|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:
Mkrtchyan, R. A.
The Idea of the ‘Bodiless’ and the Concept of General and Particular Natures in Ancient Philosophy and Christian
Patristics of the 5th – 6th Centuries
// Philosophy and Culture.
2014. ¹ 11.
P. 1562-1572.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=65721
Mkrtchyan, R. A. The Idea of the ‘Bodiless’ and the Concept of General and Particular Natures in Ancient Philosophy and Christian Patristics of the 5th – 6th CenturiesAbstract: The article is devoted to the philosophical concepts of general nature and particular nature that were based on Neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism and made a significant influence on the ideas of Christian philosophers of the Byzantium epoch. The cornerstone of the present research is the analysis of the above mentioned natures. In this regard, the author analyzes the interpretations of the above mentioned natures from the points of view of physicality and the bodiless. The author analyzes which interpretation proves to be efficient, what general nature is and what particular nature is and how these two natures are related. This is mostly an analytical research. The author applies the system approach and views each concept of nature as a system of related ideas and views. The author has used the question-and-answer method to make his analysis more accurate and detailed. The author proves that the concepts of natural nature and particular nature are not necessarily alternative (at least when reasonable beings are concerned). Quite on the contrary, general natures exist side by side with particular natures, both general and particular natures are bodiless and have the same ontological status. Particular nature is the combination of general nature and the principle of individuation. The latter is bodiless, too. Keywords: ontology, Plato, Aristotle, Neo-Platonism, bodiless, David the Invincible, John Philoponus, general nature, particular nature, principle of individuation.
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. Petrov V. V., Maksim Ispovednik: ontologiya i metod v Vizantiiskoi filosofii VII veka. – M.: IF RAN, 2007. – 204s.
2. Mkrtchyan R. A. Kontseptsii obshchei i chastnoi prirod v khristologii khalkidonitov i dokhalkidonitov // Tserkov' i vremya, ¹2 (63). – M.: OVTsS MP, 2013. – S. 29–62. 3. Mkrtchyan R. A. Vopros o printsipe individuatsii v kontekste khalkidonskogo bogosloviya // Tserkov' i vremya, ¹3 (64). – M.: OVTsS MP, 2013. – S. 29–58. 4. Mesyats S. V. Ammonii syn Germiya // Antichnaya filosofiya: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar'. – M.: Progress-Traditsiya, 2008. – 105–108. 5. Mesyats. S. V. K voprosu o «chastnykh sushchnostyakh» u Ammoniya Aleksandriiskogo: po povodu stat'i V. M. Lur'e «Bogoslovskii sintez VII veka: sv. Maksim Ispovednik i ego epokha» // Bogoslovskii vestnik 2006, ¹ 5-6. – Sergiev Posad: MDAiS, 2006. – S. 670–680. 6. Davydenkov O., ierei. Khristologicheskaya sistema Sevira Antiokhiiskogo. – M.: PSTGU, 2007. – 328 s. 7. Brambo Robert S. Filosofy Drevnei Gretsii / Per. s angl. L. A. Igorevskogo. – M.: Tsetrpoligraf, 2010. – 347 s. 8. Benevich G. I. Ioann Filopon // Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, T. XXIV. – M., 2010. – S. 628–646. 9. Ammonii Aleksandriiskii. Tolkovanie na Isagogu Porfiriya 41.20–42.26 (CAG). 10. Aristotel'. Vtoraya analitika / Per. A. V. Kubitskogo // Aristotel'. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh. – M.: Mysl', 1978. – T. 2. – S. 255–346. 11. Aristotel'. Metafizika / Per. A. V. Kubitskogo // Aristotel'. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh. – M.: Mysl', 1976. – T. 1. – S. 63–368. 12. David Anakht. Analiz «Vvedeniya» Porfiriya / Per. s drevnearm. S.S. Arevshatyana // David Anakht. Sochineniya. – M.: Mysl', 1975. – S. 101–195. 13. David Anakht. Opredeleniya filosofii / Per. s drevnearm. S.S. Arevshatyana // Tam zhe. – S. 29–100. 14. Ioann Filopon. Arbitr (fragmenty) // Ioann Damaskin, prep. Istochnik znaniya / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo i kommentarii D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, A.I. Sagardy, N.I. Sagardy. – M.: Indrik, 2002. – S. 141–148. 15. Platon. Parmenid / Per. N. N. Tomasova // Platon. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh. – M.: Mysl', 1993. – Tom 2. – S. 346–412. 16. Porfirii. Vvedenie k «Kategoriyam» Aristotelya / Per. A.V. Kubitskogo // Aristotel'. Kategorii. – M.: Librokom, 2012. – 80 s. 17. Porfirii. Zhizn' Pifagora / Per. M.L. Gasparova // Khrestomatiya po zapadnoi filosofii. – M.: Astrel', AST, 2003. – S. 271–277. 18. Porfirii. Podstupy k umopostigaemomu / Perevod S.V. Mesyats // Scholae. Filosofskoe antikovedenie i klassicheskaya traditsiya. – T. 2, ¹ 2. – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2008. – S. 277–308. Literatura 19. Shichalin Yu.A. Istoriya antichnogo platonizma v institutsional'nom aspekte. – M.: «Greko-latinskii kabinet» Yu.A. Shichalina, 2000. – 448s. 20. Benakis L. The problem of General Concepts in Neoplatonism and Byzantine Thought // Neoplatonism and Christian Thought / Ed D. J. O’Meara. Norfolk, 1982. Pp. 75–86. |
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
