Eugene V. Orlov of the Institute of philosophy and law, Novosibirsk, discusses the basic elements... more Eugene V. Orlov of the Institute of philosophy and law, Novosibirsk, discusses the basic elements of analysis in Aristotle, including the stages of scientific inquiry, the composition of a valid syllogisms, and applying universal knowledge thus gained to particular inferences.
АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ АПОРИИ МЕНОНА Сократ. ...О том, что такое добродетель, я ничего не знаю (... more АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ АПОРИИ МЕНОНА Сократ. ...О том, что такое добродетель, я ничего не знаю (ouj k oi+ da-не ведаю.-Е.О.) <...>. И все-таки я хочу вместе с тобой поразмыслить (ske> yasqai) и поискать (suzhthsai), чтo она такое. Менон. Но каким же образом, Сократ, ты будешь искать (zhth> seiv) вещь, не зная (mh< oi+ sqa) даже, что она такое (o[ ti ej sti> n)? Какую из неизвестных (ouj k oi+ sqa) тебе вещей изберешь (proqe> menov) ты предметом исследования (zhth> seiv)? Или если ты в лучшем случае даже натолкнешься на нее, откуда ты узнаешь (ei] sh|), что она именно то, чего ты не знал (ouj k h] | dhsqa)? Сократ. Я понимаю (manqa> nw), что ты хочешь сказать, Менон. Видишь какой довод ты приводишь-под стать самым завзятым спорщикам! Значит, человек, знает (oi+ de) он или не знает (mh< oi+ de), все равно не может искать (ouj k … e] stin zhteiñ). Ни тот, кто знает (oi+ den), не станет искать: ведь он уже знает (oi+ den), и ему нет нужды в поисках; ни тот, кто не знает (mh< oi+ den): ведь он не знает (ouj de< … oi+ den), чтo именно надо искать (пер. С.А. Ошерова). Платон. «Менон», 80dе [Платон, 1990]. В предлагаемой статье речь пойдет о затруднении (апории) Менона: знаем ли мы или не знаем то, что ищем, исследуем, изучаем? Платоновское решение апории известно: познание есть припоминание. А как отвечает на этот вопрос Аристотель? В явном виде Аристотель упоминает апорию Менона в An. Pr. II 21 и An. Post. I 1. Комментаторы исходят из того, что Аристотель решает эту апорию прежде всего с помощью дистинкции универсального знания и применения универсального знания к частным случаям, т.е. с помощью дистинкции знания в возможности и в деятельности [см. Орлов, 2012; Орлов, 2011: с. 299-307]. Это решение представляется им ясным и само по себе не привлекает особого внимания. К аристотелевскому решению апории Менона обращаются в связи с решением других проблем, возникающих при изучении философии Аристотеля, а именно при истолковании начал доказательства и индукции.
The paper is devoted to Aristotle’s solution to Meno’s paradox: a person cannot search for what h... more The paper is devoted to Aristotle’s solution to Meno’s paradox: a person cannot search for what he knows – he knows it, and there is no need to search for such a thing – nor for what he doesn't know – since he doesn't know what he's searching for. The author argues that Aristotle proposes solutions of this paradox for every stage of cognition, not only for exercising available scientific knowledge as regarded by most Aristotelian scholars. He puts more focus on the importance of the distinction between progignōskein (pre-existing cognition) and proepistasthai (pre-existing knowledge) for Aristotle’s solution of this paradox.
The author revises the meaning of the notions universal knowledge, ordinary knowledge, peculiar k... more The author revises the meaning of the notions universal knowledge, ordinary knowledge, peculiar knowledge and exercising knowledge and introduces corrections into the available commentary to An. Post. II 21, 67a8-67b11. He puts more focus on ordinary knowledge, arguing that in this passage Aristotle has in mind ordinary knowledge rather than knowledge peculiar or proper to the matter in hand, as regarded by most Aristotelian scholars.
The paper proves the thesis that Aristotle distinguishes «essential concomitance of another» (syl... more The paper proves the thesis that Aristotle distinguishes «essential concomitance of another» (syllogism) and «sequence of reality» (assumption of proposition, i.e. assumption of sequence of terms one after another which may inverse according to six alternatives). It is evident that «essential concomitance of another» directly relates to something, which we call now «logic sequence» or «right inference».
The paper is devoted to comparative analysis of the literal translation and translation into good... more The paper is devoted to comparative analysis of the literal translation and translation into good Russian. The author is arguing for literal translation as appropriate and useful approach, at the same time accepting both kinds of translation as quite legitimate. The argument involves discussion of certain tenets of the translation theory and contrastive linguistics.
The paper comments Hist. An. and shows that Aristotle «systematizes» animals by means of the syst... more The paper comments Hist. An. and shows that Aristotle «systematizes» animals by means of the system of «classifications» among which there are both «natural» (genus and species) classifications and a number of «artificial» classifications concerned with the «natural» one. As for «classification» by genus and species, here Aristotle takes first of all parts of animals as a criterion.
""Problems which Aristotle considers in light of definitions are discussed by modern specialists ... more ""Problems which Aristotle considers in light of definitions are discussed by modern specialists substantially in light of classifications. But the following question arises here: what is in fact a criterion for classification – diagnostic features by which we divide the system under consideration into classes or adopted differences between these classes? Aristotle answers this
question in the context of logics, gnoseology, and ontology. Two of the three approaches, nomely gnoseological and ontological are discussed and analyzed in the present paper.""
Cet article est préparé et publié dans le cadre du projet scientifique franco-russe, № 15-23-0800... more Cet article est préparé et publié dans le cadre du projet scientifique franco-russe, № 15-23-08001 (à RGNF) qui a été soutenu par les fondations russe et française : La Fondation scientifique de Russie pour les Sciences humaines (RGNF, Fédération de Russie) et la Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (FMSH, République française) Еvguény Viktorovitch ORLOV,
Монография посвящена проблеме единичного и общего у Аристотеля. В результате исследования (главны... more Монография посвящена проблеме единичного и общего у Аристотеля. В результате исследования (главным образом “Второй Аналитики” и “Метафизики”) выясняются основные философские имена, используемые Аристотелем при решении этой проблемы: единичное и кафолическое, единичное и первое кафолическое в душе, частное и кафолическое, свое и общее, самое кафолическое, - что позволяет внести ряд уточнений в понимание философии Аристотеля в целом и в том числе в понимание соотношения в ней предметов эстетики, аналитики, диалектики и метафизики. В монографии также выявляются и анализируются все тексты, касающиеся формулировки, обсуждения и решения Аристотелем десяти из четырнадцати исходных проблем “Метафизики”. Большое внимание в монографии уделяется уточнению русских переводов “Метафизики”.
"The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epis... more "The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epistemology and ontology, the rational and irrational. Vasily Goran discusses the rational and irrational approaches in Ancient philosophy in two contexts. In Chapter I he studies Early Greek philosophy, while in Chapter IV he turns to Socrates and Plato. He shows that ontological monism in such early writers as Thales and other representatives of the Ionian school of thought, led them to take explicitly rationalistic stanza, while (proto-)dualist tendencies in Early Pythagoreanism became the nourishing soil for irrationalism. Socrates’ predominantly rationalist approach to philosophical inquiry is contrasted with this by Plato, marked by distinctive irrational elements. Still, one can prove that the rational approaches were dominant both in Early Pythagoreanism and Plato.
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."
Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников ПОД ОБЩЕЙ РЕДАКЦИЕЙ Е. В. АФОНА... more Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников ПОД ОБЩЕЙ РЕДАКЦИЕЙ Е. В. АФОНАСИНА И М. Н. ВОЛЬФ Новосибирск 2015 УДК 408.4 (075.8) ББК Ш 13-923:С А 946 А 946 ΑΡΧΗΓΟΣ. Лекции и исследования по истории античной философии. Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников / под ред. Е. В. Афонасина и М. Н. Вольф. -Новосибирск: РИЦ НГУ, 2015. -170 с.
В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа эпистемологии Аристотеля, т.е. его учения о д... more В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа эпистемологии Аристотеля, т.е. его учения о достоверном на-учном знании. Последовательно рассматриваются все стадии научного познания, согласно Аристотелю: чувственное вос-приятие и опыт; познание сути бытия; причинное объяснение посредством доказывающего силлогизма, т.е. обретение на-учного знания; применение универсального знания. Книга посвящена прежде всего «Второй аналитике» Аристотеля, но в ней также уделяется внимание отдельным материалам «Метафизики» и некоторым его биологическим трактатам.
В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа и уточнения философского языка Аристотеля, ка... more В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа и уточнения философского языка Аристотеля, касающегося всех основных частей его философии: диалектики, риторики, аналитики и первой философии. Ключевые термины Аристо-теля уточняются в контексте интерпретации его оригиналь-ных текстов.
Eugene V. Orlov of the Institute of philosophy and law, Novosibirsk, discusses the basic elements... more Eugene V. Orlov of the Institute of philosophy and law, Novosibirsk, discusses the basic elements of analysis in Aristotle, including the stages of scientific inquiry, the composition of a valid syllogisms, and applying universal knowledge thus gained to particular inferences.
АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ АПОРИИ МЕНОНА Сократ. ...О том, что такое добродетель, я ничего не знаю (... more АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ АПОРИИ МЕНОНА Сократ. ...О том, что такое добродетель, я ничего не знаю (ouj k oi+ da-не ведаю.-Е.О.) <...>. И все-таки я хочу вместе с тобой поразмыслить (ske> yasqai) и поискать (suzhthsai), чтo она такое. Менон. Но каким же образом, Сократ, ты будешь искать (zhth> seiv) вещь, не зная (mh< oi+ sqa) даже, что она такое (o[ ti ej sti> n)? Какую из неизвестных (ouj k oi+ sqa) тебе вещей изберешь (proqe> menov) ты предметом исследования (zhth> seiv)? Или если ты в лучшем случае даже натолкнешься на нее, откуда ты узнаешь (ei] sh|), что она именно то, чего ты не знал (ouj k h] | dhsqa)? Сократ. Я понимаю (manqa> nw), что ты хочешь сказать, Менон. Видишь какой довод ты приводишь-под стать самым завзятым спорщикам! Значит, человек, знает (oi+ de) он или не знает (mh< oi+ de), все равно не может искать (ouj k … e] stin zhteiñ). Ни тот, кто знает (oi+ den), не станет искать: ведь он уже знает (oi+ den), и ему нет нужды в поисках; ни тот, кто не знает (mh< oi+ den): ведь он не знает (ouj de< … oi+ den), чтo именно надо искать (пер. С.А. Ошерова). Платон. «Менон», 80dе [Платон, 1990]. В предлагаемой статье речь пойдет о затруднении (апории) Менона: знаем ли мы или не знаем то, что ищем, исследуем, изучаем? Платоновское решение апории известно: познание есть припоминание. А как отвечает на этот вопрос Аристотель? В явном виде Аристотель упоминает апорию Менона в An. Pr. II 21 и An. Post. I 1. Комментаторы исходят из того, что Аристотель решает эту апорию прежде всего с помощью дистинкции универсального знания и применения универсального знания к частным случаям, т.е. с помощью дистинкции знания в возможности и в деятельности [см. Орлов, 2012; Орлов, 2011: с. 299-307]. Это решение представляется им ясным и само по себе не привлекает особого внимания. К аристотелевскому решению апории Менона обращаются в связи с решением других проблем, возникающих при изучении философии Аристотеля, а именно при истолковании начал доказательства и индукции.
The paper is devoted to Aristotle’s solution to Meno’s paradox: a person cannot search for what h... more The paper is devoted to Aristotle’s solution to Meno’s paradox: a person cannot search for what he knows – he knows it, and there is no need to search for such a thing – nor for what he doesn't know – since he doesn't know what he's searching for. The author argues that Aristotle proposes solutions of this paradox for every stage of cognition, not only for exercising available scientific knowledge as regarded by most Aristotelian scholars. He puts more focus on the importance of the distinction between progignōskein (pre-existing cognition) and proepistasthai (pre-existing knowledge) for Aristotle’s solution of this paradox.
The author revises the meaning of the notions universal knowledge, ordinary knowledge, peculiar k... more The author revises the meaning of the notions universal knowledge, ordinary knowledge, peculiar knowledge and exercising knowledge and introduces corrections into the available commentary to An. Post. II 21, 67a8-67b11. He puts more focus on ordinary knowledge, arguing that in this passage Aristotle has in mind ordinary knowledge rather than knowledge peculiar or proper to the matter in hand, as regarded by most Aristotelian scholars.
The paper proves the thesis that Aristotle distinguishes «essential concomitance of another» (syl... more The paper proves the thesis that Aristotle distinguishes «essential concomitance of another» (syllogism) and «sequence of reality» (assumption of proposition, i.e. assumption of sequence of terms one after another which may inverse according to six alternatives). It is evident that «essential concomitance of another» directly relates to something, which we call now «logic sequence» or «right inference».
The paper is devoted to comparative analysis of the literal translation and translation into good... more The paper is devoted to comparative analysis of the literal translation and translation into good Russian. The author is arguing for literal translation as appropriate and useful approach, at the same time accepting both kinds of translation as quite legitimate. The argument involves discussion of certain tenets of the translation theory and contrastive linguistics.
The paper comments Hist. An. and shows that Aristotle «systematizes» animals by means of the syst... more The paper comments Hist. An. and shows that Aristotle «systematizes» animals by means of the system of «classifications» among which there are both «natural» (genus and species) classifications and a number of «artificial» classifications concerned with the «natural» one. As for «classification» by genus and species, here Aristotle takes first of all parts of animals as a criterion.
""Problems which Aristotle considers in light of definitions are discussed by modern specialists ... more ""Problems which Aristotle considers in light of definitions are discussed by modern specialists substantially in light of classifications. But the following question arises here: what is in fact a criterion for classification – diagnostic features by which we divide the system under consideration into classes or adopted differences between these classes? Aristotle answers this
question in the context of logics, gnoseology, and ontology. Two of the three approaches, nomely gnoseological and ontological are discussed and analyzed in the present paper.""
Cet article est préparé et publié dans le cadre du projet scientifique franco-russe, № 15-23-0800... more Cet article est préparé et publié dans le cadre du projet scientifique franco-russe, № 15-23-08001 (à RGNF) qui a été soutenu par les fondations russe et française : La Fondation scientifique de Russie pour les Sciences humaines (RGNF, Fédération de Russie) et la Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (FMSH, République française) Еvguény Viktorovitch ORLOV,
Монография посвящена проблеме единичного и общего у Аристотеля. В результате исследования (главны... more Монография посвящена проблеме единичного и общего у Аристотеля. В результате исследования (главным образом “Второй Аналитики” и “Метафизики”) выясняются основные философские имена, используемые Аристотелем при решении этой проблемы: единичное и кафолическое, единичное и первое кафолическое в душе, частное и кафолическое, свое и общее, самое кафолическое, - что позволяет внести ряд уточнений в понимание философии Аристотеля в целом и в том числе в понимание соотношения в ней предметов эстетики, аналитики, диалектики и метафизики. В монографии также выявляются и анализируются все тексты, касающиеся формулировки, обсуждения и решения Аристотелем десяти из четырнадцати исходных проблем “Метафизики”. Большое внимание в монографии уделяется уточнению русских переводов “Метафизики”.
"The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epis... more "The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epistemology and ontology, the rational and irrational. Vasily Goran discusses the rational and irrational approaches in Ancient philosophy in two contexts. In Chapter I he studies Early Greek philosophy, while in Chapter IV he turns to Socrates and Plato. He shows that ontological monism in such early writers as Thales and other representatives of the Ionian school of thought, led them to take explicitly rationalistic stanza, while (proto-)dualist tendencies in Early Pythagoreanism became the nourishing soil for irrationalism. Socrates’ predominantly rationalist approach to philosophical inquiry is contrasted with this by Plato, marked by distinctive irrational elements. Still, one can prove that the rational approaches were dominant both in Early Pythagoreanism and Plato.
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."
Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников ПОД ОБЩЕЙ РЕДАКЦИЕЙ Е. В. АФОНА... more Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников ПОД ОБЩЕЙ РЕДАКЦИЕЙ Е. В. АФОНАСИНА И М. Н. ВОЛЬФ Новосибирск 2015 УДК 408.4 (075.8) ББК Ш 13-923:С А 946 А 946 ΑΡΧΗΓΟΣ. Лекции и исследования по истории античной философии. Василию Павловичу Горану -по случаю 75-летия от коллег и учеников / под ред. Е. В. Афонасина и М. Н. Вольф. -Новосибирск: РИЦ НГУ, 2015. -170 с.
В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа эпистемологии Аристотеля, т.е. его учения о д... more В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа эпистемологии Аристотеля, т.е. его учения о достоверном на-учном знании. Последовательно рассматриваются все стадии научного познания, согласно Аристотелю: чувственное вос-приятие и опыт; познание сути бытия; причинное объяснение посредством доказывающего силлогизма, т.е. обретение на-учного знания; применение универсального знания. Книга посвящена прежде всего «Второй аналитике» Аристотеля, но в ней также уделяется внимание отдельным материалам «Метафизики» и некоторым его биологическим трактатам.
В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа и уточнения философского языка Аристотеля, ка... more В монографии предпринята попытка системного анализа и уточнения философского языка Аристотеля, касающегося всех основных частей его философии: диалектики, риторики, аналитики и первой философии. Ключевые термины Аристо-теля уточняются в контексте интерпретации его оригиналь-ных текстов.
Uploads
Papers by Eugene Orlov
question in the context of logics, gnoseology, and ontology. Two of the three approaches, nomely gnoseological and ontological are discussed and analyzed in the present paper.""
Books by Eugene Orlov
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."
question in the context of logics, gnoseology, and ontology. Two of the three approaches, nomely gnoseological and ontological are discussed and analyzed in the present paper.""
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."