TRUE BEING (ὌΝΤΩΣ ὌΝ) AND NON-BEING IN BYZANTINE PHILOSOPHY
/SKUTOČNÉ BYTIE (ὌΝΤΩΣ ὌΝ) A NEBYTIE V BYZANTSKEJ FILOZOFII/

Jan ZOZULAK

professor, Faculty of Arts, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia, jzozulak@ukf.sk, 00421376408111

Abstract

Byzantine thinkers have brought a fundamentally new understanding of worldview and speak of the beginning of the cosmos from non-being (ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος). With the factor of creation in Byzantine philosophy, they applied the revolutionary philosophical principle, which speaks of the origin (γένεση), the beginning (ἀρχή) and the evolution (ἐξέλιξις) of the cosmos (universe). In this article we will deal with Byzantine cosmology and the ontological distinction between being and non-being, on which the reflection between the uncreated (ἄκτιστος) and the created (κτιστός) is based. For Byzantine thought, it is the basic philosophical basis on which the hesychasts in the 14th century developed a distinction between the uncreated substance (ἄκτιστη οὐσία) and the created energies (κτιστές ἐνέργειες). At the same time, we will explain the double method of Byzantine thinkers, which during hesychastic disputes became the main cause of misunderstandings between hesychasts and antihesychasts due to different understandings of the charismatic and scientific lines of Byzantine thought.

Keywords

Ancient Philosophy, Byzantine Philosophy, Cosmology, Being and Non-being, Created and Uncreated, Double method

SUMMARY

During the hesychastic disputes, the controversy between hesychasts and antihesychasts escalated and there was a confrontation between Eastern and Western ways of thinking. The difference between the double method of Byzantine thinkers, represented by Gregor Palam, and the Western scholastic dialectical method, represented by Barlaam of Calabria, was clearly shown. The different methodological starting points between Byzantine and Scholastic philosophers not only caused problems in the 14th century, but continued in later periods and are evident today, as is clear from the conclusions of G. Podskalský, who confronts a fundamental question of the relationship between theology and philosophy in Byzantium (Podskalsky 1977). Based on serious research, he makes a detailed analysis of fundamental questions, but in key respects he is extremely dogmatic and erroneously concluded that science and philosophy were more developed in the West than in Byzantium, where there was only theology based on simple monastic life. This unsubstantiated claim reflects ignorance of Byzantine sources and a lack of understanding of the essence of Byzantine thought, because the main cause of misunderstanding between hesychasts and antihesychastes was a different understanding of the charismatic and scientific line of Byzantine thought, not the weak intellectual level of Byzantine authors.

This line leads to theognosia (θεογνωσία) and theopraxia (θεοπραξία) and can be traced from Athanasius the Great and Cappadocians in the 4th century to Gregory Palam in the 14th century. This line of Byzantine thinkers is twofold, and each has its own functionality and individuality. These are basically two interconnected lines that do not deviate from the common path to the search for truth. These two lines, charismatic and scientific, are based on a fundamental distinction between the uncreated (ἄκτιστος) and the created (κτιστός), which Byzantine thinkers used in the structure of Byzantine philosophy as a basic philosophical basis using various means of expression. The uncreated refers to the charismatic line and the created refers to the scientific line of Byzantine thought.

(Language: slovak)

full text

Back on content