Timm Heinbokel

Origen of Alexandria’s De principiis exerted enormous influence on early Christian writers, yet few works have been met with such a perplexingly varied and polemical reception, even up to our time. In this article, I propose a new reading of De principiis based on taking seriously Origen’s enduring preoccupation with movement and body throughout his work, in conjunction with the central relevance he accords to imitation. I argue that books 1 and 4 provide the framework in which the two cycles of the work are unfolding, thereby initiating the reader into the praxis of Origen’s ἐπιστήμη. It is then this praxis that is able to enlighten even notoriously obscure passages by uniting the ambiguities of "ἀρχή" in itself and finally leading human beings into the completion of themselves and the cosmos.

“Christianity is a μίμησις of the divine nature.” This definition of what it means to be a Christian, given by St Gregory of Nyssa in his letter De pro- fessione Christiana, employs a term commonly translated as “imitation” or “representation.” Even a brief study of some of the seminal sources of classical Greek thought, however, will show that the concept of mimesis surpasses any of these translations and effortlessly crosses the boundaries of the sphere of aesthetics, towards the fundamental questions of epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and ethics. An analysis of Gregory’s letter, together with the related treatise De perfectione, will then show his nuanced familiarity with the subtleties of mimesis, which he consciously employs to arrive at his definition of Christianity. With this in hand, I will argue that even some of Gregory’s most perplexing scriptural exegesis in his homilies on the Song of Songs grows out of his coherent concept of mimesis, which ultimately is of fundamental importance to Gregory’s anthropology, cosmology, and Christology.

Phenomenology’s return to lived experience and “to the things themselves” is often contrasted with the synthesized perspective of science and its “view from nowhere.” The extensive use of neuropsychological case reports in Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, however, suggests that the relationship between phenomenology and science is more complex than a sheer opposition, and a fruitful one for the praxis of medicine. Here, I propose a new reading of how Merleau-Ponty justifies his use of Adhémar Gelb and Kurt Goldstein’s reports on Johann Schneider for his phenomenology of embodied perception. I argue that for Merleau-Ponty these neuropsychological case reports represent a coherent deformation of the intercorporeally expressed existence of Schneider that through speech fall again onto the common ground of perception, thereby allowing Merleau-Ponty to understand, in the equivalent sense delivered by language, Schneider’s total being and fundamental illness. I then discuss what Merleau-Ponty’s method implies for a phenomenological praxis of medicine, and for the role of science in this praxis.