The antinomy of gehenna: Pavel Florensky's contribution to debates on hell and universalism

Abstract. The article analyzes the autobiography of the famous Russian philosopher, theologian and scientist Pavel Florensky, as well as those of his texts that retain traces of memories. According to Florensky, the personal biography is based on family history and continues in children. He addresses his own biography to his children. Memories based on diary entries are designed as a memory diary, that is, as material for future memories. The past becomes actual in autobiography, turns into a kind of present. The past, from the point of view of its realization in the present, gains meaning and significance. The au-thor is active in relation to his own past, transforming it from a collection of disparate facts into a se-quence of events. A person can only see the true meaning of such events from a great distance. Therefore, the philosopher remembers not so much the circumstances of his life as the inner impressions of the en-counter with reality. The most powerful personality-forming experiences are associated with childhood. Even the moment of birth can decisively affect the character of a person and the range of his interests. The foundations of a person's worldview are laid precisely in childhood. Florensky not only writes mem-oirs about himself, but also tries to analyze the problems of time and memory. A person is immersed in time, but he is able to move into the past through memory and into the future through faith. An autobi-ography can never be written to the end because its author lives on. However, reaching the depths of life, he is able to build his path in such a way that at the end of this path he will unite with the fullness of time, with eternity.

Neurosurgery is among the newest of surgical disciplines, appearing in its modern incarnation at the dawn of twentieth century with the work of Harvey Cushing and contemporaries. Neurosurgical ethics involves challenges of manipulating anatomical locus of human identity and concerns of surgeons and patients who find themselves bound together in that venture.In recent years, neurosurgery ethics has taken on greater relevance as changes in society and technology have brought novel questions into sharp focus. Change of expanded armamentarium of techniques for interfacing with the human brain and spine— demand that we use philosophical reasoning to assess merits of technical innovations.Bioethics can be defined as systematic study of moral challenges in medicine, including moral vision, decisions, conduct, and policies related to medicine. Every surgeon should still take the Hippocratic Oath seriously and consider it a basic guide to follow good medical ethics in medical practice. It is simple and embodies three of the four modern bioethics principles – Respecting autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating condition often affecting young and healthy individuals around the world. Currently, scientists are pressured on many fronts to develop an all-encompassing “cure” for paralysis. While scientific understanding of central nervous system (CNS) regeneration has advanced greatly in the past years, there are still many unknowns with regard to inducing successful regeneration. A more realistic approach is required if we are interested in improving the quality of life of a large proportion of the paralyzed population in a more expedient time frame.

AbstractThis article is a study of Pavel Florensky's philosophy of symbol in the context of his discovery of Palamism in the 1910s, when Florensky started to speak of symbol using Palamite language. It proposes a fundamental difference between Florensky's and Palamas’ teachings on symbol: Palamas views a natural symbol as the energy of an essence, while for Florensky symbol is the essence itself, the energy of which synergises with the energies of other essence. In this context the prehistory of the concept of synergy in Florensky is studied, leading to the identification of a further difference in the ontologies of Florensky and Palamas: while Florensky's ‘essence-energy’ has the property of necessary correlation with the ‘other’, following the tendencies of the philosophy of that epoch, in Palamas ‘energy’ does not presuppose any necessary correlation with the ‘other’. The author connects this difference in ontologies between the two thinkers with their respective teachings on symbol.