Philosophy

MARCUS PLESTED

Philosophy has long been integral to Eastern Orthodox theology, but the relationship has never been unproblematic. Distinct philo­sophical concerns can be traced in the earli­est of the fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, or Clement and Origen of Alexandria, the latter being the first Christian philosopher of international stature. St. Basil the Great (and Augustine after him) regarded the church’s use of philosophy as comparable to the manner in which the Jews escaping their servitude “despoiled the Egyptians”; and St. Gregory the Theologian used the memorable image of the Christian use of Greek philosophy as that of a gardener who carefully clips his roses of their thorns. Rooted in the patristic sense of the indispensability of a discerning use of human wisdom coupled with an understand­ing of Christianity as the true philosophy, Byzantine fathers such as St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John of Damascus make extensive use of philosophical categories and constructs. Maximos’ theory of the divine logoi, the underlying principles of all things grounded in the Logos, clearly owes some­thing to the Platonic understanding of Ideas but has been radically transformed in its christocentric focus and insistence upon the ontological gap between creature and Creator.

Between Maximos and John a general shift may be detected from a predominantly Platonic to a predominantly Aristotelian mode of discourse, without supposition of any incompatibility between the two. This Aristotelian preponderance was to obtain through the Byzantine and into the ottoman era. indeed, ongoing interest in plato could often provoke controversy. The brilliant 11th-century writer Michael Psellos was appointed “Consul of Philoso­phers” by Constantine IX Monomachos at the newly established school of philosophy of the University of Constantinople. Psellos placed special emphasis on Plato and the Neoplatonic tradition, but was forced to clar­ify his position as to the ancillary status of philosophy in response to hostile criticism. His disciple and successor, John Italos, did not escape so lightly. John was indicted for heresy on a number of counts: for using reason to probe divine realities and for adhering to certain Platonic concepts, nota­bly the reality of the realm of Ideas. Elements of his condemnation live on in the anath­emas of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

St. Gregory Palamas is a useful example of the extreme care with which philosophy was employed in the later Byzantine era. Praised for his mastery of Aristotle in his youth, Palamas went on to draw on that expertise in his critique of Barlaam’s theo­logical agnosticism, asserting the propriety of apodictic argumentation in the articu­lation of divine revelation. Palamas exco­riates philosophy when removed from its proper subservient status, but allows it when rightly ordered in the service of the­ology. The natural wisdom implanted in us can be cultivated through application and learning, including the standard cur­riculum of “outer learning.” This outer learning has a role to play in the procla­mation and defense of spiritual truths manifest in scripture and witnessed in the lives of the saints. But it is always relative and potentially dangerous when misused. Indeed, it is this misuse of our God-given endowments that St. Paul tar­gets in his blistering critique in 1Corinthi­ans and not, Gregory is careful to point out, natural human wisdom per se.

Such strictly ordered use of philosophical argumentation remained normative down to the last days of the Byzantine Empire, as witnessed, for example, in the anti-Latin syllogisms of St. Mark of Ephesus or the thoroughgoing Aristotelianism of George (later Gennadios) Scholarios, who was Mark’s successor as leader of the anti­unionist party. Scholarios’ philosophical sensibilities fostered his warm embrace of Aquinas and his polemic against his enthu­siastic Neoplatonist contemporary, the crypto-Pagan George Gemistos Plethon. Plethon’s espousal of Plato greatly impacted the West but gained little purchase in the Greek world in which Aristotelianism retained its dominance, aided by figures such as Theophilos Korydaleus and Maximos Margounios. An indication of this ongoing preponderance is evident in the condemnation in 1723 of Methodios Anthrakites by the church authorities in Constantinople. Methodios was branded a modernist for rejecting alike the salutary philosophy of Aristotle and the divinely inspired teachings of the fathers, favoring instead the new philosophy of Descartes.

Enlightenment ideas developed signifi­cant currency in the Greek thought-world, attacked by philosopher-theologians such as Vincent Damodos but more sympathet­ically, if by no means uncritically, received by figures such as Eugenios Bulgaris. Bulgaris taught and translated Wolff, Leib­niz, and Locke. In 1753 he was appointed head of the new patriarchal academy on Mount Athos. But while in many respects a deeply traditional and anti-Latin theolo­gian, Bulgaris’ cautious openness to mod­ern philosophy earned him no little hostility on the part of the monks of the Holy Mountain and the academy was eventually forced to close. The ruins can still be seen today, close to the monastery of Vatopedi. Thereafter, Enlightenment ideas are associ­ated with Greek nationalists and secularists such as Adamantios Koraes, but were generally eschewed by prominent church­men such as St. Athanasius of Paros and St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite – forefather, with St. Macarius of Corinth, of a remark­able Hesychast renaissance.

In the Slavic world, a broadly scholastic mode of theologizing prevailed on the level of official church teaching and instruction. Resistance to this tendency took shape not only in the Hesychast revival spearheaded by St. Paisy Velichkovsky, but also with recourse to German Idealism. This latter dimension is particularly evident in the Russian “Slavophile” school. Kireevsky, for one, was delighted to find in the church fathers all the essential insights of Schelling. In 1860 Alexander Bukharev published a compelling case for explicit engagement with contemporary philosophy, arguing from the fact of the incarnation that such philosophy must contain, at the least, signs of redemption and glimpses of truth. German Idealism was to remain a vital force in Russian religious thought, notably within the powerful but perplexing phe­nomenon of Sophiology. Indeed, it served many key thinkers, such as Sergius (Sergei) Bulgakov and Nikolai Berdiaev, as a bridge from Marxism into Orthodoxy.

In the post-World War II period, Orthodox theology has often entered into a creative dialogue with contemporary philosophical concerns. The presentation of Orthodox theology by Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff certainly taps into and addresses French personalism and existen­tialism, as does Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ deeply influential exploration of personhood. Christos Yannaras makes intriguing use of

Heidegger in his exploration of the opposi­tion between Orthodoxy and the West. So-called postmodernist philosophies have yet, however, to provoke any very substantial Orthodox response. In a nutshell, while philosophy has rarely, if ever, been deter­minative of Orthodox thought, let alone of Orthodox practice, it has always been very much close at hand, and used to a considerable extent.

SEE ALSO: Berdiaev, Nikolai A. (1874–1948); Bulgakov, Sergius (Sergei) (1871–1944); Contemporary Orthodox Theology; Gnosti­cism; Hesychasm; Logos Theology; Lossky, Vladimir (1903–1958); Patristics; St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359); St. John of Damascus (ca. 675-ca. 750); St. Mark of Ephesus (1392–1445); St. Maximos the Confessor (580–662); St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1749–1809); St. Paisy Velichovsky (1722–1794); Scholarios, George (Gennadios) (ca. 1403–1472)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Hussey, J. M. (1937) Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tatakis, B. (1959) La Philosophie byzantine. Paris: PUF.