scholarly journals Mission and reception of St Justin Popović

Author(s):  
Zdenko Š. Širka

This review essay brings a closer look at two books about Serbian saint and theologian Justin Popović, both were published in 2019 in Serbian. The first one, presented and analysed in this review, is the international thematic conference proceedings Mission and thought of St Justin Popović, edited by Vladimir Cvetković and Bogdan Lubardić from the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade (Serbia). The second one, presented in the next review, is Justin of Ćelije and England: Ways of Reception of British Theology, Literature and Science, written by Bogdan Lubardić. There is no need to introduce the life and work of Justin Popović (1894–1979) to the readers of this journal as it is generally known: monk and saint of the Orthodox Church (St Justin the New of Ćelije), professor at the University of Belgrade, co-founder of the Serbian Philosophical Society, one of the most prominent and important Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century. In my modest opinion, these two books open a new chapter in the research of Justin Popović’s legacy, in contrast to revival-apologetic and descriptive approach that previously dominated the reception of Justin Popović’s thoughts. This new approach is characterized by a non-ideological approach to Justin’s work and balances between two extremes, in a certain sense it proposes a middle path. The first extreme, pietistic and defensive-panegyric, considers any criticism of Justin’s work to be a direct attack on his holiness. The second extreme finds in Justin’s work a justification to reject the Serbian Church and all Orthodoxy due to their anti-modern and retrograde nature. Both extremes had fed each other for years and insist on the objectivity and complete truthfulness of their own interpretation of Justin’s work. The proposed middle ground no longer has as the starting point of whether Justin’s views are correct or not, but it considers the reasons and circumstances in which Justin’s work occurs.

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-194
Author(s):  
Magdalena Gołaczyńska

The theatre of Eastern Europe has not always benefited as fully as might have been expected from the supposed freedoms which followed the collapse of Communism. State support for institutional theatre has been drastically reduced, while the ‘alternative’ theatre, though no longer constrained by a formal censorship, has had seriously to consider what it is now alternative to. Magdalena Gołaczyńska takes 1989 as starting point for a survey both of the framework within which alternative theatre now works, and of the three main strands that have emerged in the closing decade of the twentieth century – of companies continuing to produce socially critical work, of groups exploring experience at a more personal and existential level, and of ‘collective creators’ whose concerns are rather with pushing the boundaries of performance itself. Magdalena Gołaczyńska teaches at the University of Wroclaw and the State Academy of Drama in Cracow, and is author of a doctoral study of contemporary alternative theatre.


Author(s):  
Michel Meyer

Chapter 1 considers the essential reference points in the history of rhetoric. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, as well as the main transformations of rhetoric up to the twentieth century, are considered in detail. Plato based his theory of rhetoric on pathos or the manipulation of the audience through its emotions. Aristotle provided a theory of logos which allows rigorous science as well as rhetorical inference (enthymeme). Cicero grounded his new approach to rhetoric by giving a privileged role to the speaker or ethos. In its various revivals in the twentieth century, rhetoric continued this practice of granting primacy to either ethos, pathos, or logos; the various authors who participated in this renewal in the last century therefore followed in the footsteps of either Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero. It is now time for a synthesis with a new starting point: questioning.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Monier

This paper examines whose voices narrate official Coptic heritage, what the in-built biases in representations of Coptic heritage are and why, and some of the implications of omissions in narratives of Coptic heritage. It argues that the primary narrator of official Coptic heritage during the twentieth century was the leadership of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church is the body that holds authority over the sources of heritage, such as church buildings and manuscripts, and also has the resources with which to preserve and disseminate heritage. The Church hierarchy’s leadership was not entirely uncontested, however, a middle ground was continually negotiated to enable lay Copts to play various roles and contribute to the articulation of Coptic heritage. Ultimately, though, alternative voices must operate within the limits set by the Church leadership and also negotiate the layers of exclusion set by society and state.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gifawosen Markos Mitta

Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks has become a very important inspiration for the twentieth-century Marxist political thinkers around the world. ‘Using Gramsci A New Approach’ is one of the most recent additions to various works done around the Prison Notebooks of this Great Italian political theorist and cultural critics. Michele Filippini, a researcher in the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the University of Bologna has come up with ‘a new approach’ on Prison Notebooks and has touched some major concepts that are previously given little attention by Gramscian scholars. By extending Gramsci’s concepts beyond Marxist perspective, Filippini’s book provides expert guides to key features and themes in Gramsci’s writing in combination with the pressing political, social and cultural struggles of our time. The author does not show a clear connection between those topics discussed in the book, but his work remains a valuable addition to Gramscian thoughts in the twenty-first century. Key Words: Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, ideology, the individual, Society


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-219
Author(s):  
Meindert E. Peters

Friedrich Nietzsche's influence on Isadora Duncan's work, in particular his idea of the Dionysian, has been widely discussed, especially in regard to her later work. What has been left underdeveloped in critical examinations of her work, however, is his influence on her earlier choreographic work, which she defended in a famous speech held in 1903 called The Dance of the Future. While commentators often describe this speech as ‘Nietzschean’, Duncan's autobiography suggests that she only studied Nietzsche's work after this speech. I take this incongruity as a starting point to explore the connections between her speech and Nietzsche's work, in particular his Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I argue that in subject and language Duncan's speech resembles Nietzsche's in important ways. This article will draw attention to the ways in which Duncan takes her cues from Nietzsche in bringing together seemingly conflicting ideas of religion and an overturning of morality; Nietzsche's notion of eternal recurrence and the teleology present in his idea of the Übermensch; and a renegotiation of the body's relation to the mind. In doing so, this article contributes not only to scholarship on Duncan's early work but also to discussions of Nietzsche's reception in the early twentieth century. Moreover, the importance Duncan ascribes to the body in dance and expression also asks for a new understanding of Nietzsche's own way of expressing his philosophy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 096372142199204
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Mellers ◽  
Siyuan Yin ◽  
Jonathan Z. Berman

Is the pain of a loss greater in magnitude than the pleasure of a comparable gain? Studies that compare positive feelings about a gain with negative feelings about a comparable loss have found mixed answers to this question. The pain of a loss can be greater than, less than, or equal to the pleasure of a comparable gain. We offer a new approach to test hedonic loss aversion. This method uses emotional reactions to the reference point, a positive change, and a negative change. When we manipulated the reference point (i.e., pleasurable and painful), two distinct patterns emerged. Pain surpassed pleasure (loss aversion) when the reference point was positive, and pleasure exceeded pain (gain seeking) when the reference point was negative. A reference-dependent version of prospect theory accounts for the results. If the carriers of utility are changes from a reference point—not necessarily the status quo—both loss aversion and gain seeking are predicted. Loss aversion and gain seeking can be reconciled if you take the starting point into account.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
pp. 195-208
Author(s):  
Silvia Mei

Brevity in experimental Italian theatre is not merely an expressive dimension of scenic creation, but a forma mentis, a conceptual vocation of young companies. The 2000s produced a minor theatre in Italy – first because of the reduced stage size, and second because of the brevity of works such as installation pieces. Moving from the linguistic disintegration of the historical avant-gardes of the twentieth century, this theatre is especially inspired by the visual arts, even though its historical roots remain fragmented and art is still seen in the synthetic language of modern dance and Futurist variety. Short forms actually become a tool for crossing artistic genres and languages. Starting from Deleuze’s and Guattari’s philosophical concept of minor literature, in this article Silvia Mei explores and analyzes work by such Italian contemporary companies as gruppo nanou, Città di Ebla, Anagoor, Opera, ErosAntEros, and Teatro Sotterraneo – all representative of what can be called installation theatre, a new theatrical wave that crosses the boundaries and specificities of artistic language, leading to the deterritorialization of theatre itself, a rethinking of the artistic work as well as its relationship with the audience. Silvia Mei is Adjunct Professor of the History of Theatre Directing and Theatre Iconography at the University of Bologna, having been a Research Fellow at the University of Turin. Her recent publications include ‘La terza avanguardia: ortografie dell’ultima scena italiana’, in Culture Teatrali, No. 14 (2015), and Displace Altofest (Valletta: Malta 2018 Foundation).


1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillel Schwartz

“Oh, Mr. Pym, this breaks the heart,” lamented Sir Richard Grosvenor in the House of Commons in 1629; “if God be God, let us follow him, and if Baal be God, let us follow him, and no longer halt between two opinions.” The Baalites, it was clear to the Commons, were the Arminians, who threatened “the very ruin and desolation if not dissolution of Religion in this land.” Such was the threat of Arminianism that when the Commons presented its Protestations on March 2, the first article read,Whosoever shall bring in innovation in Religion, or by favour or countenance, seek to extend or introduce Popery or Arminianism or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this Kingdom and Commonwealth.This was no ordinary condemnation of schism or theological haggling. The members of the Commons shared a strong suspicion of Arminianism as a political as well as religious heresy. They had a clear idea of what English Arminianism was and who was an Arminian. Before 1624, no Englishman had even been accused of Arminianism, either in Parliament or in contemporary literature devoted to religious controversies. How did the definition of English Arminianism develop between 1624 and 1629? How did Arminianism, originally a moderate Dutch Calvinism, come to be considered along with Popery as a treasonable theology?At the turn of the seventeeth century, Jacobus Arminius, Divinity Reader at the University of Leyden, had proposed a theological compromise between Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian Protestantism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document