodox anthropology. If the image of God is the principle that determines all human existence, permeates the entire composition of human nature, but remains unknowable and indefinite, then cannot we identify the image of God with personality. A similar trend is clearly visible in modern theology. However, it is necessary to clarify this situation somewhat. These concepts are not completely identifiable, however, it is in the personality of Orthodox theology that he sees the highest manifestation of the image of God in man. “The image of God gives the human being the beginning of personality, ... bestows the ability of self-knowledge, self-vision and self-esteem, which creates the gift of freedom.” This thought, in essence, is a logical conclusion from the patristic teaching. So, for example, “St. Gregory of Nyssa sees what is characteristic of man, as created in the image of God, first of all in the fact that “man is freed from necessity and is not subject to the dominion of nature, but can freely determine himself at his own discretion.” This is precisely what primarily characterizes the Divine Hypostases.

V.N. Lossky, reflecting on the problem of personality, writes that this concept is difficult to define: firstly, it is not easy to distinguish between nature and personality in a person, and secondly, within the framework of existing existence, personality is confused with individuality. However, he insists that in theology these two concepts must be clearly separated. “The individual means the eternal confusion of personality with elements belonging to common nature, while personality, on the contrary, means that which is different from nature.” In European philosophy, personality and individual were first identified by Boethius. He came to a definition that became basic for Western European thinking: “personality is an individual substance (?????????) of a rational nature.” He relied on the Aristotelian understanding of hypostasis as a second nature, revealing the concrete existence of the first nature, which exists only in abstraction. Based on this definition, we cannot admit the existence of a common human nature, similar to the nature of the Holy Trinity. There are only certain, numerically distinct from each other, concrete human natures, individual substances, that is, parts of a “fragmented general nature.” In absolute terms, we cannot dwell on this definition of personality, since it does not correspond to the Christological and trinitarian foundations of anthropology. Otherwise, it is impossible to find real, ontological prerequisites for community, the unity of humanity. It breaks up into separate “selves” opposing each other. This is precisely the root of the fatal flaw of Western culture, which is fundamentally built on the principle of “otherness” and individualism, while at the same time affirming the priorities of a common nature in the doctrine of the Trinity and the world created by God. But such a state is established only after the Fall. If we proceed from the conformity of a person to the Holy Trinity, then personality is not something that divides general nature and opposes himself to other individuals. Personality is a beginning that embraces all of nature and possesses it together with other personalities. “An individual who owns a part of nature and preserves it for himself, a person who defines himself by opposing himself to everything that is “not me” is really not a person or hypostasis that possesses nature in common with others and exists as a person in actual connection with other persons.” .

In this regard, modern Orthodox theology emphasizes the dialogical nature of the individual. It rises above natural, individual differences, including social and national ones. It basically aims to embrace all other individual existences. “Personality,” according to Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), “is the authenticity that is revealed in relationships, ... this is the “I” that exists insofar as it is connected with a certain “You” ... “I” simply cannot exist without the other.” This “other” is every person, but the par excellence “other” for the human “I” is God. “Hypostasis reflects the aspect of a being that is open and directed beyond its limits to God.” This is the answer to Heidegger and all atheistic existentialism, which defined human existence as being towards death. Man is truly defined by striving beyond his limits, but this is being towards another, being towards God.

Personality is not reducible to its nature. She rises, “hypostatizes” her. V.N. Lossky emphasizes that the concept of personality cannot be associated with the highest spiritual abilities of a person. In the trichotomous anthropology of the holy fathers, these abilities are associated with the third part of the human being - the mind. Indeed, a number of Fathers and theologians have a tendency to identify reason with the hypostatic principle. However, according to Lossky, this does not correspond to Christological dogma. On the other hand, if reason is a personal principle, which, as we have defined, is not a separate part, but something that permeates the entire human nature and imparts unity to it, then it means that human nature is no different from animal nature. Consequently, the body and soul and spirit are integral parts of human nature, hypostaticized in the personality.

What, then, is personality? She is an unknowable and indefinable beginning, as we indicated above. V.N. Lossky notes that all our definitions of personality essentially relate to nature. “... We will not find a single defining property, nothing inherent in it, that would be alien to nature and would belong exclusively to the individual as such. From which it follows that we cannot form the concept of human personality and must be satisfied with the following: “personality is the irreducibility of man to nature.”

This is Lossky’s main definition of personality. He goes on to say that we are talking here “about someone who is different from his own nature, about someone who, containing his own nature, surpasses nature, who by this superiority gives existence to it as human nature and yet does not exists on its own, outside of its nature, which it “hypostatizes” and above which it constantly ascends, “delights” it. According to P. Evdokimov’s definition, personality is “the concept of irreducible and incomparable singularity... It is the subject and carrier to which a given being belongs and lives... Personality is the principle of unification, creating the unity of all plans for communicating properties ".

In light of this understanding of personality, a number of Orthodox theologians insist that in theology it is necessary to abandon the understanding of personality that has developed in modern European and modern philosophy and psychology. Since German classical idealism, personality has been identified with self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is directed inside a person, towards the content of nature in its individuality. “Self-consciousness has as its object... the depth and inexhaustibility of life within a person, and therefore self-consciousness is at the same time the consciousness of one’s unity, one’s “I”, one’s originality, individuality.” In ascetic literature, such a focus on oneself is called “selfhood.” P. Evdokimov draws attention to the difference between two similar terms: hypostasis and prosopon. Denoting human personality, they indicate its different aspects. “Prosopon is the psychological aspect of a being turned to its own inner world, to self-consciousness. Hypostasis reflects the aspect of a being that is open and directed beyond its limits - to God." Prosopon, thus, is a category that characterizes a person only in a present, fallen state. In P. Evdokimov it coincides with the understanding of individuality that is characteristic of V. Lossky. This givenness must surpass itself, “bloom” in its hypostasis. “This is the transition from natural being to being in Christ, accomplished in the great initiation through the sacrament, in which the human structure is completely rebuilt ... according to its Archetype, Christ.” Only by uniting with God does a person become a person in the true sense. If this is so, then, as V. Lossky insists, human personality cannot in any case be determined through self-consciousness. In this regard, it is interesting to recall the criticism of self-consciousness given by B. Pasternak, who is well acquainted with European philosophy, in his “Doctor Zhivago”. Consciousness, says one of his heroes, is like a light that sanctifies the path directed inside the personality, it destroys it. The consciousness of the individual is directed not at its internal content, but at that truth, common to all, which appears in the Tradition of the Church and becomes the content of numerous human hypostatic consciousnesses. Personality, thus, in its highest expression ceases to be self-consciousness and to oppose itself to that which is not itself. In the highest, ecclesiological reality, “many personal consciousness, but the only content of consciousness, the only “self-knowledge” is the Church.”

• IV. Freedom of the individual

Human freedom is another fundamental position of Orthodox anthropology. It is in his freedom that the mystery of the Fall is rooted, but freedom is also a condition for the deification of man, his conscious striving for God. The Lord created man free “because he wanted to call him to the highest gift...”. If a person is not free, then the guilt for sin passes entirely to the Creator, but only personal existence can be free; it is in the personality of a person that the beginning of his independence from all external determinations lies. “Freedom is ours because we are individuals.” Like personality, it is the highest gift of the Creator.

But our everyday and even philosophical and psychological understanding in many ways did not coincide with the freedom that the holy fathers talk about. The legal concept of numerous “freedoms” is especially far from it. Extra-church consciousness rises, at best, to free will. However, the source of true freedom is located precisely in the individual, and the will, as follows from the Christological dogma, is a function of nature. “However, the concept of personality presupposes freedom in relation to nature, personality is free from its nature, it is not determined by its nature.” Even the holy fathers outlined this difference. Rev. Maximus the Confessor distinguishes the “natural will” as the desire for good, to which every rational nature strives, from the “choosing will” inherent in the individual. Rev. John of Damascus introduces a distinction between “willing freedom,” which relates to nature, and “choosing freedom,” which is a function of the individual. Nature desires and acts; it reveals itself in innumerable needs, perverted after the Fall. The personality is a controlling, selecting authority that evaluates natural aspirations and chooses the most true ones. “All confusion must be avoided between the psychological concept of “will” and the metaphysical concept of “freedom.” Freedom is the metaphysical basis of will. The will is still connected with nature; it is subordinated to various needs and immediate goals. Freedom comes from the spirit, from the personality."

But since it is natural for nature to desire good, freedom of choice is a consequence of the imperfection of human nature. "St. Maxim sees imperfections precisely in the need to choose, free choice is more a need than independence, it is an inevitable consequence of the Fall; from intuitive will becomes discursive, while the perfect, on the contrary, follows good immediately, he is beyond choice.” Grace is inseparable from nature, and personality is that principle that exists only thanks to God's participation. Therefore, to do evil, to go against God is unnatural for a person. This is possible only in conditions where the image of God is obscured and nature is perverted. Then human nature tends to do what it shouldn’t, and the individual is unable to make a true choice. “Cognizing and desiring by its imperfect nature, the personality is practically blind and powerless; she no longer knows how to choose and too often yields to the impulses of nature, which has become a slave of sin.” In this case, we have the right to talk about a person’s loss of true freedom. A truly free act is following God's will and law, which coincides with the desires and actions of a restored human nature. “When she... reaches her peak, she freely desires only truth and goodness. In the future fullness, in the image of Divine freedom, truth and love will correspond to what freedom desires.”

As an example of this truth of freedom, P. Evdokimov cites the free “let it be” said by the Mother of God to the angel who announced to Her that She would become the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Her “let it be” is not submission to the external Divine will. Here this will completely coincides with the desire of the Mother of God herself. All her life she strove for this action, although out of humility she wanted to be only a servant of the One who would become the Mother of God. This is an eternal example for all Christians, this is a call to make the Divine will your own will.

In theology and religious philosophy one can often come across the statement that a person has freedom of choice only until this choice is made. After this, freedom loses its meaning. P. Evdokimov considers such ideas to be limited. If a person has made a choice, this does not mean that he is no longer free: “Just as the Son is born and is eternally born, so a person who has chosen the truth is born from it, eternally chooses it and experiences it anew each time.”

Human freedom cannot be freedom in itself or freedom for itself. Personality is inseparable from freedom for the “other,” freedom to be different. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) sees such freedom as a synonym for love. A person is truly free only when he loves, when he identifies himself with the “other,” not only with God, but with every person he meets along the way. “The personality of the “other” will appear as the image of God to those who are able to renounce their individual limitations in order to regain a common nature and thereby “realize” their own personality.” Only such freedom can be the basis of social existence, only it can reconcile community and “otherness,” that is, save society from sliding into totalitarianism or corrupting individualism. Freedom for another, according to K.B. Sigov, a researcher of the work of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), should become the basic concept not only for ecclesiology, but also for ethics. We should not wait for the arrival of a transformed reality, but already here and now, within the framework of existing existence, put this concept into the basis of social and legal reality.

• V. The Fall and its consequences

In human freedom lies the possibility of the Fall, the possibility of free choice of what is not good and true. Man was created perfect, but not absolute. The cosmology and anthropology of the Eastern Church are dynamic. Man has his own task, which also contains the direction in which all creation develops. Our existence strives towards a certain goal, which in patristic literature is characterized as “deification.” “Before the Fall, Adam was neither “pure nature” nor a deified man.” In the bold words of Basil the Great, “God created man as an animal who received the command to become God.” In his free striving, he had to reach a measure of perfection and unite the rest of the world with God through his nature. “Adam had to... unite within himself the entire totality of the created cosmos and together with it achieve deification.” This position is the key to the differences between image and likeness, already found in the Bible. These are different moments of a dual reality. An image is something that is given to a person, which creates the potential for deification; likeness is the ultimate goal, something that is achieved “through virtue” (St. John of Damascus).

The ultimate goal - access to the Absolute - is possible only in God. “All perfections and virtues belong to God... God is completeness, self-sufficient; Absolute good, Truth, Beauty...; “existence here is a lack of existence and a diminished, defective presence of all higher values.” Only with the help of divine grace could a person fulfill his destiny; without it he can only die. At the very beginning of his history, a person makes a fatal choice - he leaves God, refuses his grace, and breaks away from the Source of all good things. Despite the fact that evil was “suggested” to the man, he freely agreed to this step.

In theology, it is customary to talk about the internal and external aspects of the Fall. The external side consisted of violating God’s specific commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17). In its inner essence, it was the whole complex of sinful actions. But in the series of these actions one can determine the primary and defining moment of the Fall, in relation to which everything else is just consequences.

Adam, while committing sin, did not abandon the goals that were given to him by God. “You will be like God,” in these words the serpent perversely represents what the Lord has prepared for man. But Adam refuses God, he accepts Satan’s offer to become an absolute without God, to turn into a self-sufficient being. “Self” is the source of everything sinful, a repetition of the devil’s fall from grace. “The root of sin is the thirst for self-deification, hatred of grace.” Human existence from being-to-God turns into being-for-itself. By definition, priest. Pavel Florensky, “sin is the unwillingness to enter from the state of self-identity, from the identity “I=I”, or, more precisely, “I”! Affirming oneself as oneself, without one’s relationship to another - that is, to God and to all creation - ... is the root sin or the root of all sins. All private sins are only modifications, only a manifestation of the self’s self-obstinacy.” From this moment on, God for a person becomes an external and incomprehensible force, before which he experiences fear and shame. He is overcome by an irresistible desire to hide from the face of God, to get away from Him. According to Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), fear of God determines a person’s attitude towards any “other”, be it another person or external world. “This fear comes from the refusal of the first man, Adam, and before him the satanic forces that rebelled against God, that “Other” par excellence, who is our Creator. The essence of sin is the fear of the “Other,” the fear that comes from this refusal.” Elsewhere, Metropolitan John writes: “Through the rejection of the “other,” we turn difference into division and die. Hell, the eternity of death, is nothing more than isolation, alienation from another, as the fathers teach.”

An interesting idea was proposed by P. Evdokimov. He points out that, according to the holy fathers, the original man was primarily spiritual; bodily life before the Fall was external to man. A person had only to gradually immerse himself in this life, spiritualizing and humanizing it. But man plunged into this element ahead of time, even before the time when he could come to power and dominance of the spiritual over the material. “Being good in itself, animal nature, due to the perversion of the hierarchy of values, will now become perverted for man.” It is no coincidence that some Holy Fathers, for example, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa sees the original sin in the fact that Adam and Eve prematurely indulged in reproduction. But, apparently, this confusion occurred after the initial falling away from God, after the focus on one’s own “I”. “Having become like gods, man first of all felt naked, helpless, embarrassed and hastened to “hide between the trees” from the face of the Lord, trying to plunge into the element of world life and isolate himself in it.”

The result of everything is bodily death, which reduces to absurdity all human aspirations to get along without God. The Holy Fathers said that, despite the fact that man is created, that is, not without beginning, he was not created mortal. Mortality or immortality depended on his free choice. “Initially, man was not created for death,” writes Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, “the possibility of immortality was invested in him. A person had to establish this possibility in himself through a spiritual and creative feat, but he could abolish it, which is what happened in original sin.” But death itself cannot be perceived by us as an unambiguous evil. Yes, Christ came to abolish death. First of all, defeating its source. But in this case, bodily death is what saves a person from final death “His (God’s) punishment educates: for a person, death is better, that is, separation from the tree of life, than consolidation of his monstrous position in eternity.”

Orthodox teaching about the consequences of the Fall differs from Catholic and Protestant teaching. First, as we have already noted, Orthodoxy insists that the image of God was not lost by man after falling away from God. Consequently, he retained his spiritual abilities, but in an extremely weakened form. “No evil can ever erase the original mystery of man, since there is nothing that can destroy the indelible seal of God in him.” Secondly, Orthodox theology rejects the idea of ​​original guilt put forward by St. Augustine. “Human beings... automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are guilty only of imitating Adam by their own choice.” The Apostle Paul speaks of a certain mystical consubstantiality that exists between all people. “Each of us is guilty for everyone,” said F.M. Dostoevsky. That is why all human nature was damaged in Adam and we, by the very fact of belonging to his descendants, inherit the consequences of our ancestral sin. But each of us is responsible only for our own sins.

Conclusion

The Orthodox teaching about man defines two significant points that influence his fate. Firstly, this is the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, and, secondly, his fallen state. This is the main difference between Orthodox anthropology and Catholic and Protestant anthropology. Both the Holy Fathers and our modern theologians always begin their story about man with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the God-Man Jesus Christ. It is the conformity of a person to his Prototype that is the main determining principle of his existence. The Fall is just a principle of distortion; there is too much evidence here that is not worth focusing on. The image of God is a sign of the indestructible presence of grace, inherent in man, defining his “humanity”, his difference from the rest of creation. Man does not exist without the grace of the image of God, which contains his being, which determines the uniqueness of each personality, which transcends its nature, hypostatizes it, but is not reduced to it. It is in the image of God that we must seek the mystery of the human person. That is why man, in his ultimate foundation, is almost absolutely free. He is able to go beyond all external definitions of his personality, including his own nature. He is so free that he can even go against God, but he can also freely return to Him, having reached the highest state - deification. The man has sinned. And we shouldn't forget about this. There should be no place for any Solovyovian optimism in the social teaching of Orthodoxy. We are not yet with God; we have a lot of sin, which still determines the spread of evil throughout the world. But we have already been shown the way and in our reverse movement we are not alone. The Lord Himself came to meet us. And He is not just a covenant to us from an unknown distance. He knocks on our door, reminding us that we are not strangers to Him. We have His image in us. And this image just needs to be raised, cleaned, and it will sparkle with pristine purity, unthinkable for our fallen state.

During the meeting, the results of the first semester of the 2018/2019 academic year were summed up and a resolution was adopted regarding support for the position of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.