Georgi Kapriev

The article analyzes the interpretation of the nature of time according to the view of Byzantine philosophers, highlighting its receptive distance from the Hellenic tradition and its significant divergence from Western Christian philosophy, as well as from the Descartes-Newtonian concept of time. The definition of time that forms the core of Byzantine philosophical thought on the temporal and trans-temporal dimensions of being was coined by Basil the Great: time is an interval (or extension – διάστημα) coextensive with the existence of the cosmos. Crucially, time is not necessarily tied to motion, there is no causal connection between time and movement. Time and aeon, with all the differences between them, are diastemic, but eternity is not. However, they are not simply parallel and distinct, but genetically related. The beginning (ἀρχή) of time itself has an adiastemic character. It includes in itself significant properties of the aeonic and the eternal. The dynamic interaction of time, aeon and eternity is still found in Jesus Christ himself and in the topoi of the divine actions in the world. Time, aeon and eternity form a network in which they work and are together in a common dynamic. It is the network of world history which will be removed only after the end of the world.

In posing the question of the interpretation of the nature of time according to the view of the Byzantine philosophers, it should be noted that they determined themselves as Christian philosophers.{1} Their pre-predicative basis is the Christian worldview. Their concepts of time, however, differ in significant ways from the understanding of Western Christian philosophy and already decidedly from the Descartes-Newtonian concept of time.

1.Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis, VI, 8, 67, in Clementis Alexandrini Opera, vol. III, ed. D. Wilhelm, Oxford, 1869, 177,16; Gregorius Nyssenus, De vita sancti Gregorii Thaumaturgi, in: PG 46, 905C; Maximus Confessor, Mystagogia, 5, in PG 91, 673B. Already Paul actually writes about a φιλοσοφία κατὰ Χριστὸν, which is opposed to the φιλοσοφία κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου – Colossians 2. 8.

This paper reflects on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on religious life in Bulgaria, especially in the Orthodox Church, and on the sphere of academic teaching. The picture that emerges against the background of the moderate COVID-19 measures and the non-closure of churches is rather disturbing, given the aggressive attacks by non-believers against ecclesial practice. It testifies to widespread superstition and deep theological ignorance even among those who designate themselves as ‘Orthodox Christians’. The compromise of university education during the COVID-19 panic and the radical changes to the social way of thinking go—as a basis of the perplexity of the social mind—hand in hand with the destruction of the democratic world order by Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The text offers a detailed reflection on the results of almost 20 years of work focusing on the paradigm of Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), including the application of concepts and methods inherent in Byzantine philosophy. The motivation for such reflection is based on the opportunity to expand and systematize latest research insights on the same topic by Ivan Chalakov and Stoyan Tanev. The starting point is the attempt to unfold the sociological explanations of phenomena such as endurance, resistance and innovation, which are difficult to explain through the paradigms of classical sociology. The suggestedanalysis adopts concepts such as essence-power-energy, hexis, perichōrēsis, hypostasis, prosōpon andbody, to refine some of the positions characteristic of the ANT paradigm and propose new ones that allow to problematize the principle of symmetry, the understating of initiative, essence and the figure of the actor. The developed point of view is demonstrated by analyzing some of the paradoxes inherent in the understanding of the human hypostasis and the questions emerging from the theoretical prescriptions of transhumanism.

Introduction

Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) was articulated in the 1970s by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and their followers. It abandoned the ‘Cartesian’ subject-object scheme and challenged the existing sociological concepts of activity. Its emphasis is on the network interactivity between human and non-human beings. At the very beginning of the twenty-first century, Ivan Tchalakov and I initiated a research project focusing on exploring the ANT paradigm with a focus on social phenomena that were, in fact, unexplained by sociology at that time, such as endurance, persistence, resis- tance, and innovation. The key elements of our theoretical apparatus were based on the teachings and concepts of Byzantine philosophers. These concepts are: es- sence-power-energy, hexis, perichōrēsis, hypostasis, prosōpon, body. The results of our research problematized (by questioning the existing typology of social actions) the ANT concept of ‘translation’, which is used by ANT scholars as a replacement of the concept of ‘action’, and relativized the idea of ‘symmetry’, which is absolu- tized by the representatives of ANT. The application of the Byzantine conceptual apparatus opened new horizons, helped articulating new problems and challenges, opened new perspectives, as well as made it possible to refine and deepen the focus of the research project.

Georgios Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1454 under the name Gennadios II, formulated the ‘essence-energy’ distinction, emblematic for the Byzantine tradition, using the scheme of Duns Scotus: the figure of distinctio formalis a parte rei. Today, some scholars attempt  to  contrast  Scholarios’  solution with the concept of distinctio realis, which they ascribe to Palamas, thereby seeking to demonstrate an incom­ mensurability between the two. The thesis suggested by this perspective is that, in making use of Latin (Thomistic, but also Scotist) metaphysical logic, Scholarios shsows a way out of the deadlock to which the philosophical clumsiness of Palamas and of his direct successors had lead. From this point of view, many assert that Scholarios’ position is non-Palamite or at best nominally Palamite. The purpose of this text is to critically compare the positions of Scholarios and Palamas,  thus clarifying the following  questions:  Does the Palamite tradition dispense with its own internal resources to formulate Scholarios’ solution? What is Scholarios’ attitude towards the Western tradition?

George Scholarios ¹ (called Gennadios II, Patriarch of Constantinople, following his enthronement in 1454) is portrayed as a ‘Byzantine Thomist’, even ‘the greatest of the Byzantine Thomists’, ² although he acted as the leader of the Palamite party in Constantinople from 1444 onward. At the time, he was mainly thought of as belonging to the pro-Thomists in Byzantium, although it became clear early on that he was open to several schools of thought, which wrought minor influences on  his  approach.³ As early as  the  beginning  of  the  1930s,  Martin  Jugie  supported the thesis-which remains  influential  in  our  current  era-that  in his  formulation of the essence-energy distinction (emblematic both of Byzantine philosophy and systematic Palamism) Scholarios relies on the scheme of distinction employed by