PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP PANELS
Please consult the Call for Papers as well. Prospective participants can EITHER submit an abstract for a short paper addressing a subject pertaining to the general theme of the conference for a non-thematic session OR submit an abstract for a short paper to be included in one of the following thematic workshops/panels. Each of the following panels may consist of one or more three-paper sessions, depending on the number of participants. Each participant can present only one short paper, be it in a workshop panel or in a non-thematic panel. (Duration of each short paper: 20 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes for questions).
Human and divine personhood:
how does the ontological fit with the historical?
Chair: Pui Him Ip (University of Cambridge)
This panel seeks to explore models of personhood that take into account both the ontological dimension of the notion and the importance of its situatedness within history. It has two core aims: (a) to explore different ways in which the ontological and the historical dimension of personhood fit together, (b) to discover the tensions or issues that arise when one tries construct such an account. Constructive accounts of personhood, engagement with particular theologians/philosophers and proposals in relation to Christology and/or Trinitarian theology are most welcome. Proposals that put philosophical and theological discussions of personhood into dialogue are particularly encouraged.
Modern Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, and the Question of Christian Eschatology
Chair: Revd Prof. Nikolaos Loudovikos (University Ecclesiastical Academy of Thessaloniki)
The workshop seeks to investigate two initial questions: 1) to what extent have philosophical and psychological modes of thought influenced the articulation of Christian eschatology and 2) under what circumstances does Christian eschatology have something ontologically new to say. A third question is also evaluated, which naturally follows from the two above and which concerns the possible engagement of Christian eschatology with post-modern narratives of history. These narratives also draw their hidden metaphysics from the dissolution of classical metaphysics, which, nevertheless, post- modern proponents would like to deny. In light of the engagement of these fundamental questions, a re-evaluation of modern theological eschatology is attempted.
Ontology and History
between German Idealism and Maximus the Confessor
Chair: Sotiris Mitralexis (Freie Universität Berlin)
Hans Urs von Balthasar was the first to note, in his seminal monograph Kosmische Liturgie, that the Maximian synthesis can be seen as a predecessor to German Idealism and Modernity. It is Maximus' turn from the common Platonic and Neoplatonic 'objective' idealism to his distinct 'subjective', or rather relational, idealism that forms the basis for this. Maximus does not trace the truth of beings in impersonal ideas residing beyond the sensible world but in the logoi, i.e. the wills, intentions and utterances of a personal being (a subject) residing beyond createdness, within the relationship with which the contemplation of these logoi by the human person is possible. However, the emergence of created beings in the horizon of history not merely as logoi, but also as distinct modes of existence (tropoi) and always towards an eschatological end (telos) that ultimately discloses their truth stresses the historicity of this ontological process in an unprecedented manner. This historical process of dialectical relationship and antithesis between the logoi and the tropoi, along with Maximus' famous and numerous hermeneutic antithetical triads (e.g. being, well being, ever being etc), can be fruitfully approached with reference, e.g., to Hegel. In this workshop, we will attempt to compare German Idealism and Maximus the Confessor (as well as related Church Fathers) on the philosophical problems arising from the interplay between ontology and history.
Politics and Theology at ‘the End of History’
Chair: Jared Schumacher (KU Leuven)
What is the relationship between metaphysics and ontology, on the one hand, and history and politics on the other? Do all political systems require a legitimation that only ontology can provide (i.e. an ideal(ised) account of how things are or should be as a map for social construction), or is “sovereignty” merely historical detritus, the wreckage of failed religio-political regimes dashed against the rock of secular democracy? Is all attempt at political justification utopian, or is political thought merely a veil for ‘the will to power’? Taking a conceptual set back, do cities even “exist” or are they merely cultural constructs (mental/actual)? Are humans truly ‘political animals’ or are they meta-political? What role does human “belief/faith” play in the operation of politics, or history for that matter? Is it the same or different from religious belief? Relatedly, what role should theology play in ‘the political’? Does (salvation) history challenge political narratives or license them? The burgeoning revival of interest in Carl Schmitt’s conception of “political theology” and its retrieval for use in philosophy and theology call for intense scrutiny. Given that we live in what Charles Taylor has called ‘a secular age’, the so-called ‘return of religion’ to political discourse seems to violate the metaphysical neutrality imaged by modern democratic systems; yet, Taylor himself calls for a religious secularism of sorts. Is this a contradiction, a pragmatic compromise, or an ontologically principled political strategy which challenges (or else supports?) modern conventions? How do the Orthodox conceptions of “sobornost” or “symphonia” aid in addressing these questions? This panel will focus on issues related to how ontology and history interact in a complex way at the intersection of politics and theology. We encourage papers on the concept of political theology, political ontology, faith in the context of (post-)secularity, the history of political philosophy as it relates to ontology or theology, and related topics.
History and Ontology 'Performed': A Liturgical Perspective
Chair: Vika Lebzyak (KU Leuven)
In the Christian tradition (Catholic and Orthodox especially), the liturgical celebration is a privileged space for the encounter and interaction between human history and divine reality. Liturgy weaves together in practice what is envisioned as the unity of history and ontology in theological theory. The ecclesial assembly, gathered on a particular day of the week, enters into the dimension of the eternal Kingdom hence sanctifying, not escaping, their particular time and history. The eschatological promise of the “new creation” becomes an ontological reality at the moment the Church participates in the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. The liturgy makes the past (and ongoing) event of salvation present by means of rites, prayers, and sacraments. Human history and temporality are thus fundamental and indeed “required” for the actualization of the soteriological presence of Christ in the world. In light of these statements, this panel invites reflections on the relationship among liturgy, history, and ontology within the Christian tradition. The following questions provide the thematic direction this panel envisions to undertake. How does the liturgy account for human ontology and historicity within its eschatological profile? How does liturgical celebration elucidate the connection between the particularity of the present moment and the universality of the history of salvation? Does the liturgy possess the resources to acknowledge and affirm the ongoing character of Revelation? What does the anamnetic nature of the Eucharist have to offer to the discussion on the relationship between the Christ event of the past and its presence in the here and now? If history and ontology are interrelated liturgically, what does such a conclusion entail for systematic theology and theological anthropology?
Times of Eternity: The Time of Pure Forms, The Time of Christ, The Time of Visio Beatifica
Chair: Marcin Podbielski (Ignatianum Academy, Krakow)
The panel proposes three papers which tackle different aspects of time, if viewed from the perspective of eternity. They lead the listener through a circle, from creation of time, through its being reconnected with its source in Christ, who can be ontologically described as the frontier of time and the eternal, to the term and purpose of time, which is deification of nature in every particular human. The papers present, therefore, a theological perspective on the philosophy of time, which seems to be incomplete if the arrow of the irreversible structure of events does not find its end.
Thus the three proposals show, in various ways, how, on the one hand, it is impossible to reduce time to an abstract dimension of events or objects. The papers emphasize the reality of changes that we experience as humans, the true indecisiveness of future, and true continuous identity of the present, which is—always—not past any more, yet will always be past. On the other hand, this view of time, if perceived from the perspective of the eternity and the Divine, either conceptualized as the world of Forms, or described so as Christian theology describes God and His Incarnation, does not amount to presentism or growing-block theory of time. This is because the ever-changing present is grounded ontologically and teleologically in the eternal. The first paper focuses on time viewed in Plato’s Parmenides as an ontological framework constructed in order to make change and, hence, the non-eternal world, possible. Such time unites, within its structure, formality and indetermination, and makes even participation of Forms temporalized. The second paper shows, through the approach of Cyril of Alexandria, how temporality and eternity are both present, still not confused, in Incarnation of Christ, and how His being born in time as a human is related to Him being eternally Begotten from the Father. Incarnation, described in this terms, makes it possible for the never fulfilled reality of temporal being to aspire for and be granted fulfillment. The third paper discusses, through an analysis of Aquinas’ doctrine of Visio Beatifica, how a personal history of a human, living and changing in time, is fulfilled and receives the ultimate ontological grounding in what is not merely a realization of human aspiration to complete happiness, but, above all, transformation and deification of human nature. Viewed in this way, time, as a true and continuous transformation of the present, finds its purpose and the ultimate boundless present in the eternity of the divinely transformed nature.
1. “Plato’s Parmenides: Time and Continuity in Pure Forms”
The paper “Plato’s Parmenides: Time and Continuity in Pure Forms” is proposed by Marcin Podbielski from Akademia Ignatianum, the Jesuit University of Cracow. It examines the definition of time offered by the main speaker of Plato’s Parmenides in the first hypothesis of the dialogue’s second part. The definition is shown as a kind of apparently purely formal structure, built out of simpler Forms that are bound by participation of one Form in another. Structural eternity and circular infinity are embedded, according to this definition, within the formal fabric of time. This approach to time appears to be applied in the Timaeus, where time gives change its structure and continuity. Yet, this view seems to be contradicted by a different approach to time already in the last argument of the same first hypothesis. There, the temporalized usage of the verb “to be,” referred to purely formal relations, involves participation of forms in temporality.
This double approach to time just within the first hypothesis of the dialogue reveals the inner triplicity of time, which presents itself as a structure, pure continuity, and a modality of being. More importantly, it shows how time binds together the two sides of formality. On the one hand, we give, since Plato, the name of Forms to purely abstract structures, no matter what kind of existence or subsistence is assigned to them. Such Forms, in various Platonic standpoints, are attributed the feature of eternality. On the other hand, those Forms can hardly be dissociated from the physical reality which they shape. The infinite loop within the apparently purely formal time of Plato’s Parmenides and a temporalized view of participation make the formal reality inseparable from the contingent world, even if our mind detaches the former from the latter and plays various conceptual games about Forms. Time emerges as the most omnipresent and invisible order within the world of change. As such, it fulfills the criteria of being a Form. Through its inner infinity, however, it is close also to the inner dyadic character of Plato’s Receptacle.
2. “Cyril of Alexandria on the Only Begotten and First Born: Philosophical Underpinnings and Contents of the Deductions of the Properties of Coming-to-be older and younger than Self/Other”
The paper “Cyril of Alexandria on the Only Begotten and First Born” is offered by Sergey Trostyanskiy from Union Theological Seminary, New York. In his presentation, the author would like to revisit the themes of qualified and unqualified coming-to-be of the Word of God in Cyril of Alexandria. While the first type of coming-to-be of God the Word is depicted by Cyril as being removed from any temporal associations (i.e. the subject of his eternal begetting), the second type of coming-to-be, i.e. coming-to-be in human conditions (i.e. of the Incarnation), attributes temporal predicates to the Word. The issue of conflicting properties (atemporal vs. temporal) and conflicting names (i.e. Only-Begotten vs. First Born) associated with diverging points of reference of scriptural affirmations (i.e. those of theologia and oikonomia) is an interesting one in this context. Cyril’s Scholia offers a set of deductions of both atemporal and temporal properties predicated of the Word and qualified by the terms of “according to nature” and “according to the Incarnation” or in relation to self and other. In his presentation, the author will critically re-evaluate Cyril’s philosophical underpinnings and readmit some late Platonist speculations (in particular emphasizing the creative input of Iamblichus) to early Christian thought. Here I will focus on the subject of the second hypothesis of the Parmenides as far as the properties of coming-to-be older and younger than self/other and of being of the same age with self/other are concerned. The author will argue that Cyril’s discourse incorporated certain aspects of late Platonism into his theological and oikonomical speculations.
3. “Deification in Aquinas: Atemporal Completion of a Personal Temporal History”
The paper “Deification in Aquinas: Atemporal Completion of a Personal Temporal History” is offered by Anna Zhyrkova from Akademia Ignatianum, the Jesuit University of Cracow. The author intends to show that the proper place to look for Aquinas’ philosophical view of time is his theological anthropology in general, and his idea of deification in particular.
It is frequently assumed in current scholarship that Aquinas philosophical views can be discussed in abstraction from the theology he builds and from the inner structure of theological thinking. Hence, for instance, his views on time are shown as a philosophical conception in its own right. They may be discussed as a cyclical conception of history, criticized as confusion between A- and B-theory of time, or explored through opposition of a linear view of human time and non-linear eternity. The author believes that these approaches commit, in various ways, the same methodological error of absolutizing Aquinas’ claims that serve, in actuality, a theological purpose and have to be treated as organic elements of a theologically inspired anthropology.
In Aquinas, time as well as eternity are conditions of human ontological realization. The author proposes to scrutinize Aquinas’ vision of time, considering it, primarily, as road to a fulfillment of a human’s personal and temporal history. This road brings human to an essentially different level of ontological existence, which is a-temporal, yet constitutes the pivotal fulfillment of what is temporal. This is because human fulfillment, paradoxically, has to be strived for, but cannot be achieved in human temporal life. It is reached only in visio beatifica that amounts, as the author will argue, to deification of human nature granted by Divine grace.