Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0003
R. Coates
Chapter 3 analyses the essay collection Tsar and Revolution (1907) as a collective project aimed at establishing the historical origins and enduring contemporary relevance of the Russian autocracy’s religious mystique for the purpose of arguing that the Russian revolution must be religious in nature if it is to succeed in countering and overcoming the religious underpinnings of tsarism. By engaging their analysis with the work of the Russian semioticians Lotman, Uspensky, and Zhivov on the sacralization of the Russian tsar, the chapter demonstrates the soundness of the Merezhkovskys’ grasp of the phenomenon. It shows how they view this through the prism of deification, specifically the illegitimate form of self-apotheosis that was condemned by Russian Old Belief and later by Dostoevsky and Soloviev: true deification, for the Merezkovskys, means the deification of the whole people of Christ in the millennium that the Revolution will inaugurate, overthrowing the false tsar-god.
{"title":"Deification and Political Theology","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 3 analyses the essay collection Tsar and Revolution (1907) as a collective project aimed at establishing the historical origins and enduring contemporary relevance of the Russian autocracy’s religious mystique for the purpose of arguing that the Russian revolution must be religious in nature if it is to succeed in countering and overcoming the religious underpinnings of tsarism. By engaging their analysis with the work of the Russian semioticians Lotman, Uspensky, and Zhivov on the sacralization of the Russian tsar, the chapter demonstrates the soundness of the Merezhkovskys’ grasp of the phenomenon. It shows how they view this through the prism of deification, specifically the illegitimate form of self-apotheosis that was condemned by Russian Old Belief and later by Dostoevsky and Soloviev: true deification, for the Merezkovskys, means the deification of the whole people of Christ in the millennium that the Revolution will inaugurate, overthrowing the false tsar-god.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128155384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0005
R. Coates
Chapter 5 analyses Sergei Bulgakov’s The Philosophy of Economy (1912) in the context of the philosophy of F. W. J. Schelling and the theology of Maximus the Confessor. Bulgakov elaborates an original theory of human economic activity as the instrument by which the material world is divinized. The work is Bulgakov’s first attempt creatively to bring together categories from German metaphysical idealism with elements of Orthodox doctrine: here, the chapter argues, the doctrine of deification as participation in the divine. It is shown how Bulgakov’s deification narrative broadly conforms to the religious philosophy of late Schelling, including its elaboration of Sophia as the divine humanity in which all concrete humans participate. Maximus and the Greek patristic tradition is engaged to show how Bulgakov has assimilated important elements of deification doctrine, as well as how his attempted synthesis is ultimately expressed more in a Schellingian philosophical than an Orthodox theological idiom.
{"title":"Deification and Economics","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 analyses Sergei Bulgakov’s The Philosophy of Economy (1912) in the context of the philosophy of F. W. J. Schelling and the theology of Maximus the Confessor. Bulgakov elaborates an original theory of human economic activity as the instrument by which the material world is divinized. The work is Bulgakov’s first attempt creatively to bring together categories from German metaphysical idealism with elements of Orthodox doctrine: here, the chapter argues, the doctrine of deification as participation in the divine. It is shown how Bulgakov’s deification narrative broadly conforms to the religious philosophy of late Schelling, including its elaboration of Sophia as the divine humanity in which all concrete humans participate. Maximus and the Greek patristic tradition is engaged to show how Bulgakov has assimilated important elements of deification doctrine, as well as how his attempted synthesis is ultimately expressed more in a Schellingian philosophical than an Orthodox theological idiom.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128454791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0004
R. Coates
Chapter 4 analyses Nikolai Berdiaev’s first philosophical statement The Meaning of Creativity (1916) in the context of the theosophy of Jakob Boehme. It is shown how Berdiaev adopts the deification narrative primarily as expressed by Boehme rather than in the Orthodox theological tradition, and the ways in which the two narratives diverge are analysed. Berdiaev tends towards a Gnostic attitude to the material world and the body and an Origenistic view of the pre-existence of the soul. Most importantly, his reading of human–divine synergy in the task of transfiguring the universe emphasizes the superiority of human over divine agency after the Incarnation. The chapter goes on to set the work in the context of Berdiaev’s critique of the Russian Orthodox Church and of Russian Symbolism. His contemporaries’ response to the work is drawn on to suggest that Berdiaev’s Nietzschean persona opens him to the charge of illegitimate self-apotheosis.
{"title":"Deification and Creativity","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 analyses Nikolai Berdiaev’s first philosophical statement The Meaning of Creativity (1916) in the context of the theosophy of Jakob Boehme. It is shown how Berdiaev adopts the deification narrative primarily as expressed by Boehme rather than in the Orthodox theological tradition, and the ways in which the two narratives diverge are analysed. Berdiaev tends towards a Gnostic attitude to the material world and the body and an Origenistic view of the pre-existence of the soul. Most importantly, his reading of human–divine synergy in the task of transfiguring the universe emphasizes the superiority of human over divine agency after the Incarnation. The chapter goes on to set the work in the context of Berdiaev’s critique of the Russian Orthodox Church and of Russian Symbolism. His contemporaries’ response to the work is drawn on to suggest that Berdiaev’s Nietzschean persona opens him to the charge of illegitimate self-apotheosis.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115101421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0001
R. Coates
Chapter 1 explores the meaning of deification in the Eastern Orthodox tradition as a metaphor for salvation, comparing this with the metaphor of redemption with which the ‘Western’ denominations are more familiar. Departing from the notion of the structural significance of deification for Orthodox theology, it sets out its importance for Greek patristic anthropology, Christology, and eschatology. Following Norman Russell (2004), it distinguishes between a ‘realistic’ approach to deification through participation, notably in the sacramental life of the church, and an ‘ethical’ approach, through imitation of Christ’s virtues. The two approaches are combined in contemplative monasticism, where mystical union comes to be understood as participation in the grace or energies of God. In conclusion, the chapter identifies aspects of Greek patristic deification that prove most important to Russian religious philosophers in the inter-revolutionary period.
{"title":"Deification in the Greek Patristic Era","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 1 explores the meaning of deification in the Eastern Orthodox tradition as a metaphor for salvation, comparing this with the metaphor of redemption with which the ‘Western’ denominations are more familiar. Departing from the notion of the structural significance of deification for Orthodox theology, it sets out its importance for Greek patristic anthropology, Christology, and eschatology. Following Norman Russell (2004), it distinguishes between a ‘realistic’ approach to deification through participation, notably in the sacramental life of the church, and an ‘ethical’ approach, through imitation of Christ’s virtues. The two approaches are combined in contemplative monasticism, where mystical union comes to be understood as participation in the grace or energies of God. In conclusion, the chapter identifies aspects of Greek patristic deification that prove most important to Russian religious philosophers in the inter-revolutionary period.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127219556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0007
R. Coates
The Conclusion offers a brief account of the fate of the thinkers whose work has been analysed after the 1917 revolution and the further development of deification as a motif in the post-revolutionary work of Berdiaev and Bulgakov. It considers the ‘modernism’ of Russian religious thought of the inter-revolutionary period in light of the inter-war debate between the ‘modernists’ in exile and the younger generation, the representatives of the ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ (V. Lossky and G. Florovsky). Whilst it was this younger generation that introduced deification to the ‘West’ and made possible its emergence as a major topic of theological scholarship (which it remains to this day), its achievement rests on foundations laid by the protagonists of this book. Finally, the Conclusion sums up the main ideas that the book has attempted to express.
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"The Conclusion offers a brief account of the fate of the thinkers whose work has been analysed after the 1917 revolution and the further development of deification as a motif in the post-revolutionary work of Berdiaev and Bulgakov. It considers the ‘modernism’ of Russian religious thought of the inter-revolutionary period in light of the inter-war debate between the ‘modernists’ in exile and the younger generation, the representatives of the ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ (V. Lossky and G. Florovsky). Whilst it was this younger generation that introduced deification to the ‘West’ and made possible its emergence as a major topic of theological scholarship (which it remains to this day), its achievement rests on foundations laid by the protagonists of this book. Finally, the Conclusion sums up the main ideas that the book has attempted to express.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126793775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0002
R. Coates
Chapter 2 sets out the history of the reception of deification in Russia in the long nineteenth century, drawing attention to the breadth and diversity of the theme’s manifestation, and pointing to the connections with inter-revolutionary religious thought. It examines how deification is understood variously in the spheres of monasticism, Orthodox institutions of higher education, and political culture. It identifies the novelist Fedor Dostoevsky and the philosopher Vladimir Soloviev as the most influential elite cultural expressions of the idea of deification, and the primary conduits through which Western European philosophical expressions of deification reach early twentieth-century Russian religious thought. Inspired by the anthropotheism of Feuerbach, and Stirner’s response to this, Dostoevsky brings to the fore the problem of illegitimate self-apotheosis, whilst Soloviev, in his philosophy of divine humanity, bequeaths deification to his successors both as this is understood by the church and in its iteration in German metaphysical idealism.
{"title":"Deification in the Long Nineteenth Century","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 sets out the history of the reception of deification in Russia in the long nineteenth century, drawing attention to the breadth and diversity of the theme’s manifestation, and pointing to the connections with inter-revolutionary religious thought. It examines how deification is understood variously in the spheres of monasticism, Orthodox institutions of higher education, and political culture. It identifies the novelist Fedor Dostoevsky and the philosopher Vladimir Soloviev as the most influential elite cultural expressions of the idea of deification, and the primary conduits through which Western European philosophical expressions of deification reach early twentieth-century Russian religious thought. Inspired by the anthropotheism of Feuerbach, and Stirner’s response to this, Dostoevsky brings to the fore the problem of illegitimate self-apotheosis, whilst Soloviev, in his philosophy of divine humanity, bequeaths deification to his successors both as this is understood by the church and in its iteration in German metaphysical idealism.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134618980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0006
R. Coates
Chapter 6 analyses Pavel Florensky’s The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1914) in the context of Florensky’s still recent conversion to Christianity and of the tradition of contemplative mysticism (hesychasm) as expressed in the Philokalia and embodied in the saintly elders (startsy) of the Orthodox Church. It is structured around the idea of Florensky’s movement from outside the church to inside it. After setting out the place deification occupies within Pillar and Ground’s overarching thesis, the chapter considers the confessional aspect of the work as a construction of Florensky’s personal ascesis, explores its missional aspect through Florensky’s presentation of Orthodox asceticism in its relationship to deification, and finally analyses the polemical aspect of Pillar and Ground, its defence of Orthodox asceticism against its many detractors among the Russian intelligentsia, including the religious intelligentsia, of which Florensky had until recently himself been a member.
{"title":"Deification and Asceticism","authors":"R. Coates","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836230.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 6 analyses Pavel Florensky’s The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1914) in the context of Florensky’s still recent conversion to Christianity and of the tradition of contemplative mysticism (hesychasm) as expressed in the Philokalia and embodied in the saintly elders (startsy) of the Orthodox Church. It is structured around the idea of Florensky’s movement from outside the church to inside it. After setting out the place deification occupies within Pillar and Ground’s overarching thesis, the chapter considers the confessional aspect of the work as a construction of Florensky’s personal ascesis, explores its missional aspect through Florensky’s presentation of Orthodox asceticism in its relationship to deification, and finally analyses the polemical aspect of Pillar and Ground, its defence of Orthodox asceticism against its many detractors among the Russian intelligentsia, including the religious intelligentsia, of which Florensky had until recently himself been a member.","PeriodicalId":427523,"journal":{"name":"Deification in Russian Religious Thought","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126936294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：