Priest, Philosopher, and Theologian Pavel Florensky in the Perception of Generations (in the Russian Emigration and Russia)

The article discusses some works on priest Pavel Florensky’s philosophical and theological legacy of the 1930s–2020s. The author of the article has examined changes in the perception of Florensky and his ideas among Russian émigré philosophers as well as in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. The difference in such assessments is clearly visible in two reviews of 1930 of the priest’s book called The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. The review written by G.V. Florovsky has a critical bias, while that of V.N. Ilyin is very positive. We find a more comprehensive expression of Ilyin’s attitude to Florensky in the article Father Pavel Florensky. The Silenced Great Miracle of Twentieth Century Science (1969). The works published in the Russian emigration are characterized by subjectivity due to lack of sources, as most of Florensky’s works remained unpublished. In Soviet Russia, one of the most famous works about Florensky was S.S. Khoruzhy’s book named Florensky’s World View (1999). In this book, Father Pavel’s worldview was reconstructed from the perspective of “existential” experience. S.M. Polovinkin gave another, “personalistic” interpretation in his book Christian Personalism of Priest Pavel Florensky (2015). Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev) was the first to highlight the significance of anthropodicy and its connection with theodicy in his work Theodicy and Anthropodicy in Priest Pavel Florensky’s Works (1998). He presented Florensky’s worldview as a system of concrete metaphysics, combining theodicy and anthropodicy. Moreover, he refuted the popular misconception of Florensky’s philosophy as “the allunity metaphysics.” Further, Hegumen Andronik wrote a fundamental work on Florensky’s life and works that he named The Way to God (2012–2020). The present article states that Hegumen Andronik’s work trailed the path to objective research, overcoming the inertia of thought that arose from bias and lack of sources.

The antinomy of gehenna: Pavel Florensky's contribution to debates on hell and universalism

In The Pillar and Ground of the Truth Pavel Florensky presents an account of hell, or ‘Gehenna’, that synthesises two seemingly irreconcilable claims: that God will save all people, and that some people will reject God forever. In insisting that both claims are true, and by recasting standard categories of final judgement, purgation and human identity, Florensky produces a novel contribution in contemporary debates about hell and universalism. I begin by surveying his account, then address two key interpretive questions raised by his critics, and conclude by situating his account within modern western conversations.

Metaphysical Foundations of the Sacred Image Concept by P.A. Florensky

The article analyzes the influence of the basic “concrete metaphysics” ideas of Pavel Florensky, and in particular sophiology and the concept of symbolic reality, on his theory of the sacred image.

‘Synergy’, ‘energy’ and ‘symbol’ in Pavel Florensky and Palamism

This article is a study of Pavel Florensky's philosophy of symbol in the context of his discovery of Palamism in the 1910s, when Florensky started to speak of symbol using Palamite language. It proposes a fundamental difference between Florensky's and Palamas’ teachings on symbol: Palamas views a natural symbol as the energy of an essence, while for Florensky symbol is the essence itself, the energy of which synergises with the energies of other essence. In this context the prehistory of the concept of synergy in Florensky is studied, leading to the identification of a further difference in the ontologies of Florensky and Palamas: while Florensky's ‘essence-energy’ has the property of necessary correlation with the ‘other’, following the tendencies of the philosophy of that epoch, in Palamas ‘energy’ does not presuppose any necessary correlation with the ‘other’. The author connects this difference in ontologies between the two thinkers with their respective teachings on symbol.

UNCREATED LIGHT AND DAZZLING DARKNESS: BYZANTIUM OF AVANT-GARDE

Avant-Garde painters were amazed by fifteenth to sixteenth century “old style” Russian icons, which saw the light of the day in the early twentieth century after two centuries of prohibition. In the seventeenth century, ascetic had been replaced by “Western” mimetic images. Icons had a massive impact on Mikhail Larionov, the founder of Rayonism, who wrote that “Russian icon painters <…> were strongly drawn towards abstraction”. In 1913 he organized an exhibition of his Rayonnist paintings with rays of light reflected from objects. Kazimir Malevich was also influenced by icons. In his theoretical writings, he refers to Gospels. Launching his Suprematism at the “0,10 Exhibition” in 1915, Malevich placed his masterpiece in the “beautiful corner”, as an icon. Alexandre Benois said that the Black Square is a “cult of emptiness, darkness, ‘nothing’”. It will be justified that it was another type of darkness, connected to the concepts of “uncreated light” and “dazzling darkness” in Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory Palamas’ theology. I refer to Pavel Florensky and Sergey Bulgakov’s philosophy to demonstrate how an application of Palamas’ theory, hesychasm, was reflected in fifteenth-sixteenth-century icon-painting and later in Avant-Garde theory and paintings, in particular by those of Larionov and Malevich.

“OVERBOARD FROM ABSOLUTE”. THE CRITIQUE OF KANT IN AVANT-GARDE’S EPOCH

In his treatise on Suprematism, Kazimir Malevich criticises transcendentalism and contrasts it with transcendence. Malevich is critical of the transcendental paradigm, as he essentially turns out to be a platonist. Pavel Florensky also criticizes transcendentalism – that precedes Malevich in time. Florensky views Kant as rooted in a “human” perspective and matches him with Plato. Florensky’s proposal, like Malevich’s later, is to return the transcendent. By comparing Florensky’s work on aesthetics and Malevich’s theory of new art, one sees that both authors criticize the illusionistic character of perspective and European painting. Florensky continued the concept of “reverse perspective” in iconography. Malevich argued that his fellows felt a close connection to the icon. It is also known that both Florensky and Malevich taught at art institutes (GINHUK and VKhUTEMAS) and worked to protect cultural heritage. In the theoretical works on metaphysics and art, the positions of Malevich and Florensky converge, as both were platonic. Thus, it is important to compare these figures in their different guises in order to identify the features of the revolutionary era

Petrović’s Phenomenology and Florensky’s Platonism

Mihailo Petrović Alas’s mathematical phenomenology has been studied in the philosophy of the magical name, which is a mythological approach to Platonism originating with Pavel Florensky. The inadequacy of its interpretations lies in the impossibility of being expressed through the language of modern mathematics which is based on the concept of sets. In this respect, Petrović’s phenomenology requires a methodological advance, which this paper discusses. The emphasis is on the spectral method that merges phenomena into a continuum, thus establishing a connection to the Pythagorean myth. The use of kynematical concepts in the description of spectral rhythm suggests that the digit positions of the positioning system denote time, which makes the continuum a developed magical name.

Vladimir Soloviev and Pavel Florensky: variation on the theme of platonism

The topic identified in the title of this article drew researchers’ attention not just once, so in the beginning a short overview of the works available on this topic as well as problem areas and the names of scientists involved in this issue are presented. It is highlighted that Vladimir Solovyov had influence on the creative development of Pavel Florensky mainly due to his written works, since they were representatives of different generations, as also to acquaintance with his close circle. The facts of the biographies of Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Florensky are given: family, university studies, etc. The author emphasizes influence of Plato’s work on both Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Florensky. The topic of unity of «theory and life» by Plato and Vladimir Solovyov is explained, it is emphasized that the latter failed to achieve the unity. The theme of love in understanding of Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Florensky is revealed through their personal experiences and philosophy. Finally, the article states that both philosophers are metaphysical authors, on whom Plato’s philosophy had a decisive influence.

Personality According to Priest Pavel Florensky

В статье выясняются отдельные проблемные вопросы философии П. А. Флоренского, относящиеся к его учению о личности. Прослеживаются мировоззренческие основания, логика и следствия таких, на первый взгляд парадоксальных, утверждений о том, что Крест представляет собой личность; ею же являются стихии, животные и растения; человек же, напротив, способен утратить свою личность. С последним связано антиномичное понимание вечных мук. Объяснить данные философские и богословские положения помогает софиология священника Павла Флоренского, дающая теоцентрическую установку во взгляде на мир, открывающая его благость, разумность и единство. Основной вывод исследования говорит о предельно широком восприятии Флоренским личного начала: всё сущее лично. The article elucidates some problematic questions of P. A. Florensky’s philosophy related to his teaching about personality. The author traces the ideological foundations, logic and consequences of seemingly paradoxical statements that the Cross is a person, and so are the elements, animals and plants; a human, on the contrary, is able to lose his personality. The latter statement is associated with an antinomic understanding of eternal torment. It is Florensky’s sophiology that helps to explain these philosophical and theological positions, providing a theocentric attitude to the world that reveals its goodness, rationality, and unity. The study concludes that Florensky’s perception of the principle of personality is extremely broad: everything that exists is personal.