DSpace Собрание:http://ir.librarynmu.com/handle/123456789/192582026-04-03T18:18:26Z2026-04-03T18:18:26ZАнтропологічні основи християнської біоетикиЛапутько, А. В.http://ir.librarynmu.com/handle/123456789/53682026-04-03T11:51:27Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZНазвание: Антропологічні основи християнської біоетики
Авторы: Лапутько, А. В.2021-01-01T00:00:00ZСоціальна адаптація особистості студента в періоди суспільних трансформацій: філософський аналізВасюк, І. В.http://ir.librarynmu.com/handle/123456789/51172026-04-03T11:37:51Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZНазвание: Соціальна адаптація особистості студента в періоди суспільних трансформацій: філософський аналіз
Авторы: Васюк, І. В.2021-01-01T00:00:00ZСучасна православна теологія діалогу: філософсько-релігієзнавчий аналізІщук, Н. В.http://ir.librarynmu.com/handle/123456789/13282026-04-03T11:37:35Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZНазвание: Сучасна православна теологія діалогу: філософсько-релігієзнавчий аналіз
Авторы: Іщук, Н. В.
Краткий осмотр (реферат): Ishchuk N.V. Modern Orthodox Theology of Dialogue: philosophical and
religious studies analysis. - The manuscript.
Thesis for doctor of philosophy degree in specialty09.00.11– Religious Studies.–
National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Ministry of Education and Science of
Ukraine. – Kyiv, 2019.
The complex analysis of the system of Orthodox theology of dialogue was carried
out, its basic principles and certain forms of expression in the context of the
anthropological and socio-ethical doctrines of the Orthodox churches were determined.
Taking into account the ideas of communicative philosophy, social philosophy, the theory
of complex systems, the theory of conflict resolution, a complex religious-philosophical
study of the peculiarities of the essence and specificity of dialogue theology as a discourse
of modern theology was conducted, which allowed determining the adaptive factors and
mechanisms of its self-expression in modern society. The author's concept of clarification
of the concept of "dialogue", presented not only in the sense of communicative, but also
activity relations - intercommunication (interaction, intercourse) of universals - is
proposed from the standpoint of the modus of duration and the praxis modus. The author's
vision of the phenomenon of "koinonia" as the most complete embodiment of the
Christian experience in dialogism with the Creator, the methodological expediency of
distinguishing between the koinonia-theory (the theology of dialogue) and the koinoniapraxis (communion in communication or communion in commonality) are grounded. The
Koinonian community has been chosen as the priority direction of the study, which is the
communion of the faithful in communication, and in relation to culture and history it has
undergone a number of socio-political transformations.
It has been proved that in the philosophy and theology of the 20th
- the beginning of the
21st centuries, except the theological approach to communication presented by J. Zizioulas,
Patriarch Bartholomew, K. Ware, G. Zaworszynsky and their philosophical predecessors
such as M. Buber and E. Levinas, the Theo-aesthetical approach of D. Garth and the Theo-
42
phenomenological approach of G. P. Manoussakis were actualized. Each of these
approaches has its own advantages that allow us to feel, perceive, and comprehend the
horizons of our ability to communicate with the Creator. The disadvantages point to their
limited nature of the threat of generating communicative simulations – distorted, false
attempts at the Communion. It has been substantiated that the experience of Christian
dialogism most fully manifests itself in the phenomenon of koinonia as a collective form
of religious experience, which foresaw a distance between God and man, aimed not at
merging with God, but at communion in the intention to unite with Him. Concerning the
priority accents we chose in relation to koinonia-praxis, our study has given preference to
koinonia-community; that is the community of believers in communication. As a result of
the cultural-historical analysis of the koinonial type of sociality, a number of sociopolitical transformations have been discovered – from the community of spirit
(community-koinonia) towards its topological (community-parish) and organizational
(community-ecclesia) functioning; from the "internal" dialogue to strengthening the
"external" dialogue – the dialogue of ecclesia with the state and society, which helps to
clarify the probable adaptive changes from the side of ecclesia in the future. Emphasizing
systematically the common discourse of the koinonian paradigm, we came to the
conclusion that the main ideological sources of Orthodox theology of dialogue were the
ideas of St. Athanasius and the fathers of Cappadocia – Basil the Great, Gregory the
Theologian (Nazianzin) and Gregory of Nyssa. In the Orthodox theology of the 20th and
21st centuries the most notable influence on the koinonial doctrine was the koinonia
concept of M. Afanasyev and the doctrine of "communion" by J. Ziziulas. It is found that
the basic semantic aspects of the phenomenon of "koinonia," according to the texts of the
representatives of modern Orthodox theology is the principle of "hypostasis-in-relations",
the principle of a confirmed dialogue, the principle of asymmetry of communication, the
principle of Eucharistic-liturgical centrism, the principle of empiricism, the principle of
cognition through communication. Some important trends and critical reflection of
modernity relevant to the koinonial type of dialogism are generalized including the
following: the dominance of consumer society values, individualization and atomization,
the dilution of a stranger’s status in modern society, the systemic crisis of sociality, and
the significant transformations of communicative culture of a modern man. It is shown that
these tendencies, with some exceptions, have predominantly an anti-koinonial potential
that requires adoption of some adaptive mechanisms of Orthodoxy.
The three-level model of a dialogic nature of modern Orthodoxy is substantiated. At the
level of the Orthodox community (the dialogue about shared values) it is done through
tribelisation of the community. Under the Orthodox community-neo-tribe (communityneo-koinonia) we mean the intersubjective existential community in the coexisting
experience of God’s being, united not only on the basis of the common faith, but also the
common interests and emotional experience. At the level of strengthening the dialogue of
Orthodoxy with the world – through the adaptive potential of the systematized principles
of the modern Orthodox theology of dialogue, when each of them, in this or that extent,
contains the loci of convergence of the value paradigm of Orthodoxy and the realities of
modern society. At the level of establishing of an ecumenical dialogue and any dialogue
that includes a confrontational component (the dialogue about current and shared values) –
43
the main locus of interests convergence of communicating sides should not be any
doctrinal dialogue – the prototype of a rhizomorphic dialogue, rebuilt on the basis of a
recognition policy, so to say, dialogical multiculturalism. The concept of "theodialogic" is
proposed, which is a theoretical model and is based on the idea of the Orthodox
community and the Church as a "dialog of dialogues", when the Orthodox community acts
as the main centre (unit) of dialogism. A dialogic community generates a dialogical
church. The Dialogical Church creates a dialogical position to other religions and the
modern world in general, which, of course, is an ideal type. The theoretical core of
theodialogic should be formed with the involvement of the philosophical and scientific
dialogic laid down by V. Bibler and E. Morin, which will allow recognizing the
importance of the dialogical reality and joint efforts in a common cause, even in the
presence of contradictions or antagonisms. The predominant language of theodialogic
should be the ethics that can offer a universal and the most appropriate sense protocol to
meet the needs of no doctrinal dialogue on the one hand, and on the other hand, it can offer
a request of the Church as the moral arbiter of society existing in most countries of the
Orthodox tradition.2019-01-01T00:00:00ZФеноменологічно-антроплогічне прояснення досвіду етичногоКоцюба, М. П.http://ir.librarynmu.com/handle/123456789/55112026-04-03T11:55:17Z2018-01-01T00:00:00ZНазвание: Феноменологічно-антроплогічне прояснення досвіду етичного
Авторы: Коцюба, М. П.
Краткий осмотр (реферат): Автореферат
дисертації на здобуття наукового ступеня
кандидата філософських наук 09.00.04 – філософська антропологія,
філософія культури2018-01-01T00:00:00Z