This study examines the notion of antinomy, or unavoidable contradiction, in the work of Pavel Florensky (1882-1937). Many Russian philosophers of the Silver Age shared a common conviction which is yet to receive sufficient attention in critical literature, either in Russia or abroad. This is namely a philosophical and theological dependence on unavoidable contradiction, paradox, or antinomy. The history of antinomy and its Russian reception is introduced here before a new framework for understanding Russian antinomism is defended. This is namely the anticipation of 'vertical' antinomies in 'horizontal' antinomies. Here, by 'horizontal' we suppose an unavoidable contradiction of reason or philosophical reflection, and by 'vertical' an unavoidable contradiction of revelation, faith, or a self-contradictory dogma. The study aims to demonstrate that Florensky fails to provide a satisfactory anticipation of vertical antinomies.

This study argues that the early philosophy of Semyon Liudvigovich Frank (1877–1950) exhibits significant intellectual correlations with nineteenth century German Idealist philosophy. The idealists in question are Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1796–1879), G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) and F.W.J. Schelling (1775–1854). It will be suggested that the critical tension of Frank’s early philosophy is precisely a tension between his Hegelian and Schellingian tendencies. The paper will first introduce Frank’s theory of a “personal absolute”, exploring its surprising parallels with the religious philosophy of I. H. Fichte. The analysis then addresses the self-dispersal of Hegel’s absolute, before finally turning to Schelling’s immediate intuition of subject-object identity.

No abstract

No abstract

The Russian Sophiological tradition, championed and dogmatically defined by Sergei Bulgakov (1871‐1944), continues to receive energetic responses from a wide array of theologians, philosophers and slavists. However, these responses have, until now, neglected the possibility of a Sophiological hermeneutic. This article, by applying the philosophy of Hans‐Georg Gadamer (1900‐2002), pioneers such a hermeneutic. From this point of departure it will be argued that the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22‐31 supports the theological claims of Russian Sophiology more so than the Septuagint. In other words, the Hebrew text is the more ‘sophianic’ scriptural variant. To demonstrate this claim, three key aspects of the passage will be analysed. These include its traditional poetic structure, its theme of ‘playful beauty’, and its language of fertility and birth‐giving. It will first be suggested that the poetic structure embodies the Bulgakovian distinction‐in‐unity of Divine Sophia and Creaturely Sophia. Thereafter, some characteristic lexical nuances of the Hebrew, such as the controversial ‘amon’, will be read as supportive of Sophiological ‘playful beauty’. Finally, it will be shown how the semantic field of feminine birth‐giving, so fundamental to Sophiology, is fully present only in the Hebrew variant. These investigations will altogether demonstrate that the sophianic narrative of Proverbs 8:22‐31 was diluted in the LXX translation, and that for a biblical‐based Sophiology, those interested would find more support for their arguments in the Masoretic text. An exploration of the above claims will not only supplement the current sophiological engagement with classical wisdom creation narratives, but could even reassess Orthodox theology’s broader attitude to the Masoretic text. Although Russian Sophiology provides the central axis of the article, particular convergences with modern ‘western Sophiology’ will be highlighted, especially where these complement the ideas of Russian sophiologists.