Philosophy and divinity: worldview parallels
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №10 - 2018
Author: Kossichenko Anatolij, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Chief Researcher
Institute of Philosophy, Political Science and Religious Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan
The question of philosophical parallels of philosophy and divinity
is, first of all, a practical question. This seems to be a paradox: to name
theological and philosophical problems practically significant. But it is just
that. The life of any person and society as a whole cannot be completely
dissolved in everyday life. There is always a desire to somehow reflect on
their lives. For the comprehension of life, it is necessary to turn to
life-sense dimensions. And it is here that we are confronted with philosophy
and, although less often, with theology. And divinity is most often present as
if virtually, imaginary, in a projection. But it exists as a deep reflection on
being. The “practicality” of the designated problematic consists in the fact
that without a conscious (in one way or another) involvement of the
philosophical or doctrinal context in the process of “giving” the meaning of
life to both man and society, it is impossible to detect this meaning. In
reality, the designated issues appear as a variety of ideological foundations
of social and individual life. Neither philosophy, nor even divinity, says that
their goal is to produce a world view, they really aim at something else, but
they produce a world view as a “by-product” of their activities. A worldview
arising from divinity is a religious worldview, while philosophy generates a
whole spectrum of worldview systems (from close religious to extremely liberal
on the basis of postmodernism). Therefore, the question of the relationship
between philosophy and divinity, both in their direct connection and in
ideological projections, is important for solving a number of pressing problems
of our time. Due to the extensive content of the issues raised in the article,
we limit ourselves to our consideration only by Christian divinity and,
accordingly, by the Western type of philosophizing.
In this work, all the methods necessary for the analysis of the
assigned tasks are used that are adequate to the subject of both philosophy and
divinity. This is a historical approach; comparative analysis; dialectical
methods: the unity of opposites, unity in diversity, the unity of historical
and logical; inner methods for the content of theology: hermeneutics,
axiological, analysis of dogmas, cognitive (in its correlation with faith),
patristic instructions and others. As the need arises different methods come in
the foreground in our study, sometimes in the form of some of their certain
The subject of philosophy and the subject of divinity
Divinity has God as its subject. But philosophy tries to describe
and understand the world outside of God. Therefore, the subject matter and the
specific content of divinity and philosophy are essentially different.
So, the subject of divinity is God. And then through the mediation
of God, the subjects of divinity are: the man, the world, nature, etc.
By placing God at the center of all its research, divinity does not claim to
“know” God. It is known that “God cannot be known” and “God is known only by
the Son and the one to whom the Son will reveal the knowledge of God”.
Therefore, although divinity is the knowledge of God, it is not the knowledge
in its traditional philosophical meaning, but rather an approach to God through
the fulfillment of His commandments - deification. In this context, knowledge
is of an auxiliary nature. In philosophy, knowledge, learning, and
consciousness have an independent meaning; they, along with a man, are the
central subject of philosophy.
Divinity can be without the “word about God”. Divinity is both a
prayer, and a monastic feat, and the Christian life in the world, and patristic
writings. This is also liturgy. According to the largest Orthodox theologians,
the Liturgy is the central content of divinity [Schmemann, 2006]. That is, it
is not at all the knowledge of God, not a teaching about Him, not a search for
His properties and qualities, but a connection with Him through participation
in the Sacraments. The personal God of Christianity makes deification possible,
as the process of approaching God through humility and repentance.
It is necessary to understand that divinity, as the “word about God”
contains in itself an unavoidable contradiction. The word, in its modern sense,
is inevitably associated with a rational attitude to reality, to being, to
knowledge. Today the word is even too rationally and logically overloaded with
meaning (and all this considering the conventionality, lightness and almost
jargon character of the modern language). These qualities are considered essential
for the word. Of course, there are also poorly rationalized and
low-verification words. But they relate to quite specific areas: myths, fairy
tales, mysticism and, in part, ordinary thinking. The word in divinity, that
is, the concepts of divine science, as well as the concepts of any science, is
quite rational. But divinity, as the “word about God,” cannot be rational:
after all, the subject of theological science is God, which is fundamentally
inexpressible in rational terms.
The contradiction of divinity as a science follows from the fact
that in Christianity God is often referred to as the Word (“In the beginning
there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John
1.1). So, it turns out that divinity is the word about the Word: our human word
is about an infinite, eternal, unknowable Word. It is difficult, almost
impossible. Thus, in divinity, our word about the Word is reduced to a human,
limited understanding of the Word. Therefore, divinity is a decline, reduction
and even somewhere a profanation of God.
And yet, divinity is the ultimate form of conceptual comprehension
of God possible for a man. Divinity is an attempt to rationalize God to a
certain extent. We say “to some extent”, since divinity is not the same as
faith, which does not need rationality, but divinity still needs it, because it
speaks of God to all people: both believers and unbelievers. But divinity is
different from theology. Theology is even more rational than divinity.
Philosophy treats the world rationally (with the exception of
mystical philosophy). But “mystical philosophy” is, in fact, not a “pure” kind
of philosophy. The subject of classical philosophy is the most common laws of
being, thinking, social development. But once again we emphasize that this
entire subject area of philosophy is studied by rational means, and by no means
The interaction of philosophy
In the very beginning it should be emphasized that, despite the
presence of the so-called “religious philosophy”, nevertheless, as a special
integral phenomenon, philosophy does not make the subject of “the doctrine of
God”. In this respect, philosophy is far from divinity. Philosophy and divinity
come from different perceptions the world, from different worldviews: divinity
comes from the presence of God and His all-determining role, and philosophy
rests on the idea of the natural and scientific origin of the world and the
man. It is clear that the content, aspirations and methods of divinity and
philosophy differ significantly.
But there is also a certain unity of philosophy and divinity. This
unity goes back to the undifferentiated unity of an ancient thought: when myths
involved both philosophy, and science, and the doctrine of God. Therefore, when
philosophy refers to other (non-philosophical) sources of its development, it
implicitly appeals precisely to that syncretism that existed in antiquity. And
when philosophy resorts to divinity, it partly returns to this period of
syncretism. To what extent such an appeal is justified is another question:
perhaps philosophy lost the right to appeal to the undifferentiated unity of
the reflection of being in thought. Philosophy has gone too far from this
unity, it has gained too much specific content in the intervening time.
Philosophy is also developing, receiving an impulse from other
things: life, culture, God. For some time philosophy can develop on this basis,
but the resulting impulse exhausts over time. That is, philosophy is fueled
from other spiritual sources. Philosophy is enriched when it resorts to
doctrinal concepts - the latter are much deeper. This great depth of doctrinal
concepts is explained by the subject of divinity - by God, who is by definition
deeper of all things.
Divinity, in turn, benefits almost nothing from philosophy addressing
it. Philosophy greatly distorts divine truths. We can talk about the popularization
of divinity by means of philosophy - and it would be good, but still divine
truths are distorted, and divinity is not conferred to a man through
philosophy. “Religion can do without philosophy, its sources are absolute and
self-sufficient, but philosophy cannot do without religion, it needs religion
as food, as a source of living water. Religion is the lifeblood of philosophy,
religion feeds philosophy with real being” [Berdyayev 2002, p. 35]. Divinity
may resort to philosophy, thus supporting some aspects of its content. “Without
giving particular preference to any philosophical system, the Church always
quite freely uses philosophy and other sciences with apologetic goals, but it
never protects these relative and changeable truths, as it protects the
immutable truth of its dogmas” [Lossky 1991, p. 162].
Philosophy seeks to comprehend the “last reason”, the essence of
things, the internal laws of being. She seeks to go beyond only the cognitive
attitude towards reality and touch upon the problems of the spiritual. That is,
according to the intention, philosophy is close to divinity, which by
definition speaks of God, who is not knowable as a matter of principle. Inasmuch
as philosophy tries to know the “last reasons”, it approaches divinity, since
God is the last reason. “It is in vain that philosophers think that a
completely autonomous philosophy, a philosophy independent of religious life,
free from any connection with “life”, is possible. It is baseless pride, which
always suffers immanent punishment. Being freed from the subordination to
religion, philosophy undergoes the most slavish submission to science”
[Berdyaev 2003, p. 28].
Philosophy, like the love of wisdom, cannot dwell on the successes
of reason or mind, wisdom integrates in itself both mind and spirituality.
Therefore, loving wisdom, philosophy is essentially obliged to “drift” towards
divinity, whose method is wisdom and other doctrinal methods of knowledge, such
as kindness and love. “A person who knows God is good, and when he is not good,
it means he does not know (God) and will never be known (by Him), because the
only way to know God is kindness” [Anthony the Great 1998, p.58] . The deepest theologians
were the holy fathers. You have to be highly optimistic and have the courage to
do divinity. The subject of divinity requires too much responsibility. It is
not by chance that the holy fathers are unanimous in their demands for those
who try to divine: “It is unsafe to swim in clothes; it is unsafe to relate to
divinity or someone who has a passion” [John Climacus 2006, p. 223].
In antiquity, philosophy dominated divinity, in the Middle Ages,
philosophy became “the handmaiden of divinity”. There was a period (in the
4th-6th centuries) when Greek philosophy was used by the teachers of the Church
(first of all, by Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian) as a means of
uncovering the foundations of Christianity, that is, in a certain sense
philosophy was a form of doctrinal truth. The ancient world preached Christian
truths in logic and in the forms of ancient philosophy. During this period,
there was a kind of symphony of divinity and philosophy. This stage in the
development of the relations of philosophy and divinity is interesting
precisely by the “partnership” that has enriched both philosophy and divinity.
In fact, for theology, it became a classic example of a consistent and
systematic exposition of Christian divinity. For the sake of truth, it should
be noted that the divinity of Christianity does not need an external
presentation of the essence of Christianity, as a way of saving the man. Logic
and reasoning, similar to philosophical ones, are not a necessary element of
divinity. Divinity may be absurd from the point of view of human logic, it may
be liturgical, it may even be silent, as in the practice of the first generations
of Christian hermits.
In a significantly deformed form, this “collaboration” of philosophy
and divinity was reproduced at the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX
centuries in Russian philosophy, when a whole galaxy of philosophers (S.
Solovyev, N. Berdyayev, S. Bulgakov, S. Frank, P. Florensky, L. Karsavin, and
others) addressed the problems of philosophical understanding of the deepest
religious truths. There appeared the so-called religious philosophy. But the
differences of philosophy and divinity were always quite noticable, even in the
period of their certain rapprochement, which is not surprising. “For Christianity
is not a philosophical school that speculates on abstract concepts, but above
all, communion with the living God ... The question of the relationship between
divinity and philosophy has never been raised in the East (meaning the Orthodox
East – A.K.) ”[Lossky, 1991, p. 121].
At the same time, it is necessary to admit that in its deep forms,
which investigate life-related problems, philosophy in some aspects approaches
divinity. Thus, for example, J. Mariten writes: “To achieve its full normal
development in us, philosophy requires from the individual a great deal of
purification and renewal, austerity not only of the mind, but also of the
heart, and his whole soul should take part in philosophy, in the same way as
the heart and the lungs are involved in the process of running” [1999, p. 144].
N. Berdyaev writes about this: “Philosophy will become what it was in the
ancient times, it will become sacred, again connected with the secrets of life.
In the least, this means that philosophy must become the servant of divinity...
Philosophy must be an organic function of religious life, and not a servant of
divinity - this is a huge difference. Philosophy cannot and should not be a
doctrinal apologetics, it reveals the truth, but can reveal it only when it is
devoted to the secrets of religious life, when it is attached to the path of
truth” [2002, p. 40].
Comparison of the content of certain concepts in philosophy and
The concretization and specification of the ideological parallels of
divinity and philosophy can be accomplished by comparing the meaning and
content of concepts that are key to divinity and philosophy. Let us turn to
this kind of concepts. However, let us first quote G. Zimmel, who very
precisely highlighted the difference between the concepts of philosophy and
religion. “The great spiritual achievements of religion include the fact that
it promotes the integration of a wide range of our ideas and interests into
single concepts that are not as abstract as philosophies, but full of life and
inner tangibility of visual, direct being” [Joas 2013, p. 109].
Freedom, faith, reason, repentance, humility, salvation, love and
other concepts taken from divinity, being transferred to the soil of
philosophy, greatly enrich philosophical concepts, although philosophy itself
most often does not recognize this borrowing.
The correlation of faith and reason in divinity and philosophy. It is generally accepted that philosophy is based on reason
(philosophy is “love of wisdom”, and wisdom, according to the same approach, is
something closely related to reason), and divinity is based on faith, which is
weakly correlated with reason. In fact, this is far from the case. In divinity,
reason is valued no less, and maybe more, than in philosophy. Reason in
theology is a form of God-likeness and, accordingly, of the knowledge of God.
Related to this, one can see the significance of reason in divinity. However,
it is not just a reason, but a spirit inspired by faith. Faith rules over the
mind, the mind is subject to faith. When divinity retreats from faith, when it
transfers the center of doctrine to logical reasoning that prevails over faith,
then divinity loses its subject matter.
In philosophy, faith is also important. In the philosophy of Plato,
the Neo-Platonists, the Gnostics, in all medieval philosophy, in the
philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and many other philosophers up to our
time, faith is present in an explicit manner. But faith must, according to
these philosophers, relate to reason, must be proved by reason (the so-called
rationalization of faith), must be subordinated to reason. Faith in philosophy
is in demand to overcome problems that cannot yet be rationally proved (in a
sense, the means of faith philosophy intuitively comprehends reality). One can
see that divinity and philosophy, recognizing the importance of faith and
reason for knowledge and for being adequate to a man, puts these categories in
diametrically opposed relationships: in divinity, faith prevails over reason;
in philosophy reason dominates over faith. But here we give only the general
correlation of faith and reason (both in philosophy and in divinity) - in
reality their interconnection is thinner and more multidimensional.
Repentance and humility. Repentance,
translated from Greek (metanoia), means change, change of thinking, consciousness,
behavior. Repentance is the condition for salvation: there is no salvation
without repentance. In divinity, repentance is a very important (focal)
concept. Repentance is a contrition of sins and the desire not to make them
again any more. “The Teacher of Repentance,” Rev. Ephraim the Syrian, wrote:
“Let us, beloved, acquire heartfelt repentance, because it can smooth our
guilt. We will bring repentance, sinners, and tears to erase our debts” [2016,
p. 537]. Jesus Christ expressed the essence of repentance as follows: “those
who are healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick do” ... and “I came to
call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9, 12-13).
The deepest thinkers often could not accept the basic condition and
the most important factor of spiritual development - humility. Humility is the
main criterion of spiritual development. Humility is the pinnacle of a person’s
spiritual development. Only by being humble can one save his soul for eternal
life, for the Kingdom of Heaven, and this, as was said, is the goal of
spiritual development. Even a Christian thinker in many ways, like N.
Berdyayev, could not stand the humility in understanding the spiritual and the
essence of Christianity. He clearly contrasted creativity and freedom with the
tasks of personal salvation. “the man is called to be a creator, an accomplice
in God’s work of peacemaking and world order, and not only to be saved. The man
can sometimes, in the name of creativity, to which he is called by God, in the
name of carrying out God’s work in the world, forget about himself and his
soul” [2002, p. 648]. Also: “Christianity has always been, is and will be not
only a religion of personal salvation and horror of death, but also a religion
of the transfiguration of the world, deification of the creature, a cosmic and
social religion, the religion of religion of selfless love, love of God and a
man, promises of the Kingdom of God” [2002, p. 642].
This orientation towards “cocrea-tion with God” in the matter of
transforming the world (according to N. Berdyayev) places the limit on humility
and all the more to repentance. Pride and self - assertion underlie this
encroachment on “co-creation”. While true spiritual development implies the
rejection of self - assertion, it implies rejecting oneself, “seducing the old
man and finding a new one, giving oneself into the power of God” - according to
the terminology of Christian anthropology. With an adequate understanding of
the essence of the spiritual, it is absurd to talk about the value and significance
of self-expression, since it is obvious that a person who is limited and stays
in sin (and that is what a modern man appears to be) cannot express anything
spiritually high. The only thing that he can do is to show his pride, to
explicate his inner personal content, as a rule, not very spiritual, damaged by
self-conceit and self. While spiritual development implies self-restraint,
awareness of one’s weakness implies spiritual discipline and sensitivity. In
fact, religious commandments are aimed at achieving such a spiritually
For philosophy, repentance is an empty sound. There is no repentance
in philosophy. External activity, a free attitude towards everything is the
driving force of philosophy. Philosophy appreciates creativity, and creativity,
as it seems to philosophers, contradicts repentance. Humility is sometimes
appreciated by philosophy, but only as a means to penetrate into the intimate
layers of life, as a method of cognition, in which “the logic of cognition is
identical with the logic of the subject of knowledge” (German classical philosophy,
Salvation. Salvation in divinity is the
acquisition by a man of eternal life, the Kingdom of Heaven. Salvation is the
goal of human life. Let us note, the goal of a believer, since the lack of
faith makes salvation unnecessary and even strange for a man. If there is no
faith, then a man does not seek to be saved for eternal life.
For philosophy, salvation is not an important category (with the
exception of religious philosophy, which addresses the topic of salvation, but
with excessively rational means, which leads to the loss of the main content of
salvation, as it is expected in divinity).
Freedom. In divinity and philosophy,
freedom is understood differently. In divinity, freedom is a gift of God to a
man. In freedom, a man is like God. In fact, it is freedom that makes man a
man. Freedom is important in divinity as a sphere in which a man freely decides
whether to rush to God or to refuse such an opportunity. This is an extremely
important decision, as it either allows a man to hope for salvation, for
eternal life, or to reject salvation. This choice is extremely responsible, and
therefore there is a connection between freedom and responsibility in divinity.
“The goal of freedom, as St. Gregory the Theologian explains, is that the good
really belongs to the one who chooses it. God does not want to remain the owner
of the good created by him. He expects from a man more than purely natural
blind involvement. He wants a man to consciously accept his nature, to have it
- as he possesses a good - freely, so that he gratefully accepted life and the
universe as gifts of Divine love ”[Lossky, 1991, p. 132]. Divinity is based on
the fact that the freedom given to a man by God is lost by a man when
committing sinful acts not redeemed by repentance.
Creativity and freedom are highly valued in Christianity, since they
make a man similar to God. But creativity must be inspired by commandments and
bliss, which are very clearly stated in the Gospels. Then creativity is not
“the riot of the spirit”, but the realization of the gracious power of God
acting in a man. Otherwise, a person struck by sin cannot put the creative act
in the context of spiritual development, and the “immeasurability” of
creativity is only a protest against God’s will, and not a gracious act of
humility and, consequently, salvation. Thus, the unity of salvation and
creativity, freedom and responsibility, humility and power, weakness and
strength, is broken, so their opposition arises. According to divinity, there
is no true creativity without humility; creativity is not a protest, but the
realization of God’s providence about a man. And the main creative act of a man
is the salvation of a man for the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, salvation and
creativity appear in unity, and breaking them is a spiritual crime. We must be
humble in our creative work.
In the works of the holy fathers of the church, the refrain repeats
the idea that not inspired creativity is dangerous. Nicodemus Svyatogorets
focused on the fact that imagination has a source in evil. And the creator of
culture considers imagination to be the most important thing in creativity: “As
imagination is an unreasonable power, acting mostly mechanically, according to
the laws of combination of images, spiritual life is an image of pure freedom,
it goes without saying that its activity is incompatible with this life…” [2002,
In philosophy, freedom is achieved by overcoming necessity. The
primary necessity is the need, including the natural need that dominates a man.
As the man masters the laws of nature, he is freed from this need and begins to
rule over it with the means of science and technology. Culture, according to
the absolute majority of philosophers, is also a means of mastering both nature
(second nature) and social processes. Thus, philosophy introduces the theme of
mastering - the European dominant in relation to being. This leads to a dead
end: in relation to nature – there are environmental issues, in relation to man
– there is his submission to everything that can subordinate him, in relation
to society – there is its stratification and disintegration. However, it should
be noted that philosophy was able to somewhat deepen its vision of freedom,
borrowing some of its aspects from divinity (at least in the form of problem
Love. Divinity recognizes that it was
through love that the world was created, God created the world from an
abundance of love. This is the ontological aspect of love in divinity. But
there is also a personal aspect for the believer. In divinity, love is the
means of saving a man for eternal life. Love is the central (along with
repentance) category of Christianity. We can cite thousands of quotes to
confirm this. Let us refer only to the Apostle Paul: “Love is patient,
merciful, love does not envy, love does not exalt, does not take pride, does
not rage, does not seek its own way, does not irritate, does not think evil,
does not rejoice in untruth, but rejoices in the truth; it covers everything,
believes in everything, hopes for everything, endures everything” (1 Cor. 13,
4-7). This is truly a powerful means of spiritual growth.
In philosophy, love is simply an ethical and partly aesthetic
category. Of course, no major philosopher denies the meaning of love both in
life and in building philosophical systems (at least one should love philosophy
- not to create it outside of this philosophical system, which demonstrated to
us by postmodernism). But love does not belong to the basic philosophical
A man. A man is a very important concept
for philosophy. A man, his essence, his capabilities are at the base of almost
all philosophical systems from antiquity to our time. If in divinity the central
category is God, then in philosophy it is a man. “Man is the measure of all
things” is the famous maxim of Protagoras expressing the man’s vision of
philosophy in a concentrated way. Divinity also speaks of man, desires him
salvation and eternal life. But in divinity, a man is not the measure of all
things, but God. A man acquires significance only in God, only by doing His
will. A man by himself, apart from any relationship with God, is nothing in
divinity. He is called the “old man”, the man of sin. Christian divinity speaks
of the task of demeaning this “old man” and his renewal, deification. Modern
philosophy has done a lot for a man to take the place of God.
Renaissance, a man is exalted by philosophy and culture, he began to be
regarded as the creator of everything, including himself. For philosophy, it
does not matter that a person is, as a rule, immersed in sin, it exalts
everyone. This is where the hypertrophy of human rights and freedoms comes
from. At the same time, they are completely unwilling to realize that a sinful
person cannot control his freedom and take advantage of his rights. He uses
them to the detriment of himself, destroying his life and everything around
him. It’s interesting that, having all the rights, a man has lost his dignity,
he is far from freedom, he is not the creator of his life, he is a slave of
circumstances, a slave of sin. But in his conceit, a man imagines himself to be
the greatest value of the universe. The sad sight is such a person. And
divinity, “bringing” such a person “to light”, showing him his undistorted
image, truly cares about the person, and philosophy, indulging his
self-deception, keeps him in a state of sinful self-deception.
On the whole, with regard to the content of the concepts of divinity
and philosophy, we can note the following. The conceptual apparatus of
divinity, if we roughly refer to the subtlest definitions of divinity, is
well-developed. It is difficult for us today even to imagine how deeply the
theologians and early Christianity penetrated in the 19th century, into the
play of conceptual differences that reflected the essence of the deity and the
dogmas of faith. An example is the work of V.N. Lossky “Theological concept of
the human personality” [2000, p. 289-302]. The categorical apparatus of philosophy
is no less rich. But it is objectified, which deprives it of deeply personal
(human) dimensions (despite a number of subjectivistic and even solipsistic
systems of philosophy). Hence, the ideological content of most philosophical
systems is shallow; it is developed, demonstrative, but shallow. It is possible
that this is precisely why philosophy loses its status in the modern world:
even without philosophy, it can explain its primitive goals.
In the historical process, philosophy and divinity were diversely
related: they took turns in coming to the forefront of culture and knowledge,
were valuable for long periods of history. They met the needs of a man and a
society in understanding being and human life. Despite the difference in the
subjects of their research, the different methods to which they resort, the
difference in their goals, divinity and philosophy have something in common.
They are different, but they comprehend being. The content of the concepts of divinity
and philosophy is different, sometimes different to the opposite, but some
enrichment of philosophy when it is addressed to divinity is possible. The positive
influence of philosophy on divinity is minimal.
Today, philosophy and especially divinity are far from the
priorities and values of “real life”. This indicates a loss of meaning in life.
Throughout history the mankind always and up to our time, has been seeking to
comprehend the meaning of life - much in history is explained precisely by this
striving. Today, there happened a rejection of the meaningful being of a
person, people mostly live, as it turns out, very few people have the purpose
in their life, especially a purpose worthy of a man.
In history, and some form of divinity took turns in coming forward
in an attempt to understand and comprehend nature, society, life and its
meaning. It is known that in antiquity ordinary people argued about
philosophical problems on the squares of cities. It would be superfluous to say
that people lived in philosophy, but it was one of their life priorities. The
philosophers of that time were teachers of life (this state of the people is
concentrated in the life story of Socrates). In the first centuries of our era,
especially since the IV cent., people argued about theological issues on the
city squares. And again, it is impossible to say that divinity was an absolute
priority of that time, and it was impossible to replace life in its entirety.
People lived their cares. But the doctrinal truths had a meaning of life.
Theologians were teachers of life. Now both philosophy and theology are of
little interest to anyone. This is a bad sign of modern civilization.
The interaction of philosophy and divinity in the form of a dialogue
yields some fruits, including ideological ones. Thus, such a sphere as
religious studies definitely gains from the dialogue of philosophy and
divinity. Doctrinal concepts, being “let through” philosophical rationalism,
acquire a depth sufficient for religious studies. And they can be used (accepted)
by religious studies as their own concepts, which enriches religious studies,
makes it more profound and relevant to its purpose.
Another area in which this dialogue is productive is building
relationships between believers and secular-oriented people (in extreme form,
atheists). Today, the dialogue of secular and religious values is an important
condition for maintaining stability at all levels: from public and domestic to
international and global, from interethnic and interreligious harmony to the
geopolitical construction of the modern world. Clarifying the relationship of
philosophy and theology at the objective and ideological levels allows making
this dialogue more productive.
1. Berdyayev, N., 2002.
Filosofiya svo-body [Philosophy of freedom]. Khar-kov: Folio, Moskva:
Izdatelstvo AST, 736 p.
2. Berdyayev, N., 2002.
Smysl tvorchestva: Opyt opravdaniya cheloveka [The
meaning of creativity: Experience of justification of the man]. Kharkov: Folio, Moskva: Izdatelstvo AST, 688 p.
3. Berdyayev, N., 2003.
‘Dialektika bozhestvennogo i chelovecheskogo’ [Dialectics
of divine and human]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo AST, Kharko:, Folio, 620.
4. Lestvichnik, Ioann,
2006. Lestvitsa [Lestvitsa].
Moskva: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo podvoria Svyato-Troitskoy Sergiyevoy Lavry, 289
5. Zimmel, G. Tsit po: Yoas
Kh, 2013. Vozniknoveniye
tsennostey. [Energence of values].SPb.: Aleteyya. – 312 p.
6. Losskiy, V., 2000.
Bogosloviye i Bogovideniye [Divinity and
Perception of God]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo Svyato-Vladimirskogo
bratstva, 631 p.
7. Losskiy, V., 1991.
Misticheskoye bogosloviye [Mystical theology]. Kiyev: Izdaniye
khristianskoy blagotvoritelno-prosvetitelskoy assotsiatsii «Put k istine», 392
8. Mariten, Zh., 1999.
Znaniye i mudrost. [Knowledge and wisdom]. Moskva: Nauchnyy mir, 244 p.
Nikodim, 2002. Nevidimaya bran. [Unseen warfare]. Moskva: Pravilo very,
10. Antoniy Velikiy,
1998. ‘Dobrotolyubiye T.1’ [Philokalia Vol.
1], Moskva: Pravoslavnyy palomnik, 567 p.
11. Sirin. Ef. 2016.
‘Pokayaniye’ [Sincere repentance].
Moskva: Sibirskaya Blago-zvonnitsa. 797.  p.
12. Shmeman, A., 2006.
Vvedeniye v liturgicheskoye bogosloviye. [Introduction
to liturgical theology]. Sankt-Peterburg: Bibliopolis, 440 p.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №10 - 2018