Marcin Podbielski

This volume constitutes an attempt at bringing together philosophies of time--or more precisely, philosophies on time and, in a concomitant way, history--emerging from Christianity's and Islam's intellectual histories. Starting from the Neoplatonic heritage and the voice of classical philosophy, the volume enters the Byzantine and Arabic intellectual worlds up to Ibn Al-Arabi's times. A conscious choice in this volume is not to engage with, perhaps, the most prominent figures of Christian and Arabic philosophy, i.e., Augustine on the one hand and Avicenna/Ibn Sina on the other, precisely because these have attracted so much attention due to their prominence in their respective traditions--and beyond. In a certain way, Maximus the Confessor and Ibn Al-Arabi--together with Al-Fārābi--emerge as alternative representatives of their two traditions in this volume, offering two axes for this endeavor. The synthesis of those approaches on time and history, their comparison rather than their mere co-existence, is left to the reader's critical inquiry and philosophical investigation.

This paper offers a comprehensive examination of the language of “prosōpon” in Maximus the Confessor. It emerges that “prosōpon” almost never has an autonomous meaning in Maximus’ Christology and anthropology. While “person” is either a synonym for “hypostasis” or a term expressing heretical Christological doctrines, it may be used in its own right when Maximus emphasizes the fact that human actions make each of us recognizable as a unique individual. This usage cannot be separated from the colloquial meanings of “face” and “character,” or from instances of “prosōpon” in Maximian Biblical exegesis. “The face of the intellect,” identified with “the face of Christ” within us and reflected in our actions as “the face of the soul,” is the perfect image of the eternal Divine logoi of virtues, impressed by grace in the intellect of saints and reflected in their actions. Possessing one’s own “persona” or “face,” and building one’s uniqueness through one’s own decisions, is of less interest to Maximus than assimilation of oneself to Christ.

This special volume of Forum Philosophicum makes available five papers selected from those presented at the conference “Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher,” held at the Freie Universität, Berlin, from the 26ᵗʰ to the 28ᵗʰ of September, 2014. We are happy to open up our journal to the contributions of a number of scholars who all share a specific methodological stance when it comes to reading Patristic texts. Rather than discussing the philosophy of Maximus the Confessor, they seek out the philosophical involvements and implications of Maximus’ theology. They respect the distinction between philosophical and theological modes of thinking, while recognizing how those modes of thinking influence and complete each other. Furthermore, this particular approach conforms with a perspective on the relationship between faith and reason already adopted by many Christian thinkers since Justin Martyr: one that acknowledges the fruitful dialogue between faith and reason, but reveres God the Logos as the Creator and ultimate source of all truth.

In an issue that contains a large dossier devoted to the philosophy of Paul Ricœur, we are, exceptionally, publishing a few texts in French. We believe that it is important for scholars of Ricœur’s philosophy to be able to deal with testimonies such as that offered by Catherine Goldenstein in their original formulation. We also appreciate the importance of the original French wording and semantic associations when it comes to grasping Ricœur’s arguments in all their completeness.The texts published in French are accompanied by metadata in English. Their bibliographies are also presented in English, for the sake of consistency with citation tracking systems. Footnotes have been formatted in line with French typographic customs, while still following the broad lines of the Chicago Manual of Style.

Russian Philosophy has long been studied and admired in countries of what may broadly be termed the West. Translations into English, German, or French, of authors like Semyon Frank, Nikolai Berdayev, and Vladimir Solovyov, and of writers like Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Mikhail Bulgakov, are readily available these days. It is only natural that the works of these figures should have attracted the interest of Christian thinkers, who are able to see in them an excellent example of reflection being not only inspired by faith but also applied to areas rarely at the focal point of theology—such as, for instance, proposals for organizing societies on the basis of personal ties, as advocated by Frank. Moreover, thinkers who have grown up in a Christian environment may find in their texts an important example of how faith can serve as an inspirational source of ideas that carry a significant appeal for non-believers, too. In this issue of Forum Philosophicum, we offer our readers some papers in which ideas of this kind, such as the kenotic theory of freedom of Berdayev, are discussed by scholars, and various influences in Russian philosophy are traced back to their antecedent influences.

ABSTRACT In this article, the issue of corporeal reality in Evagrius is discussed in abstraction – to the extent that this is possible – from its soteriological purpose. An analysis of Evagrius’ statements about corporeal reality reveals a world that cannot be known in itself, but which is established through a hierarchy of qualifications. Evagrius’ account of the elements and their features, of the relationship of qualities to matter, and of the process in which the intellect apprehends bodies, appears to be deeply indebted to the Stoic account of bodily reality. Evagrius differs, however, in that the corporeal reality he describes is inherently unknowable and lifeless. As he develops Stoic intuitions about the commanding faculty into a vision of an intellect holding within itself a model of its bearer’s body, and as he moves the logoi of judgement and providence outside of corporeal reality, the latter turns into a desert from which life and rationality are absent. An intellect, as a soul, is only liminally present in corporeal reality. Focused on itself, it becomes a subjectivity that only interacts with the external bodily world through a model of the latter that it constructs within the boundaries of the soul itself.

In the Summer of 2015 Sotiris Mitralexis and Andrew T. J. Kaethler organized a conference held in Delphi, Greece, titled “Ontology and History: A Challenging and Auspicious Dialogue for Philosophy and Theology.” The conference brought together over sixty scholars from various parts of the globe, representing Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism—truly an ecumenical affair. The topic of the conference, which is well represented in this volume of Forum Philosophicum, was purposefully broad because it is a question that remains open and which sits at the centre of the Christian philosophical and theological tradition. Joseph Ratzinger posited in several works that the interplay between salvation history and ontology is the most pressing concern for modern theology. In Introduction to Christianity—a modest title for a robust piece of theology—Ratzinger notes that early in the Christian tradition a division arose between theological metaphysics and theology of history, each seen as two different things; “people indulge either in ontological speculation or anti-philosophical theology of salvation history, thus losing in a really tragic way the original unity of Christian thought. At the start Christian thinking is neither merely ‘soteriological’ nor merely ‘metaphysical’ but molded by the unity of history and being. Here lies an important task for modern theological work, which is torn once again by this dilemma.”

This special volume of Forum Philosophicum makes available five papers selected from those presented at the conference “Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher,” held at the Freie Universität, Berlin, from the 26ᵗʰ to the 28ᵗʰ of September, 2014. We are happy to open up our journal to the contributions of a number of scholars who all share a specific methodological stance when it comes to reading Patristic texts. Rather than discussing the philosophy of Maximus the Confessor, they seek out the philosophical involvements and implications of Maximus’ theology. They respect the distinction between philosophical and theological modes of thinking, while recognizing how those modes of thinking influence and complete each other. Furthermore, this particular approach conforms with a perspective on the relationship between faith and reason already adopted by many Christian thinkers since Justin Martyr: one that acknowledges the fruitful dialogue between faith and reason, but reveres God the Logos as the Creator and ultimate source of all truth.

Russian Philosophy has long been studied and admired in countries of what may broadly be termed the West. Translations into English, German, or French, of authors like Semyon Frank, Nikolai Berdayev, and Vladimir Solovyov, and of writers like Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Mikhail Bulgakov, are readily available these days. It is only natural that the works of these figures should have attracted the interest of Christian thinkers, who are able to see in them an excellent example of reflection being not only inspired by faith but also applied to areas rarely at the focal point of theology—such as, for instance, proposals for organizing societies on the basis of personal ties, as advocated by Frank. Moreover, thinkers who have grown up in a Christian environment may find in their texts an important example of how faith can serve as an inspirational source of ideas that carry a significant appeal for non-believers, too. In this issue of Forum Philosophicum, we offer our readers some papers in which ideas of this kind, such as the kenotic theory of freedom of Berdayev, are discussed by scholars, and various influences in Russian philosophy are traced back to their antecedent influences.

This paper offers a comprehensive examination of the language of “prosōpon” in Maximus the Confessor. It emerges that “prosōpon” almost never has an autonomous meaning in Maximus’ Christology and anthropology. While “person” is either a synonym for “hypostasis” or a term expressing heretical Christologicaldoctrines, it may be used in its own right when Maximus emphasizes the fact that human actions make each of us recognizable as a unique individual. Thisusage cannot be separated from the colloquial meanings of “face” and “character,” or from instances of “prosōpon” in Maximian Biblical exegesis. “The face of the intellect,” identified with “the face of Christ” within us and reflected in our actions as “the face of the soul,” is the perfect image of the eternal Divine logoi of virtues, impressed by grace in the intellect of saints and reflected in their actions. Possessing one’s own “persona” or “face,” and building one’s uniqueness through one’s own decisions, is of less interest to Maximus than assimilation of oneself to Christ.