The article supplements the publication of the introduction to Theophan Prokopovych’s philosophical course (taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1707-09). It analyses characteristics of Prokopovych’s manuscript in comparison with the manuscript of Georgiy Konyskyi’s philosophical course (taught in 1747-1749). The latter turns out to be a copy of the former, as it does not contain significant differences. The article describes the editorial principles of Prokopovych’s Prooemium and the significance of the text as well as gives short exposition of the content (...) with the analysis of references by Prokopovych. It explains some codicological and textological characteristics of both manuscripts. The analysis of textual relation between the two manuscripts shows that Konyskyi’s manuscript contains much more mistakes than Prokopovych’s manuscript. Most of more than a hundred variations between the manuscripts are mistakes in Konyskyi’s manuscript. The author supposes that the student, the scribe of Konyskyi’s manuscript, not completely understood rather complicated style of Prokopovych. Prokopovych’s position about the style of exposition shows balancing between humanistic and scholastic ideas. It states that Prokopovych refers usually to ancient authors. The references in the text are quite detailed, but not enough accurate. Half of them (6 out of 12) happen to be incorrect. It is probable that Prokopovych made references from memory. (shrink)

This is the first complete translation into English of the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, which covers the period AD 284-813 and is one of the most important sources of Byzantine history, that of the Arabs under the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties and of other neighbouring peoples. The Chronicle is a compilation of earlier sources, many of them now lost: in order to use it critically the historian needs to know what texts Theophanes had in front of him and how he (...) handled them. These have consequently been indicated in the text in so far as they can be indentified. Full annotation has also been provided on points of historical and topographical interest. The career of Theophanes, the character of the Chronicle, its manuscript tradition, and the use of earlier sources are discussed in the Introduction. (shrink)

Chipman, Meagher and Barwise (2024) propose a framework to interrogate public health responsibilities for populations with limited proficiency in the predominant language. We agree with many of the...

David Malament, now emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, where since 1999 he served as a Distinguished Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science after having spent twenty-three years as a faculty member at the University of Chicago , is well known as the author of numerous articles on the mathematical and philosophical foundations of modern physics with an emphasis on problems of space-time structure and the foundations of relativity theory. Malament’s Topics in the foundations of general relativity and (...) Newtonian gravitation theory has grown out of a set of lecture notes on the foundations of general relativity that he has taught for many years. In full agreement with Manchak , it should be pointed out from the beginning that the book neither is and was never intended to be a graduate general relativity a .. (shrink)

Volume 32, Issue 3-4, September - December 2019, Page 232-234.

Though parts of the text traditionally called Theophanes Continuatus go back to the time of Constantine VII, it is in fact a compilation of various texts put together by a later redactor in the reign of Nicephorus Phokas. Likewise, the original parts of text known as the De Cerimoniis were produced in the reign of Constantine, but the text has come down to us in a later redaction, apparently also from the time of Phokas. In the case of the De (...) Cerimoniis, the final redactor has been identified as Basil the parakoimomenos, the bastard son of Romanus I Lecapenus. Similar interests and coincidences of composition in the two texts, particularly in Book VI of Theophanes Continuatus and chapter I, 96 of the De Cerimoniis, suggest that the compiling of Theophanes Continuatus was also the work of Basil. (shrink)

This essay aims to articulate why the Orthodox have historically, and to the present, opposed cremation. Its primary line of argument is that inhumation is a site of “theophanic encounter”: a manifestation of the Glory of God. This theophanic quality is borne out in the scriptures and the Church’s liturgical experience. In particular, the connections between the funeral service and the entombed Christ on Holy Friday and Saturday properly situate the meaning of the post-mortem body. This intimate connection between the (...) deceased and their body is clear in Orthodoxy’s “hylomorphism,” the soul-body unity, which champions the eschatology of resurrection. Finally, all of the above is concretely experienced in the cult of the saints and their relics, which become vehicles for the divine energies: a theophany of Christ’s ongoing conquest of sin and death. Thus, cremation can only be viewed as a tragic misunderstanding of the dual meaning of “doxa” in Orthodoxy: right-belief and right-glory. (shrink)

The article compares selected chapters devoted the problems of mind (anima) from two philosophical courses by Georgii Konyskyi, taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1747-1749 and 1749-1751 academic years. As Konyskyi taught his first course using verbatim Teofan Prokopovych’s philosophical course of 1706-08 academic years, the article compares the doctrines on mind by these two Mohylian authors. It also shows the evolution of Konyskyi’s views. -/- There are common elements between the philosophy of mind of Prokopovych and Konyskyi: their interpretations of (...) Aristotle’s definition of the soul; the scholastic concept of the man as an integral mind-body entity; the problem of the unity and multiplicity of forms. It is shown that Prokopovych and Konsyskyi understood the three-level structure of a human soul in the same way as Francisco Suarez and Rodrigo de Arriaga. -/- However, there are some differences between these two Mohylian professors. They interpreted differently sensitive and intellectual cognition. Prokopovych upholds the scholastic doctrine of species. Konyskyi, in his second course, abandons this doctrine and defends the doctrine of impressiones. They are developed by the phantasmata – not received from objects. The impressions are modifications of animal spirits by direct or indirect impact of objects on senses of a human being or any other animated being. In the doctrine on intellectual powers, Prokopovych upholds the scholastic distinction between active and passive intellect. Konyskyirejects this common for scholastic tradition distinction and considers that passive intellect can do full-scale intellectual activity. The influence of Early Modern philosophy, especially Cartesianism, was the reason why Konyskyi changed his position. (shrink)

The modern critical approach to things hagiographical still wavers when it comes to taking leave of twelve lines of iambic invective, branded with wonderful delicacy of touch on the saintly foreheads of two Palestinian brothers, Theodore and Theophanes, the so-called “Graptoi”. Barry Baldwin, noting that C.A. Trypanis, unlike the great B. Bury and others, was inclined to disbelieve the story, could not help expressing the hope that it was true (An Anthology of Byzantine Poetry, Amsterdam 1985, pp. 142–3). It is (...) of course only one of the many stories concocted by iconodule propaganda. The central question has to be formulated in more general terms: how is history made? History here primarily in the sense of the construction of the past by the Byzantines themselves, was embodied in historical narratives moving between hagiography and historiography. Trying to lay bare the basis and elements of such constructs will always remain a major task of critical historical scholarship. (shrink)

Dem Rezensenten obliegt die traurige Pflicht, das letzte Buch des vor kurzem (am 18. August 2003) verstorbenen Berliner Emeritus für Byzantinistik, Paul Speck, zu besprechen. Wie die große Menge seiner früheren Artikel und Monographien beschäftigt sich auch dieses Buch in z.T. polemischer Auseinandersetzung mit den Positionen anderer Forscher mit den Quellen zur byzantinischen Geschichte des 7.–9. Jahrhunderts, also mit der Zeit der sog. Dunklen Jahrhunderte, vor allem mit der Periode des sog. Bilderstreites. Es handelt sich, wie Speck selbst in der (...) Einleitung darlegt (S. 24), bei der vorliegenden Monographie nicht um eine Biographie Kaiser Leons III. (717–741), sondern um eine Analyse der Berichte über die ersten Regierungsjahre dieses Herrschers in drei wichtigen griechischen und lateinischen Quellentexten, nämlich in der Historia syntomos des Patriarchen Nikephoros I. von Konstantinopel (806–815), in der Chronographia des Theophanes (von Speck zu Recht überwiegend als Werk des Georgios synkellos angesehen) und im römischen liber pontificalis. Letzterer spielt allerdings im hier besprochenen Teil 1 nur im XV. Abschnitt (S. 303) eine Rolle. Grundsätzlich gilt nach Speck, daß fast alles, was in der Historia syntomos des Nikephoros berichtet wird, sich meist sogar in derselben Reihenfolge auch in der Chronographia des „Theophanes“ wiederfindet, daß letztere aber zahlreiche zusätzliche Informationen enthält, so daß die Existenz einer beiden gemeinsame Quelle oder Vorlage sehr wahrscheinlich ist (S. 55–56). Bereits in seinen früheren Arbeiten entwickelte er dazu die Hypothese, zwei Materialsammlungen des Georgios synkellos (das sog. vielleicht noch in Palästina verfaßte erste und das dieses bis 815 fortsetzende, in Konstantinopel zusammengestellte zweite Dossier) hätten sowohl für die Historia syntomos des Patriarchen Nikephoros (1. Dossier) als auch für die Chronographia des „Theophanes“ (2. Dossier), aber auch für die christlich-orientalischen Chroniken (diese sind nach Speck vom 1. Dossier abhängig) die Masse der Informationen geliefert (zusammenfassend S. 19–23, ferner S. 95 und S. 375–376). (shrink)

At the beginning of the 9th c. George Syncellus began to write a universal chronicle, the second part of which was completed by the monk Theophanes. According to Byzantine tradition this monk was Theophanes the Confessor. But 10th-century sources note that this Theophanes was the grandfather or greatuncle of the emperor Constantine VII, which is historically impossible. This prompted P. Speck to invent “another Theophanes”, who lived during the second half of the 9th c. and was the editor of the (...) Chronicle of Theophanes. The hypothesis turns out to be unfounded and untenable. Also untenable and unrelated to the sources is the hypothesis of C. Zuckerman that the author of the Chronicle is another Theophanes who lived at the same time as the Confessor. This study, after an analysis of sources, proves in both cases that they are historical phantoms. (shrink)

This article explores Karl Rahner’s assessment of Augustine’s treatment of Old Testament theophanies and the Incarnation. It scrutinizes Rahner’s contention that Augustine deviated from the Christological interpretation held by earlier church fathers and finds that while Augustine’s interpretation differs from the majority of his predecessors, he is not the first significant church father to embrace such a view. Moreover, Augustine’s approach to the theophanies is shown to have deep roots in both tradition and scripture, challenging the explanatory power of the (...) Christological interpretation. The article then argues that it is unreasonable to link Augustine’s theophanic non-peculiarity directly to a rejection of incarnational peculiarity. In addition to the absence of definitive texts denying Christ’s incarnational peculiarity, along with texts clearly affirming it, Augustine’s close association between the missions and processions—an association that ultimately supports Rahner’s Rule—eliminates the possibility of him rejecting the Son’s incarnational peculiarity. Consequently, Rahner’s assertion about Augustine’s alleged denial of incarnational peculiarity lacks solid grounding in Augustine’s body of work. (shrink)

Die Bestimmung des byzantinischen Gottesdenkens als «System» ist immer ein scandalum gewesen. Es wird als solches eher von seinen Kritikern begriffen, während seine Fürsprecher diese Bezeichnung überwiegend ablehnen. Wenn die byzantinischen Autoren in das Zentrum der Gotteserkenntnis eine Erfahrung oder eine Praxis stellen, die als Quelle der Theologie und als «wahre Philosophie» betrachtet werden, so ist zu erwarten, daß sie, Erfahrung oder Praxis, in systematischen Schriften selten und unwillig besprochen werden. Vielmehr begründen die meisten Autoren das Erscheinen ihrer Texte mit (...) dem Widerstand gegen gewisse Irrlehren. Diese Motivation bestimmt den hauptsächlich polemischen Charakter der Schriften und erklärt auch den Mangel eines explizierten philosophischen oder theologischen Systems im scholastischen Sinn. Das besagt aber nicht, daß die byzantinische Denkweise kein immanentes System und keine eigene Strukturen besitzt. Die Grundelemente dieser Systematik sind der Gegenstand der vorliegenden Überlegung. (shrink)

This paper analyses the concept of the Imagination of Henry Corbin (1903–1978) in relation to Daisetsu T. Suzuki (1870–1966). Besides being a renowned orientalist and scholar of Islamic thought, Corbin was a philosopher par excellence whose original thought deserves to be studied. So, I present this paper as a contribution to the evaluation of Corbin as a philosopher. In doing so, I shall shed light upon the philosophical affinity between Corbin and Suzuki, which has thus far rarely been discussed in (...) depth. Their ideas, in fact, resonate with each other—or Corbin is sympathetic to Suzuki—at a deep level, especially on the argument of Imagination, through Suwedenborgian thought, into whom both channel their interests. An exploration of this relationship of influence with Suzuki shall make a great contribution to a better understanding of Corbin’s own concept of Imagination, which could shake up our taken-for-granted idea of “imagination.”. (shrink)

The ArgumentThe question posed by this paper is why the Russian autocracy failed to pursue successfully Peter the Great's conscious policy of creating a society dominated by technique and competitive with technological levels achieved by Western Europe. The brief answer is that Peter's idea of a cultural revolution that would create new values and institutions hospitable to the introduction of technology clashed with powerful interests within society. The political opposition centered around three groups which were indispensable to the state in (...) fulfilling his vision: the nobility, the clergy, and the scientific establishment. Peter's original intention was to combine theoretical models and technology transfer from the West with educational reforms in Russia to produce new cadres of technical specialists. He attempted to adapt the Leibniz-Wolff cosmology to Russian conditions in order to reconcile ideological conflicts between military service and technical training, science and religion, theory and practice. The embodiment of his ideas in Russian science and religion were Mikhail Lomonosov and Feofan Prokopovich. Under his successors Peter's supporters encountered increased resistance: from the nobility to technical education, from the clergy to the scientific outlook, and from the Academy of Sciences to practical work. All three interest groups were willing to sacrifice real political rights for a recognition by the states of their autonomy to define their social roles. In the end the compromise was effected at the expense of Peter's ideal of the society dominated by technique. (shrink)

This Element looks at religious experience and the role it has played in philosophy of religion. It critically explores the history of the intertwined discourses on mysticism and religious experience, before turning to a few specific discussions within contemporary philosophy of religion. One debate concerns the question of perennialism vs. constructivism and whether there is a 'common core' to all religious or mystical experience independent of interpretation or socio-historical background. Another central discussion concerns the epistemology of purportedly theophanic experience and (...) whether a perceptual model of religious experience can provide evidence or justification for theistic belief. The Element concludes with a discussion of how philosophy of religion can productively widen its treatment of religious experience in the service of creating a more inclusive and welcoming discipline. (shrink)

In this paper I employ the notion of the ‘thought of the outside’ as developed by Michel Foucault, in order to defend the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze against the criticisms of ‘elitism,’ ‘aristocratism,’ and ‘political indifference’—famously leveled by Alain Badiou and Peter Hallward. First, I argue that their charges of a theophanic conception of Being, which ground the broader political claims, derive from a misunderstanding of Deleuze’s notion of univocity, as well as a failure to recognize the significance of the (...) concept of multiplicity in Deleuze’s thinking. From here, I go on to discuss Deleuze’s articulation of the ‘dogmatic image of thought,’ which, insofar as it takes ‘recognition’ as its model, can only ever think what is already solidified and sedimented as true, in light of existing structures and institutions of power. Then, I examine Deleuze’s reading of Foucault and the notion of the ‘thought of the outside,’ showing the ‘outside’ as the unthought that lies at the heart of thinking itself, as both its condition and its impossibility. Insofar as it is essential to thinking itself, finally, I argue that the passage of thought to the outside is not an absolute flight out of this world, as Hallward claims, but rather, a return of the different that constitutes the Self for Deleuze. Thinking is an ongoing movement of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, or as Foucault says, death and life. Thinking, as Deleuze understands it, is essentially creative; it reconfigures the virtual, thereby literally changing the world. Thinking is therefore, according to Deleuze, thoroughly political. (shrink)

Translation into Ukrainian of several sections of the still unknown books of "Physics" by Teofan Prokopovich, who entered the course of Georgian Konissky's lectures and devoted to consideration of mind problem. The publication was prepared by Yaroslava Stratii.

The phenomenological term “imaginal” was coined and introduced into the French language by Henry Corbin (1903-1978). Throughout his work, Corbin used the “imaginal” as his fundamental concept, as the very foundation of a Weltanschauung. Etymolo-gically, this new term was derived from the Latin phrase mundus imaginalis. As for its meaning, it is synonymous with several Persian and Arabic technical terms, such as alam al-mithal (the world of images, archetypical ideas), malakut (the subtle world of the souls), barzakh (interworld), hurqalya (the (...) world of the celestial Earth, of celestial corporeality), na-koja-abad (the land of nowhere). These technical terms taken from theosophical literature have a meaning very close to that of the term “imaginal.” They translate contemplative experience arising from the theophanic imagination or agent imagination (imaginatio vera). From the point of view of location, they designate the qualitative space of this imagination (mundus imaginalis). (shrink)