Ісихазм: суперечність наративів

Abstract

статті автор аналізує духовну практику ісихазму як ядро східноєвропейської традиції і його суперечність тлумаченням паламізму в середовищі академічного філософсько-богословського дискурсу. Стверджується, що негативне ставлення до філософсько- богословського дискурсу ісихазму пов’язане з пануванням класичної західноєвропейської релігійно-філософської парадигми і її впливом на східнохристиянську традицію. Доведено, що методологія некласичної релігійно-філософської парадигми може стати евристичною основою теоретичного осмислення ісихастської традиції. ,

Scientific actuality of the problem is based on the fact that there are controversial views on hesychasm from academic classical philosophy and theology standpoint. This is the subject of our analysis. The primary purpose of the research is seeking for reasons of contradictory attitude to hesychasm as between followers of practical hesychasm and reception of domestic academic sphere’s representatives as among narratives of theorists of the Eastern religious and philosophical discourse. Negative or at best indifferent attitude to Hesychasm as well as to Palamitic doctrine still exists in philosophical and theological discourse. This is explained by the influence of Western classical philosophy, originated from the Aristotelian philosophy. Western European Christianity reproduced Aristotelian Essentialism in the form of Thomism, increasing primacy of entities and normativeness of discourses. This created philosophical and theological conditions for the negative perception of Hesychasm in the fourteenth century, equating vigorous theology with heresy of Messalianism, Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Therefore open criticism of Hesychasm was started fi rst by Catholics and later by Lutherans which formed anti-Palamitic argumentation. On the other hand the decline of Byzantium did not lead to adequate deepening of Palamitic theology discourse. Hesychasm is still insufficiently researched and internally contradictory philosophical and theological discourse. The main difficulty is that Hesychasm was developed in theological discourse, based on the content and form of theological discourse of the fourteenth century. But if vigorous theology was considered from the standpoint of dogmatic question, theological issues in the 20th and early 21st centuries has the specific of “anthropological turn”. It means that theological idea meets with philosophical anthropology. It sets up quite complex dialogue of controversial methods, semiotic systems of non-classical paradigm of philosophizing that began to form general philosophical and cultural field study of the Hesychasm phenomenon not only religious, but also a wide philosophical, cultural aspect. Domination of the classic abstract metaphysical intellectual paradigm that emerged on the absolute rationalism, is one of the main reasons of Hesychasm’s historical underestimation. And although classical discourse of Logocentrism has started to form during Modern times, but its metaphysical source was associated with Aristotelianism, which was the basis of medieval Western philosophy. Non-classical metaphysics was also formed in the early Middle Ages or period of Patristic. Neo-Platonism was non-classical element of philosophical and theological paradigm in Christianity. He laid the vigorous discourse as an alternative to Logocentrism. Despite general norm in modern philosophy to consider the Eastern paradigm as a variant of Neo-Platonism, we think that Christian Personalism formed entirely new philosophical and theological tradition, which we propose to call as Nonclassical one. Finally we can say that contradiction of narratives in religious and philosophical discourse of Hesychasm shows the incompleteness of Palamizm’s system. Internal polemic of Palamizm indicates that this doctrine is still living and it must receive further development in the theological and philosophical discourses in the context of Post-classical philosophical paradigm.