Maximus the Confessor

Author(s):  
Frederick D. Aquino

The current landscape of virtue epistemology is ripe with possibilities for theological engagement and appropriation. Constructively speaking, Maximus the Confessor (580–662 ce) is a fitting example of this kind of intersection. In terms of mapping the cognitive economy of the spiritual life, he draws attention to virtuous and contemplative practices that enable the intellect to attain its proper end (divine likeness) and acquire the related epistemic goods. Accordingly, this chapter shows how the virtues, for Maximus, contribute to the formation of a deep and abiding desire for the relevant epistemic goods (e.g. contemplation of God in and through nature, illumination of divine truths, wisdom, and perceptual knowledge of God) as well as playing a supportive role in the pursuit of them. It also offers briefly some concluding reflections concerning Maximus’s pairing of virtue and knowledge, and identifies a few areas of enquiry that warrant further work and development.

Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Lacoste ◽  
Oliver O’Donovan

Considering the distinction between discursive, acquired knowledge and intuitive knowledge raises the question of how theology as a learned discipline relates to the spiritual life. The two kinds of knowledge cannot exist apart in history, but may be in unhappy tension. Eschatology can have no place for discursive knowledge, while history may be conceived as veiling of intuitive knowledge behind discursive knowledge. The goal of theology, then, is to introduce the believer into intuitive knowledge of God. “Indirect” communication allows it to speak of God without reductively “objectifying” him. The experience of worship combines the two kinds of knowledge. It involves words, and the words aim at truth. But its function is to allow the truth not merely to be understood but to be felt in its splendour.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-38
Author(s):  
Ion Marian CROITORU ◽  

One can note that science tends to turn man into a master of the external and material, yet at the cost of turning him, on the level of his inner and spiritual life, into a slave of instincts altered by sin. All these, without a moral norm, become a power of destruction for man and represent issues addressed not just by bioethics, where the opinion of ‘theologians’ is consulted as well, but especially by the Church and by the Orthodoxy. The pressure of events imposes the issue of the recognition or, according to some, reformulation of the bases of ethics. Yet, this ethics ought to be constrained to a revision founded neither just on the progress of science, whose truths are partial, nor on the principles of rationalist or positivist philosophy, which try to convince man that he is no different from all the other living beings and needs to be treated in the same way as them, but on the reality of the religious fact, and, moreover, on the evidence of God’s Revelation and, implicitly, of Christian anthropology, based on the fact that man bears God’s image, not the image of man himself, as a society attempting to exclude God in an absolute manner wills to herald. According to the Holy Church Fathers, one must pursue not a concordism or discordism of theology and science but their dialogue from a theological and, implicitly, eschatological perspective. The first, namely theology, relies on the knowledge of God and the receiving of the supernatural gifts by the action of the divine uncreated energies, by means of man’s collaboration with God, which supposes man’s commitment to advance on the steps of the spiritual life: cleansing, illumination, deification. The second, namely science, relies on knowing the surrounding world and on putting to use the natural gifts, also given by God to man, and by which man investigates the reasons of things, recognising God’s power, wisdom and presence. Therefore, to theology correspond the spiritual knowledge and wisdom from Above, while to science correspond lay knowledge and the wisdom from the outside or from below.


2019 ◽  
pp. 147-164
Author(s):  
Alan Millar

Perceptual knowledge is viewed as a paradigm of knowledge in virtue of so clearly exemplifying cognitive contact with a fact in an act—recognition—in which reason reaches out to the fact itself. This outlook is contrasted with that on which the work of reason is confined to forming a belief that might or might not be true in a manner that reliably but not infallibly yields true beliefs. The latter outlook is implicit in strands of virtue epistemology, notably in work of Greco and Sosa. It is argued that we should not attempt to explicate recognitional abilities in terms of more basic abilities that bear directly on the justification of belief or in terms of more basic belief-forming dispositions. Some complexities concerning the individuation of recognitional abilities are explored.


Author(s):  
Alexandra da Costa

Chapter 1 considers how printers persuaded readers to buy religious books other than primers, which might well have seemed non-essential. Focusing on the period up to 1525, it considers the sale of books that supported the laity in understanding the most basic aspects of their faith and those that guided them beyond the rote prayers of the Pater noster and Ave Maria into deeper practices of meditation and contemplation. It argues that de Worde recognized the spiritual ambitions of his contemporaries and the desire for a deeper knowledge of God amongst the laity. While the 1520s would see that channelled into demand for scriptural translation, in the first quarter of the century de Worde offered readers a richer relationship with God through contemplative practices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-39
Author(s):  
Ivan Yu. Ilin ◽  

This article attempts to analyze the historical and philosophical views of S.N. Bulgakov and S.L. Frank about the meaning of religion, the nature of philosophy, and the essence of philoso­phical knowledge in the structure of religious experience. The article considers the correlation of religious and philosophical ideas of two thinkers and their positioning relative to each other. The article formulates the problem of the relationship and mutual influence of religious faith and philosophical reason in the legacy of Bulgakov and Frank, and raises the question of what role these outstanding authors of the Silver age assign to religious philosophy in the spiritual life of a Christian. The question of the place of conceptual thinking in the experience of understanding the Absolute is being clarified. The thesis about the role and significance of religious philosophy as a necessary beginning of discursive comprehension of the truths of faith (Bulgakov) and a holis­tic understanding of being (Frank) is being put forward.


Author(s):  
John Greco

Contemporary epistemology has taken an ‘externalist turn’ in its thinking about knowledge and related issues, and contemporary religious epistemology has followed suit in this respect. This is how we should understand Alvin Plantinga’s proper function view of religious knowledge, and William Alston’s view that we can have perceptual knowledge of God. Contemporary epistemology has more recently taken a ‘social turn’, and religious epistemology and the epistemology of theology might fruitfully follow this trend as well. For example, religious epistemology can benefit from recent work on epistemic authority and on the epistemology of testimony.


Author(s):  
Ion Marian CROITORU ◽  

One can note that science tends to turn man into a master of the external and material, yet at the cost of turning him, on the level of his inner and spiritual life, into a slave of instincts altered by sin. All these, without a moral norm, become a power of destruction for man and represent issues addressed not just by bioethics, where the opinion of ‘theologians’ is consulted as well, but especially by the Church and by the Orthodoxy. The pressure of events imposes the issue of the recognition or, according to some, reformulation of the bases of ethics. Yet, this ethics ought to be constrained to a revision founded neither just on the progress of science, whose truths are partial, nor on the principles of rationalist or positivist philosophy, which try to convince man that he is no different from all the other living beings and needs to be treated in the same way as them, but on the reality of the religious fact, and, moreover, on the evidence of God’s Revelation and, implicitly, of Christian anthropology, based on the fact that man bears God’s image, not the image of man himself, as a society attempting to exclude God in an absolute manner wills to herald. According to the Holy Church Fathers, one must pursue not a concordism or discordism of theology and science but their dialogue from a theological and, implicitly, eschatological perspective. The first, namely theology, relies on the knowledge of God and the receiving of the supernatural gifts by the action of the divine uncreated energies, by means of man’s collaboration with God, which supposes man’s commitment to advance on the steps of the spiritual life: cleansing, illumination, deification. The second, namely science, relies on knowing the surrounding world and on putting to use the natural gifts, also given by God to man, and by which man investigates the reasons of things, recognising God’s power, wisdom and presence. Therefore, to theology correspond the spiritual knowledge and wisdom from Above, while to science correspond lay knowledge and the wisdom from the outside or from below. At the basis of these acts is the difference between Uncreated and created, between Uncreated and created energies. Thus, the Holy Fathers distinguish between observations from natural sciences and their consecrated philosophical interpretations, yet which they signal and condemn if these interpretations do not converge with the theological perspective, in other words, with the divine Revelation, because the texts of the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God and what is included in them is situated at a different depth of knowledge than what belongs to human knowledge.


2003 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian A. McFarland

A thoroughly apophatic commitment to divine unknowability appears incompatible with the claim that God is known in Christ. The theological writings of Maximus the Confessor, however, provide a way of combining these two theological imperatives so that the more authentically apophatic one is, the more christocentric one will be (and vice versa). This relationship is expressed most clearly in Maximus's exposition of the transfiguration, in which Christ is both the source of illumination that constitutes human knowledge of God and, in his ineffable brightness, the only proper basis for human recognition of the inherent unknowability of the divine essence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document