Orthodox Panentheism: Sergius Bulgakov’s Sophiology

U. Meixner
{"title":"Orthodox Panentheism: Sergius Bulgakov’s Sophiology","authors":"U. Meixner","doi":"10.30965/9783957437303_012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Not only the use of language as a whole but also its philosophical use is changing all the time. For example, some philosophers start to use a certain philosophical term in a sense which is not at all its original sense. In this sense, they misuse the term; but instead of censuring this, others imitate them; the misuse catches on, and soon the misuse becomes normal, and thus ceases to be a misuse—at least within certain philosophical circles. This is what happened to the term »phenomenology«: formerly, it was used by philosophers— very properly, in view of its etymology—to designate a human science which is dedicated to the description of the phenomena (of some stripe or other); nowadays, many philosophers use it exclusively for designating something which, presumably, not only humans but also mice, bats, and even bugs have: phenomenology (i.e., conscious experience, which is full of what-it-is-like). And this—the replacement of the original use of a term by its misuse, which then becomes normal and ceases to be a misuse—is precisely what seems to be happening to the term »theism« these days. Formerly, it was used by philosophers—again, very properly—to designate a position which acknowledges the existence of at least one god. In fact, the present use of the term in such combinations as »polytheism,« »monotheism,« »henotheism,« or »tritheism« in no way contradicts this former use, and one would expect that the same is true of its use in the combinations »pantheism« and »panentheism.« But no: Quite a few philosophers nowadays believe that pantheism and panentheism are so far from entailing theism that these positions entail the negation of theism—also known (formerly at least) as atheism. Contrary to this somewhat infelicitous replacement of an original meaning by a new meaning (a replacement which can seem to turn pious Spinoza into an atheist), I will describe a version of pantheism/panentheism which is not only, in the old sense, theistic (as is Spinoza’s version of pantheism/ panentheism) but also prosopon-theistic (as Spinoza’s is not): a version which acknowledges a personal god, but no impersonal god. What I have in mind is the Christian panentheism of the Russian-Orthodox philosopher-theologian","PeriodicalId":112077,"journal":{"name":"Panentheism and Panpsychism","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Panentheism and Panpsychism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/9783957437303_012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Not only the use of language as a whole but also its philosophical use is changing all the time. For example, some philosophers start to use a certain philosophical term in a sense which is not at all its original sense. In this sense, they misuse the term; but instead of censuring this, others imitate them; the misuse catches on, and soon the misuse becomes normal, and thus ceases to be a misuse—at least within certain philosophical circles. This is what happened to the term »phenomenology«: formerly, it was used by philosophers— very properly, in view of its etymology—to designate a human science which is dedicated to the description of the phenomena (of some stripe or other); nowadays, many philosophers use it exclusively for designating something which, presumably, not only humans but also mice, bats, and even bugs have: phenomenology (i.e., conscious experience, which is full of what-it-is-like). And this—the replacement of the original use of a term by its misuse, which then becomes normal and ceases to be a misuse—is precisely what seems to be happening to the term »theism« these days. Formerly, it was used by philosophers—again, very properly—to designate a position which acknowledges the existence of at least one god. In fact, the present use of the term in such combinations as »polytheism,« »monotheism,« »henotheism,« or »tritheism« in no way contradicts this former use, and one would expect that the same is true of its use in the combinations »pantheism« and »panentheism.« But no: Quite a few philosophers nowadays believe that pantheism and panentheism are so far from entailing theism that these positions entail the negation of theism—also known (formerly at least) as atheism. Contrary to this somewhat infelicitous replacement of an original meaning by a new meaning (a replacement which can seem to turn pious Spinoza into an atheist), I will describe a version of pantheism/panentheism which is not only, in the old sense, theistic (as is Spinoza’s version of pantheism/ panentheism) but also prosopon-theistic (as Spinoza’s is not): a version which acknowledges a personal god, but no impersonal god. What I have in mind is the Christian panentheism of the Russian-Orthodox philosopher-theologian
正统泛神论:布尔加科夫的诡辩论
不仅语言的整体使用一直在变化,而且语言的哲学使用也一直在变化。例如,一些哲学家开始在完全不是其原始意义的意义上使用某个哲学术语。从这个意义上说,他们误用了这个术语;但是其他人不但没有谴责他们,反而模仿他们;这种误用流行起来,很快就变成了常态,从而不再是误用——至少在某些哲学圈子内是这样。这就是发生在“现象学”上的事情:以前,它被哲学家们使用——从它的词源来看,它是非常恰当的——用来指一门致力于描述(某种或其他)现象的人类科学;如今,许多哲学家专门用它来指代一些东西,可能不仅是人类,老鼠、蝙蝠甚至虫子也有:现象学(即意识经验,充满了“它是什么”)。而这——用一个词的误用取代它原来的用法,然后变得正常,不再是误用——正是这些天“有神论”这个词所发生的事情。以前,它被哲学家们用来——同样地,非常恰当地——指定一个承认至少有一个上帝存在的立场。事实上,目前使用的术语,如“多神论”,“一神论”,“一神论”,“一神论,”或“三神论”的组合,在任何方式上与这种以前的使用相矛盾,人们会期望,同样是真实的,它的使用组合“泛神论”和“泛神论”。但不是这样的:现在相当多的哲学家认为泛神论和泛神论与有神论相去甚远,以至于这些立场导致了对有神论的否定——也被称为无神论(至少以前是这样)。与这种用新意义替换原意的不恰当做法(这种替换似乎会把虔诚的斯宾诺莎变成一个无神论者)相反,我将描述一种泛神论/泛神论的版本,它不仅在旧意义上是有神论的(斯宾诺莎的泛神论/泛神论是有神论的),而且是伪有神论的(斯宾诺莎的泛神论/泛神论不是):一种承认有人格化的神,但没有非人格化的神的版本。我想到的是俄罗斯东正教哲学家神学家的基督教泛神论
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信